Mixing
What is the capitalist answer to rail passenger transportation being non financially profitable?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In developed countries, rail transport is usually made at financial loss, and needs to be sponsored by governments. In countries who refused to do so (mostly on the American continent), passenger rail transport became anecdotal and rail stay used for freight only, while in countries who sponsor their rail network (mostly on the European continent), rail transport decreased significantly since the 1950s. Government sponsoring lead to many problems such as the imposition of cost-saving measures, on rail transportation companies, preventing them to do their job in good conditions.
- They are constantly looking for small, less profitable lines to close.
- When it's not the line it's the individual stations that might be considered unprofitable and are closed.
- They reduce the frequency of service, which by itself makes passenger trains much less attractive as the mean time of waiting the train increase dramatically; which results in less passengers and an even less profitable line.
- Even if none of the above happens, transportation companies might be unable to buy new vehicles and have to maintain their service with old and obsolete vehicles.
However, rail passenger transportation is, in a purely engineering point of view, much more efficient than road transportation (both private vehicles and buses):
- Higher passengers per hour theoretically possible on a given line. A road lane can have a vehicle at most every 2 seconds, so if we assume 1.5 per vehicle (optimistic figure) that's 2700 passenger per hour. Rail can have 500 passengers per train and 8 trains per hour easily, that's 4000 passengers per hour.
- Energy spent to transport each passenger is much lower (according to this wikipedia page Passenger transportation by rail requires less than one-tenth of the energy needed to move a person by car or plane)
- Maximum speed much higher; maximum speed of 115 km/h is usual between villages for regular train; up to 200-300 km/h is common for high speed trains. In most countries cars can only go up to 80-90km/h between villages and 120-140 km/h on autobahn; but even then traffic congestion makes such speed rarely attainable.
- Much better safety : in Switzerland 2017, there was almost 18k people wounded or killed by road, only 57 people wounded or killed by trains (excluding suicides), this makes road 312 times more hazardous than rail.
- Train passengers can have another activity during the ride, an option which is limited in road transport, even for passengers, as the comfort and space available is much lower.
- Rail transport is resistant to poor weather condition: fog, snow, rain causes fewer problem than with road transportation.
Theoretically, by mechanism of economic freedom and concurrence, offer and demand, capitalism automatically find an optimal solution. This does not seem to work for transportation, as the optimal mean of transportation (energetically speaking) is not financially profitable and needs to be government-subsided, while an extremely sub-optimal solution (road transport) is economically preferable.
What is the capitalist solution to make rail passenger transportation economically profitable again, like it used to be before road transport was a thing?
capitalism transportation sustainable-development public-transport
edited 2 hours ago
Communisty
1,5772721
asked 4 hours ago
Bregalad
3,07521347
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In developed countries, rail transport is usually made at financial loss, and needs to be sponsored by governments. In countries who refused to do so (mostly on the American continent), passenger rail transport became anecdotal and rail stay used for freight only, while in countries who sponsor their rail network (mostly on the European continent), rail transport decreased significantly since the 1950s. Government sponsoring lead to many problems such as the imposition of cost-saving measures, on rail transportation companies, preventing them to do their job in good conditions.
- They are constantly looking for small, less profitable lines to close.
- When it's not the line it's the individual stations that might be considered unprofitable and are closed.
- They reduce the frequency of service, which by itself makes passenger trains much less attractive as the mean time of waiting the train increase dramatically; which results in less passengers and an even less profitable line.
- Even if none of the above happens, transportation companies might be unable to buy new vehicles and have to maintain their service with old and obsolete vehicles.
However, rail passenger transportation is, in a purely engineering point of view, much more efficient than road transportation (both private vehicles and buses):
- Higher passengers per hour theoretically possible on a given line. A road lane can have a vehicle at most every 2 seconds, so if we assume 1.5 per vehicle (optimistic figure) that's 2700 passenger per hour. Rail can have 500 passengers per train and 8 trains per hour easily, that's 4000 passengers per hour.
- Energy spent to transport each passenger is much lower (according to this wikipedia page Passenger transportation by rail requires less than one-tenth of the energy needed to move a person by car or plane)
- Maximum speed much higher; maximum speed of 115 km/h is usual between villages for regular train; up to 200-300 km/h is common for high speed trains. In most countries cars can only go up to 80-90km/h between villages and 120-140 km/h on autobahn; but even then traffic congestion makes such speed rarely attainable.
