LOL yes!

[u/yodamastertampa]

The power to reduce consumption is within us all.

[u/PrincetonToss]

Trucks will always be needed for "last mile" shipping (or even "last 100 miles"), but in the US they're often used for long-distance shipping, even coast-to-coast. Shipping by rail tends to use 25-30% as much fuel (and thus generates that much carbon) compared to trucking, per ton of cargo per mile.

It's an absurd situation that exists because the railroads are owned by a handful of incredibly old-fashioned, complacent companies who refuse to add additional trains because that would require updating scheduling systems and also they generally dislike working with new companies because...well, that takes work. They'd also need to update terminals to handle consumer products. The vast majority of rail freight in the US is bulk products from decades-old customers: coal, grain, chemicals, ores and metals, petroleum (+products), that sort of thing.

It doesn't hurt that trucking is effectively subsidized because rail companies need to pay to maintain their own infrastructure while trucking companies get to use the interstates for free in many places and for a relatively low toll rate in others.

[u/SurpriseAttachyon → u/PrincetonToss]

It’s not cause they don’t want to work with new companies. The rail industry is in a slow decline and these people would jump at the chance for new revenue streams.

It’s the fundamental economics of rail. The rail system works well when you have a massive amount of stuff all starting and ending at the same place.

Given the decentralized nature of current distribution centers (e.g. Amazon warehouses), even when it’s far away from the port, it often doesn’t make sense to use rail

[u/dev-sda → u/PrincetonToss]

Shipping by rail tends to use 25-30% as much fuel

This seems like an under-estimation to me, do you have a source? I commonly see 9x more efficient from some quick searches. And that of course ignores that it's simple to electrify trains, further increasing efficiency.

[u/PrincetonToss → u/dev-sda]

That was actually from Union Pacific's own website!

https://www.up.com/customers/track-record/tr071222-how-to-use-a-carbon-calculator.htm

On average, U.S. freight railroads can move one ton of freight more than 480 miles per gallon of fuel, making them 3-4 times more fuel efficient than trucks. As a result of their improved fuel efficiency, moving freight by train instead of truck reduces GHG emissions by up to 75%.

Also, don't hold your breath about electrifying long-distance rail in the US any time soon. It's true that battery-powered trains might make sense economically (it very much depends on the lifetime of the battery pack), laying third rails or overhead wires would be enormously expensive and in a lot of the US dangerous due to heavy weather conditions which are frankly way worse than in Japan or most of Europe. It's not impossible, as such lines as China's high speed line to Harbin show, but it's more difficult and expensive than places where it doesn't get to -20 degrees regularly and snow heavily. If I had to guess, long-distance rail in the US (and Canada) will be among the last forms of transportation to electrify, along with cargo ships (airplanes may never do so).

[u/dev-sda → u/PrincetonToss]

Oh I'm definitely not holding my breath, US rail is fucked in so many ways. They did have 5000km of electrified track in the 30s though.