| You clearly have no idea how a actual transport system works. You are so hilariously and completely wrong train infrastructure its not even funny. Go back 50 years and look at the train usage patterns then and now in places like Japan and Switerland. There are some rails that have been around for 100 years and have been used in many different ways. Going from mining, to transport to tourist attraction. Rail planners regularly adjust train length to adjust for demands. Frequency of certain routes can be increased or decreased. If you actually think about it for a while, you realize you need transport where people live. And people don't move to new places in a year or two, new cities don't just pop up. Many city in and villages have been there for literally 1000+ years, they aren't moving. So the idea that we shouldn't build a train to them because 'who knows about what happens in 50 years' is just beyond idiotic. If you government is actually smart, they make sure to build transport where they expect people to move. Sweden did this very nicely in Stockholm for example where they built out the train routes and zoned for living along those routes. And guess what people moved there. This idea that each person is some rugged individualist who at any point my get up and leave to start a new colony somewhere over the horizon is ridiculous. People generally move to places where infrastructure exists. > Fixed rail involves investment Rail can be built and still used for 50+ years just fine. How many times do you have to repave and rebuild a road in the same time. Once you actually do the math and you are not guided by 50 year of propaganda, its clear that trains are a far better investment. And also, just by the way. The US had a huge amount of fixed infrastructure, that was already built. And then dropped. It clear wasn't the up front investment cost that was the issue. > but for whatever reason, hackers love trains. Maybe they have thought about it for more then 5min. |