I'm not looking to break anything up, and the US national system is relatively uniform in capability except equipment height.
-
-
Replying to @RoteCaption
Same with the Japanese one--capability has nothing to do w rationale for breakup
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
A simple model service would be to make fixed contribution toward capital via a /mile tax credit & let market forces drive service.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RoteCaption
Are there places in the world where this practice is employed?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @RoteCaption
OK--and where they are privately owned, as in Japan, this is not the practice either.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Japan, as you note elsewhere, is very densely populated, lineal, and has little use of freight. Very different from US.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RoteCaption
Sure...and different parts of the US are very different from each other, too. The dense, linear parts where rail makes sense...
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh @RoteCaption
...would presumably work best with a similar ownership scheme to Japan. No mandatory subsidies for routes which ppl won't use.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh @RoteCaption
On the other hand, if people WANT to take on the burden of keeping an underused rail line active, there's no harm in that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
As is the case for 3rd-Sector railways in Japan, which aren't profitable, but which are sufficiently beloved to be kept running
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.