3 ms·
No, it's actually a good question. If the rails are private, why should the public subsidize them? For clarity's sake, I think railways should be public, and p
by thesuitonym 1y ago
No, it's actually a good question. If the rails are private, why should the public subsidize them?
For clarity's sake, I think railways should be public, and paid for with a combination of taxes and fares.
- epolanski 1y agoI think rails should be public, like skies and roads, and train companies should pay for their usage.
- kccqzy 1y agoThat sounds like an excellent idea. However I think rail transport depends more heavily on quality infrastructure. If a state doesn’t maintain its roads well and allow potholes to develop, it is probably rare for that to cause a fatal accident (I’ve heard of potholes causing damage to cars but not deaths). But improperly maintained rails lead to derailments and deaths.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoPotholes do regularly result in cyclists' deaths.
- circuit10 1y agoYou may still need a public train service or subsidies of some kind to make sure unprofitable but vital routes get served