• decolo ( decolo@piefed.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    4 days ago

    I guess it’s covered by 5., but the real, actual reason we can’t have trains is the civil engineering firms can’t extract infinite money from a completed railway.

    Also, have you considered how any public works project that runs longer than a single term of the elected official who gets it approved, is letting the next guy get all the credit for it? That’s much worse than having functional mass transit.

    • gwl [he/him] ( gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Have you looked at railway maps?

      There’s a huge sprawling rainwater railway network across America… It’s just only used by freight cause the bastards that own it decided passengers are unprofitable

      • decolo ( decolo@piefed.social ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Assuming rail autocorrected to rainwater, agreed. There are interesting parallels between rail in the 1800s and the life cycle of the internet - successful network technology explodes in utility and popularity, then is cannibalized and constricted

        • gwl [he/him] ( gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s the story of the USA in general, y’all seem to fall for it every time, gov makes something mildly socialist, corporate muscle their way in, cannibalise and constrict it, and then everyone’s told “see, there’s no way it could have worked! USA is just too big/different/free/wilddelete as appropriate”