You're viewing a single thread.
The easy, low-cost solution is to build freight rail. But no, that's communism and it doesn't get a tech billionaire their extra billion.
Somehow capitalists all over the world love freight trains. It's just US being dumb as always.
US rail freight is unironically some of the best in the world.
Part of the reason US passenger rail sucks so much is because the network is largely owned by freight companies, so priority always goes to freight over passengers.
US freight rail looks great since for one, the freight railways dominate the scene, and for two, the US is up there in network distance as well as cargo transport volume in tonne kilometers. And of course, they have some very high operating margins.
However, the devil's in the details.
For one, if we redefine the amount of cargo transported to be measured in US Dollar kilometers, they're suddenly doing a trash job. Much of the cargo they move is fungible (it doesn't matter what unit of this cargo you have, any kg is a good kg), bulky and not time sensitive. Things like coal, crude oil or gravel are disproportionately common freights on US rails, compared to other places.
Secondly, they put a lot of trains besides the tracks. I recall seeing they managed to derail about 1700 trains a year. Most other train systems don't even do a tenth of that in a decade, even when corrected for track mileage.
Speaking of track mileage, US railroads actively reduce the amount and quality of track, while bitching & moaning to the government and the press that they're overburdened. Meanwhile, they also operate a procedure of precision scheduled railroading, which I'll spare you the details on, but let's just say it's not precise, it's not scheduled and it's barely railroading, and despite forcing some train crews to sit back and do nothing for hours, it still saves them one train crew. The only time they'll actually expand is because either they really did have a bottleneck for decades, or something catastrophically fails.
On top of that, the freight railroads do everything in their power to avoid capital spending, so they refuse to electrify their lines and/or to install more advanced signalling and train protection. One major fuel shock, and American railroads are on their knees while India, China and most of the EU are laughing. And most signalling is unenforced, or maybe functioning at the tech level of AWS.
You just know that if the train in the East Palestine derailment was run not my Norfolk Southern, but by SBB Cargo, the Swiss national railways' cargo branch, then
- The track would have been at least doubled, under wires, and secured using a very advanced standard of positive train control.
- The train would have been several trains, each hauled by electric locomotives.
- The disaster train, at best, would not even have made it out of the yard. At worst, it would have been stopped, and probably directed onto a siding, two towns prior for having a failing bearing.
- Passenger trains would have all the room to run down the track they need.
The US freight rail industry isn't some of the best in the world, it's actually really quite terrible. It fails to maintain it's infrastructure, can't run to a schedule, frequently loses cargo, and causes ecological disasters. It is good at creating short term profits for shareholders, not being an effective transportation network. If you want more info, here's a video that explains it better.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
here's a video that explains it better
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Permanently Deleted
US freight rail is fine and a lot of cargo goes by train for the most part. There's still gotta be trucks to get to and from the terminal. Not many facilities have built in rail spurs, or the need to ship an entire train load at once for that matter
So what's the point of the OPs comment?
Rails are indeed one of the cheapest, best scaling, and most reliable ways to move goods no doubt, but it also has a last mile problem.
Just wanted to point out the solution isn’t as easy as “rails all things”. Trucks still do offer some situational advantages, and will still have their place in logistics.
I agree with the sentiment, but did you not notice the "across the country" part of the title?
Fair response. It’s likely due to the lack of rail infrastructure why this delivery was “across the country”. Rails are typically much cheaper per ton-mile than trucks. If a rail alternative existed, I’m fairly certain the economics would have forced the use of trains.
However, I’d say the self driving part is still be a benefit that would improve truck utilization rate.
I did some digging. According to the article, the route went from Tulare, CA to Quakertown, PA. OpenRailwayMap is really good for this. Both have freight rail lines running directly through the heart of the town. Going by destination alone, this is kind of a pointless operation. Then again, the point was more to demonstrate the possibility of an autonomous truck rather than whether that particular route made any sense.
The place of trucks in logistics is in hell, delivering coal.
I wouldn't call effective rail infrastructure "low-cost".
Cheaper than highways. The reason why long haul trucking exists is because the construction of highways is highly subsidized. Even then, it's often more cost effective to use rail.
railways are a lot more expensive than roadways per km
Citation needed
I'm not that guy, and I'm all for rail, but here's an article that talks about it. https://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/26/the-highway-vs-fixed-transit-debate/
"While a few rail-transit lines may have had a marginal effect on rush-hour congestion, the cost is exorbitant. The average light-rail line under construction or in planning stages today costs $25 million per mile ($50 million per mile in both directions). Heavy rail costs more than twice as much. By comparison, the average lane mile of freeway costs only about $5 to $10 million."
But the average freeway is not 1-lane, but has many lanes. Also roadways have much higher maintenance costs than rail.
Where can I find those figures in the post you linked?
