I wouldn't exactly call removing nature and laying down the track "easy" either. That's tens of thousands of miles of steel carving through the terrain.

Also, we have a ton of rail, it's just prioritized for freight over passenger transit. A high speed passenger rail network would be nice though.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

compared to a 5 lane highway its a pittance - theres a reason why private rail companies can exist but private road companies largely don't.

The problem is there's a lot more federal funding for the shittier solution so when budgetting are you going to build the thing the feds will pay 100% or 0%?

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

why would a private company pay for a new road when the government will build that infrastructure for them? and even if they would, why on earth would they build a 5 lane highway solely for private use?

in either case, a rail line is still more expensive than a highway

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

thats the thing though, a rail line can pay for itself, a road often can't. Its easy to "create a new branch road" but when you add in all the externalized maintenance factors: policing traffic, emergencies, fueling stations, stormwater management, the costs per user, the costs per user per mile traveled, land use requirements per user (4 parking stalls per vehicle, multiple vehicles per person) etc.

They often cannot pay for themselves, hence why the subsidies are necessary and why things like big box stores with huge parking lots are a net drain on most communities (its not just the low wages)

If they could pay for themselves we'd see more companies that just build and rent private roads like train companies do.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

all of the factors you just listed also apply to railways
since railways are more expensive to construct and maintain than roadways, there are more cases in which a railway couldn't pay for itself versus a roadway
why would a company build a private road when the government will do it for them?

[–] this@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"* all of the factors you just listed also apply to railways"

massive Walmart style parking lots don't factor if your urban planning is centered around public transit, and parking is definately one of the highest hidden costs of road infrastructure.

"* since railways are more expensive to construct and maintain than roadways, there are more cases in which a railway couldn't pay for itself versus a roadway"

yes, when people stubbornly refuse to use rail infrastructure or when rail/transit infrastructure is prioritized less than roads/car based transportation then of course its going to be less economically viable. Economies of scale and induced demand are a huge factor here.

"* why would a company build a private road when the government will do it for them?"

good question, and yet we still have private roads and tollroads.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

trains still need sidings, along with a bunch of marshaling infrastructure that doesn't really have an equivalent for cars
yes the reason a rail line to take you directly from your house to your local convenience store wouldn't be profitable is because people would refuse to use it
what argument are you making here? this was in response to how rare private roads are in comparison to private rail, and your response is that actually they're not rare? are you just trying to disagree with everything i'm saying for the sake of disagreeing?

[–] this@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I'm mostly just responding to your points, but if I'm trying to make any argument its that mile per mile train infrastructure is cheaper than road infrastructure when you add up all of the costs, especially the ones people normally dont consider including vehicle maintinance, extra land and infrastructure for parking, more policing, gas, time wasted on longer commutes, ect. I'm also trying to point out that the reason we can't have nice things is because we have chosen the wrong priorities as a society, thats why we are stuck in a loop where we try to solve our car problems with more cars and car infrastructure instead of addressing the root cause of the problem.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

it's kind of an agenda pushing shit to compare high speed rail with highways, high speed railroads compete with airplanes not cars, on a regular track you can reach 150km/h easily and those cost a fraction and that's already more than the 130km/h limit of highways in Europe

[–] png@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago

German HSR trains go about 250km/h on regular and over 350km/h on HSR-specific tracks

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

it's also dishonest to insist that every road you build needs to be a four lane highway, so i thought it about averaged out