5 ms·

> I think that "nationalizing" the rail lines would be in the best interest of the country. Passenger rail will otherwise always take a back seat to freight. Y

> I think that "nationalizing" the rail lines would be in the best interest of the country. Passenger rail will otherwise always take a back seat to freight. Yes, it takes a back seat to freight and it should. Freight is very important to the US and a disruption of our freight system will have some seriously nasty effects. The current rail system serves this country quite well. It might go unnoticed by most people, but its important. Frankly, the under appreciation of how good the US logistic system (rail, truck, air, vessel, and barge) is a real shame.

pstuart 8y ago
You also could have cited this part: > expand the current rail system so that it can handle even more freight as well as performant passenger service. I never suggested sacrificing freight traffic in any way, actually the opposite.
- protomyth 8y ago
  That’s the problem. What’s good for freight is bad for passengers and good passenger lines are horrible for freight. Even the model is different (B2B versus B2C). The mixing is a big problem and any disruption in the current network would affect a lot of people. The private freight carriers are doing a fine job.
  - pstuart 8y ago
    I'm just taking an armchair analysis here, as this is a subject that has interested me for a while. Things like Positive Train Control (which is erratically and incompletely implemented), investing in parallel tracks to allow more interleaving of service and in more rigorous (but sensible and properly funded) safety measure are all relatively modest investments that could put a lot more cars on the rails. > The private freight carriers are doing a fine job Yes they are, for freight and they have zero incentive to share. If the costs for making it painless for them to share are mitigated, then everybody wins. My original point is we're flushing money down the toilet in foreign lands and if it was redirected into an investment like this would be money better spent. We're never going to have proper high speed rail, but at least we could have medium speed rail...
    - protomyth 8y ago
      If the costs for making it painless for them to share are mitigated, then everybody wins. No everyone loses when you add cost because you want to add some passengers to a system that is expressly hostile towards passenger train needs. Cost add affects everyone including the poor who won’t benefit. Do it new and stop trying to take from someone doing a damn good job.
      - pstuart 8y ago
        There is no added cost directly. The original proposition was based upon "free" money: shifting existing dollars from failing and fraudulent expenditures in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The other part of that "cost" is effectively investment in enhancing existing capacity. I was arguing to make the system not need to be hostile to passenger needs by improvements of the existing infrastructure. The other point that I failed to emphasize is that I'm working with the primary assumption that getting the necessary right of ways would prohibitively expensive and in some cases close to impossible.

pstuart 8y ago

You also could have cited this part: > expand the current rail system so that it can handle even more freight as well as performant passenger service. I never suggested sacrificing freight traffic in any way, actually the opposite.

protomyth 8y ago
That’s the problem. What’s good for freight is bad for passengers and good passenger lines are horrible for freight. Even the model is different (B2B versus B2C). The mixing is a big problem and any disruption in the current network would affect a lot of people. The private freight carriers are doing a fine job.
- pstuart 8y ago
  I'm just taking an armchair analysis here, as this is a subject that has interested me for a while. Things like Positive Train Control (which is erratically and incompletely implemented), investing in parallel tracks to allow more interleaving of service and in more rigorous (but sensible and properly funded) safety measure are all relatively modest investments that could put a lot more cars on the rails. > The private freight carriers are doing a fine job Yes they are, for freight and they have zero incentive to share. If the costs for making it painless for them to share are mitigated, then everybody wins. My original point is we're flushing money down the toilet in foreign lands and if it was redirected into an investment like this would be money better spent. We're never going to have proper high speed rail, but at least we could have medium speed rail...
  - protomyth 8y ago
    If the costs for making it painless for them to share are mitigated, then everybody wins. No everyone loses when you add cost because you want to add some passengers to a system that is expressly hostile towards passenger train needs. Cost add affects everyone including the poor who won’t benefit. Do it new and stop trying to take from someone doing a damn good job.
    - pstuart 8y ago
      There is no added cost directly. The original proposition was based upon "free" money: shifting existing dollars from failing and fraudulent expenditures in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The other part of that "cost" is effectively investment in enhancing existing capacity. I was arguing to make the system not need to be hostile to passenger needs by improvements of the existing infrastructure. The other point that I failed to emphasize is that I'm working with the primary assumption that getting the necessary right of ways would prohibitively expensive and in some cases close to impossible.