4 ms·
This looks like a strawman. Nobody advocates for replacing roads with rail, it's about complementing. > Rail provide cheap point-to-point transport, but only m
by The_Colonel 2y ago
This looks like a strawman. Nobody advocates for replacing roads with rail, it's about complementing.
> Rail provide cheap point-to-point transport, but only make sense between heavily populated centers
Yes, so the idea is to build rail for those use cases (which is somewhat the case in Europe, but not in US).
- pfdietz 2y agoIn the US, we see many places where rail has been abandoned. In the place I live (upstate NY, Finger Lakes) there are multiple walking trails that were previously locations of rail lines, which shut down more than half a century ago. The rails themselves are long gone. In some places you can see where earth was moved and concrete structures were installed to allow drainage. Maintaining these lines made no sense with the existence of a road network carrying motor vehicles. There are also abandoned canals from an even earlier time.
- The_Colonel 2y agoYes, US had a more built-up rail system in the past. But it's naive to think it died because of fair economic competition.
- pfdietz 2y agoPeople certainly didn't complain about having paved roads, or being able to buy their own automobiles. I understand it's frustrating when the public goes charging off in a direction you don't want them to.
- The_Colonel 2y agoAnother bad-faith argument. A built-up railway network is not incompatible with a built-up road network. Many countries have both working together (each serving use cases with their own strengths).
- pfdietz 2y agoThey are economically incompatible. Local rail links declined because the customers who would use them used road vehicles instead.