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

121–130 of 334 posts

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

#121

Post by jpatokal »

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…

There is existing right-of-way into both SF and LA Union station though, and the HSR plans intend(ed) to use this. Sure, you can't run the HSR at full speed on existing track, but this alone is not necessarily a deal-breaker.

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

#122

Post by int_19h »

chrisseaton wrote: post #14
perfmode wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

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.

> how at the time getting a car gave incredible freedom nobody had experienced before

It's not just "at the time" - it still does that, and I'm saying this as an immigrant from a society that relies much more on public transport. I'm not disputing the impact, but in these discussions, it's often presented as price that's paid for no gains of note, and that's just not true. Whether they're worth the cost is another discussion.

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

#123

Post by jackcosgrove »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #109
jackcosgrove wrote: post #90

The main reason US cities rely on automobiles is because the "job watershed" of a private automobile exceeds the job watershed of train systems everywhere in the US, even New York City. The job watershed is the number of jobs within commuting distance, whatever your tolerance for a commute is, given a transportation modality. In some cities the automobile job watershed is 100x larger than the transit job watershed. T…

All of that is interesting but the article, and GP, were talking about interurban transportation, not commuting to work. The flexibility of bus networks (using road infrastructure that would needed anyway for commerce) is desirable to be sure in metropolitan areas, but not as applicable or useful to inter-city routes.

Yes, rail is suitable for arterial transportation. However intercity transportation by rail is crippled in the US because there are very few intracity rail networks to receive you at your destination, for the reasons I outlined.

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

#124

Post by CaliforniaKarl »

narag wrote: post #89
kposehn wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 effici…

Excuse if this is an absurd idea, I really don't know. But... Wouldn't it be possible to use (giant) batteries? It sounds terribly dangerous, but possible?

Interestingly, trains today are technically diesel-electric, where a diesel engine is feeding a generator, which feeds traction motors on the axles.

So putting in a battery would "just" mean swapping out the fuel tank, engine, and generator. Probably the biggest issue I could see is, the battery would have to be able to handle extremely high currents to get the consist moving. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_SD90MAC shows a power output of up to 4.47 Megawatts at full engine speed (for the EMD 265).

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

#125

Post by krferriter »

kikoreis wrote: post #86
bronco21016 wrote: post #62

I’ve visited Europe many times and I do like how the region is so easily accessible without a car, largely because of trains, but there are many more factors outside of just having trains. European cities are far more walkable and accessible without a car. For decades the US has just not been built up in this way so just dropping trains in doesn’t suddenly make them preferred and thus viable. The reason people drive…

Interestingly, the cities are in part broke due to the infrastructure cost of maintaining sprawl — which only cars make possible.

Also gas taxes in the US are far lower than in much of Europe. Gas tax is 5.9x higher in Germany than in my state of NC, for example. Gas tax is what funds a lot of infrastructure development.

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

#126

Post by hannasanarion »

bdamm wrote: post #51
hannasanarion wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trains aren't hurricane proof either so we can take those right off the table. Of the rest, it takes very exceptional storms to blockade an airport for more than a few minutes. Delays that occur because of snow and fog are not because the commercial airliners can't fly in those conditions, but because the ground infrastructure can't clear the snow quickly enough, or because the reduction in visibility means increasin…

Exceptional storms still happen a lot more often than train derailments. It doesn't take a hurricane.

I was in one of the last flights to land at EWR on February 25 before all the area airports were closed for 12 hours. From the ground it was a moderately windy day. In the air, it was scary as hell, and the first time I vomited on a plane, with about a quarter of the other passengers.

There were no derailments or train delays that day.

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

#127

Post by natch »

For now, yes.

Electric vehicles backed by sustainable power, when we reach that distant but ever-nearing goal, will be pretty good. Not as fast as flying but maybe we’ll get practical commercial passenger electric aircraft at some point.

On the delivery of goods side of things, the Tesla Semi should also be a game changer. Efficient and door to door.

For trains, I’d love to see how much could be done with, say, a dedicated power (battery) car per pure electric locomotive. I’m not claiming this would be a win; it might be too heavy. But it would be interesting to know.

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

#128

Post by jackcosgrove »

rtpg wrote: post #114
jackcosgrove wrote: post #90

The main reason US cities rely on automobiles is because the "job watershed" of a private automobile exceeds the job watershed of train systems everywhere in the US, even New York City. The job watershed is the number of jobs within commuting distance, whatever your tolerance for a commute is, given a transportation modality. In some cities the automobile job watershed is 100x larger than the transit job watershed. T…

>both employers and residents want to minimize rents which drives sprawl and transportation webs, as opposed to hub and spoke models. I don't think this holds up empirically? The US is home to some of the highest rents in the world. Mid-sized US cities have way higher rents than major cities like Tokyo or Paris. Or maybe this is the idea, but if so it has failed miserably at letting people on the lower end of the spe…

I don't know where you're getting your information, but US real estate rents and prices are low by developed economy standards. Here is a link: http://www.newgeography.com/content/006201-15th-annual-demog...

"The most affordable major housing markets are in the United States, with a moderately unaffordable Median Multiple of 3.9, followed by Canada (4.3) and Singapore (4.6). Ireland and the United Kingdom both have Median Multiples of 4.8. The major markets of Australia (6.9), New Zealand (9.0) and China (20.9) are severely unaffordable (Table ES-2)."

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

#129

Post by [deleted] »

int_19h wrote: post #122
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.

> how at the time getting a car gave incredible freedom nobody had experienced before It's not just "at the time" - it still does that, and I'm saying this as an immigrant from a society that relies much more on public transport. I'm not disputing the impact, but in these discussions, it's often presented as price that's paid for no gains of note, and that's just not true. Whether they're worth the cost is another di…

[deleted]

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

#130

Post by anyfoo »

bronco21016 wrote: post #62

I’ve visited Europe many times and I do like how the region is so easily accessible without a car, largely because of trains, but there are many more factors outside of just having trains. European cities are far more walkable and accessible without a car. For decades the US has just not been built up in this way so just dropping trains in doesn’t suddenly make them preferred and thus viable. The reason people drive…

That seems very true to me. As an anecdotical data point: I lived in Munich for over 30 years, and never drove. Did not even have a driver's license.

I then moved to the Bay Area, and now I'm driving everywhere.

Even to towns that I could actually reach with BART (which are not many), I would then face the problem, as you laid out yourself, to actually get around there.

Post reply on HN