top | item 31589246

(no title)

gringoDan | 3 years ago

Great deep dive. Those that decry the US for not having a rail network comparable to Europe's only consider the passenger side of the equation. We have perhaps the best freight railroad network in the world.

discuss

order

Spooky23|3 years ago

That’s disturbing. Being familiar with a couple of railroads, they aren’t exactly the best run corporations.

ericbarrett|3 years ago

The first time I saw this claim was about 15 years ago in libertarian circles, deployed as a talking point against high-speed passenger rail, and justification for lack of investment therein by the U.S.

There's no doubt we have an extensive rail system—most of the country was built by rail—but is it modern? Is it safe? Is it serving its purpose? Seems to me there are many scheduling, personnel, automation, safety, and supply-chain issues constantly popping up around the rail industry, though I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert. I wonder how much of its success relies on work done in the 19th and early 20th century that won't scale (or isn't scaling) with modern needs. I'm curious if there are any industry folks hanging around HN who'd care to comment.

seibelj|3 years ago

A fairly good rule of thumb for the market test of an industry is how much subsidies they receive as a percentage of their revenue. For example renewable energy is constantly said to be cost competitive with fossil fuels, yet the industry is always demanding (begging) for subsidies and carve outs. In Boston they recently increased everyone’s electric bills by 30% by switching everyone’s supplier to renewable with an opt-out rather than opt-in change. If renewables were so cost effective, why are they always scheming for tax credits and subsidies?

For railroads, the story is the same. Passenger rail networks are enormous money losers in every country they are deployed. But they win a lot of votes and get a lot of union make-work jobs so they keep getting subsidized.