Comment by margalabargala | Hacker News Reader

Comment by margalabargala | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones?

This is correct, and it's why your conclusion is nonsensical.

No one is subsidizing luxury toys. The amount of damage done to roads by an e-Hummer or Rivian is mildly above that of, say, a Camry. Both do hundreds of times less damage than an 18-wheeler. The amount of damage done to a road by a passenger sedan is functionally zero, and for a Rivian or Hummer, it remains essentially zero.

The weight of large electric vehicles is an important issue! It makes a huge difference in cases of, for example, striking a pedestrian. But road damage is not a major issue for electric vehicles.

One caveat would be that a lot of road repair is funded via gas taxes, so road damage per dollar paid towards road repair may be lower for electric vehicles. But if we make heavy vehicles pair "their fair share", the Rivians will pay pennies, and the truckers will all go bankrupt.

> the truckers will all go bankrupt

I still think the alternative to pay per weight*distance is good - trucks should be last-mile delivery, not the primary source of transportation for goods in North America. Cargo trains are much better in many different dimensions, even more-so if they're electrified (Though, that's an impossibility in this market)

Tell me you've never worked in logistics without telling me you've never worked in logistics.

We put a lot of effort into not using rail for freight, it stands to reason that if we actually set our minds to it we could start using it more again.

(At least, I think that the argument you’re making is about modern logistics and modern rail freight being surprisingly incompatible. But it’s hard to tell since you haven’t actually provided a rebuttal.)

For all of us who haven't worked in logistics, why not explain what you're talking about instead of being snarky?

I work for a logistics company which operates a hub-and-spoke network of trucks running between its branches in the US and Europe. Think just like an airline running scheduled flights, but with trucks going warehouse to warehouse. The truck is contracted out to a service provider, and goes on schedule regardless of what is on it at the time. The reason we do this is because it offers a predictable way of getting stuff from point A to point B using existing infrastructure. And 99 times out of 100, with the volumes we move, the truck is full of something. Or many somethings.

And when you move the volumes of freight we do, that helps us fulfill our business case, which is "give us your stuff. Here's the paperwork saying we take responsibility. We'll make sure it arrives at point B on time, compliant with customs and all import/export laws, and compliant with all your industry's off-the-wall niche requirements, without you having to do so much as think about it anymore."

This isn't feasible using only rail without multiple governments across the world investing billions or maybe trillions of dollars/Euros in new track. Especially in America, where the rail network has always gotten outcompeted by truck freight for many different reasons. What you're describing is a pie-in-the-sky ideal, not what's necessarily feasible without making freight prices skyrocket due to high rail demand, low capacity, and the probably 25+ years it would take to change this. If not 50-100 years.

I doubt all roads are built to the same specification and they should not. 18 wheelers have no place in city center or suburb.

How do you think goods are getting into a Target or Costco? 30 delivery vans an hour?

I'm not living in the US but I was under the impression that Target&Cosco were already not in the city center or the middle of suburbs but more like close to an interstate or other main road ?

Isn't most road damage caused by climate and weather and not vehicles?

Really depends if you live somewhere with seasons or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com