I might be mistaken, but by that quote and given that every motorway has three lanes in each direction, or at least two I assume in the USA, the cost of the road is at least comparable and at most a bit dearer. I'd even say it constitutes fudging the numbers to pull the wool over.
Only if you compare 3 roads to 1 track. If you're arguing about which costs more then it doesn't make sense to include the cost of the whole 3 lanes as all that traffic doesn't need to go by rail.
Well, the difference is that three lanes of traffic have about the same capacity for passengers as a single railway track, no?
I wonder if these high costs are due to it being passenger rail inside a major city. I'm curious if this cost applies to freight rail as well.
Out here in the countryside it seems that a mile of freight rail should be worth much less than a mile of highway. Everything from easement size to site prep, equipment needed and bill of materials seems a fraction of that required for highway construction.
As mentioned elsewhere the maintenance is minimal compared to a highway as well, with the trains plowing snow themselves and the rails being very hard-wearing. The only work we ever see them doing on the rail lines is occasionally replacing sleepers and fixing up the road crossings - and it's heavy trucks that ruin those, not the trains.
Yeah, I'd definitely be curious on more detailed numbers.
This is about light rail though, which is usually built in cities (or, at least between a city and its suburbs). So I wonder how much of the cost (for both rail and road) is for land rights.
I know that asking you to Google things is maybe a lot, but isn't the answer pretty obvious if you think about it for more than five seconds?
Roads are made out of what would otherwise be a waste product from refining oil, mixed with dirt. If you just leave it alone, it will basically just sit there.
Rails are made out of steel, which is both expensive and rusts. Tolerances have to be tight. And if you fuck about with maintenance in rail, you get a train derailment.
Idk why you got down voted. It makes sense to me!
Because people don't want facts and accurate information they want their team to win.
No, it's because your answer is overly simplistic. We don't build one lane roads, we tend to build 3 or 4 in each direction, at least in cities.
Also, leave a road alone, it does not just sit there. In cold climates you get frost heaves, in hot climates asphalt is never truly "solid" so it gets ruts... water causes damage, plants grow through it...
Add in some of the other responses and we have a more complete picture. I'm not convinced. At best it might be a wash.
*edit* just realized you're not the same person, sorry. My point still stands though.
They build roads going every direction because people and stuff needs to go every direction, people still need to go to those places if you replace them with trains.
Also the effort to fix and replace train lines is far more than fixing roads, I think a lot of Americans haven't really used trains much so they don't comprehend how complex it is, when you've had trains cancelled for a thousand dumb reasons like the wrong kind of leaves on the track then trains don't feel as reliable - and when the track is blocked for repair they can't go round so it's bus replacement service so if you scrap roads then you need redundancy so you end up with masses of tracks everywhere.
I love trains but people need to learn how they actually work and the costs involved so we can be reasonable in planning and build the most useful solution for each situation - just saying trains for everything doesn't make sense.
compared to highways? absolutely low-cost.
highways are a lot cheaper than railways
How many private road networks exist in the US?
The problem is a lot of the costs of highways are externalized: cars are more expensive to run than trains, parking is more space costly, roads require dedicating much larger amounts of space for lower capacity. The reality is car roads cost more but are subsidized more.
The cost to construct a new rail connection is significantly higher than the cost to construct a new road connection. Subsidies don't enter into it.
If somebody says they have an easy and low cost solution for you, you'd be annoyed if it turned out that it was actually far harder and pricier until maybe 50 years down the line.
The cost to construct a new rail connection is significantly higher than the cost to construct a new road connection.
Correct. Now compare the cost of maintenance, and then compare the cost of actually moving the items.
Let's see which comes out on top when we compare all costs, not just the cost of building.
rail lines are also more expensive than roads to maintain
the cost of moving your items depends entirely on how many items you move—sometimes roads will be cheaper, and sometimes rails will be cheaper
rail lines are also more expensive than roads to maintain
That's because they transport more material than roads.
The NZ government did a thought experiment where they shifted all rail to road, and the maintenance costs would increase by $105 million.
Keep in mind the rail system in NZ is underdeveloped.
Source: https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/assets/Uploads/documents/2021-Value-of-Rail-report.pdf
If you want to shift the most materials from one place to another at the cheapest rate, you would use rail.
the cost of moving your items depends entirely on how many items you move—sometimes roads will be cheaper, and sometimes rails will be cheaper
Do you mean cost to the end consumer or actual expenditure? Are you including CAPEX? What are you actually talking about?
