6 ms·

Railroads are critical infrastructure and need to be public. They are massively mismanaged, inefficient and that's all on purpose.

AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
They're not, really, though. US freight rail is remarkably efficient and cheap.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  The US freight rail gets way to credit. The have been letting the waste majority of infrastructure decay. They continue to have a smaller and smaller share of the total transport market. They derail trains at an astonishing rate. They are very profitable doing a small number of things. But an increase amount of actual transport needs has been moving to trucks (on federal subsided highways). Given that those railroads have almost no competition from personal transit and that the US as a country is perfect for railroading, the overall market share the railroads have is astonishing small. And the borders between the 4 monopolies causes lots of problems. If a central authority took control and stopped with the attitude of cut everything out that isn't highly profitable, the US could leverage its rail road infrastructure far better. And would save money from fewer truck on the road (and the inherent green house effect). The railroads profits alone could finance a nation wide rail electrification program.
kortilla 3y ago
Yes, if there’s one thing government does well, it’s managing things efficiently.
- malermeister 3y ago
  Look at the places with the best railway infrastructure. Almost all of them are government run.
  - downrightmike 3y ago
    Or part of the gov't pension plan.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  With existing railroad infrastructure, even if its managed badly on behave of the public the outcome is gone better. The reality is in most of the world, including all the places with the best railway infrastructure the government is managing or tightly controlling the rail road. When I see cities of millions in the US not even have a railroad you really have to ask yourself if the perceived inefficiency of government can make things better anyway.
  - downrightmike 3y ago
    Yes, the RR companies are literally stopping trains and having to drive out crews to swap out because the trains are stopped for so long. and the crews have long shifts already.
- UIUC_06 3y ago
  Not original quote: If the government ran the Sahara, within five years there'd be a shortage of sand.
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    Because it'd be jungle again? :0
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Yet we're out of sand[1] without any central planning involved. Government can be stupid and wasteful, but they cannot even dream of being more wasteful than a competitive market. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is...
    - downrightmike 3y ago
      And then there are the thieves stealing whole beaches https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135620650/stolen-beach-sand-black-market-caribbean-jamaica-glass-concrete https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135620650/stolen-beach-sand-...
  - gottorf 3y ago
    Milton Friedman.
balderdash 3y ago
Oh like Amtrak?
- gascoigne 3y ago
  Yes. Like the Amtrak in the North East Corridor. Where Amtrak actually has none of the limitations imposed by the freight carriers, and actually runs in the interest of the public good. Guess what? It's also the only part of Amtrak that's ever made a profit.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Guess what? It's also the only part of Amtrak that's ever made a profit. It's also the only part of the US with that amount of population density. Nobody is going to ride passenger rail through an empty desert in northern Nevada regardless of who owns the tracks. But then because Amtrak nevertheless operates a line there and subsidizes it with fares from places they actually should be operating, they can't even compete in the North East Corridor where they own the tracks. Metro North has more ridership in a subset of the northeast than Amtrak has nationwide, as well as lower prices and more frequent service.
    - gascoigne 3y ago
      I realize I played this card first, but maybe, just maybe, railways should not be for-profit infrastructure to begin with. Japan, for example, has a similar problem with the bullet train. There are plenty of sleepy towns that would make little sense to stop at between Tokyo and Osaka. They still have about 15 stops on that line anyway, and you have to take the slowest bullet trains to get there. But the stops have totally changed life in these cities. Perhaps there's a similar case to be made for Northern Nevada?
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Northern Nevada isn't sleepy towns, it's nothing. It's the desert. But that's not even the problem if there was a metropolis on the other side of it. There isn't. Tokyo is ~300 miles from Osaka. If you go 300 miles from Sacramento, you're not in Osaka, population 2.7 million, you're in Winnemucca, population under 9000. The first meaningful destination on the far side of California is Salt Lake City, population ~200,000, 650 miles away in a different time zone. And that is not a big city, it's just the only thing anywhere near there. To get to a proper metropolitan area you're going to Denver, more than 1100 miles from where you started. It's too far away.

