this post was submitted on 02 May 2025
326 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

71665 readers
3337 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.nowsci.com 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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 8 points 1 month 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@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 2 points 1 month ago

Oh I do, it's where I live. At current costs its about $1.6m(1) per mile, so yea, agreed, probably not much. Will have to check back in 5 years after we see the costs to operate and lawsuits from accidents 😆

  1. https://compassinternational.net/railroad-engineering-construction-cost-benchmarks/
[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

how about historically? we had rail, and it was great. Most of it was ripped up at the behest of auto manufacturers.

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It was mostly the street car systems that got ripped up, not the stuff that carries freight.

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

trams were the biggest casualty, but not the only.

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

Tram! That's the word I was looking for...