Sending goods by train has a much lower carbon footprint
June 3, 2024 5:28 AM Subscribe
Transporting billions of tonnes of freight generates huge emissions. What if it was moved by rail not road?
About 4 billion tonnes of goods are delivered across Australia each year, mostly by road, but one train can carry the same freight as 54 trucks. So why doesn't more freight go by rail?
There's much more assets tied up in actually building and operating a railroad. You have to invest a bunch of money to create the infrastructure and that infrastructure is only good at doing one thing--being a railroad.
Anyidiot keen modern capitalist business disruptor with a handful of leased trucks and access to government-maintained roads can have a shipping company. Maybe you can even cut labor costs by replacing the drivers with a half-assed self-driving AI. The point is, at the end of the day you're not stuck owning hundreds of miles of track that needs to be maintained.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:49 AM on June 3 [6 favorites]
Any
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:49 AM on June 3 [6 favorites]
Trains run on privately owned tracks.
Trucks run on publicly owned roads.
Privatize profits, socialize costs.
posted by NotAYakk at 6:52 AM on June 3 [31 favorites]
Trucks run on publicly owned roads.
Privatize profits, socialize costs.
posted by NotAYakk at 6:52 AM on June 3 [31 favorites]
There are way more miles of road than track, and trucks can take detours when necessary. The future lies in a combination of rail transport and self-driving electric truck transport.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:19 AM on June 3 [1 favorite]
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:19 AM on June 3 [1 favorite]
There are way more miles of road than track, and trucks can take detours when necessary.
I think this needs some caveats. A single rail corridor can replace a *lot* of roads because of how much more efficient trains are at moving goods than trucks are. And a well-maintained ROW with grade separation is way more reliable than a highway because without mixed highway traffic, you're dealing with a much smaller set of possible incidents that could necessitate a detour.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:01 AM on June 3 [10 favorites]
I think this needs some caveats. A single rail corridor can replace a *lot* of roads because of how much more efficient trains are at moving goods than trucks are. And a well-maintained ROW with grade separation is way more reliable than a highway because without mixed highway traffic, you're dealing with a much smaller set of possible incidents that could necessitate a detour.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:01 AM on June 3 [10 favorites]
They've been trying for years to get a train service running from the Port of LA out to the distribution warehouses in San Berdoo. It would be so much more efficient than what they do know of either offloading from the near port train yards or one the east LA (or south of DTLA) piggyback yards.
But it gets fought and fought and fought over and nothing ever happens with it.
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:38 AM on June 3 [1 favorite]
But it gets fought and fought and fought over and nothing ever happens with it.
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:38 AM on June 3 [1 favorite]
Start charging trucks for the damage to roads they cause (damage is proportional to the 4th power of the mass of a vehicle) and this problem basically goes away. Also would be a good stick to beat ridiculously large pickups/SUVs down to a safer for pedestrians size.
posted by Mitheral at 9:47 AM on June 3 [22 favorites]
posted by Mitheral at 9:47 AM on June 3 [22 favorites]
> But it gets fought and fought and fought over and nothing ever happens with it.
I feel like this story comes up so frequently when talking about decarbonizing. If you take the train between Boston and NYC, the slowest part of the trip is a stretch in Connecticut where straightening the tracks would require shortening some rich people’s front yards slightly, which is politically extremely daunting but also somewhat tragic for the knowledge that those coastal properties are going to lose more land due to climate change exacerbated by people driving instead of taking the train.
Every single transit or bike project around here seems to start from the same basic premise: how can we avoid doing anything to discourage use of the most destructive form of travel? Something as simple as a refundable carbon tax would be a huge push in the right direction and a great benefit for a lot of historic cities which still have industrial zoned land with rail connections which isn’t being used because new construction on a highway somewhere is cheaper due to the uncompensated externalities.
posted by adamsc at 9:52 AM on June 3 [8 favorites]
I feel like this story comes up so frequently when talking about decarbonizing. If you take the train between Boston and NYC, the slowest part of the trip is a stretch in Connecticut where straightening the tracks would require shortening some rich people’s front yards slightly, which is politically extremely daunting but also somewhat tragic for the knowledge that those coastal properties are going to lose more land due to climate change exacerbated by people driving instead of taking the train.
