Public ownership is for when you don't mind losing money on it. Private = keep if profitable, scrap if not.https://twitter.com/OptimateSila/status/815956954321395712 …
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
Which reminds me: rural lines in Japan which are meant to close after privatization due to unprofitability are occasionally kept open...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
...as public-private "third sector" companies. This is only done if local municipalities are interested in bearing the costs of the line.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
So: if revenue from service won't keep a line open, the towns can take over and keep it up with *local* revenue, not national.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
If local tax revenue isn't sufficient, or if towns just aren't interested, then the line closes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
These third sector companies make regular appearances in
#TrainTwitter, so keep an eye out! I prefer railways which pay for themselves...1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
...but, the ones kept open purely by local devotion are wonderful too!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
the local devotion can be term-specific: e.g. until population of dying town all (mostly) graduate high school, etc. But also
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
I suspect to keep the option open as an investment in the future RE-growth of a town. Demog. charts notwithstanding, future=unknown!
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
agreed--even if rail isn't viable, very good to keep corridor intact (as, say, bike trail)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.