3 ms·

> EVs already provide enough range for commuting. The vast majority of the population commutes tens of miles, and EVs can regularly do hundreds of miles. So the

> EVs already provide enough range for commuting. The vast majority of the population commutes tens of miles, and EVs can regularly do hundreds of miles. So there’s really no need to modify roads for the sake of commuters. The 50mins I takes me to charge my Kona every ~210 miles is roughly when I should be taking a break of roughly an hour anyway. "Technology Connections" on YouTube has a really fantastic (and old) video on this subject: assuming level 1 (110V) at home and at work, you'd basically never need anything more than level 1 charging for commuting. EVs require a surprisingly small amount of energy. > high speed rail I have understood the efficiencies in rail since I was maybe 12. It blows my mind that it is such a niche mode of transport (especially for goods, transporting humans isn't where the real savings are) in so many places around the world. From a purely economic standpoint (forgetting environmental issues entirely), it makes complete sense to aim to have zero semis on roads between cities. Trains should be long-haul, semis should be last-mile.

kumarvvr 7y ago
> Trains should be long-haul, semis should be last-mile There is a reason semi's are long-haul. A fleet of semi's is tremendously flexible, with single loading and single unloading. The fleet can be driven in a myriad of ways and constantly re-routed for suit the present requirement. Trains are good for a specific types of cargo, ex. to and from ports.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  Also, the trains would charge monopoly prices if no long-haul trucks. You can read about that in any US history book. And if I'm shipping something in the form-factor of a parade float, I'd want to load it once on a truck, not on a truck and then a train.
eru 7y ago
> I have understood the efficiencies in rail since I was maybe 12. It blows my mind that it is such a niche mode of transport (especially for goods, transporting humans isn't where the real savings are) in so many places around the world. Interestingly, the US is actually pretty good at rail freight. They de-regulate most rail freight a few decades ago and are doing fine. The Economist had a special report about it a few years ago (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-railroading https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-rai...) proudly proclaiming: "America’s system of rail freight is the world’s best." > Amtrak's passenger services are sparse compared with Europe's. But America's freight railways are one of the unsung transport successes of the past 30 years. They are universally recognised in the industry as the best in the world. > Their good run started with deregulation at the end of Jimmy Carter's administration. Two years after the liberalisation of aviation gave rise to budget carriers and cheap fares, the freeing of rail freight, under the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, started a wave of consolidation and improvement. Staggers gave railways freedom to charge market rates, enter confidential contracts with shippers and run trains as they liked. They could close passenger and branch lines, as long as they preserved access for Amtrak services. They were allowed to sell lossmaking lines to new short-haul railroads. Regulation of freight rates by the Interstate Commerce Commission was removed for most cargoes, provided they could go by road. > Before deregulation America's railways were going bust. The return on capital fell from a meagre 4.1% in the 1940s to less than 3% in the 1960s. In 1970 the collapse of the giant Penn Central caused a huge shock, including a financial crisis. By 1980 a fifth of rail mileage was owned by bankrupt firms. Rail's share of intercity freight had slumped to 35% from 75% in the 1920s. Tracks were neglected and fell into disrepair, leading to a downward spiral of speed restrictions and deteriorating service. The term “standing derailment” was coined to describe the toppling-over of stationary freight wagons when the track gave way beneath their wheels. (You can use outline.com to get past the Economist's paywall.)

kumarvvr 7y ago

> Trains should be long-haul, semis should be last-mile There is a reason semi's are long-haul. A fleet of semi's is tremendously flexible, with single loading and single unloading. The fleet can be driven in a myriad of ways and constantly re-routed for suit the present requirement. Trains are good for a specific types of cargo, ex. to and from ports.

redis_mlc 7y ago
Also, the trains would charge monopoly prices if no long-haul trucks. You can read about that in any US history book. And if I'm shipping something in the form-factor of a parade float, I'd want to load it once on a truck, not on a truck and then a train.

eru 7y ago

> I have understood the efficiencies in rail since I was maybe 12. It blows my mind that it is such a niche mode of transport (especially for goods, transporting humans isn't where the real savings are) in so many places around the world. Interestingly, the US is actually pretty good at rail freight. They de-regulate most rail freight a few decades ago and are doing fine. The Economist had a special report about it a few years ago (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-railroading https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-rai...) proudly proclaiming: "America’s system of rail freight is the world’s best." > Amtrak's passenger services are sparse compared with Europe's. But America's freight railways are one of the unsung transport successes of the past 30 years. They are universally recognised in the industry as the best in the world. > Their good run started with deregulation at the end of Jimmy Carter's administration. Two years after the liberalisation of aviation gave rise to budget carriers and cheap fares, the freeing of rail freight, under the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, started a wave of consolidation and improvement. Staggers gave railways freedom to charge market rates, enter confidential contracts with shippers and run trains as they liked. They could close passenger and branch lines, as long as they preserved access for Amtrak services. They were allowed to sell lossmaking lines to new short-haul railroads. Regulation of freight rates by the Interstate Commerce Commission was removed for most cargoes, provided they could go by road. > Before deregulation America's railways were going bust. The return on capital fell from a meagre 4.1% in the 1940s to less than 3% in the 1960s. In 1970 the collapse of the giant Penn Central caused a huge shock, including a financial crisis. By 1980 a fifth of rail mileage was owned by bankrupt firms. Rail's share of intercity freight had slumped to 35% from 75% in the 1920s. Tracks were neglected and fell into disrepair, leading to a downward spiral of speed restrictions and deteriorating service. The term “standing derailment” was coined to describe the toppling-over of stationary freight wagons when the track gave way beneath their wheels. (You can use outline.com to get past the Economist's paywall.)