[dunmalg]

The US already moves over 40% of its total hauled tonnage by rail, more than twice that of the next largest economic entity, the EU, which is pushing about 20%. Long haul trucking isn't just competitive because the "subsidy" of not being banned from the federal interstate highway system. Pretty much all the freight that can be economically shipped by rail already is. Rail is inflexible and requires substantial investment in fixed infrastructure to add terminals. Intermodal facilities frequently add so much difficulty at both ends that it's often simpler and faster just have one truck drive 300 miles than to run a trailer 100 miles, piggyback by rail 200 miles, then another truck run the trailer from the intermodal terminal 100 miles to the destination. Charging trucks a toll to use the interstate or whatever isn't going to make rails magically appear over steep mountainous areas in the western US, or bridges for parallel tracks materialize over all the rivers and streams in the midwest/south, or new rights of way appear through the densely populated northeast. It's not like government sugar tariffs and corn subsidies combining to perversely make corn syrup cheaper than sugar. Rail and truck transport fill different niches and are both necessary to a functioning transport network.

[nradov]

No one is expecting magic, but if we priced in the externalities of trucking (mainly increased fuel taxes or tolls for road damage) that would help shift cargo transportation mix a little more towards rail.

[skookumchuck]

I drive I5 regularly. It's flat all the way from Canada to San Diego. The train tracks run parallel to it.

It's also jammed with semis.

There's a lot of low hanging fruit in transitioning to rail.

[robk]

Not everything is simply going north south on that axis

[skookumchuck]

It doesn't have to remove every truck from I5 to be a huge win, either. Like I said, I5 is packed with trucks 24/7.