Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by randomsearch » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

fyfy18 wrote: post #207

masklinn wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Washington-Baltimore is actually a very good connection by rail--you'll have a train at least once an hour That's really not a lot, especially between major cities.

For comparison, in the UK there are around 8 trains per hour during peak times between London and Cambridge (around twice the distance of DC-Baltimore). I'd imagine there are cities that have even more per hour in central Europe.

London and Cambridge are exceptional cities for political and economic reasons, so that’s not a good comparison.

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

#312

Post by xupybd » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

phire wrote: post #202

xupybd wrote: post #186

Why are they so expensive then? Here in New Zealand, I can drive most places cheaper than I can take a train. That's one person per vehicle vs a train car full of people. I just can't figure that one out.

Kiwirail is mandated to make a profit. The cost of a train ticket will include the proportional cost of maintaining the rail network, the deprecation cost of the train and the passenger cars, staff to run it, along with a tidy profit. You are most likely comparing it to the cost of petrol, which is not the full costs of driving a car. Everyone always forgets to take into account the deprecation on your car, running c…

Thanks, that actually clears it up very well.

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

#313

Post by bobthepanda » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 9:15 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #175

bobthepanda wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason of automobile dominance is more that unlike other countries, we went all in on highways and just actively dismantled existing rail infrastructure. And then to salt the wounds, our parking requirements are so high that in many suburbs I've been in, the ten minute walk from the front door of Walmart to the bus stop is ridiculous. Rail does better when congestion is high and density is high, but in most of Am…

"Developers do not need to be told a minimum to build, they will build what the market will bear because if they underpark their buildings no one will rent units or office space." The problem with this boils down to 1) That ain't exactly true; in sufficiently-dense cities people will still rent spaces in underparked buildings 2) If you underestimate the demand for parking, it's way more difficult to add parking after…

1 and 2 are fine, because if enough people need parking spaces then someone might develop their lot with a parking garage that there is market demand for.

Structured parking is extremely expensive; 19K per spot for an aboveground structure [1]. I've heard 30K per spot for underground parking. And parking garages are generally terrible for the streetscape and building, and are difficult to convert to other uses if say, autonomous cars get rid of the need for it later on.

If you're building parking based on demand for free parking you'll never build enough unless you want buildings too far apart to walk to the bus stop or their house, which just drives the need for parking up. Pricing parking is a very effective way of managing spaces so that some proportion of them is always free; in my current city, Seattle, new buildings cannot hand parking to residents or workers free with the unit or job, since many people are car-free and all bundling does is socialize the cost of parking. As a result even with no parking requirements many garages are overbuilt (out of town developers not used to developing for local conditions) and the well located ones do a brisk trade in monthly passes and day parking while the residents are out parking their cars at their job.

[1] - http://denver.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/20...

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

#314

Post by yellowapple » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #313

yellowapple wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Developers do not need to be told a minimum to build, they will build what the market will bear because if they underpark their buildings no one will rent units or office space." The problem with this boils down to 1) That ain't exactly true; in sufficiently-dense cities people will still rent spaces in underparked buildings 2) If you underestimate the demand for parking, it's way more difficult to add parking after…

1 and 2 are fine, because if enough people need parking spaces then someone might develop their lot with a parking garage that there is market demand for. Structured parking is extremely expensive; 19K per spot for an aboveground structure [1]. I've heard 30K per spot for underground parking. And parking garages are generally terrible for the streetscape and building, and are difficult to convert to other uses if say…

> someone might develop their lot with a parking garage that there is market demand for.

My point is that if there's market demand for it, it's usually because something's already built there and it's too late to build a parking garage without tearing stuff down. The exception is if you started with a parking lot.

> parking garages are generally terrible for the streetscape and building

Eh. A lot of SF buildings seem to have no trouble building shops in front of them and more shops / offices / residences on top of them. The garage I park at almost every day has a small grocer / convenience store in front of it and (what I assume to be) offices on top of it, and it's got three levels of parking.

> and are difficult to convert to other uses if say, autonomous cars get rid of the need for it later on

That seems far-fetched. Yes, it might reduce demand somewhat, but it's wasteful to not park (gas costs money, and batteries don't last forever), and electric cars might actually drive demand for parking up if the parking spaces include charging capabilities (and in the future I'm envisioning, that could very well be literally every parking space).

> If you're building parking based on demand for free parking

That's not what I'm advocating. Charging for parking is totally reasonable, especially given the expenses involved as you've pointed out.

Of course, quite a few businesses do take on the cost of parking garages themselves, whether by offering access for free or by validating customers' parking passes after-the-fact. They do this because they believe it'll attract customers (and it certainly attracts me).

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

#315

Post by baroffoos » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 10:13 PM UTC

natch wrote: post #213

baroffoos wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric cars are still not good enough because they weigh so much more per passenger than electric trains

Good point. Wish we had more electric trains in the US. And you still need a solution for the last few miles after arriving at the train station.

