3 ms·
> They are significantly more efficient than cars in all ways that matter: cost, space, energy. Then why are railways always unprofitable while car companies a
by perryizgr8 3y ago
> They are significantly more efficient than cars in all ways that matter: cost, space, energy.
Then why are railways always unprofitable while car companies are worth billions in the free market?
> Nobody looks at the billions spent on roads and thinks "ooh these are unprofitable let's get rid of them", so why do people/governments constantly do that for rail?
Because roads are profitable and make sense. Rail does not.
Also, railways are at least 100x more expensive than roads. And the entire infrastructure has to be subsidised. With roadways, you just build the surface, vehicles are wholly privately owned. That means trillions less spent from the taxpayer's pocket.
- Symbiote 3y agoThe topic is British railways, where the trains are constructed, owned and operated by private companies. Railway vehicle manufacturing companies are presumably profitable, as they're all private. (At least the ones relevant to the UK.) The track, electricity supply, signalling system etc in Britain is owned and maintained (and extended) by a public company, although it contracts out a lot of the maintenance work. I am curious what you think a fair price for driving a car on the motorway from, say, London to Leicester (exactly 100 miles) should cost. Currently it's free, although fuel is taxed, perhaps around £5 for that journey.
- eppp 3y agoRoads are massively subsidized. I suspect more than railways. If roads were tolled at the rate to maintain each segment then sure I would buy your argument. There is no way the maintenance of all of the roads is born according to actual use. It is done by also taxing those who do not use them.