The problem is a lot of the costs of highways are externalized: cars are more expensive to run than trains, parking is more space costly, roads require dedicating much larger amounts of space for lower capacity. The reality is car roads cost more but are subsidized more.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The cost to construct a new rail connection is significantly higher than the cost to construct a new road connection. Subsidies don't enter into it.

If somebody says they have an easy and low cost solution for you, you'd be annoyed if it turned out that it was actually far harder and pricier until maybe 50 years down the line.

[–] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The cost to construct a new rail connection is significantly higher than the cost to construct a new road connection.

Correct. Now compare the cost of maintenance, and then compare the cost of actually moving the items.

Let's see which comes out on top when we compare all costs, not just the cost of building.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

rail lines are also more expensive than roads to maintain

the cost of moving your items depends entirely on how many items you move—sometimes roads will be cheaper, and sometimes rails will be cheaper

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Maybe consider different framing: If 50 years ago we had budgeted as much public money on public railroads as roads, we'd be in a much better position today and its even more likely this trend will continue.

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

but that wasn't the case, so increasing rail use is going to be expensive and difficult