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

91–100 of 334 posts

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

#91

Post by ceejayoz »

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).

> 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 you visit Switzerland, you'll find this is an extremely solved problem.

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

#92

Post by sooheon »

hydrox24 wrote: post #75
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?

Maybe if you're talking about a specific type of start up cost where toll revenues from initial infra pays for later construction. Probably just loose usage.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

ceejayoz wrote: post #91
seattle_spring wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> 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 you visit Switzerland, you'll find this is an extremely solved problem.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by jcims »

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…

That’s because we’re skipping rail entirely http://www.morpc.org/program-service/hyperloop-midwest-conne...

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

#95

Post by drtillberg »

8bitsrule wrote: post #71

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 cen…

Development follows transportation, and since the main method of travel in the U.S. has been rubber tires and individual vehicles for the last 80 years, naturally a train can't service a whole suburb or exurb efficiently.

Trains have trouble in the U.S. because the technology allows--even requires-- central planning and authority on an active, everyday basis. If the transportation department goes on strike, we in cars keep driving. Not so for trains. Also it's not a fair fight to have a public decentralized asphalt road system compete with a highly regulated centralized private rail system. It's not a pure technology vs. technology battle-- the political aspects dominate.

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

#96

Post by sonar_un »

shereadsthenews wrote: post #41
philwelch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Very. Spain’s high-speed service killed the Barcelona-Madrid air route, which had been the world’s busiest.

Fun anecdote here. Just last month my wife and I were in Barcelona and we needed to go to Madrid. She had her company buy a plane ticket and I took the train. We left at the exact same time and I took 100% public transportation and she had a car service on both ends and a plane ticket.

I made it to our destination across the town from the Madrid central 45 minutes before she did.

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

#97

Post by ams6110 »

haimez wrote: post #5
ams6110 wrote: post #3

Cycling is cleaner than any of them. So what?

Not practical in the same space. What train or flight plans will you be canceling in favor of cycling?

None. That's the point. Just because something is cleaner does not make it practical. Passenger rail isn't happening in the USA. It would take huge investment, and flying would always win on route flexibility. Once you build a rail line you're pretty committed to it. Flight routes can be changed on demand. Just get over it. We'll never see widespread intercity rail in the USA.

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

#98

Post by undersuit »

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).

Your feet?

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

#99

Post by [deleted] »

undersuit wrote: post #98
seattle_spring wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Your feet?

[deleted]

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

#100

Post by shereadsthenews »

jcranmer wrote: post #87
shereadsthenews wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where HSR excels is in being able to service several city pairs on a single line. The Northeast Corridor is a great example: you can have a single train service all pairs of {Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC, Boston} at negligible extra expense in time and money. Thus you can add in stops like Providence, which don't generate all that many trips on their own, simply because it is literally on the way to where…

The requirement for colinearity seems like something you made up. And, you don’t gauge travel demand for one mode based on another. They didn’t build the Golden Gate Bridge because there were many people swimming to Marin. Two well-connected cities with robust economies will enjoy strong travel demand.
Post reply on HN