4 ms·

> The trucks could also be commercially viable with only freeway driving capability, or freeways plus a short segment of surface streets needed to reach a trans

> The trucks could also be commercially viable with only freeway driving capability, or freeways plus a short segment of surface streets needed to reach a transfer hub. The question is... isn't the problem being approached from an entirely bad premise in the first place? Why would it even make sense to develop autonomous trucks for that part of any freight's journey? Laying train tracks might incur a large initial expense since the tracks, unlike highways, aren't there anyway, but a train is way more energy efficient as only the first locomotive has to deal with air resistance and steel-on-steel is less friction than tires.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
To a pretty good approximation, everything that feasibly can get shipped by rail already is. Railroad companies operate fairly close to capacity, and they have no desire to reduce their massive profit margins building new rails en masse and handling the maintenance burden. That leaves only the shippers themselves, who are often much smaller companies that couldn't reasonably build a new rail line or buy cars for every customer, but can easily afford a few trucks to be relocated anywhere in the country they have demand.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Railroad companies operate fairly close to capacity, and they have no desire to reduce their massive profit margins building new rails en masse and handling the maintenance burden. I'm talking from a "looking at the wide, societal picture" viewpoint. And from that, it makes so much more sense to shift as much long haul traffic to railways as possible. I'm aware that the mechanics of modern day capitalism are not aligned with what's best for society at large, long-term - mostly that railway infrastructure is orders of magnitude better regarding emissions and energy consumptions, but that it takes many more years for investments to pay off, which is why there is so few railway capacity in the US and what is there, is often enough in shabby condition.
- stefan_ 3y ago
  That's a good summary: someone else has paid for the roads, but won't for the rail.

AlotOfReading 3y ago

To a pretty good approximation, everything that feasibly can get shipped by rail already is. Railroad companies operate fairly close to capacity, and they have no desire to reduce their massive profit margins building new rails en masse and handling the maintenance burden. That leaves only the shippers themselves, who are often much smaller companies that couldn't reasonably build a new rail line or buy cars for every customer, but can easily afford a few trucks to be relocated anywhere in the country they have demand.

mschuster91 3y ago
> Railroad companies operate fairly close to capacity, and they have no desire to reduce their massive profit margins building new rails en masse and handling the maintenance burden. I'm talking from a "looking at the wide, societal picture" viewpoint. And from that, it makes so much more sense to shift as much long haul traffic to railways as possible. I'm aware that the mechanics of modern day capitalism are not aligned with what's best for society at large, long-term - mostly that railway infrastructure is orders of magnitude better regarding emissions and energy consumptions, but that it takes many more years for investments to pay off, which is why there is so few railway capacity in the US and what is there, is often enough in shabby condition.
stefan_ 3y ago
That's a good summary: someone else has paid for the roads, but won't for the rail.