• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Definitely, but even then, we have a huge amount of freight going on our railroads. I live in a town that’s a major cross-point for multiple railroads. Traffic is held up constantly by super long trains going through. Kids are late for school, people are late for work, people miss doctor’s appointments and, worse, ambulances have to take circuitous routes to the couple of overpasses they can use to get around them. And then there are the times where a train breaks down just outside of town and cuts off one side of town from the other for hours except for those two overpasses.

    I don’t know what the solution is there.

    • Matt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      The issue is with how we prioritize rail. When grade crossings are installed, they are the least path of resistance, but also are the biggest obstacle in planning. If we really want to see better rail, we need to pay for the infrastructure (ie, elevated crossings). That’s not to say every route needs the best infrastructure, but at least the busiest.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        The other issue is how 150 years ago we gave railroads incredible handouts of land ownership, not just in terms of the amount of land, but also in terms of the type of ownership. In a lot of cases, railroads have more sovereignty over their land than do the local and state jurisdictions it runs through. If you’re a city trying to improve a railroad crossing and the railroad doesn’t feel like cooperating, you’re just fucked with zero recourse.