Great deep dive. Those that decry the US for not having a rail network comparable to Europe's only consider the passenger side of the equation. We have perhaps the best freight railroad network in the world.
There's no doubt we have an extensive rail system—most of the country was built by rail—but is it modern? Is it safe? Is it serving its purpose? Seems to me there are many scheduling, personnel, automation, safety, and supply-chain issues constantly popping up around the rail industry, though I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert. I wonder how much of its success relies on work done in the 19th and early 20th century that won't scale (or isn't scaling) with modern needs. I'm curious if there are any industry folks hanging around HN who'd care to comment.
For railroads, the story is the same. Passenger rail networks are enormous money losers in every country they are deployed. But they win a lot of votes and get a lot of union make-work jobs so they keep getting subsidized.
Roads don't make money either.
Because they are competing against fossil fuels which we have and continue to subsidize the living hell out of. For example: How many loans did California subsidize for the replacement of old gas storage tanks that might leak? Think we might be better off if we had forced everyone who got that money to install a charging station or two?
What is actually amazing is that renewables really are approaching parity in spite of the massive subsidies that fossil fuels get.
> If renewables were so cost effective, why are they always scheming for tax credits and subsidies?
I don't quite follow; subsidies don't get worse if you're already profitable. They get better!
In any country there are thousands of special interest groups looking to do the same. How are the folks advocating for renewables succeeding over and above so many other groups where tax credits, subsidies, etc., are a matter of life and death, when renewables are already so cost effective, and thus don’t need it as much?
If the other groups had something to offer, they wouldn't need subsidies either.
How badly you need something just doesn't have anything to do with whether someone will give it to you.
Citation needed, in the UK they are franchised to private companies. It's hard to imagine companies bidding to renew their enormous money losers. :-)
But again - lose the subsidies and lose the unions, and then see what is cost effective.
To claim they were privatized in anything but name is quite frankly insulting.
It's hard to compete when you don't have a level playing field.