4 ms·
In short, "yes, because it's railroads". There's not much else that requires so much public resources (land) and capital; yet for that railroads deliver a broad
by lelandbatey 1y ago
In short, "yes, because it's railroads". There's not much else that requires so much public resources (land) and capital; yet for that railroads deliver a broad capability (hyper thermodynamically efficient over land transport) that is not replicable via any other technology or practice. If we don't develop/improve that capability, we give up a tremendous amount of ability. If we let it consolidate and then atrophy, we regress to a huge degree.
It'd be like privatizing the roads and then allowing the closure of the small farm roads because they're "not profitable". It'd be massively short sighted and would cause problems for decades, maybe over a century as we sort things out and get back on track. It's what we're in the middle of with railroads.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoA couple of nits: Land I might give you, but capital? I cited a bigger bank merger and a bigger telecommunications/broadcasting merger. Both of those involve enormous amounts of capital. Second, railroads are more efficient at hauling stuff longer distances. They are not more efficient at local pick up and delivery, though. Letting trucks take over that part makes things more efficient, not less. Your "closure of small farm roads" analogy is therefore off base.