• teuast@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    All of those are phenomenal arguments for heavily reinvesting in our freight rail.

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Rail can’t realistically be connected to everyone’s house. You always need a solution for that final mile.

      For smaller stuff, a (cargo) bike is a perfect solution.

      For heavier stuff, like a mobile work place or a 40ft steel beam, you will always need something else. Right now the best option is a (small, electric) van. For that you will need at least some roads. You can prevent them from being accessible to anything but professionals who absolutely need access. But you will still need a limited amount of them.

      Perfect is the enemy of good. Being a zealot about this, is self-defeating and won’t convince enough people.

    • S410@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Trains are great and they’re definitely underutilized in the modern world, but the thing they excel at is getting stuff from point A to point B (like a warehouse), not spreading it around across thousands of different destinations.

      Building a light railway to each and every walmart, target, 7eleven, etc. it’s just not practical in any way:

      My city, for example, has a relatively extensive tram system. You can get around most of the city by it and there’s quite a few stores that are right next to tracks, so, theoretically, something like that could be used to deliver goods within a city.

      However, it’s, both, way louder than cars and trucks (I used to live right next to a railway) and every time a tram or its powerline break, the entire line stops. You can’t, exactly, drive around a broken tram when you’re on rail.