- Much better safety : in Switzerland 2017, there was almost 18k people wounded or killed by road, only 57 people wounded or killed by trains (excluding suicides), this makes road 312 times more hazardous than rail.
- Train passengers can have another activity during the ride, an option which is limited in road transport, even for passengers, as the comfort and space available is much lower.
- Rail transport is resistant to poor weather condition: fog, snow, rain causes fewer problem than with road transportation.
Theoretically, by mechanism of economic freedom and concurrence, offer and demand, capitalism automatically find an optimal solution. This does not seem to work for transportation, as the optimal mean of transportation (energetically speaking) is not financially profitable and needs to be government-subsided, while an extremely sub-optimal solution (road transport) is economically preferable.
What is the capitalist solution to make rail passenger transportation economically profitable again, like it used to be before road transport was a thing?
capitalism transportation sustainable-development public-transport
edited 2 hours ago
Communisty
1,5772721
asked 4 hours ago
Bregalad
3,07521347
Unless all your passengers need to go the exact same route, your efficiency calculations suffer because people might (and will) have to travel much longer distances because of the inflexibility of train networks.
– janh
3 hours ago
2
@jahn True, and the same is applicable to autobahns too.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In developed countries, rail transport is usually made at financial loss, and needs to be sponsored by governments. In countries who refused to do so (mostly on the American continent), passenger rail transport became anecdotal and rail stay used for freight only, while in countries who sponsor their rail network (mostly on the European continent), rail transport decreased significantly since the 1950s. Government sponsoring lead to many problems such as the imposition of cost-saving measures, on rail transportation companies, preventing them to do their job in good conditions.
- They are constantly looking for small, less profitable lines to close.
- When it's not the line it's the individual stations that might be considered unprofitable and are closed.
- They reduce the frequency of service, which by itself makes passenger trains much less attractive as the mean time of waiting the train increase dramatically; which results in less passengers and an even less profitable line.
- Even if none of the above happens, transportation companies might be unable to buy new vehicles and have to maintain their service with old and obsolete vehicles.
However, rail passenger transportation is, in a purely engineering point of view, much more efficient than road transportation (both private vehicles and buses):
- Higher passengers per hour theoretically possible on a given line. A road lane can have a vehicle at most every 2 seconds, so if we assume 1.5 per vehicle (optimistic figure) that's 2700 passenger per hour. Rail can have 500 passengers per train and 8 trains per hour easily, that's 4000 passengers per hour.
- Energy spent to transport each passenger is much lower (according to this wikipedia page Passenger transportation by rail requires less than one-tenth of the energy needed to move a person by car or plane)
- Maximum speed much higher; maximum speed of 115 km/h is usual between villages for regular train; up to 200-300 km/h is common for high speed trains. In most countries cars can only go up to 80-90km/h between villages and 120-140 km/h on autobahn; but even then traffic congestion makes such speed rarely attainable.
- Much better safety : in Switzerland 2017, there was almost 18k people wounded or killed by road, only 57 people wounded or killed by trains (excluding suicides), this makes road 312 times more hazardous than rail.
- Train passengers can have another activity during the ride, an option which is limited in road transport, even for passengers, as the comfort and space available is much lower.
- Rail transport is resistant to poor weather condition: fog, snow, rain causes fewer problem than with road transportation.
Theoretically, by mechanism of economic freedom and concurrence, offer and demand, capitalism automatically find an optimal solution. This does not seem to work for transportation, as the optimal mean of transportation (energetically speaking) is not financially profitable and needs to be government-subsided, while an extremely sub-optimal solution (road transport) is economically preferable.
What is the capitalist solution to make rail passenger transportation economically profitable again, like it used to be before road transport was a thing?
capitalism transportation sustainable-development public-transport
edited 2 hours ago
Communisty
1,5772721
asked 4 hours ago
Bregalad
3,07521347
In developed countries, rail transport is usually made at financial loss, and needs to be sponsored by governments. In countries who refused to do so (mostly on the American continent), passenger rail transport became anecdotal and rail stay used for freight only, while in countries who sponsor their rail network (mostly on the European continent), rail transport decreased significantly since the 1950s. Government sponsoring lead to many problems such as the imposition of cost-saving measures, on rail transportation companies, preventing them to do their job in good conditions.
