3 ms·
Fully building out a 2nd set of dedicated infrastructure doesn't seem efficient. I think it would be far less expensive to have a neutral 3rd party of engineer
by cmurf 8y ago
Fully building out a 2nd set of dedicated infrastructure doesn't seem efficient.
I think it would be far less expensive to have a neutral 3rd party of engineers, economists, and finance folks figure out a way to compute the cost of demoting freight to 2nd billing. And then by law require passenger service to have priority, and to pay for it, while having safeguards for either party to game the system, with on-going audits.
This might be a kind of taking of private property for public use, which is allowed by the fifth amendment so long as there's just compensation. Whether sections are leased or bought can be a point of the negotiation. But using existing infrastructure is inherently more efficient so long as there aren't already congestion problems. And where there are congestion problems it makes sense to mitigate those locations.
- bobthepanda 8y agoThis is actually what China did; their rapid growth was causing both passenger and rail traffic to skyrocket, so they essentially built a second rail network to shove passengers onto and make room for freight, which doesn't really need to travel at 200MPH. US rail infrastructure is so old, curvy and degraded that after accounting for the work so you could run passenger rail at a respectable speed (~110MPH) you'd probably spend the same amount of money as just buying new.