I think electric scooters are a valid solution to last mile problems. You can even bring your own on the train to have one on both sides.

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

#316

Post by msla » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 10:57 PM UTC

cr1895 wrote: post #250

msla wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How so? You've obviously never lived next to a railroad. Trains can't stop. I mean, they can eventually stop, but when it comes down to it, the train is not stopping. Trains are relatively clean compared to trucks, but they still burn crap and spew ash and smoke. Trains are loud. That's... I really can't say it any other way. Trains. Are. Loud.

>Trains are relatively clean compared to trucks, but they still burn crap and spew ash and smoke. Electric trains exist, so it's pretty obvious that your rail exposure isn't as universal as you think it is. For example, all the NS trains in the Netherlands are electric and powered sustainably. https://www.ns.nl/en/about-ns/sustainability/energy/sustaina...

> Electric trains exist

Not universally, so it's pretty obvious your rail experience isn't as universal as you think it is.

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

#317

Post by Gibbon1 » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 11:18 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #292

Gibbon1 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far as I can tell he's also off by a factor of 4. Tesla 85hw battery pack 1200 lbs. 3000 kw X 4 hours = 1200 kwh. 1200kwh/85kw*1200 = 170,000 lbs. A GE/NS Dash 8 weighs in at about 390,000lbs

210kwh for 3575 lbs comes from the tesla powepack specs: https://www.tesla.com/powerpack Furthermore, it makes zero sense to compare "3000kw x 4 hours" since diesel electric locomotives can run for N>>>4 hours. Furthermore, you're comparing the weight of batteries alone compared to the weight of a whole locomotive.

> Furthermore, it makes zero sense to compare "3000kw x 4 hours" since diesel electric locomotives can run for N>>>4 hours.

This is simply you reframing the conversation from using batteries to allow hybrid electric trains to use short sections of non-electrified tracks to hybrid electric trains won't work because they don't have the range of a diesel locomotive.

I'm going to put this down as you're unwilling to argue fairly and thus lost this argument.

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

#318

Post by bobthepanda » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 1:24 AM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #314

bobthepanda wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 and 2 are fine, because if enough people need parking spaces then someone might develop their lot with a parking garage that there is market demand for. Structured parking is extremely expensive; 19K per spot for an aboveground structure [1]. I've heard 30K per spot for underground parking. And parking garages are generally terrible for the streetscape and building, and are difficult to convert to other uses if say…

> someone might develop their lot with a parking garage that there is market demand for. My point is that if there's market demand for it, it's usually because something's already built there and it's too late to build a parking garage without tearing stuff down. The exception is if you started with a parking lot. > parking garages are generally terrible for the streetscape and building Eh. A lot of SF buildings seem…

Which is fine. There's no need to require building parking garages. There's certainly no need to require such a ridiculous amount of parking that store lots don't even fill up on Black Friday, which many jursidictions do. [1]

Many places outside the US, and some inside, do not mandate parking for developments. In fact, Manhattan has an absolute parking cap.

[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/blackfridayparking

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

#319

Post by yellowapple » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 1:41 AM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #318

yellowapple wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> someone might develop their lot with a parking garage that there is market demand for. My point is that if there's market demand for it, it's usually because something's already built there and it's too late to build a parking garage without tearing stuff down. The exception is if you started with a parking lot. > parking garages are generally terrible for the streetscape and building Eh. A lot of SF buildings seem…

Which is fine. There's no need to require building parking garages. There's certainly no need to require such a ridiculous amount of parking that store lots don't even fill up on Black Friday, which many jursidictions do. [1] Many places outside the US, and some inside, do not mandate parking for developments. In fact, Manhattan has an absolute parking cap. [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/blackfridayparking

I guess it depends on area. I've lived in considerably more underparked places than overparked - places where except for anti-peak (valley?) times, parking availability is perpetually at or near zero. This would include most of the Bay Area.

Note that "underparked" includes "inadequate parking near the target structure"; underparking can still happen even when sprawling parking lots go unfilled if it's an absurdly long walk from far away parking spaces to, say, the Wal-Mart surrounded by said sprawling parking lot. Given a parking lot and a parking garage with equal numbers of parking spaces, you'll likely find that the parking garage will be much more fully-utilized, since folks don't have to walk as far to an elevator.

(Not to mention the rather severe methodology issues in that particular article; the instructions for that bit of activism don't include controls for time of day, most glaringly.)

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

#320

Post by rtpg » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 2:25 AM UTC

jackcosgrove wrote: post #128

rtpg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 M…

This study is focused on price to buy, where a huge segment of the population are renters.

This is the core issue with so many of these reports. Focusing on buying already rules out a huge segment of the population (incidentally the ones who have trouble surviving!), and ignores the fact that rent/buy ratios are very different between markets.

US buying prices are relatively low because of how the entire economy is based around home ownership. But almost half the population rents.