> What we observe under these conditions is that, domestically, most of both the tonnage and value of cargo is transported via truck. Trucks are neither the fastest nor the cheapest mode of transport, but they provide a great value proposition—you get your stuff in a few days for much cheaper than air freight.
I feel like this is a bit naive. The true competitor to trucking is rail. But trucking is preferred because it's point-to-point and you don't have to deal with intermodal connections. Airships would have these exact same problems (unless you invented some way to build routes and drop off containers at specific addresses - but then you are back to it being slow again!).
So the only real market would be replacing container ships with something slightly more expensive but faster. But even using his own math - a fleet of 25,000 airships each with only a 500 ton capacity, and each being twice as big as the biggest airplane ever built - seems like a nightmare. All to only capture half of the global shipping market!
I concede I might be totally wrong here, but the issue with rail seems to be profitability.
I live in (moved to) Europe, and the railways are far more developed than in the US. But as far as I know, they all have to be heavily subsidized by the governments to even function. None of them operate with a true profit. Here in Germany, 2.2% of the latest federal budget is to support the railways. This is despite the railways being privatized (into a government owned corporation).
And while trucking is also subsidized to an extent, and it's a difficult business, but people do successfully operate trucking companies.
Airships might have the same problems as rail does with intermodal connections, but it's worth a try to see how the profitability equation works out (in real life, not MBA-land).
_Maybe_ it's feasible for large multinationals to run direct routes between their warehouses, with trucks being used for last-mile delivery. The only cost is operation; in comparison with rail where the infrastructure is a constant sink, and in comparison with trucks where the infrastructure cost is outsourced to society.
You have it backwards. Cargo railways are more developed in the US than in most of Europe. After the latest round of industry consolidation, most rail companies are highly profitable.
Trucks pay most of infrastructure costs through fuel taxes and registration fees.
Fair enough. I conceded I might be totally wrong because my conclusion is based on casual observation of passenger trains and their infrastructure rather than looking into the industry.
I could feasibly reach all cities and _most_ large towns by rail in Germany. Sure, it's slow as heck if you're not taking the express train with no transfers and few stops. But the infrastructure is there. Whereas in the US there are massive areas where the nearest train connection is hours away.
I assume there are factors with freight trains I don't know anything about, and if they're as profitable as you say then the infrastructure is actually very optimized for profitability; if there's somewhere worth reaching, the trains reach it.
Most cities and towns in the US aren't too far from some rail line. There probably will not be any passenger service on that rail though. Passenger rail service is practically dead for the majority of the US.
I feel like this is a bit naive. The true competitor to trucking is rail. But trucking is preferred because it's point-to-point and you don't have to deal with intermodal connections. Airships would have these exact same problems (unless you invented some way to build routes and drop off containers at specific addresses - but then you are back to it being slow again!).
So the only real market would be replacing container ships with something slightly more expensive but faster. But even using his own math - a fleet of 25,000 airships each with only a 500 ton capacity, and each being twice as big as the biggest airplane ever built - seems like a nightmare. All to only capture half of the global shipping market!