New Report Argues Private Rail Is a Train Wreck, Public Ownership Needed
New Report Argues Private Rail Is a Train Wreck, Public Ownership Needed
"Our nation's rail system is in disarray," an expert said. "Dominated by a small group of giant for-profit companies, it is imperiling the health and safety of workers and communities."
You're viewing a single thread.
Not everything has to turn a profit directly. Some stuff, like public transport services will most probably work at a loss, bit will generate profit indirectly. e.g making people take the car less frequently, generating less traffic accidents which at the same time, reduce the load of the healthcare system... Oh right, I forgot we're talking about the US, where healthcare also needs to turn a profit...
We already spend billions on "public transport services". We just spend it in one of the least efficient ways possible. Roads and highways. It costs so much to maintain the infrastructure is crumbling and people are too car-brained to admit how awful the situation is.
people are too car-brained to admit how awful the situation is.
I challange you to find one American who doesn't constantly complain about their local roads. I've driven everywhere across the US excluding the pacific north west and everywhere I've been ppl complain about lack of up keep. Rightfully so
But how many are actually willing to give up cars and use public transport instead if given the choice? In my experience, most people want to be able to continue using their cars but with glowing roads and little traffic hahahaha. That's what we mean when we say people are car-brained, most people want magic solutions to be able to continue to use their stupid, contaminating, inneficient cars. EVs will fix the contamination hahaha. And another lane will fix traffic for sure hahaha. These people are just too dumb to realize that it's literally impossible to do what they want once you have areas with "high" population density. Instead, as you just mentioned, most people just complain like dumbasses like that's good for anything.
Give up your cars for what? There is no viable public transit in the US. Amtrak is a joke and NYC's subways are falling a part. Same for Boston, DC, and Philly. The most used public transit systems in the country. You HAVE to be car centric because that's the only reliable mode of transportation inside and outside of cities. It's going to take decades to improve public infrastructure to the point public transit is reliable.
We should've done this 50 years ago but your blaming ppl for being carcentric in a country who's public transit is almost nonexistent?
Perfect example. I lived in DC for 4 or 5 years. The metro(subway) was on fire so much it was a common excuse for showing up late for work
First of all my man, I was responding to your comment about "people complaining about roads" in the USA. I'm just pointing out how the people that complain about that are part of the problem. As the comment you replied pointed out, one of the main problems the USA have is that they do invest in infrastructure. Is just that they invest in the dumbest possible transport infrastructure possible, roads for cars. Your comment is ridiculous in that context, its's basically "yeah, and they should invest even more in roads" hahahahahaha, come on man.
Second, at some point you americans need to start taking responsibility of your governmment and elected officials. IMO this particular problem is caused by the voters, and you people loveee to blame your politicians like you are the only country with crappy politicians. Be honest with yourself, what do you think will happen to a politician that campaigns on removing lanes from cars to create dedicated lanes for buses in the USA? Or a politician campaining on moving funds from road development to rails development? Etc, etc. It's a career killing move for a politician in the USA, you people love your cars hahahaha.
The real problem is that you people don't want public transport. Or rather, you want public transport but magically without affecting your cars infrastructure. So politicians have no incentive to invest in public transit, quite the opposite.
What makes more sense? Setting the budget, acquiring the land, completing the designs, figuring out the logistics, and beginning construction for a mass transit system in the select cities that are viable for them or spending money fixing/updating infrastructure that already exist that is already in use ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Infrastructure that can be used for public transit like bus lines THEN starting projects for mass transit systems. Ppl use roads NOW and spending billions on mass transit systems while our current main form of transportation has been falling a part for decades in a country that is the 2nd largest economic zone on Earth makes no fucking sense. You're idea is like installing solar panels on a house with holes in its floor.
I don't know where you get this idea that US road infrastructure is the only thing that gets funding considering American transit scores are about the same as its roads. They both fucking suck or I guess there's a collasal difference between a D and a D-.
The real problem is that you people don't want public transport. Or rather, you want public transport but magically without affecting your cars infrastructure. So politicians have no incentive to invest in public transit, quite the opposite.
