5 ms·

But once a track is built, it doesn’t take much maintenance to keep it running for decades or even a century. There are places in this world that can’t even ma

by fiblye 7y ago

But once a track is built, it doesn’t take much maintenance to keep it running for decades or even a century. There are places in this world that can’t even manage to repair streets, but have trains operating daily with little trouble. It seems like costs would come down at some point in first world nations, or it’d be worthwhile to subsidize the creation of railways more significantly. I know governments do try to to some extent, but riding trains is expensive almost everywhere. It doesn’t make sense to be cheaper than even roads, which need constant maintenance, intense infrastructure, and cleanup.

thu2111 7y ago
It takes quite a lot of maintenance unfortunately. Rails need constant work to keep them in good condition. So does the ballast. Signalling involves miles of cables, lights, radio towers and motors that also degrade. The stations need staff, gates, ticket kiosks, displays. A frequent need is to add capacity. Adding capacity to the sky is easy because it's empty. It's essentially just about scaling air traffic control systems. Adding capacity in a rail line can involve major earthworks, rebuilding bridges, totally replacing the signalling and so on. Roads are easier to maintain and pay for themselves without subsidies just via fuel tax. There's no station infrastructure. No stations means no expensive employees. People drive cars themselves and cars can be driven safely even on quite degraded roads. Signalling is entirely local and so doesn't require much cabling, on high speed routes (motorways) there's usually little or no signalling required. Laying tarmac is much cheaper than laying rails. Finally of the few people needed to maintain and run the roads, many are private sector and un-unionized e.g. gas station employees. The government employees only do repairs and so don't have much strike power. Contrast to the railways which in Europe are frequently shut down for weeks at a time by strikes of drivers or crew. The capital investment in trains is worth it for only one reason - it's the highest capacity form of transport in seats per hour. It's got nothing to do with greenness which is at any rate a very ambiguous case to make when you consider all the factors. Trains can be less green than planes in many ordinary situations.
- eesmith 7y ago
  > Adding capacity to the sky is easy because it's empty Adding capacity to airports, however, is much harder. Heathrow is at 98% capacity, for example, and it's difficult to add a new airport, or even new runway, for London. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport , which discusses the major earthworks, etc. involved. > Roads are easier to maintain and pay for themselves without subsidies just via fuel tax. In the US fuel taxes only cover about 25% of "State/Local Road Spending", says https://taxfoundation.org/statelocal-road-spending-covered-user-fees-user-taxes-categories-separated-out https://taxfoundation.org/statelocal-road-spending-covered-u... . > Finally of the few people needed to maintain and run the roads, many are private sector and un-unionized e.g. gas station employees That's in the US, right? Fuel-tanker drivers in Portugal went on strike last year - https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-portugal-strike-fuel/portugal-fuel-tanker-drivers-say-they-will-suspend-strike-negotiate-idUKKCN1V61AM https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-portugal-strike-fuel/portu... . Fuel-tanker drivers in France went on strike 3 years ago - https://www.thelocal.fr/20170531/french-petrol-stations-begin-to-run-as-fuel-tanker-strike-rumbles-on https://www.thelocal.fr/20170531/french-petrol-stations-begi... . > It's got nothing to do with greenness which is at any rate a very ambiguous case to make when you consider all the factors. Trains can be less green than planes in many ordinary situations. Care to elaborate? For many ordinary situations, train CO2 production is 1/2 or even less than planes, on a per-passenger basis. Quoting https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 "Train virtually always comes out better than plane, often by a lot. A journey from London to Madrid would emit 43kg (95lb) of CO2 per passenger by train, but 118kg by plane (or 265kg if the non-CO2 emissions are included), according to EcoPassenger." Of course, London-Madrid by train is about 24 hours, or 2.5 hours by flight. And of course, London-NYC isn't a train trip away, and there are unusual situations like Bergen, Norway—Aberdeen, United Kingdom where there are direct flights while Google Maps just laughs at me for asking for a train routing. But I'm curious about the ordinary cases where flights are more green than train - that is, where both are reasonable options to consider.
  - Hamuko 7y ago
    >Adding capacity to airports, however, is much harder. Is that somehow different for train stations?

by fiblye 7y ago

thu2111 7y ago

It takes quite a lot of maintenance unfortunately. Rails need constant work to keep them in good condition. So does the ballast. Signalling involves miles of cables, lights, radio towers and motors that also degrade. The stations need staff, gates, ticket kiosks, displays. A frequent need is to add capacity. Adding capacity to the sky is easy because it's empty. It's essentially just about scaling air traffic control systems. Adding capacity in a rail line can involve major earthworks, rebuilding bridges, totally replacing the signalling and so on. Roads are easier to maintain and pay for themselves without subsidies just via fuel tax. There's no station infrastructure. No stations means no expensive employees. People drive cars themselves and cars can be driven safely even on quite degraded roads. Signalling is entirely local and so doesn't require much cabling, on high speed routes (motorways) there's usually little or no signalling required. Laying tarmac is much cheaper than laying rails. Finally of the few people needed to maintain and run the roads, many are private sector and un-unionized e.g. gas station employees. The government employees only do repairs and so don't have much strike power. Contrast to the railways which in Europe are frequently shut down for weeks at a time by strikes of drivers or crew. The capital investment in trains is worth it for only one reason - it's the highest capacity form of transport in seats per hour. It's got nothing to do with greenness which is at any rate a very ambiguous case to make when you consider all the factors. Trains can be less green than planes in many ordinary situations.

eesmith 7y ago
> Adding capacity to the sky is easy because it's empty Adding capacity to airports, however, is much harder. Heathrow is at 98% capacity, for example, and it's difficult to add a new airport, or even new runway, for London. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport , which discusses the major earthworks, etc. involved. > Roads are easier to maintain and pay for themselves without subsidies just via fuel tax. In the US fuel taxes only cover about 25% of "State/Local Road Spending", says https://taxfoundation.org/statelocal-road-spending-covered-user-fees-user-taxes-categories-separated-out https://taxfoundation.org/statelocal-road-spending-covered-u... . > Finally of the few people needed to maintain and run the roads, many are private sector and un-unionized e.g. gas station employees That's in the US, right? Fuel-tanker drivers in Portugal went on strike last year - https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-portugal-strike-fuel/portugal-fuel-tanker-drivers-say-they-will-suspend-strike-negotiate-idUKKCN1V61AM https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-portugal-strike-fuel/portu... . Fuel-tanker drivers in France went on strike 3 years ago - https://www.thelocal.fr/20170531/french-petrol-stations-begin-to-run-as-fuel-tanker-strike-rumbles-on https://www.thelocal.fr/20170531/french-petrol-stations-begi... . > It's got nothing to do with greenness which is at any rate a very ambiguous case to make when you consider all the factors. Trains can be less green than planes in many ordinary situations. Care to elaborate? For many ordinary situations, train CO2 production is 1/2 or even less than planes, on a per-passenger basis. Quoting https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 "Train virtually always comes out better than plane, often by a lot. A journey from London to Madrid would emit 43kg (95lb) of CO2 per passenger by train, but 118kg by plane (or 265kg if the non-CO2 emissions are included), according to EcoPassenger." Of course, London-Madrid by train is about 24 hours, or 2.5 hours by flight. And of course, London-NYC isn't a train trip away, and there are unusual situations like Bergen, Norway—Aberdeen, United Kingdom where there are direct flights while Google Maps just laughs at me for asking for a train routing. But I'm curious about the ordinary cases where flights are more green than train - that is, where both are reasonable options to consider.
- Hamuko 7y ago
  >Adding capacity to airports, however, is much harder. Is that somehow different for train stations?