• @AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    162 months ago

    Rail is used in the US. We just don’t have as much rail infustructure so they can only get so far. If the port/factory/wearhouse aren’t connect by rail then they’ll have to use trucks for at least part of the transit.

    • fmstrat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 months ago

      Probably could have built a lot of rail for the cost of R&D on self-driving semis…

      • @sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 months ago

        I’m not so sure. Infrastructure is hella expensive and the US government already maintains the highways that make trucking make sense.

        • @jenesaisquoi@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Not necessarily. A 40 tonne lorry damages the motorway as much as 1000 160’000 passenger cars. It will lead to the state having to renew the road surfaces every few years. Rails don’t have that problem, they’ll happily take 100 tonnes for decades.

          • @sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            82 months ago

            The point I’m making is that the government has already decided to maintain the highways, so continuing on is the status quo. If they wanted to make new railroads they’d have to expend political capital to get anything new funded.

      • Lka1988
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 months ago

        Maybe 2 or 3 single rail lines across the country.

        You guys gotta remember that the US is double the size of the entire EU. I will say that I don’t disagree in that more rail would be nice, but you have to think about this logically.