Comment on How Did Nearly Every American City End Up Like This?
AviAdi@lemmy.world 4 days agoOk you are leaving out CONTEXT to WHY privatized rail couldn’t compete.
-
SOCIALISED road network that was brand new and “free” for I use by the user.
-
SOCIALISED air transportation where airports were built and maintained by the government and airlines were SUBSIDIZED to maintain routes.
So HOW did you expect private RAIL to compete with these 2?
WHO WOULD INVEST INTO RAIL WHEN THE DIRECT COMPETITORS WERE SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Without that investment, where was private rail supposed to get money to modernize and make their fleet more comfortable?
Look at Europe at the same time. The government DIDN’T destroy their cities to put the car everywhere. The government DIDN’T subsidize oil and hand driver’s licenses out to anyone that breathes. The government DIDN’T build airports everywhere and subsidize routes. Rail companies were able to compete with other forms of transit.
I’m a rail nerd too. I fucking know what happened. It was a travesty but it wouldn’t have happened without EVIL GOVERNMENT.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 3 days ago
I think you’re arguing something else now, or I’m misunderstanding your argument. I’m not arguing that if the government had subsidized rail that it would have been better, that’s no question it would have been better. It absolutely should have been prioritized at minimum same level as the interstate and air budgets.
What I am disagreeing with is that capitalism did a great job on it’s own. It didn’t. The companies were going bankrupt, and in rail’s case they were torpedoing it on purpose so they could get out of the passenger rail business. It’s not a “Oh woe is us if only capitalism had saved us”
AviAdi@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I bet you and I can agree on this:
The United States government (federal, State or local) should have done something to stop the public transportation system of this country from collapsing.
Where we disagree:
You believe the private sector (capitalism) conspired against the public transportation and delayed it.
I believe the government destroyed it. I believe the government’s actions hurt the companies involved and the government did absolutely nothing to save these companies because that was the point. The government thought this was old technology that will be replaced by cars and airplanes. That was a lie, the progressives of the early 1900s got it wrong. Today we suffer from those decisions.
Look at all the examples of CITIZENS UNITING TO STOP THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT from building highways. Or look at the history of how people DEMANDED their cities buy up metro lines (MTA, CTA, etc) to keep them from going away. Those cities ended up cutting service anyway and not investing in these services because they didn’t care or want to. That’s the government hoping people stop using it so they can close it.
And guess what, today the government CONTINUES to fuck it up constantly. The government does not care. It never did. The last time we had anything close to amazing public transportation in USA was when it was privatized and not FUCKED WITH BY THE GOVERNMENT. That’s the truth
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 3 days ago
I believe both have failed public transit in this country. That’s the key difference. Nothing in the last message is wrong - except that both have actively destroyed transit here.