>>2463518>Public transport will never be sustainable"Sustainability" doesn't matter. Public transit is a service that we should pay for, and not a profit-making enterprise. This reminds me of FedEx and UPS constantly deploying PR smears that the USPS "lost money" last year (hint: they want the USPS out of the way as competition so they can triple their rates). Police aren't sustainable, firefighters aren't sustainable, the US military isn't sustainable, the US Forest Service isn't sustainable... because they are services, not profit-making enterprises.
>or practical over large distances in massive countries.It was practical when trains topped out <100 MPH, and that was well after the Industrial Revolution. Also, rail transport remains practical for freight, at low speeds. You make the claim, but then you can't actually construct the argument with real, defensible reasons and facts.
>as vehicle infrastructure and is as maintenance intensive. Public transport at scale is also no less energy intensive as automobile transport and would only be sustainable at scale if it was powered by nuclear (the same thing environmentalist retards are trying to get rid of). This is flat-out untrue, every bit of it. An electric train with several cars can carry hundreds of passengers, which equates to hundreds of automobiles off the road, since almost everyone drives single-passenger most of the time these days.
You seriously believe that one electric train runs less efficiently than two hundred gasoline-powered cars? Christ.
Also, cars and weather beat the absolute shit out of roads, which require constant, extensive, and expensive maintenance, far more and more often than a pair of rails.
You're just overall full of shit. I could go on for more paragraphs, but there's absolutely no point, I can see that.
