Comment by zinekeller
3 years ago
> existing infrastructure (roads) isn't going anywhere (no need to build anything)
I think that this is a sunk-cost fallacy. Sure, you would need to build infrastructure for trains, but after that trains are now reasonably automated, can carry cargo, and do other things with the exception of stopping at the exact destination you wanted to (in other words, it requires predetermined stops which people outside the US shrugs and just walk or bike the last feet). Also, they're proven to work: even China (which previously didn't have trains to its far-flung places) and they've done what you've expect. I think that the sole reason that anyone wants to invest in automated (non-train) driving is because trains are boring while AI is oh-so-shiny.
> with the exception of stopping at the exact destination you wanted to
This, and leaving from the exact starting point you want to, at the exact time you want to, without out-of-the-way intermediate stops that you don't want, without switching lines. I can also easily move a table, couch, 2 shopping carts full of groceries, etc.
It's not an insignificant difference in convenience
Trains won't do last mile delivery.
Or have the train get your delivery drones close enough to the last mile for the battery to last :^)
Current trains? Not directly.
But with the levels of investment in cars and roads, we could have mini trains on reduced tracks (think stuff like mine tracks) going almost anywhere, probably for a fraction of maintaining our road infrastructure and cars.
We're not going to stop maintaining roads. They exist for military defense as much as they do for road trips and trucks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(Unite...
2 replies →
Little known fact: In Western Europe when they decided to prioritize the passenger train network it forced 80-90% freight onto trucks on roads.