>>1946074>1. rails have much better longevityOriginal point was about construction, not maintenance. However, active rail lines normally require daily inspections and some components need almost daily maintenance (such as switch machines and frogs; varies by location and frequency of use). Signal systems and the overhead wire will need ongoing inspections and spot repairs as well.
>2. covered surface area is much smaller and less intensiveTrue, although mainly an aesthetic argument.
>3. resources and equipment needed for construction are extremely basicFor roads, sure. You can lay down a basic road with bulldozers, rollers, and trucks to bring in asphalt and aggregate. Rail needs a layer of ballast, a lot of ties, and of course the rail itself which is heavy and usually comes in long sections (not sure for trams/light rail, normal rail is in 1/4 mile long segments). Changes in terrain have to be factored in to a greater degree for rails than roads, and nearby utilities will need to be mapped out and might need relocating. That gets expensive fast. To get the rails lined up and clipped to the track requires pretty specialized equipment which isn't hard to find but does need experienced operators and isn't cheap to hire or purchase. You'll also need to install the catenary, obviously unnecessary when building a road.
>exactly why weve had rail-based transportation for fucking ages, long before the dreaded cars and busesI would say that was mainly because the external combustion engine came about before the internal one.