Every single transit or bike project around here seems to start from the same basic premise: how can we avoid doing anything to discourage use of the most destructive form of travel? Something as simple as a refundable carbon tax would be a huge push in the right direction and a great benefit for a lot of historic cities which still have industrial zoned land with rail connections which isn’t being used because new construction on a highway somewhere is cheaper due to the uncompensated externalities.
posted by adamsc at 9:52 AM on June 3 [8 favorites]
Interesting to see that Australia's railways are primarily owned by the states and the feds already. So much for my instinct to howl for nationalization... I like Mitheral's idea, though!
posted by McBearclaw at 9:55 AM on June 3
posted by McBearclaw at 9:55 AM on June 3
Centuries of experience indicates that transportation is best done with publicly owned rights of way used by privately owned vehicles.
Ships are private. Ports and canals are public.
Planes are private. Runways and flight corridors are public.
Roads are public. Cars and trucks and buses are private.
However...
Train infrastructure can sprout legs much more easily than any other kind. Nationalizing tracks and having an open bidding process for privately owned transits to use them is pretty much the ideal, but it's non-trivial.
posted by ocschwar at 10:09 AM on June 3 [2 favorites]
Ships are private. Ports and canals are public.
Planes are private. Runways and flight corridors are public.
Roads are public. Cars and trucks and buses are private.
However...
Train infrastructure can sprout legs much more easily than any other kind. Nationalizing tracks and having an open bidding process for privately owned transits to use them is pretty much the ideal, but it's non-trivial.
posted by ocschwar at 10:09 AM on June 3 [2 favorites]
People are hooked on cars and planes. You won't easily pry those twin monkeys off people's backs as long as voters decide on public transportation. But we could develop hybrid modes of transportation that offer a lot of what people want.
For example, if your little electric car's passenger and storage compartment could be quickly and automatically unplugged from one chassis/battery and plugged into another chassis/battery, you could have fast trains and ferries that carry the lightweight passenger compartments of many cars. You automatically plug your compartment into a different chassis/battery when you get to your destination. You never get out of your own compartment if you don't want to. You personalize your passenger cabin -- it's yours and no one else can touch it -- but everything under it is interchangeable. Maybe your car's cabin connects to an off-road chassis at your destination. Maybe it becomes a boat cabin. Maybe it becomes the tiniest little urban tourist vehicle that can still carry your passenger cabin. Maybe it docks directly to a motel room or cabin so your car opens into a rented space with plumbing and so on.
Once you get people to abandon drive-train ownership, maybe they're more than half way to giving up car ownership.
posted by pracowity at 10:41 AM on June 3 [4 favorites]
For example, if your little electric car's passenger and storage compartment could be quickly and automatically unplugged from one chassis/battery and plugged into another chassis/battery, you could have fast trains and ferries that carry the lightweight passenger compartments of many cars. You automatically plug your compartment into a different chassis/battery when you get to your destination. You never get out of your own compartment if you don't want to. You personalize your passenger cabin -- it's yours and no one else can touch it -- but everything under it is interchangeable. Maybe your car's cabin connects to an off-road chassis at your destination. Maybe it becomes a boat cabin. Maybe it becomes the tiniest little urban tourist vehicle that can still carry your passenger cabin. Maybe it docks directly to a motel room or cabin so your car opens into a rented space with plumbing and so on.
Once you get people to abandon drive-train ownership, maybe they're more than half way to giving up car ownership.
posted by pracowity at 10:41 AM on June 3 [4 favorites]
That seems needlessly complicated? Putting everyone inside the equivalent of intermodel shipping containers to be trans-loaded from EV to train to ferry to boat hull to another EV to model room (!) reads like satire--the future, as envisioned by our own car obsessed society. And maybe that was your intent?
