• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah, very made that argument in the past, but you have to start somewhere

    • for Midwest passenger rail, the cities are big enough they ought to have transit, but also it’s appropriate for the federal govern invest in infrastructure to jumpstart their revival
    • for smaller cities on long distance routes, their may not be scheduled air service and distances are too great for some to drive. There should be an option. A useful option
    • and yes, the long distance routes are a “money saver”. If we ever want to have useful long distance service m, we need to keep the right of way alive. A huge part of the ridiculous cost of rail improvements is the land, and no one will pay for 1,000 miles of right of way
      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        The track is privately owned by freight companies, and they do have a long term trend of shutting things down. More importantly they only allow passenger service because they have to, and they have no incentive to keep their track in adequate shape for useful and comfortable passenger service. They are also fine with not going to populated areas where passenger rail might be useful