- They are constantly looking for small, less profitable lines to close.
- When it's not the line it's the individual stations that might be considered unprofitable and are closed.
- They reduce the frequency of service, which by itself makes passenger trains much less attractive as the mean time of waiting the train increase dramatically; which results in less passengers and an even less profitable line.
- Even if none of the above happens, transportation companies might be unable to buy new vehicles and have to maintain their service with old and obsolete vehicles.
However, rail passenger transportation is, in a purely engineering point of view, much more efficient than road transportation (both private vehicles and buses):
- Higher passengers per hour theoretically possible on a given line. A road lane can have a vehicle at most every 2 seconds, so if we assume 1.5 per vehicle (optimistic figure) that's 2700 passenger per hour. Rail can have 500 passengers per train and 8 trains per hour easily, that's 4000 passengers per hour.
- Energy spent to transport each passenger is much lower (according to this wikipedia page Passenger transportation by rail requires less than one-tenth of the energy needed to move a person by car or plane)
- Maximum speed much higher; maximum speed of 115 km/h is usual between villages for regular train; up to 200-300 km/h is common for high speed trains. In most countries cars can only go up to 80-90km/h between villages and 120-140 km/h on autobahn; but even then traffic congestion makes such speed rarely attainable.
- Much better safety : in Switzerland 2017, there was almost 18k people wounded or killed by road, only 57 people wounded or killed by trains (excluding suicides), this makes road 312 times more hazardous than rail.
- Train passengers can have another activity during the ride, an option which is limited in road transport, even for passengers, as the comfort and space available is much lower.
- Rail transport is resistant to poor weather condition: fog, snow, rain causes fewer problem than with road transportation.
Theoretically, by mechanism of economic freedom and concurrence, offer and demand, capitalism automatically find an optimal solution. This does not seem to work for transportation, as the optimal mean of transportation (energetically speaking) is not financially profitable and needs to be government-subsided, while an extremely sub-optimal solution (road transport) is economically preferable.
What is the capitalist solution to make rail passenger transportation economically profitable again, like it used to be before road transport was a thing?
capitalism transportation sustainable-development public-transport
capitalism transportation sustainable-development public-transport
edited 2 hours ago
Communisty
1,5772721
asked 4 hours ago
Bregalad
3,07521347
edited 2 hours ago
Communisty
1,5772721
asked 4 hours ago
Bregalad
3,07521347
edited 2 hours ago
Communisty
1,5772721
edited 2 hours ago
Communisty
1,5772721
edited 2 hours ago
Communisty
1,5772721
1,5772721
asked 4 hours ago
Bregalad
3,07521347
asked 4 hours ago
Bregalad
3,07521347
asked 4 hours ago
Bregalad
3,07521347
3,07521347
Unless all your passengers need to go the exact same route, your efficiency calculations suffer because people might (and will) have to travel much longer distances because of the inflexibility of train networks.
– janh
3 hours ago
2
@jahn True, and the same is applicable to autobahns too.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Unless all your passengers need to go the exact same route, your efficiency calculations suffer because people might (and will) have to travel much longer distances because of the inflexibility of train networks.
– janh
3 hours ago
2
@jahn True, and the same is applicable to autobahns too.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
Unless all your passengers need to go the exact same route, your efficiency calculations suffer because people might (and will) have to travel much longer distances because of the inflexibility of train networks.
– janh
3 hours ago
Unless all your passengers need to go the exact same route, your efficiency calculations suffer because people might (and will) have to travel much longer distances because of the inflexibility of train networks.
– janh
3 hours ago
2
2
@jahn True, and the same is applicable to autobahns too.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
@jahn True, and the same is applicable to autobahns too.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Japan is a counter-example. Rail is profitable there, not least because the rail companies don't just run the trains. Train stations become hubs, often with a shopping centre built around them (owned by or in partnership with the train company), even parts of new towns. All this extra revenue helps keep the transport side profitable, and helps justify a high level of service by viewing it as a feed for the other profit sources.
answered 1 hour ago
user
3,72511023
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Just because governments operate passenger rail systems at a loss does not mean that it is an inherently unprofitable enterprise. It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist.
I don't know enough about the history of rail transportation in Europe to say how it got the way it is, but in the United States they have AmTrak. AmTrak was started in the 1970s precisely because it had become unprofitable for private carriers to operate. So that kind of proves your point...
Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography. The capitalist answer was to abandon rail transportation because it's almost always better, cheaper, and faster to fly. Even though rail transportation may be more efficient from an engineering perspective, air travel (at least in the U.S.) is far more efficient logistically and economically speaking. Rail freight, however, is still big business in the U.S. because planes have limited cargo capacity, so there is still a niche that air travel can't fill.
In Economics, this process is called creative destruction; society changes and newer technologies come along and render the old ways of doing things obsolete.
Now again, I can't say what would work or not work in Europe. The geography is much different there and it very well could be potentially profitable for private carriers to operate. We'll never know because the option is legally off the table. But that's a public policy problem rather than a free market problem.
So to summarize, the capitalist answer to passenger rail not being profitable anymore is to just stop doing it. Inevitably, the new thing that replaces the old usually makes society better off for it.
answered 2 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,40221133
2
It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist.False, private companies exist but they need government subsides. It's not the same as government directly operating the industry. Also there's no law preventing a private company from running a service without government involvement.Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography.Within east or west coast region it'd make perfect sense. Air travel has ridiculously high energy per passenger, that alone makes it inherently inefficient.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
1
I'd fully agree with you if rail transport was inefficient; the problem is that, technically speaking it is efficient and not obsolete as you called it. It's only financially inefficient; which it shouldn't be because of how capitalism works.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
(Also, if you're taller than 1m85, plane travel becomes a torture seance)
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
The Netherlands has privatized rail transport, and mostly it just seems to have made things worse for the passengers. (Even though by international standards, we still have a really good public transit system)
– Erik
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Japan is a counter-example. Rail is profitable there, not least because the rail companies don't just run the trains. Train stations become hubs, often with a shopping centre built around them (owned by or in partnership with the train company), even parts of new towns. All this extra revenue helps keep the transport side profitable, and helps justify a high level of service by viewing it as a feed for the other profit sources.
answered 1 hour ago
user
3,72511023
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Japan is a counter-example. Rail is profitable there, not least because the rail companies don't just run the trains. Train stations become hubs, often with a shopping centre built around them (owned by or in partnership with the train company), even parts of new towns. All this extra revenue helps keep the transport side profitable, and helps justify a high level of service by viewing it as a feed for the other profit sources.
answered 1 hour ago
user
3,72511023
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Japan is a counter-example. Rail is profitable there, not least because the rail companies don't just run the trains. Train stations become hubs, often with a shopping centre built around them (owned by or in partnership with the train company), even parts of new towns. All this extra revenue helps keep the transport side profitable, and helps justify a high level of service by viewing it as a feed for the other profit sources.
answered 1 hour ago
user
3,72511023
Japan is a counter-example. Rail is profitable there, not least because the rail companies don't just run the trains. Train stations become hubs, often with a shopping centre built around them (owned by or in partnership with the train company), even parts of new towns. All this extra revenue helps keep the transport side profitable, and helps justify a high level of service by viewing it as a feed for the other profit sources.
answered 1 hour ago
user
3,72511023
answered 1 hour ago
user
3,72511023
answered 1 hour ago
user
3,72511023
answered 1 hour ago
user
3,72511023
3,72511023
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Just because governments operate passenger rail systems at a loss does not mean that it is an inherently unprofitable enterprise. It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist.
I don't know enough about the history of rail transportation in Europe to say how it got the way it is, but in the United States they have AmTrak. AmTrak was started in the 1970s precisely because it had become unprofitable for private carriers to operate. So that kind of proves your point...
Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography. The capitalist answer was to abandon rail transportation because it's almost always better, cheaper, and faster to fly. Even though rail transportation may be more efficient from an engineering perspective, air travel (at least in the U.S.) is far more efficient logistically and economically speaking. Rail freight, however, is still big business in the U.S. because planes have limited cargo capacity, so there is still a niche that air travel can't fill.
In Economics, this process is called creative destruction; society changes and newer technologies come along and render the old ways of doing things obsolete.
Now again, I can't say what would work or not work in Europe. The geography is much different there and it very well could be potentially profitable for private carriers to operate. We'll never know because the option is legally off the table. But that's a public policy problem rather than a free market problem.
