3 ms·
And people often use that, the NYC subway is a great example. But it's not so effective in lower density, or less established rail systems. You'll often see eas
by jfoutz 11y ago
And people often use that, the NYC subway is a great example. But it's not so effective in lower density, or less established rail systems. You'll often see east/west travel relatively accessible, but north/south hard, for example. Rail only really serves those along the line. I'm sure phoenix could build a ring and spoke system to connect up all of those low density developments.
The thing that sucks though, it's a big upfront cost. super cruise control is an incremental cost that takes advantage of existing infrastructure.
Rail isn't so great at getting food to grocery stores. (cities, sure, but not actual transportation endpoints.) Such a system could be built, but trucks are so obviously effective, and they work with the existing infrastructure.
Rail is cool but a big upfront cost for something that's not obviously superior to the current system seems wasteful.
Maybe fill train stations with self driving taxis to cover those last few miles to home, or work, or wherever.
- kuschku 11y agoYes, the thing is just that the interstate system was in the end more expensive than similar rail infrastructure would have been (especially in maintenance). And, well, yes, cars and trucks will still be necessary, but not nearly in the same amount.
- chadgeidel 11y agoI'd love to believe this quote, but light rail per mile is an order of magnitude more expensive than highway per mile. Do you have any citations I can look into? Thanks.
- kuschku 11y agoThe issues are essentially based on (a) how many lanes your highway has, (b) how many complex interchanges you build (interchanges with many bridges tend to lead to a cost explosion), and (c) rail tracks are usually able to be used for decades without major maintenance, while highways usually need to get filled and fixed multiple times a year. I only have a specific study for my city, where they were comparing the costs from fixing the streets in the cities from the busses running over them vs. building light rail instead, and in that study it turned out the light rail would be, if you also consider stuff like maintenance and accidents, cheaper.
- jfoutz 11y agoI can't find anything more formal with a quick search, but this is pretty plausible http://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/01/11/rails-vs-roads-for-value-utilization-emissions-savings-difference-like-night-and-day/ http://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/01/11/rails-vs-roads-... $35million/mile for rail, $25million/mile for a single lane. Rail maintenance is cheaper, and ongoing costs are generally lower - you don't need police patrolling railroads. Railroads are cool, and they have a lot of advantages, but we've got this huge investment in our existing system. And unfortunately, unlike self driving cars, there isn't a smooth transition. It's like switching from pc to mac, but all of your software is home made, and must be rewritten. You have a huge upfront investment to just get started, and you have to maintain the other system as well.
- pjc50 11y agoThe two key advantages of road over rail: - much shorter stopping distances. This lets roads be "general access" in a way that rails have never been, even if you were to have a railway running past your house. - much smaller minimum turn radius - ability to drive around obstacles
- kuschku 11y agoThe situations where roads are better: - low amounts of people (or goods) - going into different directions - coming from different places The situations where rails are better: - high amounts of people (or goods) - going into the same general direction - coming from the same general area Which is why roads are damn useful in rural cases, but if you think about building a 23-lane highway, maybe rail might be better.