Almost, but on a road and not on a rail. Also a little bit like cars, but these ones drive themselves. A bit like a tram, but with the ability to move freely and not be guided by a rail. Not at all like a bar of soap. Somewhat like a bicycle, but bigger and enclosed.

Like trains with Automatic Train Control. Unfortunately, it's hard enough to get our train operators to install Positive Train Control, never mind Automatic Train Control.

True, but there's also the logistics around getting their goods from a factory to a train. The assumption around automated deliveries would be that the entire chain is automated - from creation to lorry to destination.

Curious have you ever been on one? Not sure how fast or slow they are for cargo but I have taken a train from Orlando to Hollywood (near the Miami area) approx a 3 hour drive by car. On a good day its a 6 hour train ride, I think I have been on there for 10 hours before. Some people for waaay longer from further up north.

I rather be on the road but a train was cheaper than spending money on tolls plus gas. Saving money then was a necessity for me.

You speak about trains as if they are some incredibly exotic things? Maybe they are in US, I don't know. But at least UK trains are almost always faster than driving. I could get to London by train in like 2:50h, or 5 hours of driving(and that's just to outskirts of London, not the city centre). Or to Edinburgh in 1:20h by train, or 3 hours of driving. Not to mention proper European trains, where taking a TGV from Paris to say Brussels, Amsterdam or Berlin is in no way or form comparable to driving - it's just much much faster.

Now the cost is an issue - in the UK driving is almost invariably cheaper than taking the train, even when going solo. When taking any passengers with you driving will win every single time, sometimes it's even worth renting a car for the journey and it will still be cheaper than the train.

I can't believe that "have you ever been on a train" is a real question.

Depending on the route, I could see those numbers being reversed in the UK and Europe; intercity trains are fast but pricey, even allowing for the much higher fossil fuel taxes.

Commuter trains are a similar story; while it's expensive and unpleasant to commute into central London by train, doing it by car will be even slower, incur the congestion charge, and there's nowhere to park.

The price various a lot.

- In Belgium you can ride from anywhere in the country to anywhere else for 7.5€ (if you buy a prepaid ticket for 10 rides), which is hard to beat even with a car with great mileage.

- In Portugal, you can go from Lisbon to Porto for 15€ (buying a couple weeks in advance). By car, that won't even cover the tolls.

I commute into central Edinburgh from Fife - I wouldn't say it expensive (£12 return) and it's pleasant journey (maybe once a month I have to stand for 15 mins on the way home). The equivalent journey by car would be much more expensive due to parking costs, take much longer and, in my view, be rather unpleasant.

I like having a car - but not for commuting into the center of a city!

Why?

In the US, I guarantee you that the vast majority of people have never been on a train. In a few select cities the number will drop if you include subways and other commuter trains, but the general conclusion is the same.

I have taken a train from Berlin to Saarbrücken, approx an eight hour drive. On a good day it's a 6:30h train ride. For Berlin-Munich it's seven hours in a car or 4:30 in a train. For Tokyo-Kyoto it's six hours by car or 2:30 by train.

The US rail system privileges freight over passengers, which is a big part of what makes it (by world standards) a slow system to ride.