Maybe consider different framing: If 50 years ago we had budgeted as much public money on public railroads as roads, we'd be in a much better position today and its even more likely this trend will continue.
but that wasn't the case, so increasing rail use is going to be expensive and difficult
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/27/how-much-does-a-mile-of-road-actually-cost
for railways it's 1-2 million by most estimates, of course land acquisition has to be talen into account too but that's true for roads too.
then there are the efficiency and maintaince costs. first of all if you are building tracka you can electrify it right away meaning you have a very green mode of transporting both people and cargo.
and efficiency wise google says trains are 3-4x more efficient than trucks (semis)
you also have to consider the electrification of trucks, if you need trucks to go across the country to hail stuff, eiher they need large batteries, which is more weight and thus more wear and tear on the roads or you need to maintain an extremely inefficient Hydrogen ecosystem which has 30% or so efficiency compared to the 85-90% of BEVs.
wouldn't it make more sense to havw smaller semis with less range and thus smaller batteries that just hauls stuff in the final miles? from the cargo train depot to the intended destination?
I wouldn't exactly call removing nature and laying down the track "easy" either. That's tens of thousands of miles of steel carving through the terrain.
Also, we have a ton of rail, it's just prioritized for freight over passenger transit. A high speed passenger rail network would be nice though.
compared to a 5 lane highway its a pittance - theres a reason why private rail companies can exist but private road companies largely don't.
The problem is there's a lot more federal funding for the shittier solution so when budgetting are you going to build the thing the feds will pay 100% or 0%?
why would a private company pay for a new road when the government will build that infrastructure for them? and even if they would, why on earth would they build a 5 lane highway solely for private use?
in either case, a rail line is still more expensive than a highway
thats the thing though, a rail line can pay for itself, a road often can't. Its easy to "create a new branch road" but when you add in all the externalized maintenance factors: policing traffic, emergencies, fueling stations, stormwater management, the costs per user, the costs per user per mile traveled, land use requirements per user (4 parking stalls per vehicle, multiple vehicles per person) etc.
They often cannot pay for themselves, hence why the subsidies are necessary and why things like big box stores with huge parking lots are a net drain on most communities (its not just the low wages)
If they could pay for themselves we'd see more companies that just build and rent private roads like train companies do.
- all of the factors you just listed also apply to railways
- since railways are more expensive to construct and maintain than roadways, there are more cases in which a railway couldn't pay for itself versus a roadway
- why would a company build a private road when the government will do it for them?
"* all of the factors you just listed also apply to railways"
- massive Walmart style parking lots don't factor if your urban planning is centered around public transit, and parking is definately one of the highest hidden costs of road infrastructure.
"* since railways are more expensive to construct and maintain than roadways, there are more cases in which a railway couldn't pay for itself versus a roadway"
- yes, when people stubbornly refuse to use rail infrastructure or when rail/transit infrastructure is prioritized less than roads/car based transportation then of course its going to be less economically viable. Economies of scale and induced demand are a huge factor here.
"* why would a company build a private road when the government will do it for them?"
- good question, and yet we still have private roads and tollroads.
- trains still need sidings, along with a bunch of marshaling infrastructure that doesn't really have an equivalent for cars
- yes the reason a rail line to take you directly from your house to your local convenience store wouldn't be profitable is because people would refuse to use it
- what argument are you making here? this was in response to how rare private roads are in comparison to private rail, and your response is that actually they're not rare? are you just trying to disagree with everything i'm saying for the sake of disagreeing?
I'm mostly just responding to your points, but if I'm trying to make any argument its that mile per mile train infrastructure is cheaper than road infrastructure when you add up all of the costs, especially the ones people normally dont consider including vehicle maintinance, extra land and infrastructure for parking, more policing, gas, time wasted on longer commutes, ect. I'm also trying to point out that the reason we can't have nice things is because we have chosen the wrong priorities as a society, thats why we are stuck in a loop where we try to solve our car problems with more cars and car infrastructure instead of addressing the root cause of the problem.
it's kind of an agenda pushing shit to compare high speed rail with highways, high speed railroads compete with airplanes not cars, on a regular track you can reach 150km/h easily and those cost a fraction and that's already more than the 130km/h limit of highways in Europe
German HSR trains go about 250km/h on regular and over 350km/h on HSR-specific tracks
it's also dishonest to insist that every road you build needs to be a four lane highway, so i thought it about averaged out
If it can be done economically, it'll be done. And it has been, the freight rail network in the US is huge.
There is nothing low cost or easy about building coast to coast freight rail. It would take a minimum of 20 years and cost billions.
The US has had a transcontinental railroad network for over a century. The Western US was initially settled largely on railway stops, land grants, and mandatory passenger service. The passenger service was one of the conditions for the land grants.
The US has had a transcontinental railroad network for over a century.
Sure, now try and figure out the expense and time required to build another one NOW, not in 1890 but in 2023. The right of ways alone may take you until 2123 to get sorted out and I really suspect that the Chinese aren't going to show up to work for pennies a day to build the thing.
The passenger service was one of the conditions for the land grants.
We aren't talking about Passenger Service. We're talking about Cargo Service and since we already have one TC Rail System it follows that the meme is agitating that we build another one.
It would take decades and cost billions, probably tens of billions.
None of that makes rail infrastructure cheaper to build.