If we invested as much into rail safety as we do into air safety, it'd be fair to compare them. Regardless, in the long term rail transportation is simply much more sustainable and increased investment is very much warranted
> And in the rare cases when things do go wrong your chances of survival are much higher.
That's a completely irrelevant metric.
The only thing that matters is my risk of injury/death per passenger mile. Trains are much worse. End of story.
What you're saying is that trains get into far more accidents, but that don't injure/kill you. On top of still being much more likely to injure/kill you.
Granted the lines are a natural monopoly. I don't see why the usual regulatory approaches shouldn't work. The government could even provide the infrastructure similar to highways.
> sometimes more expensive
Examples? Because that seems patently ridiculous on its face given the differences in energy requirements.
There are plenty of places with functional rail systems to compare to. This stuff isn't rocket science.
That is indeed absurd, and I would argue a clear regulatory failure. Thank you for the example though. That is pretty wild.
Still, there's a decent chance I'd personally choose to pay that premium for the comfort afforded by train travel while nonetheless being disgusted by the broader situation.