So to summarize, the capitalist answer to passenger rail not being profitable anymore is to just stop doing it. Inevitably, the new thing that replaces the old usually makes society better off for it.
answered 2 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,40221133
2
It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist.False, private companies exist but they need government subsides. It's not the same as government directly operating the industry. Also there's no law preventing a private company from running a service without government involvement.Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography.Within east or west coast region it'd make perfect sense. Air travel has ridiculously high energy per passenger, that alone makes it inherently inefficient.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
1
I'd fully agree with you if rail transport was inefficient; the problem is that, technically speaking it is efficient and not obsolete as you called it. It's only financially inefficient; which it shouldn't be because of how capitalism works.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
(Also, if you're taller than 1m85, plane travel becomes a torture seance)
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
The Netherlands has privatized rail transport, and mostly it just seems to have made things worse for the passengers. (Even though by international standards, we still have a really good public transit system)
– Erik
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Just because governments operate passenger rail systems at a loss does not mean that it is an inherently unprofitable enterprise. It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist.
I don't know enough about the history of rail transportation in Europe to say how it got the way it is, but in the United States they have AmTrak. AmTrak was started in the 1970s precisely because it had become unprofitable for private carriers to operate. So that kind of proves your point...
Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography. The capitalist answer was to abandon rail transportation because it's almost always better, cheaper, and faster to fly. Even though rail transportation may be more efficient from an engineering perspective, air travel (at least in the U.S.) is far more efficient logistically and economically speaking. Rail freight, however, is still big business in the U.S. because planes have limited cargo capacity, so there is still a niche that air travel can't fill.
In Economics, this process is called creative destruction; society changes and newer technologies come along and render the old ways of doing things obsolete.
Now again, I can't say what would work or not work in Europe. The geography is much different there and it very well could be potentially profitable for private carriers to operate. We'll never know because the option is legally off the table. But that's a public policy problem rather than a free market problem.
So to summarize, the capitalist answer to passenger rail not being profitable anymore is to just stop doing it. Inevitably, the new thing that replaces the old usually makes society better off for it.
answered 2 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,40221133
2
It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist.False, private companies exist but they need government subsides. It's not the same as government directly operating the industry. Also there's no law preventing a private company from running a service without government involvement.Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography.Within east or west coast region it'd make perfect sense. Air travel has ridiculously high energy per passenger, that alone makes it inherently inefficient.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
1
I'd fully agree with you if rail transport was inefficient; the problem is that, technically speaking it is efficient and not obsolete as you called it. It's only financially inefficient; which it shouldn't be because of how capitalism works.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
(Also, if you're taller than 1m85, plane travel becomes a torture seance)
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
The Netherlands has privatized rail transport, and mostly it just seems to have made things worse for the passengers. (Even though by international standards, we still have a really good public transit system)
– Erik
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Just because governments operate passenger rail systems at a loss does not mean that it is an inherently unprofitable enterprise. It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist.
I don't know enough about the history of rail transportation in Europe to say how it got the way it is, but in the United States they have AmTrak. AmTrak was started in the 1970s precisely because it had become unprofitable for private carriers to operate. So that kind of proves your point...
Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography. The capitalist answer was to abandon rail transportation because it's almost always better, cheaper, and faster to fly. Even though rail transportation may be more efficient from an engineering perspective, air travel (at least in the U.S.) is far more efficient logistically and economically speaking. Rail freight, however, is still big business in the U.S. because planes have limited cargo capacity, so there is still a niche that air travel can't fill.
In Economics, this process is called creative destruction; society changes and newer technologies come along and render the old ways of doing things obsolete.
Now again, I can't say what would work or not work in Europe. The geography is much different there and it very well could be potentially profitable for private carriers to operate. We'll never know because the option is legally off the table. But that's a public policy problem rather than a free market problem.
So to summarize, the capitalist answer to passenger rail not being profitable anymore is to just stop doing it. Inevitably, the new thing that replaces the old usually makes society better off for it.
answered 2 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,40221133
Just because governments operate passenger rail systems at a loss does not mean that it is an inherently unprofitable enterprise. It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist.
I don't know enough about the history of rail transportation in Europe to say how it got the way it is, but in the United States they have AmTrak. AmTrak was started in the 1970s precisely because it had become unprofitable for private carriers to operate. So that kind of proves your point...
Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography. The capitalist answer was to abandon rail transportation because it's almost always better, cheaper, and faster to fly. Even though rail transportation may be more efficient from an engineering perspective, air travel (at least in the U.S.) is far more efficient logistically and economically speaking. Rail freight, however, is still big business in the U.S. because planes have limited cargo capacity, so there is still a niche that air travel can't fill.
In Economics, this process is called creative destruction; society changes and newer technologies come along and render the old ways of doing things obsolete.
Now again, I can't say what would work or not work in Europe. The geography is much different there and it very well could be potentially profitable for private carriers to operate. We'll never know because the option is legally off the table. But that's a public policy problem rather than a free market problem.
So to summarize, the capitalist answer to passenger rail not being profitable anymore is to just stop doing it. Inevitably, the new thing that replaces the old usually makes society better off for it.
answered 2 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,40221133
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,40221133
answered 2 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,40221133
answered 2 hours ago
Wes Sayeed
6,40221133
6,40221133
2
It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist.False, private companies exist but they need government subsides. It's not the same as government directly operating the industry. Also there's no law preventing a private company from running a service without government involvement.Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography.Within east or west coast region it'd make perfect sense. Air travel has ridiculously high energy per passenger, that alone makes it inherently inefficient.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
1
I'd fully agree with you if rail transport was inefficient; the problem is that, technically speaking it is efficient and not obsolete as you called it. It's only financially inefficient; which it shouldn't be because of how capitalism works.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
(Also, if you're taller than 1m85, plane travel becomes a torture seance)
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
The Netherlands has privatized rail transport, and mostly it just seems to have made things worse for the passengers. (Even though by international standards, we still have a really good public transit system)
– Erik
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2
It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist.False, private companies exist but they need government subsides. It's not the same as government directly operating the industry. Also there's no law preventing a private company from running a service without government involvement.Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography.Within east or west coast region it'd make perfect sense. Air travel has ridiculously high energy per passenger, that alone makes it inherently inefficient.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
1
I'd fully agree with you if rail transport was inefficient; the problem is that, technically speaking it is efficient and not obsolete as you called it. It's only financially inefficient; which it shouldn't be because of how capitalism works.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
(Also, if you're taller than 1m85, plane travel becomes a torture seance)
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
The Netherlands has privatized rail transport, and mostly it just seems to have made things worse for the passengers. (Even though by international standards, we still have a really good public transit system)
– Erik
3 mins ago
2
2
It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist. False, private companies exist but they need government subsides. It's not the same as government directly operating the industry. Also there's no law preventing a private company from running a service without government involvement. Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography. Within east or west coast region it'd make perfect sense. Air travel has ridiculously high energy per passenger, that alone makes it inherently inefficient.– Bregalad
2 hours ago
It's just that governments have a legal monopoly on the industry, so private carriers can't exist. False, private companies exist but they need government subsides. It's not the same as government directly operating the industry. Also there's no law preventing a private company from running a service without government involvement. Except that in the U.S, passenger rail makes almost no sense purely because of geography. Within east or west coast region it'd make perfect sense. Air travel has ridiculously high energy per passenger, that alone makes it inherently inefficient.– Bregalad
2 hours ago
1
1
I'd fully agree with you if rail transport was inefficient; the problem is that, technically speaking it is efficient and not obsolete as you called it. It's only financially inefficient; which it shouldn't be because of how capitalism works.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
I'd fully agree with you if rail transport was inefficient; the problem is that, technically speaking it is efficient and not obsolete as you called it. It's only financially inefficient; which it shouldn't be because of how capitalism works.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
(Also, if you're taller than 1m85, plane travel becomes a torture seance)
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
(Also, if you're taller than 1m85, plane travel becomes a torture seance)
– Bregalad
2 hours ago
The Netherlands has privatized rail transport, and mostly it just seems to have made things worse for the passengers. (Even though by international standards, we still have a really good public transit system)
– Erik
3 mins ago
The Netherlands has privatized rail transport, and mostly it just seems to have made things worse for the passengers. (Even though by international standards, we still have a really good public transit system)
– Erik
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33937%2fwhat-is-the-capitalist-answer-to-rail-passenger-transportation-being-non-financi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Unless all your passengers need to go the exact same route, your efficiency calculations suffer because people might (and will) have to travel much longer distances because of the inflexibility of train networks.
– janh
3 hours ago
2
@jahn True, and the same is applicable to autobahns too.
– Bregalad
2 hours ago