4 ms·
I think it all pretty much boils down to: - Roads are cheaper to lay and maintain than rails - Roads are infinitely more flexible. You cannot walk, bicycle, o
by dTal 5y ago
I think it all pretty much boils down to:
- Roads are cheaper to lay and maintain than rails
- Roads are infinitely more flexible. You cannot walk, bicycle, or hold a parade on a railway track.
- stunt 5y agoWho said we need rails! All we need are roads that are closed to human drivers.
- nradov 5y agoCannot bicycle on a railway track? Danny MacAskill begs to differ. https://youtu.be/K_7k3fnxPq0 https://youtu.be/K_7k3fnxPq0
- mejutoco 5y agoI agree with the flexibility point 100%. On the cheaper I really do not know. Is pouring asphalt cheaper than putting rails? I honestly do not know. It also might depend on the implementation. I remember a history teacher mentioning that the uk built railwways providing time-limited exploitation licenses for private companies that built them (after x years they became public) and they built a vast network quickly . ( I found this pdf: https://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/transport/onlineatlas/railways.pdf https://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/transpor... about the expansion, but it does not mention the licenses) In the car case we need to also consider the "wagon", and the fuel cost is outsourced to the customers.