1228
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] 1bluepixel@lemmy.world 160 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Primarily0617@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't call effective rail infrastructure "low-cost".

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

compared to highways? absolutely low-cost.

[-] Primarily0617@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

highways are a lot cheaper than railways

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Primarily0617@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Primarily0617@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

railways are a lot more expensive than roadways per km

[-] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago
[-] popcap200@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

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."

[-] png@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But the average freeway is not 1-lane, but has many lanes. Also roadways have much higher maintenance costs than rail.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MadBob@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Primarily0617@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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%?

[-] Primarily0617@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] imBANO@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Shayeta@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago

I agree with the sentiment, but did you not notice the "across the country" part of the title?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Gabu@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] pingveno@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] tdawg@lemmy.world 86 points 1 year ago

That is literally the most dangerous bike lane in existence

[-] paperemail@links.rocks 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I saw the picture first and finished the headline in my mind:

A self-driving freight truck just drove across several cyclists

[-] nexguy@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

The cyclists were turned into butter

[-] u202307011927@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago

And then they were delivered

[-] ColonelSanders@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I can't believe it's not bikes

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 year ago

holy shit, i thought that was some kind of graphical overlay. that's a bike lane!? that has to be intentional, like some kind of malicious compliance from someone who hates cyclists

JFC, whose bright idea was that?

[-] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago

The buddy of the governor who got the contract lul. At least that's what happened in my friends small town when they built a roundabout that took 4 years to finish for a small 4 lane intersection that had stops before on a road that got maaaaaybe 12 cars a day

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 52 points 1 year ago

The next self driving truck will be delivering ice to alaska.

[-] pipows@lemmy.today 39 points 1 year ago

Hear me out: trains

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

I'm sure glad we developed technology just to avoid paying one person to drive that truck. This is progress and will not have knock on consequences. We should celebrate this.

[-] hakase@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This, but unironically. Automation is a good thing, and every driver who loses their job over this drives the necessity of finding post-automation solutions that much closer to the breaking point.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Oh yes, I'm sure our current socioeconomic systems will get right on finding post automation solutions. That'll happen real soon now. I mean, it'll have to happen, right? We won't just let all the jobs dissolve away so that shareholders get richer, right? That would be crazy to do that. I can't imagine a society that would possibly do that, could you?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] viperex@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

This must have been intentional

[-] Sagar@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

Caption better than meme!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
1228 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45416 readers
441 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. 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