AlgorithmicTime 3y ago

They're not, really, though. US freight rail is remarkably efficient and cheap.

panick21_ 3y ago
The US freight rail gets way to credit. The have been letting the waste majority of infrastructure decay. They continue to have a smaller and smaller share of the total transport market. They derail trains at an astonishing rate. They are very profitable doing a small number of things. But an increase amount of actual transport needs has been moving to trucks (on federal subsided highways). Given that those railroads have almost no competition from personal transit and that the US as a country is perfect for railroading, the overall market share the railroads have is astonishing small. And the borders between the 4 monopolies causes lots of problems. If a central authority took control and stopped with the attitude of cut everything out that isn't highly profitable, the US could leverage its rail road infrastructure far better. And would save money from fewer truck on the road (and the inherent green house effect). The railroads profits alone could finance a nation wide rail electrification program.

kortilla 3y ago

Yes, if there’s one thing government does well, it’s managing things efficiently.

malermeister 3y ago
Look at the places with the best railway infrastructure. Almost all of them are government run.
- downrightmike 3y ago
  Or part of the gov't pension plan.
panick21_ 3y ago
With existing railroad infrastructure, even if its managed badly on behave of the public the outcome is gone better. The reality is in most of the world, including all the places with the best railway infrastructure the government is managing or tightly controlling the rail road. When I see cities of millions in the US not even have a railroad you really have to ask yourself if the perceived inefficiency of government can make things better anyway.
- downrightmike 3y ago
  Yes, the RR companies are literally stopping trains and having to drive out crews to swap out because the trains are stopped for so long. and the crews have long shifts already.
UIUC_06 3y ago
Not original quote: If the government ran the Sahara, within five years there'd be a shortage of sand.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  Because it'd be jungle again? :0
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Yet we're out of sand[1] without any central planning involved. Government can be stupid and wasteful, but they cannot even dream of being more wasteful than a competitive market. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is...
  - downrightmike 3y ago
    And then there are the thieves stealing whole beaches https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135620650/stolen-beach-sand-black-market-caribbean-jamaica-glass-concrete https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135620650/stolen-beach-sand-...
- gottorf 3y ago
  Milton Friedman.

balderdash 3y ago

Oh like Amtrak?

gascoigne 3y ago
Yes. Like the Amtrak in the North East Corridor. Where Amtrak actually has none of the limitations imposed by the freight carriers, and actually runs in the interest of the public good. Guess what? It's also the only part of Amtrak that's ever made a profit.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Guess what? It's also the only part of Amtrak that's ever made a profit. It's also the only part of the US with that amount of population density. Nobody is going to ride passenger rail through an empty desert in northern Nevada regardless of who owns the tracks. But then because Amtrak nevertheless operates a line there and subsidizes it with fares from places they actually should be operating, they can't even compete in the North East Corridor where they own the tracks. Metro North has more ridership in a subset of the northeast than Amtrak has nationwide, as well as lower prices and more frequent service.
  - gascoigne 3y ago
    I realize I played this card first, but maybe, just maybe, railways should not be for-profit infrastructure to begin with. Japan, for example, has a similar problem with the bullet train. There are plenty of sleepy towns that would make little sense to stop at between Tokyo and Osaka. They still have about 15 stops on that line anyway, and you have to take the slowest bullet trains to get there. But the stops have totally changed life in these cities. Perhaps there's a similar case to be made for Northern Nevada?
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Northern Nevada isn't sleepy towns, it's nothing. It's the desert. But that's not even the problem if there was a metropolis on the other side of it. There isn't. Tokyo is ~300 miles from Osaka. If you go 300 miles from Sacramento, you're not in Osaka, population 2.7 million, you're in Winnemucca, population under 9000. The first meaningful destination on the far side of California is Salt Lake City, population ~200,000, 650 miles away in a different time zone. And that is not a big city, it's just the only thing anywhere near there. To get to a proper metropolitan area you're going to Denver, more than 1100 miles from where you started. It's too far away.