5 ms·
yes, but we already have a network of asphalt, not rails.
by maerF0x0 4y ago
yes, but we already have a network of asphalt, not rails.
- antoineMoPa 4y agoHere is a map of the rail network in North America (just to confirm that it does not exist /s) https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=96ec03e4fc8546bd8a864e39a2c3fc41 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=96ec...
- maerF0x0 4y agoclearly rails exist. I highly doubt you, or anyone, believes that rails reach the number of destinations that roads do. Yes you could argue to move more by rail for most destinations, and last mile it by truck. But with that change I still think we're running into contention for that left lane ...
- antoineMoPa 4y agoI agree that the rail network is really not sufficient in North America, but it's worth investing more in extending this network.
- TingPing 4y agoMaintenance cost of rail is significantly cheaper. Don't sink more into bad design.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xyzzyz 4y agoIt costs Amtrak over $300k a year to maintain a single mile of track on the Northeast corridor. For comparison, it costs around $30k to maintain a single mile of US interstate, i.e. only 10% of the cost to maintain rail track. In what sense rail is cheaper to maintain, exactly?
- brewdad 4y agoCitation needed. I can believe that we spend $30k a year filling potholes on a mile of interstate but every 10 years we have to resurface it and every 30-50 years we have to completely rebuild it.
- xyzzyz 4y agoJust Google it, it’s not hard. Are you really surprised that rail also costs money to maintain?
- doctorwho42 4y agoGood point! Let's dedicate a fraction of it, say the left most lane, to becoming railway lines!!!