[kungtotte]

Speaking as a truck-driver (not over-the-road, I drive a septic tank truck), I find it shocking that so much is poured into the self-driving movement and not invested into changing the infrastructure to require fewer transports in the first place.

Self-driving is a win for corporations in that it saves them money in the long run, and it would offer higher throughput as the trucks could run 24/7 with no need for breaks. Refueling could happen while they're being loaded/unloaded by warehouse personnel, as could general maintenance such as changing tires etc. so you would have a small fleet of truck operating nearly continuously which would be a huge economic win for these companies.

But why isn't more money spent trying to change the transportation sector? Why are trucks running across the US instead of high-capacity trains? One train could easily swallow 50 trucks worth of goods if the infrastructure was built to accommodate it. Why are things shipped so far instead of produced and sold more locally? There's capacity to produce food much closer to where people live, so 'fresh' actually means fresh, and it travels at most double-digit miles before it hits the store instead of quadruple-digit miles or more.

By all means push for self-driving, but for the environment we need to push for no driving.

[michaelt]

  Why are trucks running across the
  US instead of high-capacity trains?

Imagine a country where every company and family follows the rule "Make the investments that, without anyone else changing anything, will pay back my investment fastest"

To use the jargon of game theory they are unable to coordinate; when faced with a stag hunt [1] they will always choose to pursue hares alone instead of pursuing a stag as a team.

In this country, 50 families will buy £10,000 SUVs to deal with a potholed road, as any family resurfacing it alone would spend £100,000, and pooling £2,000 each isn't an option.

Likewise, a trucking company can buy an battery electric truck or a self-driving truck without anyone else changing anything - it can run on the roads that already exist.

Do you suppose such a country would ever end up with trains, or busses, or overhead power cables for electric vehicles?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt

[kungtotte]

I know why, on a practical and political level, why things are the way they are. I'm questioning the status quo: I think policies should be implemented and government funds should be allocated such that we change the current status quo.

I am very much not a believer in the supremacy of the free market.

[magduf]

>I'm questioning the status quo: I think policies should be implemented and government funds should be allocated such that we change the current status quo.

Americans don't believe in this; they believe in the status quo which is not spending anything on infrastructure and letting it decay. Look at who they vote for, and the infrastructural policies they push.

[dmos62]

> environment we need to push for no driving

Agreed, but politically it's near impossible at this point. One person expressed the effort required to change how we interact with the environment quite well: on the country-level, it's like the US mobilization for WW2. After decades of government intervention being framed as diabolic, and the issue of environment being turned into a partisan issue, I don't see any way this can happen in US at this time.

[WorldMaker]

Moon shot. Arguably the right mix of political PR (charismatic leadership, cohesive message) and some sense of large enough external threat. Climate change is already right there as not just a huge external threat, but an existential threat. Politicians have just yet to mobilize the American political machinery necessary to properly react to it. A few good speeches from the right leader could do magic, at least so history tells us.

(It may not be possible in the age of Fox News to rally enough people to the smart causes. But the treasons of that Australian institution against the World are still left to be prosecuted.)

[jjeaff]

Lots of goods are shipped via train. It's very cheap. But it is slower, and you still need trucks for last mile delivery... Or in lots of cases, last 100 miles delivery.

[StudentStuff]

This is in large part due to BNSF, UP and other US railways spinning off or closing all the unprofitable short rail lines that used to go to local warehouses, industrial and commercial districts, resulting in many decrepit, barely usable rail lines.

Trucks are the only option when your local rail operator shuts down or doesn't have the capacity to service your business. This chronic underinvestment in vital infrastructure is hurting the economies of smaller towns, making any business that needs cheap transport to thrive less competitive.

[kungtotte]

Not nearly enough are shipped via train, and infrastructure could be changed and improved to reduce the need for last-mile delivery (particularly, remove the need for last-100-mile deliveries).

If all we needed were short-haul last mile deliveries we'd eliminate millions of truck miles per year (huge economic and environmental win), move those trucks to green propulsion and it's even better.

This can't happen with how the infrastructure looks today though. Which is why I question the money spent on self-driving instead of fixing the whole transport sector. It's bailing water faster in a sinking boat while ignoring the gaping hole in the bottom.