Car obsession is definitely a thing--but it wasn't always a thing. And maybe it's a little premature to assume it will always be a thing?
The great thing about cargo is that it's much simpler to move than passengers. Cargo doesn't care if it gets diverted. Cargo is much more tolerant of being late. And cargo doesn't care what time of day it leaves or arrives.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:58 AM on June 3 [3 favorites]
Car obsession is definitely a thing--but it wasn't always a thing. And maybe it's a little premature to assume it will always be a thing?
The great thing about cargo is that it's much simpler to move than passengers. Cargo doesn't care if it gets diverted. Cargo is much more tolerant of being late. And cargo doesn't care what time of day it leaves or arrives.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:58 AM on June 3 [3 favorites]
There's a huge difference between trains-for-cargo and trains-for-passengers. Observations about train use and car culture based on experience passenger systems may not apply to freight trains.
My understanding is the US does trans-for-cargo much, much better than the EU (or, apparently, Australia.) Each car carries more cargo, more cheaply, and our trains are much longer. This strength in the US train system is obviously much less visible than passenger travel. If you are an American tourist of course you see the superb system in Europe or Japan and want it here, but in freight the Europeans want to emulate in the US.
See here for some observations backing up my non-expert claims, which also corresponds with some of RonButNotStupid's comments (for example, one benefit of the US is that we apparently ship freight trains when they are full, rather than on a very tight passenger-train-like schedule.)
posted by mark k at 11:07 AM on June 3 [2 favorites]
My understanding is the US does trans-for-cargo much, much better than the EU (or, apparently, Australia.) Each car carries more cargo, more cheaply, and our trains are much longer. This strength in the US train system is obviously much less visible than passenger travel. If you are an American tourist of course you see the superb system in Europe or Japan and want it here, but in freight the Europeans want to emulate in the US.
See here for some observations backing up my non-expert claims, which also corresponds with some of RonButNotStupid's comments (for example, one benefit of the US is that we apparently ship freight trains when they are full, rather than on a very tight passenger-train-like schedule.)
posted by mark k at 11:07 AM on June 3 [2 favorites]
Cargo also makes the passenger rail experience in the US shittier by dictating platform height. The loading gauge of cargo often prevents the construction of high-level platforms. Lots of Commuter Rail stations North of Boston have what's called a mini-high platform where only a small section of the station platform is elevated to allow for level passenger boarding. This is because those lines still have active freight service and elevating the entire platform provides too much interference. The mini-highs get away with it because they're small and the gap between the platform and the train is spanned by some sort of break-away cladding.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:43 AM on June 3
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:43 AM on June 3
The Well There's Your Problem podcast has a rather lengthy rebuttal to that statement.
But since I don't actually expect you to listen to a 3 hour video, the short answer is that the US freight companies are obsessed with the "operating ratio" lowering their operating costs as a percentage of profits, that they refuse to make investments that would make them more absolute profit because it would be slightly less "efficient" in terms of percent rate of return.
So those high efficiency numbers are actually a symptom of the American freight rail's failures, because the private freight companies are only wanting to carry the easiest to carry cargo in the most bargain basement way, when plenty more cargo could in fact be moved more efficiently and profitably by rail than by road. It would just hurt all those vaunted efficiency numbers while earning lots of money. And have an investment horizon slightly longer than the next quarter.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:50 AM on June 3 [8 favorites]
But since I don't actually expect you to listen to a 3 hour video, the short answer is that the US freight companies are obsessed with the "operating ratio" lowering their operating costs as a percentage of profits, that they refuse to make investments that would make them more absolute profit because it would be slightly less "efficient" in terms of percent rate of return.
