1228
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
1228 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45416 readers
790 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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 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.
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
I wouldn't call effective rail infrastructure "low-cost".
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.
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
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 mist estimates, of course land acquisition has to be talen into account 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?
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.
Rail maintenance is more expensive than road maintenance
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.
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.
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!
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?"
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
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.
The place of trucks in logistics is in hell, delivering coal.
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.
None of that makes rail infrastructure cheaper to build.