It's conventional wisdom in the USA that freight rail is naturally profitable, and that passenger rail always needs a subsidy
-
-
-
Turns out this has everything to do with geography, population, and resources--not anything inherent in freight or passenger rail
-
Where population is sparse, raw materials abundant, and distances are substantial, passenger rail won't work, freight rail will make money
-
Where population is high, raw materials trivial (as share of economy), and distances modest, passenger rail thrives, freight impractical
-
If you recall, this was noticed in the USA all the way back in 1895, about New Englandpic.twitter.com/LfwsH23ZJi
-
Places with an economy based on extracting raw materials almost always extract them for *distant* markets, not local use
-
Therefore, cheap ways of shipping large quantities of raw materials over long distances are crucial in such places...trains beat trucks here
-
But places with diversified, productive, urban economies need to move many small batches of expensive freight over short distances...
-
...and from any number of origins to any number of destinations. Trucks beat trains for this.
-
Once again I must emphasize: the USA is *not a uniform nation!* What is conventional wisdom for Wyoming is nonsense for Massachusetts!
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.