> Rail does one thing really well; it fits a lot of people into a tight space This is negated by its downsides: - rail is supremely expensive - rail is even

> Rail does one thing really well; it fits a lot of people into a tight space This is negated by its downsides: - rail is supremely expensive - rail is even more expensive to relocate - therefore rail is fixed forever - which means you can't alter routes to fit changing transit demand patterns Rail is dead. Rail is a fetish. It's an exceedingly expensive fetish. It's malinvestment for anything other than cargo. > Rail generally hasn’t failed in places that are dense enough to support it But not most of the U.S., China, Africa, Russia, etc. Even places dense enough for rail would still be better off making better use of roads for busses.