• sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m not so sure. Infrastructure is hella expensive and the US government already maintains the highways that make trucking make sense.

      • jenesaisquoi@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Not necessarily. A 40 tonne lorry damages the motorway as much as 1000 passenger cars. It will lead to the state having to renew the road surfaces every few years. Rails don’t have that problem, they’ll happily take 100 tonnes for decades.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          A 40 tonne lorry damages the motorway as much as 1000 passenger cars.

          According to an old and well-attested empirical formula, road damage is proportional to the fourth power of vehicle weight. So if we make the pessimistic assumption that those passenger cars weigh 2 tons (pretend they’re all SUV-sized EVs), then the damage ratio is on the order of (40^4) / (2^4), which means your 40-ton lorry does as much damage as 160,000 cars.

        • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          The point I’m making is that the government has already decided to maintain the highways, so continuing on is the status quo. If they wanted to make new railroads they’d have to expend political capital to get anything new funded.

    • Lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Maybe 2 or 3 single rail lines across the country.

      You guys gotta remember that the US is double the size of the entire EU. I will say that I don’t disagree in that more rail would be nice, but you have to think about this logically.