Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 334 posts

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#31

Post by wongarsu »

anarchop wrote: post #24

Deisel freight trains are huge poluters with regard to particulate matter (PM). This actually causes cancer as opposed to CO2. Reducing PM without impacting fuel efficiency significantly is possible but requires investment. https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resour... Same goes for diesel trucks / busses. This type of change throughout the world would really improve people’s lives immediately.

However PM is a fairly localized pollution that doesn't spread far. I don't think diesel trains that drive through the middle of nowhere are that bad. Near population centers it would be preferable to switch to electric locomotives.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#32

Post by jdietrich »

perfmode wrote: post #10
fastball wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is "discovering" this. The US has prioritized other modes of transport because the US had priorities beyond "how clean it is".

Such as?

Among other factors, the US motor industry engaged in a criminal conspiracy to undermine urban mass transit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#33

Post by throwawayjava »

ams6110 wrote: post #3

Cycling is cleaner than any of them. So what?

HSR is a viable alternative to flights. Similar travel times are possible.

Electrified rail is a viable alternative to suburb urban center commutes. Similar/better travel times are possible.

And in both cases rail is much more pleasant. E.g., ICE trains are way nicer airplanes -- anyone who thinks otherwise has never been on an ICE train or really enjoys being punished.

I also prefer DB trains to being a passenger in a car on an interstate. Trains, when well-done, are much quieter, a much smoother ride, have much more comfortable seats, and offer the option to stand up and stretch if you feel like it.

Cycling is never a replacement for either of those two use cases.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#34

Post by hannasanarion »

Jedi72 wrote: post #29
Const-me wrote: post #19

Roads are obviously worse but I’m not sure about airplanes. They’re measuring energy per passenger/km but I think ignoring the cost of building the infrastructure (the “get data” link is down). For roads and railways infrastructure investments are huge, both initial construction and then maintenance. Not only in dollars, in CO2 as well.

Also trains can derail, which takes the whole line out of action.

Planes operate at the whim of the weather. High winds are way more common than train derailments, and they take out a hub, not a line.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#35

Post by pmart123 »

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #8

Most of the US freight rail system isn't electrified because the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of direct monetary savings wouldn't materialize for many, many years. Since externalities aren't priced in, diesel-electric locomotives haul most trains in the US. More passenger rail isn't really being built in the US, because the capital expenditures of doing s…

Another issue is the local public transportation in most US cities isn’t adequate so travelers want to transport their vehicle with them. Although, rideshare services help alleviate this issue.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#36

Post by philwelch »

shereadsthenews wrote: post #12
manigandham wrote: post #2

This is rather obvious and has always been a major advantage of rail. The problem is the capital costs and real estate requirements of building the rail lines, especially when locations are far apart and there's already existing infrastructure that needs attention.

When you think of an American state with a growing population you can take the existing infrastructure as a given and plan for rail for your new capacity. Unless you are willing to say we're just not going to add transportation capacity for our new citizens, you face a choice of road, rail, or air. Rail is often a good choice. As for "far apart" this seems irrelevant. Ohio has a greater population density than does S…

I'm curious how long Europe's famous rail infrastructure will continue to be cost-effective in the era of Ryanair.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#37

Post by goodfight »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #17
chrisseaton wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individual independence and convenience were a goal in American culture the middle of the 20th century, until the externalities of that were understand. There's some famous interview - can't remember with who - about how at the time getting a car gave incredible freedom nobody had experienced before. It was a big part of how people saw the American dream in the last century, before the impact was understood.

And now, having a car is seen as impending your freedom, funnily enough.

Soon enough that little bit of freedom will be outlawed. :(

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#38

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Jedi72 wrote: post #29
Const-me wrote: post #19

Roads are obviously worse but I’m not sure about airplanes. They’re measuring energy per passenger/km but I think ignoring the cost of building the infrastructure (the “get data” link is down). For roads and railways infrastructure investments are huge, both initial construction and then maintenance. Not only in dollars, in CO2 as well.

Also trains can derail, which takes the whole line out of action.

Arguably, two planes crashed and we put hundreds of planes out of service worldwide just in case until we could fix it.

Also, as someone who's been in an Amtrak derailment: The severity of the derailment matters a lot. Many are small, and trains can go right around them on the adjacent track. Also note that derailments are much less common in countries with more modern, higher quality rail infrastructure.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#39

Post by hannasanarion »

AstralStorm wrote: post #7
manigandham wrote: post #2

This is rather obvious and has always been a major advantage of rail. The problem is the capital costs and real estate requirements of building the rail lines, especially when locations are far apart and there's already existing infrastructure that needs attention.

Yes, such as roads, which can be replaced or built over with rail almost always. (Including light rail like trams.) The problem shared between both is lack of walkability. Not insoluble but requires more tunnels or overpasses.

It's a lot safer to walk over train tracks than to walk across a road. Where walkability is a concern, light rail is an option.

I'm moving from NYC to Denver, and their new light rail system seems like such an upgrade from the car-congested streets above a sweaty slow subway.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#40

Post by eMSF »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #17
chrisseaton wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individual independence and convenience were a goal in American culture the middle of the 20th century, until the externalities of that were understand. There's some famous interview - can't remember with who - about how at the time getting a car gave incredible freedom nobody had experienced before. It was a big part of how people saw the American dream in the last century, before the impact was understood.

And now, having a car is seen as impending your freedom, funnily enough.

By whom?
Post reply on HN