The US has a really good freight train network. Yet there's a good chance the products you discussed didn't use the much more efficient train for the long distance portion of their transit.

▲

gryfft 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If it's more efficient, is that not an arbitrage opportunity?

▲

bryanlarsen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

- it's less convenient. If the cost difference is small because trucking is cheap people will pay more for convenience.

- the cost difference is smaller than it should be. Trucking is highly subsidized, since diesel taxes don't come anywhere close to paying for the roads. OTOH railroads have to maintain their own infrastructure.

▲

andrew_lettuce an hour ago | parent [-]

... Usually on the best land they were gifted for building the railway line on the first place, so heavily subsidized as well

	▲	bryanlarsen an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They were gifted the land when the land was close to worthless because the transport costs for western products were higher than their value. The train is what made western land valuable. That land had value before the train came through was almost pure speculation -- people bought and settled land assuming that it would have value once a train arrived. It was a real subsidy, but it was small and it was > 100 years ago. OTOH, the land the freeways and roads were built on already had significant value before it was expropriated for road construction and wasn't paid for with diesel tax revenue, so it's yet another subsidy for truck traffic.

▲

Zambyte 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's efficient in terms of energy, but slow after decades of neglect. People pay for fast.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]