> 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.