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

71–80 of 334 posts

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

#71

Post by 8bitsrule »

Sounds good, but it's hard to see into the details. In the US,cars & light trucks constitute about 18% of energy use. But what percentage of that use is for travel that could move over to rail? (I'd wager that driving around town is the biggest chunk.)

Further: should all US cars go renewable electric, that seems preferable to diesel-electric rail emissions. The railroads got hit hard back when autos came along a century ago, something similar might happen here.

The article pointed at this 'Transportation Energy Data Book' (PDF) available), which is largely petroleum-oriented. https://cta.ornl.gov/data/download37.shtml. Throws a lot of data out, but no big picture in there. It DID note that US rail freight uses about 1.1% of petroleum, which might be impressive?

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

#72

Post by hu3 »

seattle_spring wrote: post #43
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I sure don't see it that way. Let me know when we invent something that can affordably and reliably take me to the base of mountains for hikes (real hikes, not shitty crowded garbage like Lake 22 or Mount Tam).

If only cars were used sporadically and not to commute to work daily by many.

That would require good public transportation which, at least in London, is a reality.

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

#73

Post by gruez »

nicoburns wrote: post #63
gruez wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but it's still relevant to note whether something is successful on its own accord, or whether it's being propped up by the government. If something can't be profitably done in a country as dense as China, there's no hope of it ever working in the US. At that point you might as well go with planes and spend the savings on carbon sequestration methods instead.

Rail is publically funded pretty much everywhere (i.e. it doesn't make a direct profit if you factor in infrastruture costs). Just because the market won't pay for it doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile.

>Rail is publically funded pretty much everywhere (i.e. it doesn't make a direct profit if you factor in infrastruture costs).

You could argue that there are positive externalities to building high speed rail that make the public funding worth it. For commuter trains it's reduced congestion and cheaper housing (allowing people to move to the suburbs). Thus a train service can operate at a loss while still making money at a societal level.

What purpose does high speed rail serve that isn't mostly covered by planes?

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

#74

Post by youeseh »

dorfsmay wrote: post #53
youeseh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd take a 100mph maglev to LA from San Francisco if it meant faster than airport boarding, on-time departure and arrival, and a seat where I can put my legs up for the same price or less than a flight.

Does it have to be maglev? Does it have to be that slow? Modern trains with wheels on rails are typically between 200 and 300 km/h: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-high-speed-rail-... *edit: replaced old link with a better one.

Parent commenter said, "maglev", so I stayed on that train of thought.

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

#75

Post by hydrox24 »

esoterae wrote: post #30

I find interesting that all these analyses of transportation modes generally fail to take into account the bootstrap and maintenance cost of the infrastructure. Roads are absolutely awful in terms of carbon cost, why isn't there more that takes this into account?

> fail to take into account the bootstrap and maintenance cost of the infrastructure.

Is the bootstrap cost different from the startup cost? Are they just synonymous?

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

#76

Post by abalone »

mutt2016 wrote: post #58

Trains are a messy, loud and dangerous way of moving stuff. But yes, it's fuel efficient. But so fucking dangerous and primitive in so many ways. Rail needs a lot of technology, and then it will be amazing. I don't think it's thsy far off.

> Trains are a messy, loud and dangerous way of moving stuff. But so fucking dangerous and primitive in so many ways.

Compared to trucking? Oh my god it's not even close. 2017 U.S. stats:[1][2]

Large truck fatalities: 4,102

U.S. rail fatalities: 8

Not sure how it pencils out per mile but it is ridiculously inaccurate to characterize trains as more dangerous than the alternatives.

[1] https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/large-trucks/fatalityfact...

[2] https://www.bts.gov/content/train-fatalities-injuries-and-ac...

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

#77

Post by [deleted] »

PaulHoule wrote: post #61
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…

Some other issues are that high speed rail is not green, and it is not affordable either. So far as adding more passenger rail lines, it isn't easy. For instance, plans for HSR in California are unrealistic because you don't save any time from SF to LA unless you can go from downtown to downtown. Sure you can build track in the Central Valley, but it would be pretty hard to take enough land by eminent domain to build…

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by gruez »

PaulHoule wrote: post #69
gruez wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but it's still relevant to note whether something is successful on its own accord, or whether it's being propped up by the government. If something can't be profitably done in a country as dense as China, there's no hope of it ever working in the US. At that point you might as well go with planes and spend the savings on carbon sequestration methods instead.

For one thing, China can just take the land. Second, China's population density is not high compared to inhabited parts of the U.S. Eg. even though most of California is uninhabitable, it has 50% higher population density.

> China can just take the land.

I'll file that under "being propped up by the government"

> China's population density is not high compared to inhabited parts of the U.S.

I have no doubt that there are profitable HSR lines in china, just like there are in europe. The question is whether we would still get an "impressive" number if we cull all the non-profitable ones (the one stretching to xinjiang come to mind).

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

#79

Post by abalone »

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…

You are correct to point out that governments subsidize roads, making this an unfair compare. Trucking is built on the highway system, a massive capital expenditure which is completely paid for by taxpayers as a gift to the trucking industry. Massive capital expenditures are often part and parcel of transportation infrastructure; what's different here is the political will to fund it.

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

#80

Post by kposehn »

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…

Well put.

Until they have a good reason, the major freight railroads (BNSF/UP/CSX/NS/CN/CP/KCS) will continue to be all-diesel. Also, as emissions requirements have gotten more stringent they've moved to rebuilding older power (which gets around the current Tier-4 requirements instead of buying as much newer motive power. In fact, a number of the most recent-gen units have been stored as they're often 15% less efficient than the previous generation (Tier-3).

I do believe a move to electric with catenary is inevitable, most likely via 50KV/50HZ to allow for greater distance between substations. However it won't happen for some time until legislation mandates it.

Post reply on HN