• catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Compared to building and maintaining a railway, yes, by orders of magnitude.

      • deranger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        Citation needed

        A cursory search shows rail in rural areas is $2 million per mile and a highway is $4-10 million per mile.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah but it’d be fucking insane to build a state highway to each and every destination in every hamlet, just like it would be for rail.

          And it’s not just cost of initial construction, it’s also cost of maintenance. If the ground shifts slightly under the road, it’s a bump. If it shifts under a railway, it’s a derailment for the first train that finds it and a couple million dollars in recovery and repair, plus the downtime while that section is out of service. And that doesn’t even start to account for overhead like signal operation, whereas on a road you just use a stop sign.

          I like trains more than the next guy, but you absolutely cannot just replace every road with a railway.

      • mriguy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        A road built and maintained by taxpayers is much cheaper (to a shipping company) than building, maintaining, and operating a railway. Making taxpayers responsible for the infrastructure you use is one way to make your business much more profitable.