3 ms·

When trains become competitive with road transport, maybe we should move more to using trains. Until then, we won't, and we shouldn't. (If it's a matter of exte

When trains become competitive with road transport, maybe we should move more to using trains. Until then, we won't, and we shouldn't. (If it's a matter of externalities/hidden subsidies, then the costs of these externalities must be brought to the entity causing them, e.g. via taxes.) I don't know why (in Germany) a long-distance bus is much cheaper than a train (from/to the same city), but it is. We shouldn't be trying to shift traffic to rail unless there's a good reason beyond "it feels good" for it. If it is better for the environment, I'd like to see a "citation" (not in the form of research, but in the form of well-justified taxes/tolls/... that transform this into a matter of cost).

ghaff 9y ago
In the US, trains are for long distance and, in fact, handle a significant portion of the long distance transport that would otherwise be handled by trucks. Most trucking is (relatively) local as it is.
Johnny555 9y ago
If trucks had to pay the full cost of road wear, then trains would be a lot more attractive for long hauls -- road wear is proportional to the 4th power of axle weight [1] An 80,000 pound truck has 8X the axle weigh of a 2000 pound car, so should be paying 4096 times more road taxes than the car. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating#Importance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating#Impor...
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Sort of. It looks like a car does about 4x more damage per axle because of using a single narrow tire[1]. If you compare a pretty typical 4000 pound car to that maxed-out truck, you would then only get a 64x difference (maybe closer to 100 depending on weight distribution). Oh and then multiply by the number of axles. It would be interesting to look at the costs and savings of 6 or 8 axles in the back. There's plenty of room to fit, and you could drop wear by a factor of 10. Let's also not forget that the truck probably has over a hundred times as much payload as an average car. [1] http://www.nvfnorden.org/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=601 http://www.nvfnorden.org/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=601

ghaff 9y ago

In the US, trains are for long distance and, in fact, handle a significant portion of the long distance transport that would otherwise be handled by trucks. Most trucking is (relatively) local as it is.

Johnny555 9y ago

If trucks had to pay the full cost of road wear, then trains would be a lot more attractive for long hauls -- road wear is proportional to the 4th power of axle weight [1] An 80,000 pound truck has 8X the axle weigh of a 2000 pound car, so should be paying 4096 times more road taxes than the car. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating#Importance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating#Impor...

Dylan16807 9y ago
Sort of. It looks like a car does about 4x more damage per axle because of using a single narrow tire[1]. If you compare a pretty typical 4000 pound car to that maxed-out truck, you would then only get a 64x difference (maybe closer to 100 depending on weight distribution). Oh and then multiply by the number of axles. It would be interesting to look at the costs and savings of 6 or 8 axles in the back. There's plenty of room to fit, and you could drop wear by a factor of 10. Let's also not forget that the truck probably has over a hundred times as much payload as an average car. [1] http://www.nvfnorden.org/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=601 http://www.nvfnorden.org/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=601