So those high efficiency numbers are actually a symptom of the American freight rail's failures, because the private freight companies are only wanting to carry the easiest to carry cargo in the most bargain basement way, when plenty more cargo could in fact be moved more efficiently and profitably by rail than by road. It would just hurt all those vaunted efficiency numbers while earning lots of money. And have an investment horizon slightly longer than the next quarter.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:50 AM on June 3 [8 favorites]
I was just just about to mention Precision Scheduled Railroading. It played a big role in our recent airborne toxic event.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:56 AM on June 3 [3 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:56 AM on June 3 [3 favorites]
So those high efficiency numbers are actually a symptom of the American freight rail's failures, because the private freight companies are only wanting to carry the easiest to carry cargo in the most bargain basement way, when plenty more cargo could in fact be moved more efficiently and profitably by rail than by road
It might be less confusing if you didn't use 'efficiency' to refer to both the railroad's desire to maximize their profit-to-expense ratio and also their ability to move goods at a higher cargo-to-carbon ratio.
The fact that railroads are shitty corporations trying to squeeze the most profit out of operations while making the least amount of investment doesn't take away from how much less fuel a diesel-electric locomotive uses while pulling a train of containers along a dedicated track than a fleet of semi trucks driving on multipurpose roads.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:35 PM on June 3 [2 favorites]
It might be less confusing if you didn't use 'efficiency' to refer to both the railroad's desire to maximize their profit-to-expense ratio and also their ability to move goods at a higher cargo-to-carbon ratio.
The fact that railroads are shitty corporations trying to squeeze the most profit out of operations while making the least amount of investment doesn't take away from how much less fuel a diesel-electric locomotive uses while pulling a train of containers along a dedicated track than a fleet of semi trucks driving on multipurpose roads.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:35 PM on June 3 [2 favorites]
That seems needlessly complicated?
Cars are needlessly complicated. But cars exist and you will never get people out of them unless you give them something else that offers most or all of the things that cars give them right now. Any modern public transit scheme that doesn't start there will fail in a democratic country where one party says you can keep your cars and the other party says... the same thing, because no party wants to lose by a landslide. You can make incremental progress in getting people to use smaller cars, lighter cars, cleaner cars, quieter cars, safer cars, and smarter cars, but most voters will just laugh at you and tell you to fuck off if you reveal your big plan for sitting shoulder to sweaty shoulder with strangers on public transit.
posted by pracowity at 12:36 PM on June 3 [3 favorites]
Cars are needlessly complicated. But cars exist and you will never get people out of them unless you give them something else that offers most or all of the things that cars give them right now. Any modern public transit scheme that doesn't start there will fail in a democratic country where one party says you can keep your cars and the other party says... the same thing, because no party wants to lose by a landslide. You can make incremental progress in getting people to use smaller cars, lighter cars, cleaner cars, quieter cars, safer cars, and smarter cars, but most voters will just laugh at you and tell you to fuck off if you reveal your big plan for sitting shoulder to sweaty shoulder with strangers on public transit.
posted by pracowity at 12:36 PM on June 3 [3 favorites]
Cars are needlessly complicated. But cars exist and you will never get people out of them unless you give them something else that offers most or all of the things that cars give them right now.
What's more difficult: Building all the necessary infrastructure required to implement intermodal passenger capsules that can be automatically moved from one drive train to another with all the necessary connections needed to allow those capsules to operate autonomously and consistently provide the same level of passenger comfort......
....or making trains available and encouraging people for ride them?
Yes, it is difficult to get people to change their lifestyles, but this is a social problem and there are ways to incentive people to adopt new routines. Creating a never-before-seen Jetsons-level intermodal capsule transport network would require lots engineering and technologies that don't currently exist.
Besides. This thread has largely been about moving cargo, not passengers which is a much easier thing to do.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:05 PM on June 3 [1 favorite]
What's more difficult: Building all the necessary infrastructure required to implement intermodal passenger capsules that can be automatically moved from one drive train to another with all the necessary connections needed to allow those capsules to operate autonomously and consistently provide the same level of passenger comfort......
