7 ms·
That's a whataboutism. Many countries cannot survive without long haul trucking. Many individuals can survive without a car given the right municipal commitmen
by julianlam 4y ago
That's a whataboutism. Many countries cannot survive without long haul trucking.
Many individuals can survive without a car given the right municipal commitment.
- Waterluvian 4y agoIsn’t that flawed logic? If you’re proposing that one of these issues can be fixed with more infrastructure, then couldn’t either? Rail is nice.
- julianlam 4y agoSure! Rail is nice, when the volume permits it. How would we supply the supermarket, though? A rail line would be unfeasible.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y agoIf we wanted to redesign all our infrastructure to minimize auto and truck miles, we’d probably try to replace long-haul trucking routes with routes that pick up from local rail depots. Everyone would live near a train station (or in larger urban areas, light rail that connects to the train stations). There would be a mostly-separate freight network with depots near every population center. Trucks could be used to get goods from the depot to the store. Some long-haul routes would be needed to serve remote rural communities, and some high-priority stuff like mail delivery.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y agoWhat body has the final say over "we", and where do the funds come from? (More specific than "taxpayers")
- throwaway894345 4y agoI haven’t run numbers, but fewer trucks on highways means dramatically less maintenance—savings could be diverted to pay for rail buildout.
- smileysteve 4y agoRail construction and maintenance is super low cost compared to highway and interstates. The expensive part is buying new rightaways, a private company responsible for liabilities like trespassing, security, and runoff (all of which the highways get subsidized by the public) If the US spent a small percent of what it does on highways it could reactivate tracks that have shutdown since the 50s, rail towns would rise again and be the central b rural hub for groceries again. If the US replaced 1 lane of every 6+ lane interstate highway, as due for maintenance..., every major metro would have world class transit in less than a decade (you need 2 lines if you don't use modern safe switchingb at stations)
- rocqua 4y agoI imagine interstate highways have slopes and curves that are too extreme for train. Specifically for high-speed rail.
- trainsarebetter 4y agoThat’s in the law books. In the Netherlands it’s part of the zoning to have a freight line for loading/off loading. It actually takes up much less space compared to truck loading docks. Parking take sup a lot of land.
- worthless-trash 4y agoI dont see why it couldnt, if you think about it.. Trams are a thing.
- eloisius 4y agoYou're getting closer. Suburban supermarkets might be unfeasible without long-haul trucking. That's just another example of the public subsidizing the suburban lifestyle, which is unsustainable without fossil fuels and public subsidies. Rail can very well transport goods from port to population centers, where box trucks can handle the last mile to stores.
- throwaway894345 4y agoLol you came so close! Suburban supermarkets would get their goods just like your urban supermarket: smaller box trucks transporting goods from rail depot to supermarket.
- eloisius 4y agoI doubt it would be viable to stock suburban walmart via box trucks.
- throwaway894345 4y agoI don’t see why not, but in any case you wouldn’t need long-haul trucking to get goods from a local rail depot.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwaway894345 4y agoYou don’t need long-haul trucking to get goods to the supermarket, you use rail and then smaller trucks from rail depot to supermarket.
- dimitrios1 4y agoWe survived without long haul trucking for the majority of the industrial age.
- petre 4y agoYes, Algeria, which is like 90% desert. Not the US though. Instead, US individuals can't survive without a car due to how your cities are built.