5 ms·

Adding an extra step (rail hub to short haul truck transition, potentially at both ends of the trip) adds cost. This cost is (and will be for the foreseeable f

Adding an extra step (rail hub to short haul truck transition, potentially at both ends of the trip) adds cost. This cost is (and will be for the foreseeable future) less than having the less efficient semi-truck do the entire trip at least for the kinds of loads that are currently carried by semi-truck. JIT inventory systems also don't play nice with rail.

ashtonkem 7y ago
Semi trucks are cheaper because they receive a $125B+ yearly subsidy in the form of road maintenance. Semi trucks do 99% of the damage to our public roads, but only pay 35% of the cost. I suspect that rail would be much more price competitive if we took that subsidy away. You’re right about JIT, but we’re also seeing the downsides of JIT infrastructure during this pandemic. I suspect that we’ll see a push for more redundancy in our supply chain for reasons completely unrelated to trucks vs. trains.
- slavik81 6y ago
  Assuming we're resurfacing our roads once every 5 years, if we banned trucks it would take 100x longer to accumulate the same amount of damage, so we'd be able to resurface only once every 500 years? I would expect there to be a significant amount of damage done just by the elements, independent of usage.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    There’s also the fact that roads are built up to trucking standards. Without trucks the roads would be thinner, reducing cost and pollution (concrete is a major source of CO2).
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      Roads are mostly made from asphalt and mother nature would still destroy them in well under 100yr in most places.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        Highways are much more relevant when we’re talking about trucking, and highways are largely concrete.
        throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        This is utterly false and in a trivially verifiable way in this age of street view. Raised highways sometimes have concrete decks because the strength can be attractive but the overwhelming majority of highways are asphalt. At or below grade highways are almost always asphalt. Tunnels are often concrete but those are a vanishingly small minority of miles.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        If you’re going to call something “utterly and trivially verifiable (sic) false” you should actually check. Interstate highways use more cement than asphalt. “The analysis shows that a total of approximately 1.5 billion metric tons (Gt) of aggregates, 35 million metric tons (Mt) of asphalt, 48 Mt of cement, and 6 Mt of steel is in place in interstate highways.” https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3127/2006-3127.pdf https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3127/2006-3127.pdf
        wahern 6y ago
        AFAIU, the original Interstate Highway System was all concrete. These days states usually resurface heavily trafficked segments with asphalt (of various varieties) atop the old concrete. Apparently, at least as of 2006 60% of the system was still concrete pavement: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3127/2006-3127.pdf https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3127/2006-3127.pdf Which is not surprising as IME long segments of the IHS are often still concrete pavement, especially in the South and West; it's only in urban areas where asphalt surfacing seems ubiquitous. I'm not sure how new segments are built today, but they may very well still use concrete underlayment, or at least something more substantial than loose aggregate. Road tech these days is way more complicated than just concrete v. asphalt. I would guess that for remote segments, and given the load requirements, it may still be cost effective to keep using concrete surfacing.
    - slavik81 6y ago
      Sure. I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion that trucks undercontribute to road maintenance costs. I just don't think those numbers are sufficient to prove it.

ashtonkem 7y ago

Semi trucks are cheaper because they receive a $125B+ yearly subsidy in the form of road maintenance. Semi trucks do 99% of the damage to our public roads, but only pay 35% of the cost. I suspect that rail would be much more price competitive if we took that subsidy away. You’re right about JIT, but we’re also seeing the downsides of JIT infrastructure during this pandemic. I suspect that we’ll see a push for more redundancy in our supply chain for reasons completely unrelated to trucks vs. trains.

slavik81 6y ago
Assuming we're resurfacing our roads once every 5 years, if we banned trucks it would take 100x longer to accumulate the same amount of damage, so we'd be able to resurface only once every 500 years? I would expect there to be a significant amount of damage done just by the elements, independent of usage.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  There’s also the fact that roads are built up to trucking standards. Without trucks the roads would be thinner, reducing cost and pollution (concrete is a major source of CO2).
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Roads are mostly made from asphalt and mother nature would still destroy them in well under 100yr in most places.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Highways are much more relevant when we’re talking about trucking, and highways are largely concrete.
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        This is utterly false and in a trivially verifiable way in this age of street view. Raised highways sometimes have concrete decks because the strength can be attractive but the overwhelming majority of highways are asphalt. At or below grade highways are almost always asphalt. Tunnels are often concrete but those are a vanishingly small minority of miles.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        If you’re going to call something “utterly and trivially verifiable (sic) false” you should actually check. Interstate highways use more cement than asphalt. “The analysis shows that a total of approximately 1.5 billion metric tons (Gt) of aggregates, 35 million metric tons (Mt) of asphalt, 48 Mt of cement, and 6 Mt of steel is in place in interstate highways.” https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3127/2006-3127.pdf https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3127/2006-3127.pdf
        wahern 6y ago
        AFAIU, the original Interstate Highway System was all concrete. These days states usually resurface heavily trafficked segments with asphalt (of various varieties) atop the old concrete. Apparently, at least as of 2006 60% of the system was still concrete pavement: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3127/2006-3127.pdf https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3127/2006-3127.pdf Which is not surprising as IME long segments of the IHS are often still concrete pavement, especially in the South and West; it's only in urban areas where asphalt surfacing seems ubiquitous. I'm not sure how new segments are built today, but they may very well still use concrete underlayment, or at least something more substantial than loose aggregate. Road tech these days is way more complicated than just concrete v. asphalt. I would guess that for remote segments, and given the load requirements, it may still be cost effective to keep using concrete surfacing.
  - slavik81 6y ago
    Sure. I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion that trucks undercontribute to road maintenance costs. I just don't think those numbers are sufficient to prove it.