....or making trains available and encouraging people for ride them?
Yes, it is difficult to get people to change their lifestyles, but this is a social problem and there are ways to incentive people to adopt new routines. Creating a never-before-seen Jetsons-level intermodal capsule transport network would require lots engineering and technologies that don't currently exist.
Besides. This thread has largely been about moving cargo, not passengers which is a much easier thing to do.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:05 PM on June 3 [1 favorite]
So those high efficiency numbers are actually a symptom of the American freight rail's failures, because the private freight companies are only wanting to carry the easiest to carry cargo in the most bargain basement way, when plenty more cargo could in fact be moved more efficiently and profitably by rail than by road
IMO this is kinda wrong - there is a train every 15 minutes down the train lines west from the coast to back east - you really couldn't make much more money with train transit in the US without extending the number of lines (which is an extremely good idea) because they are basically at max capacity at the #1 import coast (by far - it's not even close) line in the US.
So you either have to grow the east coast population while also increasing European imports, grow the west coast population so that less has to be shipped back east, or you have to increase the number of west coast to east rail lines. Otherwise, there is no point. The income would be extremely marginal and far more variable - so no need to even compete with trucking on those terms.
Also in the US, cargo actually takes precedence, and that's why Amtrack to out west takes longer than driving. US train passenger/cargo mixing regulations are extremely dumb and extremely conservative with regard to accidents/collisions.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:11 PM on June 3 [2 favorites]
IMO this is kinda wrong - there is a train every 15 minutes down the train lines west from the coast to back east - you really couldn't make much more money with train transit in the US without extending the number of lines (which is an extremely good idea) because they are basically at max capacity at the #1 import coast (by far - it's not even close) line in the US.
So you either have to grow the east coast population while also increasing European imports, grow the west coast population so that less has to be shipped back east, or you have to increase the number of west coast to east rail lines. Otherwise, there is no point. The income would be extremely marginal and far more variable - so no need to even compete with trucking on those terms.
Also in the US, cargo actually takes precedence, and that's why Amtrack to out west takes longer than driving. US train passenger/cargo mixing regulations are extremely dumb and extremely conservative with regard to accidents/collisions.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:11 PM on June 3 [2 favorites]
The Well There's Your Problem podcast has a rather lengthy rebuttal yt to that statement.
Also I think you got your link wrong, as your link was to a heavy metal valentines day song.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:17 PM on June 3 [1 favorite]
Also I think you got your link wrong, as your link was to a heavy metal valentines day song.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:17 PM on June 3 [1 favorite]
a heavy metal valentines day song.
♪♫♬ I LOVE TRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAINS BUT THEY ARE KA-KA-KA-KA-COMPLICATED YEAAAAAAAAAARGHHHGGHHGHGGHGHHGHGH LIKE MY HEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAART BLEAUGHPFLLT!!! ♪♫♬
posted by grumpybear69 at 1:21 PM on June 3 [2 favorites]
♪♫♬ I LOVE TRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAINS BUT THEY ARE KA-KA-KA-KA-COMPLICATED YEAAAAAAAAAARGHHHGGHHGHGGHGHHGHGH LIKE MY HEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAART BLEAUGHPFLLT!!! ♪♫♬
posted by grumpybear69 at 1:21 PM on June 3 [2 favorites]
Ahaha well there are worse things to accidentally link. This had better be the right one.
It might be less confusing if you didn't use 'efficiency' to refer to both the railroad's desire to maximize their profit-to-expense ratio and also their ability to move goods at a higher cargo-to-carbon ratio.
Fair point.
IMO this is kinda wrong - there is a train every 15 minutes down the train lines west from the coast to back east - you really couldn't make much more money with train transit in the US without extending the number of lines (which is an extremely good idea) because they are basically at max capacity at the #1 import coast (by far - it's not even close) line in the US.
