>>1889398I somewhat like it on a theoretical level. I do think rail companies in North America are under-utilizing and under-investing in their infrastructure.
Go on aerial imagery and look at rail right-of-ways in cities. There are frequently areas with space for more rail that are just barren. Or if there are 2 or 3 rails, only one is serviced enough to be used at-speed and the others are just siding—or even just "storage" for rails they can cannibalize.
At least locally, it's suburban commuter rail run by government agencies that will actually buy the corridors (or lease as much of it as the railroad will allow) and invest in putting down rails. The demand is there in cities, but the private-sector will to invest in infrastructure is not, without government intervention.
And I'd rather government intervene in a sensible way and own the infrastructure, rather than something stupid like shovel money to the private sector that builds half the network they promised and pockets the rest. You want competition for the tender to build something, rather than sole-sourcing the tender to someone because they "own" the land. Eminent domain that shit at the present value of that rotting line, then make something good out of it.
That being said, I think it's very poor value-for-money right now for the state to step in and nationalize entire railroad companies. Better to focus on specific projects, buy up the right-of-ways in cities, and then set up smaller state enterprises to run just those sections, where rail users might be in conflict with one another (freight, commuter rail, interurban passenger service) and have perverse incentives.
