You’re right. However, I am unsure why rail requires being held to some standard of economic viability. Roads don’t generate revenue; they’re bottomless money pits we throw cash into, as well as societal harm in the form of emissions, accidents, drunk driving, and more. They simply don’t make “economic sense”. Why must rail?
I don’t subscribe to neoliberal rationalizations about every single policy decision. Sometimes (often, even) the best policy decisions cannot satisfy economic rationalization.
Roads are a necessity, and already exist. Rail should compete against road expansion beyond basic two lanes and double lane highways.
They don’t even do that though, they’re very very expensive for the density we have and municipalities further out are not building the density levels that would make them competitive.
You’re right. However, I am unsure why rail requires being held to some standard of economic viability. Roads don’t generate revenue; they’re bottomless money pits we throw cash into, as well as societal harm in the form of emissions, accidents, drunk driving, and more. They simply don’t make “economic sense”. Why must rail?
I don’t subscribe to neoliberal rationalizations about every single policy decision. Sometimes (often, even) the best policy decisions cannot satisfy economic rationalization.
Roads are a necessity, and already exist. Rail should compete against road expansion beyond basic two lanes and double lane highways.
They don’t even do that though, they’re very very expensive for the density we have and municipalities further out are not building the density levels that would make them competitive.