Yeah because shifting 333.3 million ppl over 3,809,525 Sq miles of land to mainly using public transit by tearing down highways in Bumble Fuck Indiana and Middlefuckingnowhere Montana makes perfect sense. Not to mention changing the logistics of shipping select goods across the country.
Also politicians have spent money on transit. 52 new systems and 124 extensions have opened in the past 20 years. It just takes fucking time to build public transit. Meanwhile ppl still have to go to work so tearing down highways before building public transit makes zero sense.
It's almost like different countries have different circumstances that can't be applied everywhere else and being practical about your decision making so it doesn't negatively affecting others you may not be thinking about is a good idea
So to be clear, what you are saying is that the USA should spend more in roads and less in public transport right? Because the USA is so special that you poor things just have no more options.
Fuck man, even here in Bogotá we are finally building a metro, and yes the work for it had fucked traffic even more. And for years we have been taking roads away from cars to use them for buses (see what transmilenio is) and bycicles. And guess what, it has been a fucking uphill battle every step of the way for morons like you who just love their fucking cars. Is Bogotá traffic good? Fuck no. Is public transport great here? Hahahaha, god no. But we are making progress despite morons like you. But you people keep your excuses, you poor morons and your american exceptionalism. Even the third world is leaving you behind hahaha, is kind of pathetic, specially because is people like you holding your country back.
Cool, you're finally building a metro in the capital city. Now do the rest of the country, since it's clearly that simple. Just do it.
We are, just one step at a time my man. There are plans to create a train system conecting Bogotá with the closest towns for example. But we have to fight every step of the way for it hahaha. But at least we are moving in the right direction. Enjoy your moral superiority about doing nothing though. I'm sure if you guys keep complaining things will improve on their own hahaha.
Clearly you didn't read anything I typed so I'm going to end this exchange by saying you have no fucking idea what you're talking about and you should probably stick to Colombian politics. Listening to randoms on lemmy complain about American infrastructure doesn't make you an expert on it. You have no clue what you're talking about, clearly don't read enough about US politics, and are more concerned with being right which just paints you as a jackass.
Comparing building a metro in Bogota to building mass transit across the continental United States is the stupidest comparison possible. "I fIxED mY CAr, I CAn DEFiniTeLy BUild aN F1 RaCEcaR."
My man, what an empty comment. Honestly you just made me sad. Just a bunch of insults showing how empty your brain is hahahaha.
I did read your entire comment and even the linked article. Too bad you said nothing in so many words though. Just excuses about how unique your country is as usual.
Part of the discussion with US rail is that American rail carries some freight service and it would be better environmentally to maintain that service than go all passenger.
For profit companies have shown themselves as being bad at running freight rail, but the solution to public rail needs to include freight.
If anything, we need to double down on freight. Get all the long haul trucks off the highways that we can.
Porque no los dos?
Rabbit hole incoming: If you have to pick one, I suppose it depends on what metric you are trying to maximize. One doublestacked intermodal train car takes two long haul trucks off the road. One Siemens Venture passenger train car takes 74 people, or about 50 cars at 1.5 people per car, off the road. You can generally run longer freight trains than passenger trains, but 25x to normalize for VMT (which could be used as an approximate measure of direct health impacts from driving: crash risk, elevated blood pressure, obesity. It could also be used to approximate societal impacts of car culture: real estate dedicated to surface parking, voting bloc size that supports car-centric planning and development regulations) is probably excessive. On the other hand, if we normalize for emissions (hard to find data here, but as far as I can tell trucks are on the order of 10x as emissive), that gets us down to 5x train length, which is about on par (northeast corridor trains are typically in the 1/6 of a mile range, and median freight train length is somewhere in the 1-1.5 mile range from what I could find), and if we use infrastructure damage/maintenance cost (trucks are about two orders of magnitude worse than even today's SUV saturated passenger car market, I'm assuming without reason or evidence that damage to steel rail infrastructure between a freight and a passenger car scales significantly less harshly for the sake of simplicity), things look downright strongly in favor of freight traffic. At the end of the day, it probably just depends on which use case has more unmet demand on a case by case basis. Of course, both pale when compared to the opportunity that high speed rail gives to take short haul flights out of the sky, but that is another set of analysis and does partially correlate to the elevated infrastructure cost of high speed rail vs conventional rail.