5 ms·

We should nationalize the rail infrastructure and upgrade it to make passenger traffic a first-class citizen of the rails.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> We should nationalize the rail infrastructure and upgrade it to make passenger traffic a first-class citizen of the rails Your response to the first high-speed rail line America is likely to see completed, being built by a private operator, is to propose effectively banning it?
- lmm 3y ago
  How the hell did you get that from what they wrote?
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    If rails are to be nationalized in the future, why would a private operator build one now? If you believe the inability to profit from the build on a recurring basis will happen, that’s an effective ban on construction of then by private operators now.
    - lmm 3y ago
      > If rails are to be nationalized in the future, why would a private operator build one now? Nationalisation in a country like the US generally means getting bought out at a fair, even generous, price.
      - delfinom 3y ago
        Yea but I wouldn't be so happy with nationalized rail tbh. We have the MTA in NY, they run the railroads and subways. The agency is massively bloated by costs not just where it costs $1.5 billion per mile to expand the subway, but even the railways are bleeding billions per year.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > getting bought out at a fair, even generous, price Can you show me one example from the post-War era where we nationalised something that wasn’t about to fail?
        lmm 3y ago
        > Can you show me one example from the post-War era where we nationalised something that wasn’t about to fail? If we don't nationalise things that aren't about to fail then why should anyone be scared of being nationalised?
        sokoloff 3y ago
        This subthread started with that suggestion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40140547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40140547 Nobody is currently afraid of it, probably because no one is seriously contemplating it.
- Mordisquitos 3y ago
  I understand that GP commenter is referring to nationalisation of existing rail infrastructure, particularly given that the intent would be to "upgrade it to make passenger traffic a first-class citizen of the rails". That would not apply to the first high-speed rail line in America, as it already has by its very nature passenger traffic as a first-class citizen — indeed, it will almost certainly have passenger traffic as its only citizen.
- delfinom 3y ago
  The first high-speed rail line in America, was already completed by said private operator in Florida. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline
anamax 3y ago
A given rail system can do freight or passenger well, but not both. The US system is optimized for freight. It's not obvious that passenger is a better choice.
- nuthje 3y ago
  It is for the passengers.
- sirwitti 3y ago
  How so? All over Europe the same infrastructure is being used for both.
  - vkou 3y ago
    It's used for both, and as a consequence, European freight prefers to go on trucks.
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      Part of this is also the different geography: Europe has more useful rivers and seas, so very bulk cargo can go by barge or ship.
      - mgsouth 3y ago
        The Mississipi, Ohio, and Columbia Rivers enter the room, sit down at a table where the Great Lakes are already drinking.
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        That's nice. The western two-thirds of the country gets the Columbia. That, um, might be a bit inadequate for their freight needs... I mean, sure, you can get to Kansas City and Omaha via the Missouri. You can't get to Denver, though, or Phoenix, or Salt Lake, or...
      - 3y ago
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
1. The federal government is not noted for running passenger traffic well. 2. We don't want 40% more trucks on the roads, so we need the system to still be able to carry large amounts of freight. The federal government is also not known for doing that well, still less for balancing that with #1. 3. In this country, we don't just get to nationalize things. We have to pay for them. Given the pathetic rate at which Amtrak is funded, do you really think that Congress is going to spring for the kind of money to buy all the freight railroads? 4. Speaking of Congress, it's going to take continual funding to pay for keeping the system maintained. Do you want the annual maintenance budget for this (including the freight portion) to be at the annual whims of Congress? All around, this is a terrible idea.
namlem 3y ago
No thanks, I'd rather my tax dollars not be wasted on a pointless boondoggle.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> We should nationalize the rail infrastructure and upgrade it to make passenger traffic a first-class citizen of the rails Your response to the first high-speed rail line America is likely to see completed, being built by a private operator, is to propose effectively banning it?

lmm 3y ago
How the hell did you get that from what they wrote?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  If rails are to be nationalized in the future, why would a private operator build one now? If you believe the inability to profit from the build on a recurring basis will happen, that’s an effective ban on construction of then by private operators now.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > If rails are to be nationalized in the future, why would a private operator build one now? Nationalisation in a country like the US generally means getting bought out at a fair, even generous, price.
    - delfinom 3y ago
      Yea but I wouldn't be so happy with nationalized rail tbh. We have the MTA in NY, they run the railroads and subways. The agency is massively bloated by costs not just where it costs $1.5 billion per mile to expand the subway, but even the railways are bleeding billions per year.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > getting bought out at a fair, even generous, price Can you show me one example from the post-War era where we nationalised something that wasn’t about to fail?
      - lmm 3y ago
        > Can you show me one example from the post-War era where we nationalised something that wasn’t about to fail? If we don't nationalise things that aren't about to fail then why should anyone be scared of being nationalised?
        sokoloff 3y ago
        This subthread started with that suggestion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40140547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40140547 Nobody is currently afraid of it, probably because no one is seriously contemplating it.
Mordisquitos 3y ago
I understand that GP commenter is referring to nationalisation of existing rail infrastructure, particularly given that the intent would be to "upgrade it to make passenger traffic a first-class citizen of the rails". That would not apply to the first high-speed rail line in America, as it already has by its very nature passenger traffic as a first-class citizen — indeed, it will almost certainly have passenger traffic as its only citizen.
delfinom 3y ago
The first high-speed rail line in America, was already completed by said private operator in Florida. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline

anamax 3y ago

A given rail system can do freight or passenger well, but not both. The US system is optimized for freight. It's not obvious that passenger is a better choice.

nuthje 3y ago
It is for the passengers.
sirwitti 3y ago
How so? All over Europe the same infrastructure is being used for both.
- vkou 3y ago
  It's used for both, and as a consequence, European freight prefers to go on trucks.
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    Part of this is also the different geography: Europe has more useful rivers and seas, so very bulk cargo can go by barge or ship.
    - mgsouth 3y ago
      The Mississipi, Ohio, and Columbia Rivers enter the room, sit down at a table where the Great Lakes are already drinking.
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        That's nice. The western two-thirds of the country gets the Columbia. That, um, might be a bit inadequate for their freight needs... I mean, sure, you can get to Kansas City and Omaha via the Missouri. You can't get to Denver, though, or Phoenix, or Salt Lake, or...
    - 3y ago

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

1. The federal government is not noted for running passenger traffic well. 2. We don't want 40% more trucks on the roads, so we need the system to still be able to carry large amounts of freight. The federal government is also not known for doing that well, still less for balancing that with #1. 3. In this country, we don't just get to nationalize things. We have to pay for them. Given the pathetic rate at which Amtrak is funded, do you really think that Congress is going to spring for the kind of money to buy all the freight railroads? 4. Speaking of Congress, it's going to take continual funding to pay for keeping the system maintained. Do you want the annual maintenance budget for this (including the freight portion) to be at the annual whims of Congress? All around, this is a terrible idea.

namlem 3y ago

No thanks, I'd rather my tax dollars not be wasted on a pointless boondoggle.