4 ms·

Hm. I did a quick search on freight percentages, EU vs US and google gave me this snippet off the top hit. "46 percent of European freight goes by truck while o

Hm. I did a quick search on freight percentages, EU vs US and google gave me this snippet off the top hit. "46 percent of European freight goes by truck while only 11 percent goes by rail, while in the United States more than 40 percent goes by rail while just 30 percent goes on the highway." Seems US is doing pretty well on prioritising freight rail transport, despite brainwashing, at least compared to europe. Which is probably a good thing. Until that figure is a lot higher, passenger rail is just one more thing reducing the efficiencies of freight.

ederamen 3y ago
That's 40% of "ton-miles" - trains disproportionately move heavy, cheap goods (i.e. aggregate, coal), which makes that number potentially misleading. The percentage of freight moved by rail by "value" is closer to 15% (trucking is ~65%). https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-north-american-freight-numbers https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-north-american-freight-num... https://www.aar.org/facts-figures#:~:text=Freight%20rail%20accounts%20for%20around,any%20other%20mode%20of%20transportation https://www.aar.org/facts-figures#:~:text=Freight%20rail%20a....
- obmelvin 3y ago
  I agree it's good to consider the whole picture, but ton-miles are probably the most important to consider given the increased diesel required to truck heavy loads, correct?
  - eru 3y ago
    Plus congestion and labour etc.
- irrational 3y ago
  Why would one want to emphasize value over weight? If I load up a train with extremely expensive metals, jewels, artwork, etc. couldn’t I raise a countries rail by value measurement overnight?
- pitaj 3y ago
  And how does that compare to Europe?
- sarchertech 3y ago
  The number isn’t misleading if we’re talking about efficient movement of goods. I’m unclear why you’d care about value at all in the context of this discussion. In context weight and volume are the most relevant metrics.
ehnto 3y ago
So perhaps a priority could be to build more medium/high speed passenger rail, and get it off the freight lines? Travelers and commuters win, cargo wins! It is funny though, the US built it's current freight network in a comparatively low tech era, yet I doubt it could do it again in the current era due to funding and beauracracy.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  This is a weird post. Could any highly industrialised nation build a new freight network today? Probably not. Mostly, it would be blocked by noise complaints and lack of land. Most nation-sized freight rail networks were built more than 100 years ago when population density was far lower and noise controls barely existed. Also, have you heard of the Alameda Corridor is Los Angeles County? That project is incredible. The amount of soil moved for that project must be staggering. The dimensions: <<The centerpiece of the new Alameda Corridor would be the "Mid-Corridor Trench" a below-ground, triple-tracked rail line that is 10 miles (16 km) long, 33 feet (10 m) deep, and 50 feet (15 m) wide.>> Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Corridor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Corridor
  - eru 3y ago
    Freight trains don't have to be louder than passenger trains. (Though from what I've heard, the US has incredible noisy trains, thanks also to lots of horn blaring?) And quite a few industrialised countries around the world are building more rail lines. The US already has an extensive freight rail network. It's the one part of their rail transport that works fairly well. Expanding that should be possible. Especially because freight typically travels slower than passengers, so your track doesn't need to be as straight, so you have more leeway in planning.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      > And quite a few industrialised countries around the world are building more rail lines. Can you expound on this?
coalteddy 3y ago
The reason is probably because, in the EU, passenger rail transport is prioritised over cargo. For example in Switzwerland rail cargo is mainly transported during the night because thats the only time the network isn't working at it's limit for the passenger trains. In Canada, to my understanding, it's the other way round where passenger trains have been reduced because of the need for more cargo train trips. The USA might be similar.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  Yeah, I understand that in the US the rail is actually owned by cargo train companies, so they give their trains priority.
  - pests 3y ago
    Which is against the law.
- WirelessGigabit 3y ago
  In the USA most railroad are owned by the railroad company. When Amtrak wants to use a piece of rail they pay the railway. But the USA is VAST. Freight trains are LONG. Not much of America's West is actually double track. And when you have a shorter Amtrack and a long freight train the Amtrack loses. The Amtrack has to wait until the freight train has passed. As the freight trains run on PSR [1] there is no fixed time as to when they pass and thus the Amtrack can not run reliable. As such it is easier for me to drive from West Los Angeles to Las Vegas, or even to drive to LAX and then fly to LAS than it is to take the train. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_railroading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_railroading
  - rascul 3y ago
    Amtrak blames freight trains for not following the law and the DoJ for not enforcing the law. Which is just one side of the story. https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/HostRailroadReports/mythbusters-enforcing-amtraks-legal-right-to-preference.pdf https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AniseAbyss 3y ago
Europe has rivers and canals.
- capitainenemo 3y ago
  That doesn't change the fact they are transporting half their freight by truck while the US transports a small fraction of that.. Also, US does have rivers and canal transport as well. Mississippi and Erie canal.

