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

241–250 of 334 posts

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

#241

Post by bzelip »

masklinn wrote: post #203
jcranmer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington-Baltimore is actually a very good connection by rail--you'll have a train at least once an hour--except that the station for Baltimore is in the wrong location. Baltimore Penn Station is located far to the north of the city, well outside the Inner Harbor that's going to be the center of tourism and visitors. What happened is that, historically, Baltimore-Washington was mainly served by the B&O, whose Balti…

> 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.

Plus, the connection ends around 9pm every night.

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

#242

Post by adrianN »

jcranmer wrote: post #182
chungleong wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I normally live in Europe. At the moment I'm in Baltimore. The city's downtown area (around the inner harbor) is perfectly walkable. Nearby DC is also perfectly walkable, while driving is a nightmare. These two cities should be well connected by rail but they're not. People would drive to a parking lot beside a metro station and get into the city that way. Two cities can only be linked effectively by rail when there…

Washington-Baltimore is actually a very good connection by rail--you'll have a train at least once an hour--except that the station for Baltimore is in the wrong location. Baltimore Penn Station is located far to the north of the city, well outside the Inner Harbor that's going to be the center of tourism and visitors. What happened is that, historically, Baltimore-Washington was mainly served by the B&O, whose Balti…

Tokyo-Kyoto runs every twenty minutes, Berlin-Hamburg every 30.

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

#243

Post by brianzelip »

chungleong wrote: post #191
jcranmer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington-Baltimore is actually a very good connection by rail--you'll have a train at least once an hour--except that the station for Baltimore is in the wrong location. Baltimore Penn Station is located far to the north of the city, well outside the Inner Harbor that's going to be the center of tourism and visitors. What happened is that, historically, Baltimore-Washington was mainly served by the B&O, whose Balti…

Neither the metro or the lightrail reaches Penn. I don't know who designed the routes. Better connections between DC and BWI would better link the cities but they can't even maintain a bus line. Meanwhile, there's a billion dollar for the Silver line...

You’re wrong about the Baltimore light rail not reaching Penn Station. See the Camden Yards - Penn Station light rail line, it runs a few times/hour. https://www.mta.maryland.gov/schedule

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

#244

Post by adrianN »

TylerE wrote: post #215
lostmsu wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't a railroad much cheaper to build and maintain, than a highway of the same capacity?

No, because rail has fixed routes but everywhere in the road network is connected to everything else.

Everything on the rail network is also connected to everything else.

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

#245

Post by Grue3 »

jcims wrote: post #94
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…

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

This won't happen. Maglev is a technology that's actually feasible and fast, and has been under research and testing since the 70s. Chuo Shinkansen between Tokyo and Nagoya is currently under construction and they're basically tunneling in a straight line through all the mountains. This is what everyone should be doing instead of unproven Hyperloop tech.

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

#246

Post by bartimus »

apexalpha wrote: post #221
bartimus wrote: post #220

What I found interesting is that in the US the government had a huge role with developing the rail network while in the UK it was entirely done by the private sector. I'm from the Netherlands where the rail network started out as a state owned company. It then got privatized by splitting ownership horizontally. Meaning one company owns the rail network while other companies provide train services on top of that netwo…

You are now comparing a star-form rail network in the Netherlands that runs in a country of 300km by 400km to a fish-grate network that runs in Japan. Also, the famous punctuality comes from the Japanese High Speed train network, a network purpose built for a single model of train. There are no intersections, road crossings or freight or slow trains on that network. Obviously any Dutch train would also fare well on a…

I'm not just comparing the Shinkansen. I'm comparing the whole Japanese network in its entirety. It isn't just a fish-grate network. It expands deep into the rural areas where it's highly integrated. Indeed they have multiple forms of trains and railways optimized for each purpose.

If you take the train in Japan you might pass through numerous operators and types of railways. It's why it's so complicated to buy a ticket there.

I'm comparing rail networks with rail networks and different forms of ownership. Why wouldn't I be allowed to make that comparison?

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

#247

Post by azeotropic »

nerfhammer wrote: post #115
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.

I mean, roads are propped up by the government and clearly not profitable

In the early days of the U.S., privately funded roads run for profit definitely existed. There are government-run toll highways that make money in excess of their maintenance costs, which suggests it should still be possible, if the government didn't already have the prime routes.

At any rate, the interstate highway system was a project to make the transportation network more robust for the purposes of national defense, inspired by the German autobahn. Centrally planned solutions to make the U.S. more like Europe won't always have the expected consequences.

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

#248

Post by cr1895 »

maccard wrote: post #229

My biggest issue is train costs. I live in Edinburgh, and I can fly to London in 6 weeks for £19, or I can get the train for £160. The overall travel time is roughly the same, but at 6 times the price it can be very hard to justify. Especially when you have to travel with more than one person.

Why is it so absurdly expensive in the UK? Privatization?

Looks like that trip takes almost 4.5 hours. For comparison, a train trip from Groningen to Vlissingen in the Netherlands (about as far as you can go) takes a similar time but costs only 26.50 euros each way, whenever you get a ticket. It's only about 16 euros if you've got one of the discount subscriptions.

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

#249

Post by gsanghera »

evgen wrote: post #223
gsanghera wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't the US car companies actively lobby against and destroy the budding streetcar transport in most cities? I admit its not exactly rail, but you do have trams / streetcars in many European cities too - like Amsterdam. I would think they would be a much preferred public transport option than everyone driving their own car. Culture is not something which happens automatically - sometimes its driven by corporates, a…

This is a rather popular lie that ignores the facts on the ground at the time. No, the US car companies did not lobby against or destroy the streetcar industry, the growth of the suburb and government policies that promoted such growth managed to do that all on their own. The auto manufacturers just set themselves up to take advantage of this decline and the shifting of subsidies to road construction. In this case cu…

With all due respect - I don't understand this. Why would suburban growth not work with tram / local train lines that could be extended? It worked in London - one of the largest cities in the world which had to plan way ahead of time due to its historically narrow streets. I've lived in suburban London for >7 years, and frankly the only time I really needed to use the car was only to haul grocery home. Almost any other travel (including to work) was always achievable with the tube/bus - some combination of these.

What the ground truth was then isn't recorded in history. There are post-facto interpretations. I would argue if the incentives were laid correctly, there was no reason for suburbanism to necessarily lead to growth in automobile consumption.

The US motor companies had a massive clout. Given a choice back then (and the big roads due to the post-war expansion) it possibly made it easy to convince people that a car was a superior and more personal form of travel (think pre-ubiquitous air-conditioning). That's when you need government to think ahead, especially at the local level.

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

#250

Post by cr1895 »

msla wrote: post #168
saagarjha wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trains are a messy, loud and dangerous way of moving stuff. How so?

> 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...

Post reply on HN