This is EXACTLY the same dynamic that’s driving rural hospitals into closure. Costs are going up, labor force is shrinking, and there aren’t enough people living in rural areas to make service of any kind economical. Their ability to live and thrive in the hinterland was always subsidized by the federal government. We paid for their highways, their electrical grid, their postal service, their bridges, and we’re currently subsidizing their “last mile” internet service. The free market doesn’t give a single fuck about them and isn’t going to provide anything for them that doesn’t have a slam dunk ROI. Conservatives are about to learn the hard way why “gub’mint bad” is a fucking horrible philosophy if you’re living in a town with a population that’s smaller than the seating capacity of a single football stadium. The government was the only thing keeping those communities alive through the late 20th century, and thanks to “drown the government in a bathtub” troglodytes they’re about to be abandoned and left to fend for themselves.
We tried to warn them, and they spit in our faces, so fuck em.
I’ve had the idea for a few years now that Delta or a conglomeration of airlines should invest in passenger rail from these small regional airports to the big hubs.
Phoenix has Sky Harbor in the city proper, and then Mesa Gateway only about 20 miles east. If they could just hook the light rail between the two, you could eliminate the need to fly in and out of the small airport.
In Michigan there are DTW, and then small airports in Lansing, Flint, and Grand Rapids. If Delta built rail along or above the freeways that connect those cities to Romulus (where DTW is), they could probably get rid of their service to those airports entirely.
Privatization rarely works out for the best. Just ask Texas.
I agree with most of what you said, just not about Delta/United doing it.
Yeah, I’d love it if the government would do it, but I just don’t see how that would happen since people have voted this country so far to the right that AOC seems like a radical.
The core principal here is open access, where the government owns and maintains the infrastructure, and anyone can make use of capacity on it provided they comply with regulations concerning safety and crew certification. They pay fees to the government agency responsible for the infrastructure to help cover its costs. This is how highways and air infrastructure works in the US, and state-owned rail infrastructure is required to be open access under EU law.
So far it seems to have been successful, state-owned rail operators have historically been the jack of all trades, but that doesn’t always help when people want to travel to odd destinations or at odd times. Open access improves that significant and has been instrumental in helping the EU begin to transition away from air travel.
In order to be worthwhile, rail needs to be faster and cheaper than a car. To do so, it would need to be fairly high speed as well. The capital expenditure for something like that would be enormous and the return on investment would take decades. Not to mention all the eminent domain issues. That type of project can only really be done via public dollars.
There aren’t enough pilots. Fuel is getting more expensive. Other costs are much higher. Not enough people in small towns are either able to afford or want to fly at the prices required. This sucks, but it’s the problem with a spread out population with no rail service.
