Live data from Hacker News

Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

citylab.com

271–280 of 334 posts

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

#271
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Once you build a rail line you're pretty committed to it ...sure. But also, once you build a 5+ million person metro area you're pretty committed to it...

The U.S. has 9 such metro areas.

NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Washington DC, Miami, Philadelphia, and Atlanta.

You could profitably run high-speed rail between NYC and DC, hitting Philadelphia on the way. Amtrak does run a sort of high speed service on this route.

There's a study underway for a privately funded high-speed rail connecting Dallas and Houston.

Miami to Atlanta is at the edge of what might make sense.

Sizable metro areas can decline, Detroit is now 1/3 the size that it was at its peak in the 1960s. The railway station was abandoned.

https://ebow.org/artwork/470141-The-Great-Hall.html

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

#272
Just as important is the ease of using trains but, in some cases, this just doesn't happen.

I would often travel from St. Louis to Chicago for business and would think nothing of taking the train but I quickly realized how unreliable it was. A cold day froze the tracks making my five-hour ride a twelve hour one. When commercial traffic refused to let us pass through a couple of times, waiting for a pass through was the straw that broke that back and no longer think once about taking the train when my car gets me there just as fast at a more convenient time.

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

#273
post #254
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Prices have steadily climbed since BR was privatised, and that puts people off of using rail meaning the prices have to go higher to get the money back.

Don't know what gave you that idea. Passenger numbers are higher than ever.

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

#274
post #256
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Part of the problem with starting that here is that many railroads have to just stop roads dead for 5-10 minutes every time they go by. Even if it's a fast train and it's 2-4 minutes, that would cause a crazy traffic increase here, because you've just lost between 27 and 53% of your roads' capacity.

In a high traffic area, you'd just use bridges and tunnels. Level crossings in central Europe are usually only on minor roads in smaller towns.

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

#275
post #269

Trains might be more efficient in terms of energy, but sadly they are much more expensive (here in germany), than going by car. (except for some special fares) And the car goes anywhere, anytime and the train does not. So no wonder, also here, for most people the car is the choice number one.

Does anyone know a study that would look into all the implicit subsidies? Externalities in terms of environmental impact, building of roads/rails from general taxes, direct subsidies. Maybe cars wouldn’t be as cheap if all these things would be taken into account.

Well ... trains are not free from subsidies either. They are heavily subsidies, but I don't know whether in the end more or less than cars.

(btw. carowners pay also a lot of extra taxes, on gas, the car itself, etc.)

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

#276
Since were on the subject of proposing insane and impractical solutions to global warming ive been contemplating ways we could somehow still use up all the oil and yet not contribute to global warming.

One crazy idea is that we build a space elevator out of carbon nanotubes, and then make a core component of it act as a pump to suck up oil and water from sea level all the way up into the outer regions of our atmosphere and then we run the steam powered electrical generators up there and send the electricity back down the elevator.

Now this might sound crazy but lets seriously consider what we have to gain by this.

1. Physics are totally on our side in space. In a steam powered generator, the steam turns one side of the turbine and then must escape out to ensure too much back pressure doesnt build up and grind things to a halt. Along with this steam we also expel out the greenhouse gases generated from burning the fuel with it.

The thing is once we expel the steam and CO2 it goes out in a mixture and we cant really do a whole lot to sustainably trap it, store it until it cools off, and just reuse it, and all the while figure out some way to separate out the greenhouse gases and try to do something with it so we dont have to just release it into the air.

The thing is, burning oil to produce steam in space solves a lot of problems like this for us due to the physical properties how things work in the vacuum of space vs where there is no atmospheric pressure.

1. If you expel a mixture of steam and C02 into the cold vacuum space the water vapor will rapidly turn into liquid and then solid while the greenhouse gases remain gaseous. This leads to easier methods of filtration and water recycling.

The C02 is forced out into space and the water stays to be sent back down.

2. Wait, sent back down?

Yes because to make the pump work up without too much energy being required to suck it up against the power of Earth's gravitational pull (think of this like trying to suck a think milkshake through a straw a mile long) its best to utilize the downward pull of gravity to aide us in the process. Thus creating a vacuum.

3. When we run out of oil we can send up nuclear fuel next and just shoot the spent highly radioactive fuel that's no longer useful to us into space too.

4. The electricity generated can be used to power the electromagnetic elevator up and down.

5. We'll need a space elevator to make solar sails work anyways. We might as well utilize it to generate energy in every we can.

6. If any of this manages to blow up on us the explosion happens hella far away from us.

7. Surface level renewable power sources like wind, hydroelectric, and solar are all things we can utilize effectively assuming we build it in the most optimal place. (my best guess is somewhere in the ocean just south of Alaska)

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

#277
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yep, rail road is hard to scale down, so it's very expensive to connect every single home to rail road. Also, rail roads are not walkable, so they cannot be shared with pedestrians, so this limitation forces create two separate roads: one for pedestrians, bicycles, cars, etc., and second one for rail transport. Trams can be mixed with regular road traffic, but trams cannot use regular rail roads because of different…

> but trams cannot use regular rail roads because of different construction of rail road.

Actually, they can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train

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

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Half a mile walk is not what I'd calling reaching. You can't even see Penn from the light-rail stop.

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

#279
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Which government policies promoted the growth of the suburbs, out of curiosity?

A variety of both direct and indirect things. Low interest rates for home purchases, especially veterans (GI Bill). Road construction especially the interstate highway system. Low-cost suburban development, e.g. Levittown. The fact that there was lots of land to build suburbs on.

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

#280
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oth…

A couple of things. 1. A lot of existing big cities post-WWII did, in fact, grow commuter rail out to the expanding suburbs. If you live in the suburbs (say Westchester County in NY) and work at a bank in Manhattan, there is pretty good rail service. 2. But, a lot of the suburban expansion also included companies locating out in the suburbs. For a variety of reasons (including "white flight") a lot of cities became u…

OK - interesting to know indeed. Thanks for the insights!
Post reply on HN