3 ms·
This is nice, but I would have also accepted restoring disused railroad tracks and using them for passenger rail. I realize this is in a whole different league
by VyseofArcadia 3y ago
This is nice, but I would have also accepted restoring disused railroad tracks and using them for passenger rail.
I realize this is in a whole different league of planning and costs and maintenance and operations, but I sure would love more and more robust rail in this country.
- euroderf 3y agoNot just passenger rail, but light rail. I'd think that upgrading disused tracks to that level is cheaper than a full restoration to some level capable of supporting mainline-capable engines. In any case, so-called interurbans were (AFAICT) the regional/intercity buses of their day.
- bell-cot 3y agoThere's a lot of devils in the details here - but yes, as a generality, interurban-style light rail can be done on far lighter-duty rails (& bridges, etc.) than even the bottom tier of "regular" railroading requires. Though it's not just the engines that are heavy on regular RR's. And many of the costs do not scale with track weight. And running a regional/intercity transit system is seriously non-trivial, even if Santa Claus somehow gifts you with a free and magically maintenance-free rail network.
- burkaman 3y agoYes, it was an incredibly extensive network before cars took over: https://urbanists.social/@straphanger/111059691532896415 https://urbanists.social/@straphanger/111059691532896415
- cdchn 3y agoI was thinking the same thing. This is great for recreational bicyclists but more public transportation options would help everybody.
- rhapsodic 3y ago[dead]
- bombcar 3y agoMost (but not all!) of these rails to trails are not in positions to be even moderately lightly used by passenger rail. And by being trails now, they preserve the line if it ever is needed in the future.