4 ms·
It's funny that you mention freight, because that's completely irrelevant for people traveling.
by sdfghswe 3y ago
It's funny that you mention freight, because that's completely irrelevant for people traveling.
- Lammy 3y agoYou could not be more wrong. Research the history of of the Class I railroads and they all had prestigious passenger service that became too unprofitable to run thanks to dwindling ridership and the cancelation of the USPS contracts in 1964. Their rolling stock was turned over to Amtrak at its formation in 1971.
- ethanbond 3y agoCan you explain how this is relevant to modern traffic fatality statistics?
- Lammy 3y agoToday's main line rails are mostly in the same places they were back when they hosted passenger service.
- ethanbond 3y agoWhich are now used for freight and instead people mostly move in cars, which are prone to crashing
- Lammy 3y agoMeaning that it’s a matter of priorities and we could just have passenger trains again if we really wanted to. Personally I think freedom of movement is such a public good that it’s wrong to require they be run for profit. Warren Buffet can afford a few holes in the freight timetable.
- anakaine 3y agoThe old passenger lines you reference: - don't solve intracity travel. - likely are not optimised for the flow of people today. - likely are not constructed for the high speeds which make intercity travel attractive via rail.
- Clamchop 3y agoI'm not sure why historical relevance is being talked about. Rail in the US failed to keep pace and has become largely irrelevant despite appearing that it could stand to benefit even more from modernized passenger rail because of often large distances between popular destinations. It is pretty irrelevant for this discussion except as a criticism of infrastructure.