I mean yeah. If I understand right, part of the problem is that the railway industry in the US isn't interested in big infrastructure projects like building out more lines.
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:33 PM on June 3 [1 favorite]
It might be less confusing if you didn't use 'efficiency' to refer to both the railroad's desire to maximize their profit-to-expense ratio and also their ability to move goods at a higher cargo-to-carbon ratio.
Fair point.
IMO this is kinda wrong - there is a train every 15 minutes down the train lines west from the coast to back east - you really couldn't make much more money with train transit in the US without extending the number of lines (which is an extremely good idea) because they are basically at max capacity at the #1 import coast (by far - it's not even close) line in the US.
I mean yeah. If I understand right, part of the problem is that the railway industry in the US isn't interested in big infrastructure projects like building out more lines.
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:33 PM on June 3 [1 favorite]
I mean yeah. If I understand right, part of the problem is that the railway industry in the US isn't interested in big infrastructure projects like building out more lines.
I'd be interested to know if they own the space to do so - look at the high speed rail passenger projects in California and Texas, and the entire east coast - they are far too easy to hold up with land acquisition, legal, environmental, and upfront design and engineering costs. I have no idea though, if existing railroads own enough space to add lines or not.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:24 PM on June 3 [2 favorites]
I'd be interested to know if they own the space to do so - look at the high speed rail passenger projects in California and Texas, and the entire east coast - they are far too easy to hold up with land acquisition, legal, environmental, and upfront design and engineering costs. I have no idea though, if existing railroads own enough space to add lines or not.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:24 PM on June 3 [2 favorites]
Hrm... how was land for railroads procured, anyway?
The UK: literal feudalism
The US: genocidal colonialism
Australia: genocidal colonialism
Japan: literal feudalism
France: assorted dictators
Germany: myriad dictators
... nm
posted by McBearclaw at 5:13 PM on June 3
The UK: literal feudalism
The US: genocidal colonialism
Australia: genocidal colonialism
Japan: literal feudalism
France: assorted dictators
Germany: myriad dictators
... nm
posted by McBearclaw at 5:13 PM on June 3
In Canada, at least...
this might be a bit of a derail *ahem* but i thought i'd share Buster Keaton's voyage across Canada via rail in 1965 [National Film Board of Canada/Vimeo]
posted by HearHere at 5:31 PM on June 3 [1 favorite]
this might be a bit of a derail *ahem* but i thought i'd share Buster Keaton's voyage across Canada via rail in 1965 [National Film Board of Canada/Vimeo]
posted by HearHere at 5:31 PM on June 3 [1 favorite]
Highways too, though, and they need more land.
posted by clew at 5:31 PM on June 3 [4 favorites]
posted by clew at 5:31 PM on June 3 [4 favorites]
I'd be interested to know if they own the space to do so - look at the high speed rail passenger projects in California and Texas, and the entire east coast - they are far too easy to hold up with land acquisition, legal, environmental, and upfront design and engineering costs. I have no idea though, if existing railroads own enough space to add lines or not.
My understanding is that with cargo (at least in the U.S.) it's more about building more transload facilities where containerized cargo can either be loaded onto trains (like at a port) or loaded from trains onto a truck. The land acquisition is much more targeted around existing lines and easier to make happen. Boston has a container terminal where ships unload cargo onto trucks because that terminal no longer has a direct rail connection. The right of way and much of the track into the port still exists, but no one wants to spend the money to upgrade the infrastructure to make a rail connection viable* again. So much of the cargo coming into the Port of Boston gets trucked 30 miles out of town before it's transloaded onto a train.
