I would disagree, while I do not believe that public transportation needs to be self-sustaining at all; they should be built/deployed at a capacity as its needed in order of minimizing waste
Any investment or possible “profit” is lost as soon as a road needs repairs. And high-use roads need repairs waaaaay more often and are a lot more expensive than maintaining a rail system.
I don’t think public transportation needs to be profitable at all
is misunderstandable? I used profitibility as a metric of usage as trains, especially high speed ones meant to transport a fuck ton of people; which I also wrote down
they should be built/deployed at a capacity as its needed in order of minimizing waste
Building at capacity might not be the most efficient solution. First, towns grow. Second, China keeps costs down by standardisation (the Chinese HSR system has, if I remember correctly, 3 models of trains and two standards of track). And third, China is vulnerable to earthquakes and floods. So having alternative routes is useful.
The issue specifically is that there is no population centres in which these unprofitable lines run through
And no, government don’t and should burn thousands billions; and hundreds of millions in upkeep every year because what if maybe urbanization stops and people for whatever reason move back to the countryside
I would disagree, while I do not believe that public transportation needs to be self-sustaining at all; they should be built/deployed at a capacity as its needed in order of minimizing waste
If a train line is not profitable, its not used
Peak car/capitalist brain. You gonna hold roads to the same standard?
1 Yes, I would hold high roads as they are comperatively a more expensive investment meant for a larger volume of transportation.
2 China is state capitalist, but for its dictatorial nature there is no accountability so there is no after effect of such a colossal fuckup
Any investment or possible “profit” is lost as soon as a road needs repairs. And high-use roads need repairs waaaaay more often and are a lot more expensive than maintaining a rail system.
Will not repeat myself, please read the comment you commented under
I think you have that backward, even accepting the idea that profitability is an important metric. If a rail line is not used it is not profitable.
Which part of the
is misunderstandable? I used profitibility as a metric of usage as trains, especially high speed ones meant to transport a fuck ton of people; which I also wrote down
Building at capacity might not be the most efficient solution. First, towns grow. Second, China keeps costs down by standardisation (the Chinese HSR system has, if I remember correctly, 3 models of trains and two standards of track). And third, China is vulnerable to earthquakes and floods. So having alternative routes is useful.
The issue specifically is that there is no population centres in which these unprofitable lines run through
And no, government don’t and should burn thousands billions; and hundreds of millions in upkeep every year because what if maybe urbanization stops and people for whatever reason move back to the countryside
deleted by creator