ederamen 3y ago

That's 40% of "ton-miles" - trains disproportionately move heavy, cheap goods (i.e. aggregate, coal), which makes that number potentially misleading. The percentage of freight moved by rail by "value" is closer to 15% (trucking is ~65%). https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-north-american-freight-numbers https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-north-american-freight-num... https://www.aar.org/facts-figures#:~:text=Freight%20rail%20accounts%20for%20around,any%20other%20mode%20of%20transportation https://www.aar.org/facts-figures#:~:text=Freight%20rail%20a....

obmelvin 3y ago
I agree it's good to consider the whole picture, but ton-miles are probably the most important to consider given the increased diesel required to truck heavy loads, correct?
- eru 3y ago
  Plus congestion and labour etc.
irrational 3y ago
Why would one want to emphasize value over weight? If I load up a train with extremely expensive metals, jewels, artwork, etc. couldn’t I raise a countries rail by value measurement overnight?
pitaj 3y ago
And how does that compare to Europe?
sarchertech 3y ago
The number isn’t misleading if we’re talking about efficient movement of goods. I’m unclear why you’d care about value at all in the context of this discussion. In context weight and volume are the most relevant metrics.

ehnto 3y ago

So perhaps a priority could be to build more medium/high speed passenger rail, and get it off the freight lines? Travelers and commuters win, cargo wins! It is funny though, the US built it's current freight network in a comparatively low tech era, yet I doubt it could do it again in the current era due to funding and beauracracy.

throwaway2037 3y ago
This is a weird post. Could any highly industrialised nation build a new freight network today? Probably not. Mostly, it would be blocked by noise complaints and lack of land. Most nation-sized freight rail networks were built more than 100 years ago when population density was far lower and noise controls barely existed. Also, have you heard of the Alameda Corridor is Los Angeles County? That project is incredible. The amount of soil moved for that project must be staggering. The dimensions: <<The centerpiece of the new Alameda Corridor would be the "Mid-Corridor Trench" a below-ground, triple-tracked rail line that is 10 miles (16 km) long, 33 feet (10 m) deep, and 50 feet (15 m) wide.>> Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Corridor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Corridor
- eru 3y ago
  Freight trains don't have to be louder than passenger trains. (Though from what I've heard, the US has incredible noisy trains, thanks also to lots of horn blaring?) And quite a few industrialised countries around the world are building more rail lines. The US already has an extensive freight rail network. It's the one part of their rail transport that works fairly well. Expanding that should be possible. Especially because freight typically travels slower than passengers, so your track doesn't need to be as straight, so you have more leeway in planning.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    > And quite a few industrialised countries around the world are building more rail lines. Can you expound on this?

coalteddy 3y ago

The reason is probably because, in the EU, passenger rail transport is prioritised over cargo. For example in Switzwerland rail cargo is mainly transported during the night because thats the only time the network isn't working at it's limit for the passenger trains. In Canada, to my understanding, it's the other way round where passenger trains have been reduced because of the need for more cargo train trips. The USA might be similar.

ajmurmann 3y ago
Yeah, I understand that in the US the rail is actually owned by cargo train companies, so they give their trains priority.
- pests 3y ago
  Which is against the law.
WirelessGigabit 3y ago
In the USA most railroad are owned by the railroad company. When Amtrak wants to use a piece of rail they pay the railway. But the USA is VAST. Freight trains are LONG. Not much of America's West is actually double track. And when you have a shorter Amtrack and a long freight train the Amtrack loses. The Amtrack has to wait until the freight train has passed. As the freight trains run on PSR [1] there is no fixed time as to when they pass and thus the Amtrack can not run reliable. As such it is easier for me to drive from West Los Angeles to Las Vegas, or even to drive to LAX and then fly to LAS than it is to take the train. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_railroading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_railroading
- rascul 3y ago
  Amtrak blames freight trains for not following the law and the DoJ for not enforcing the law. Which is just one side of the story. https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/HostRailroadReports/mythbusters-enforcing-amtraks-legal-right-to-preference.pdf https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

AniseAbyss 3y ago

Europe has rivers and canals.

capitainenemo 3y ago
That doesn't change the fact they are transporting half their freight by truck while the US transports a small fraction of that.. Also, US does have rivers and canal transport as well. Mississippi and Erie canal.