So I'm inclined to think that the 6-hour limit is a reasonable ceiling for rail service. Counterpoint: China.
Simply having roads is enough for people to use them. Simply having tracks is not enough for good rail service.
-
-
If we had tracks & mandated owners provide service as a matter of "Public Convenice and Necessity" w/i fixed parameters it would be.
-
Not so, because improvements in rail vehicles, changes in schedule patterns, etc, all need coordinated adjustments to track too
-
Infrastructure and vehicles are tightly intertwined when it comes to rail, in a way they aren't for other modes.
-
I strongly recommend Kasai's "Breakup and Privatization of JNR" for more information here
-
I'm not looking to break anything up, and the US national system is relatively uniform in capability except equipment height.
-
Same with the Japanese one--capability has nothing to do w rationale for breakup
-
A simple model service would be to make fixed contribution toward capital via a /mile tax credit & let market forces drive service.
-
Are there places in the world where this practice is employed?
- 8 more replies
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.