3 ms·

Wouldn’t rail also be idle 90% of the time?

• bastawhiz 2y ago
  Rail can haul cargo as well. The cost of idle rail is very very low compared to the cost of maintaining charging infrastructure.
  • rootusrootus 2y ago
    The intercity rail part is the easy part. Getting people to actually use it requires a pretty decent city transit network on each end. On top of that, cargo and passenger trains don't really coexist that nicely. Nobody really wants to spend bullet train money on cargo, but that's what you need if you want to have bullet train speed for passengers on the same track. Nice thing about charging infrastructure is that another name for it is "the grid." It already exists everywhere. And in rural areas that don't have enough grid capacity for high peak loads, use batteries (which are getting much cheaper) as a buffer.
    • gpapilion 2y ago
      > The intercity rail part is the easy part. Getting people to actually use it requires a pretty decent city transit network on each end. I don’t think this is true. People take airplanes and rent a cars all the time. The same could be true for train travel. All of the ways someone would leave a train station generally exist. People don’t take trains for two reasons: 1. They take too long. 2. They are too expensive. For example sf to la takes at least ~9-13h and costs between 50-80 dollars. Versus a southwest flight for ~140 that takes an hour. For most people that extra 60 dollars for 7-11 hours is worth it.