Comment on A 7,000-Pound Car Smashed Through a Guardrail. That’s Bad News for All of Us.

• Blankmann@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  He’s proposing trains should do the ‘Long Haul’ portion.

  source

  • StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Which have their own issues. Namely, to my knowledge, upfront cost and lack of flexibility. I’m sure there are others.

    Here in the US, you are unlikely to find enough people willing to think far enough ahead for that to happen. Too many emotions guiding actions.

    source

    • cogman@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The cost has already been paid. Even small farming communities have rail line access that’s mostly been abandoned because the line owners switched business models.

      As for flexibility, again, that’s mostly an issue with how rail line management has evolved. From shorter more frequent trains to ultra long infrequent trains. Mostly to cut the cost of staffing.

      The solution is simple, nationalize the rail service. Put it under the USPS and have them figure out scheduling to optimize the speed of goods shipping.

      The current state of the rail system is entirely due to the monopolistic nature of ownership. The incentive is to increase prices as much as possible while shipping to the fewest stops possible. Profit motives are in direct conflict with generalized shipping.

      The reason trunking works today is the public nature of roads. Well, why shouldn’t rail lines be equally public? We practically gave the property away to the current rail owners with the notion it was for the public good… Well, they’ve failed that.

      source
    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      But if the true costs were quantized and not just externalized maybe it would suddenly make more sense. After all, on the end, society pays for it no matter what.

      source
  • nothead@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Even if we put 100% of freight on trains, and expand the existing rail network 10x, the need for trucking infrastructure would not decrease by any significant amount. Trains can’t stop at every single business that needs freight, and trucks are still needed to get that freight from the railport to its destination (this is called “last mile” freight, but it can be up to a few hundred miles depending on where the nearest logistics hub is compared to the destination).

    By the way, we already use trains significantly. Look up the intermodal logistics network. The general concept is smaller trucks pick up freight from different businesses, consolidate it in a single warehouse, then the freight gets put on full size trucks to move to the nearest railport and the trailer is loaded on a train which carries it as far as possible, then the reverse happens at the other end. The vast majority of freight movement uses this method.

    source

    • ThisIsNotHim@sopuli.xyz ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You’ve moved away from the part which specifies long-haul trucking. To my understanding this is an area where trains are a reasonable solution.

      Last mile coverage we also have room for improvement with much smaller vehicles, like bikes.

      source

      • nothead@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        My point is that long haul is a very small minority of long-distance freight. Anything that can fly, does. Anything else will go on a train if a route exists (this is where rail expansion would help, but there are other problems with that we won’t address). The only freight that travels long-distance is truckloads that can’t fly (hazardous goods that are dangerous to put on a plane, or stuff like certain foods that could be damaged by the pressure changes in flight) AND doesn’t have a good train route to take. My cross-country routes were always stuff like fresh produce or other foods that would be damaged by the pressure. Everything else would travel a few states, but never from one coast to the other.

        And you can’t put 3 full pallets on a bike, you’ll always need trucks to some extent.

        source