No one’s claiming that. Trucks can still handle the last mile just like they do it with container ships.
Im no logistics expert byt ship -> train -> semi sounds like a great infrastructure design especially now as the container is interchangeable between all of these mediums.
A road built and maintained by taxpayers is much cheaper (to a shipping company) than building, maintaining, and operating a railway. Making taxpayers responsible for the infrastructure you use is one way to make your business much more profitable.
Yeah but it’d be fucking insane to build a state highway to each and every destination in every hamlet, just like it would be for rail.
And it’s not just cost of initial construction, it’s also cost of maintenance. If the ground shifts slightly under the road, it’s a bump. If it shifts under a railway, it’s a derailment for the first train that finds it and a couple million dollars in recovery and repair, plus the downtime while that section is out of service. And that doesn’t even start to account for overhead like signal operation, whereas on a road you just use a stop sign.
I like trains more than the next guy, but you absolutely cannot just replace every road with a railway.
In the cases you’ve described, having automated semis would not be feasible. Automated cars already have a hard time in San Fran and AZ cities with smooth asphalt as it is.
The places where automated semis make the most sense, i.e. large, well maintained highways connecting large urban centres, can be better served with automated railways.
The engineering is much simpler, fewer degrees of freedom and a much more constrained problem space (and hence constrained solution space), for automated railways than highways. Creating a safer environment for all. Also not having to deal with semis as an individual driver.
There is some good coverage with railroads, but as you said not nearly extensive as the public road network. But I bet you the vast majority (above 60%) are along corridors with railways. However two big hurdles need to be overcome, greater investment in throughput capacity and the fact that trucks can go from ware house to ware house.
The places where automated semis make the most sense, i.e. large, well maintained highways connecting large urban centres, can be better served with automated railways.
On this I agree. For popular, well-defined routes, rail absolutely makes sense, not just for freight, but for passenger transport as well.
Why not make automated trains with their own dedicated right of way?
But that would require investment in infrastructure…
Bet that semi trucks are more expensive due to road damage and congestion alone.
Yes, but that’s all subsidized by taxpayers, so it’s more expensive overall but cheaper for YOU.
Privatize gains, socialize losses. The CapitalistTM way!
Efficiency, pollution too (even when electric, because tires and break dust are a thing)
What you don’t get is that trucks last less and consume more, therefore it’s better for the robber barons.
*** everyone but the lobbyists liked that ***
They already are automated trains on freight only routes like mines.
Outside of mines or just in mines? I know that mines are becoming more automated but what about commercial routes.
It’s absurd to suggest running a railway to every warehouse in East Bumfuck, Missouri.
No one’s claiming that. Trucks can still handle the last mile just like they do it with container ships.
Im no logistics expert byt ship -> train -> semi sounds like a great infrastructure design especially now as the container is interchangeable between all of these mediums.
Oh. But a road is famously cheap.
The road already exists
Just one more road and the traffic will get better /s
Compared to building and maintaining a railway, yes, by orders of magnitude.
A road built and maintained by taxpayers is much cheaper (to a shipping company) than building, maintaining, and operating a railway. Making taxpayers responsible for the infrastructure you use is one way to make your business much more profitable.
Citation needed
A cursory search shows rail in rural areas is $2 million per mile and a highway is $4-10 million per mile.
Yeah but it’d be fucking insane to build a state highway to each and every destination in every hamlet, just like it would be for rail.
And it’s not just cost of initial construction, it’s also cost of maintenance. If the ground shifts slightly under the road, it’s a bump. If it shifts under a railway, it’s a derailment for the first train that finds it and a couple million dollars in recovery and repair, plus the downtime while that section is out of service. And that doesn’t even start to account for overhead like signal operation, whereas on a road you just use a stop sign.
I like trains more than the next guy, but you absolutely cannot just replace every road with a railway.
I think you’re missing the general point.
In the cases you’ve described, having automated semis would not be feasible. Automated cars already have a hard time in San Fran and AZ cities with smooth asphalt as it is.
The places where automated semis make the most sense, i.e. large, well maintained highways connecting large urban centres, can be better served with automated railways.
The engineering is much simpler, fewer degrees of freedom and a much more constrained problem space (and hence constrained solution space), for automated railways than highways. Creating a safer environment for all. Also not having to deal with semis as an individual driver.
Railways (funded through private investment): https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/AAR-Rail-Network-Map-2025-1.jpg.webp
Highways (publicly owned, operated, maintained): https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/images/nhs.pdf
There is some good coverage with railroads, but as you said not nearly extensive as the public road network. But I bet you the vast majority (above 60%) are along corridors with railways. However two big hurdles need to be overcome, greater investment in throughput capacity and the fact that trucks can go from ware house to ware house.
However both issues can be solved.
On this I agree. For popular, well-defined routes, rail absolutely makes sense, not just for freight, but for passenger transport as well.