What US rail decline? Rail has a higher freight modal share in the US than any major European countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag...

Maybe they meant passenger rail where we are last (by capita/transport share)

Our country is too big and sparsely populated to make passenger rail viablr. It's why our airline industry is top notch.

If a line is not profitable, it's not that bad to get rid of. If the stations want to stay open, they should pay the train operator to stop there. Then people can locally decide if they want the station or not. Another alternative would have been to have it as a demand when it was sold. When you buy the company, you are obligated to keep these lines open.

This is the difference between a business and a service. The unprofitable lines could have continued as a government-backed service to promote economic development, for example.

That's what I said, if the locals think it's important for them then they can pay for it.

> if the locals think it's important for them then they can pay for it

That's what I thought you were saying, but that's not what I'm saying. There might never be enough local money to support it. But the regional or higher levels of government might think it's strategically important, or even profitable over a much wider area beyond local municipalities. For example, the USPS services rural areas where they lose money because it's considered important enough.

Municipalities can certainly work together on a regional level, my explanation does not exclude that option. Just that the funding has to come from the local level, this serves as a verification that there is a local need for the line and that the need outweighs the alternatives.

We know the line in question was not profitable, that's why it was shut down. I don't know if this was beyond municipality level but I would assume so.

Whoever keeps downvoting my posts should perhaps try and participate in the debate ;)

I don't have a down button, but I can see why someone used theirs.

1. Why would you verify local need, if the need is national?

2. Why would you verify inability to pay with ability to pay?

Spain's demographic problems are exacerbated by lack of rail access to certain areas. Portugal faces similar issues. If they want a strategic rail line, why would they apply the unrelated criteria you propose?

I know it's not you, but even if you had downvote rights you wouldn't be able to revenge downvote a direct comment.

If it's not profitable nationally then I argue the need isn't very big, so they should spend their tax money more wisely on things where the need is clear. Local municipalities are well aware of their needs hence why it is better to have it local.

I don't get your two questions, maybe you can rephrase them?

By that logic, a country can't make long-term investments, and can't provide unprofitable services that have other benefits. My two questions challenged your circular reasoning.

The more you do that, the less people think about the train as an option and the less they use the other lines as well. Plus it gives an opportunity for other, more polluting modes of transportation to develop, since no one is suggesting we do the same thing with roads.

The roads in Europe are paid for several times over by the taxes on fuel.

Don't forget toll roads. They rake in billions in profits every year and keep making excuses not to decrease the toll fees. Worse, they have roadworks with decreased speed limits on really busy roads at the worst possible time, which in some cases makes your average speed lower on the toll road than on a toll-free road.

The key is to think about it, not in terms of just the money brought in, but the wider benefits to society: keeping traffic off the roads is a big one. That is what makes running national infrastructure difficult; it's never entirely obvious how to balance the different factors.