* You can certainly argue that most of the cargo coming into Boston has local destinations that are better served by trucks and that it doesn't make sense to load things onto a train if it's not traveling more than 100mi from the port. But not having the facilities to transload directly onto rail also dictates what cargo comes into Boston, so it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:06 AM on June 4 [1 favorite]
My understanding is that with cargo (at least in the U.S.) it's more about building more transload facilities where containerized cargo can either be loaded onto trains (like at a port) or loaded from trains onto a truck. The land acquisition is much more targeted around existing lines and easier to make happen. Boston has a container terminal where ships unload cargo onto trucks because that terminal no longer has a direct rail connection. The right of way and much of the track into the port still exists, but no one wants to spend the money to upgrade the infrastructure to make a rail connection viable* again. So much of the cargo coming into the Port of Boston gets trucked 30 miles out of town before it's transloaded onto a train.
* You can certainly argue that most of the cargo coming into Boston has local destinations that are better served by trucks and that it doesn't make sense to load things onto a train if it's not traveling more than 100mi from the port. But not having the facilities to transload directly onto rail also dictates what cargo comes into Boston, so it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:06 AM on June 4 [1 favorite]
They've been trying for years to get a train service running from the Port of LA out to the distribution warehouses in San Berdoo. It would be so much more efficient than what they do know of either offloading from the near port train yards or one the east LA (or south of DTLA) piggyback yards.
But it gets fought and fought and fought over and nothing ever happens with it.
I'm not even sure this comment could be considered even disingenuous. Billions of pounds of cargo leaves the Port of LA on rail. The Alameda Corridor (~$1.6B to build, by the way) gets that rail traffic up to the huge yards near DTLA (and therefore onto the BNSF and UP main railroad lines) without any grade crossings. Doing something similar just so mostly just Amazon gets stuff into their warehouses off the 215 slightly quicker would cost tens of billions of dollars, and I guess Amazon can write that check if they want.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 10:38 AM on June 4 [1 favorite]
But it gets fought and fought and fought over and nothing ever happens with it.
I'm not even sure this comment could be considered even disingenuous. Billions of pounds of cargo leaves the Port of LA on rail. The Alameda Corridor (~$1.6B to build, by the way) gets that rail traffic up to the huge yards near DTLA (and therefore onto the BNSF and UP main railroad lines) without any grade crossings. Doing something similar just so mostly just Amazon gets stuff into their warehouses off the 215 slightly quicker would cost tens of billions of dollars, and I guess Amazon can write that check if they want.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 10:38 AM on June 4 [1 favorite]
Start charging trucks for the damage to roads they cause (damage is proportional to the 4th power of the mass of a vehicle) and this problem basically goes away. Also would be a good stick to beat ridiculously large pickups/SUVs down to a safer for pedestrians size.
This would be fun for me, as my 5300lb full-size cargo van would be significantly cheaper than a Tesla Model S at about 7000lb (idk the science units, stuck in american)
also I'm a lot slower by necessity and temperament, and road damage also scales with vehicle speed
anyway cars are awful and trains are cool. doesn't mean they aren't also awful
intermodal containers already exist. mildly impractical-seeming for vehicular use as the smallest TEU I know about is 3m long. An aluminum one of those probably clocks in under 1/2 tonne. Adding seats and such is technically trivial. Nothing new need be invented to make this work, but if you want some whizbang I could build you a lil frame with some motors and batteries and such.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 5:28 PM on June 5 [1 favorite]
This would be fun for me, as my 5300lb full-size cargo van would be significantly cheaper than a Tesla Model S at about 7000lb (idk the science units, stuck in american)
also I'm a lot slower by necessity and temperament, and road damage also scales with vehicle speed
anyway cars are awful and trains are cool. doesn't mean they aren't also awful
intermodal containers already exist. mildly impractical-seeming for vehicular use as the smallest TEU I know about is 3m long. An aluminum one of those probably clocks in under 1/2 tonne. Adding seats and such is technically trivial. Nothing new need be invented to make this work, but if you want some whizbang I could build you a lil frame with some motors and batteries and such.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 5:28 PM on June 5 [1 favorite]
« Older Quine Clock | The Little Free Thread Library Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Shepherd at 6:03 AM on June 3 [13 favorites]