You're viewing a single thread.
Till 2019, <1 % of total rail in US was electrified according to Wikipedia? Is this true; considering that US was a world leader in terms of rail transport upto WW II, why the abysmally low numbers? I know that privatisation of rail networks and car centred cities makes life tough for rails, but 1 % is abysmally low for a developed nation.
In contrast, China is at 75% and India is at 93% respectively and both of them also have giant railway networks.
The WW II US rail network is loonnnnggggg gone and doesn't really have any effect on the modern day. What remains is mostly freight rail run by a few oversized rail corporations... and they're surely in no hurry to abandon their diesel engines.
There's also not huge political pressure because rail is already a very efficient way to transport goods. Spreading rail would have better effects than electrifying rail.
considering that US was a world leader in terms of rail transport upto WW II, why the abysmally low numbers?
We spent all our rail money on the interstate highways and their exorbitant maintenance costs.
They’re probably not counting subways. It may even be just intercity rail, which mostly supports freight. You have thousands of miles of freight rail crossing the entire country, and only the Acela passenger track in the northeast is electrified
Till
‘til*, short for “until.”
Sorry to be that asshole but it’s frustrating how often this is misused.
You are wrong, till is perfectly fine – and so is til. See Merriam-Websters article about this, at https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/should-you-use-until-or-till-or-til
this might be a regional thing. I've never once in my life seen it spelled that was. to me til had only ever been an acronym for "today I learned"