4 ms·

> the real TCO of passengers hi-speed rails is FAR above air traveling, not much in money but in environmental terms How? Rail is consistently ranked among the

> the real TCO of passengers hi-speed rails is FAR above air traveling, not much in money but in environmental terms How? Rail is consistently ranked among the lowest CO2-per-passenger-km of any travel mode. High speed rail is all electrified, flights all put out CO2 exhaust and particulate matter into the upper atmosphere.

adhesive_wombat 4y ago
> High speed rail is all electrified And now that Europe is finally, 30 years too late, starting to see the light on nuclear (as an adjunct to solar and wind) this is pretty important. Trains are vulnerable to one hypothetical technology: self-driving electric coaches. If it ever happens, it would be some time away, and for the long distance high-speed routes, will probably never be as fast as a 350kph+ train. But I can see swarms of e-coaches dominating regional trains because they're far more flexible. I just hope they're comfortable, but I don't really think they will be, compared to trains.
- danhor 4y ago
  Even self-driving coaches will have congestion issues. Even if there are dedicated travel lanes and all vehicles are connected, capacity will (probably) at most double (going down much further as speeds increase, since a safe braking distance is still needed). In that mode, the new techniques that are getting developed in rail signalling (ETCS level 3 moving block) might be transferred in some way, but capacity is still very much limited. If E-Coaches are shared, you'll have difficulties getting them to you at the point & time you want to travel (probably requiring at least ~15-30 min prior information in non-urban environments, where congestion doesn't limit adoption). They'll also have to drive in-and-out of multiple residential areas (if shared), which will increase travel time. I think self-driving cars (personal use)[1], autonomous electric busses (with many of the limitations as current busses, but lower cost & higher comfort as well as more flexible (smaller) capacity options) and rail transit will cover most demands, with on-demand transportation covering the night hours and uncommon travel routes. Some transit agencies are experimenting with services like ViaVan (providing most of the features of self-driving electric coaches, excluding the self-driving part) and adoption seems to be low, mostly working as a complement if no other attractive transit options exist, not as a displacement. [1]: I fear that this will be primary form of transportation, since costs aren't going to be much higher than current cars (or perhaps even lower). The possibility of doing something other than driving will make congestion more palatable and searching for a parking spot will probably not require a human on-board. There will still be a personal space owned by someone and stuff can be (permanently) left inside the car.
kkfx 4y ago
Yes, if you measure JUST the travel you can state little CO₂ respect of other means (even if measuring pollution in CO₂ terms have NO scientific basis, it's done just to make pollution a market for private profit) BUT if you count the total cost: - how much raw materials are needed, and processed, to build, and maintain, rails - how much people per train go, because rarely they run at full capacity and when they do people is not that happy for obvious reasons - how much raw materials, processing and energy is consumed by the side services needed Than things completely change. Than a STOL able to land on a natural surface pollute FAR LESS compared. Keep attention when you read research how this research is done because it's easy to stretch the reality to depict a result, mathematically true, but meaningless in practice sold as meaningful and really true in the broad sense. Start with a classic http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-sustainability http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-... than you can dig in the LITTLE we have on that topic, since some dislike certain research.
- SECProto 4y ago
  The source you cited doesn't mention trains or planes at any point.
  - kkfx 4y ago
    Surely, but they clearly states that cities pollute far more than large spread areas, i.e. "rivieras". Did you see how unfit are big rails train/stations and big infra in general in a riviera? Being spread means that any "large artery" is not much fit to serve people.
    - SECProto 4y ago
      > Surely, but they clearly states that cities pollute far more than large spread areas No, your source is highly specific in that it is looking at grid emissions from cities in Australia, which has one of the dirtiest grids in the developed world at 527 gCO2/kWh. For comparison, the US is at 379, Canada is at 124, France is at 68, and the other European countries are somewhere in the 200-350 range. The results are very sensitive to this. The source even specifically covers some other things that make it irrelevant to extrapolate: > With regard to energy consumption overall warm weather causes may make Australia a special case due to its climate being very different to that in northern countries. If dwellings are too close together they are more difficult to cool whereas it is easier to heat them. The figure it uses to calculate emissions from rail transport is 105 gram per passenger-km. For Eurostar, that value is 6grams, due to higher ridership and much cleaner grid. Plus, the lowest carbon form of transport you can use is your own two feet. Next up is a bike, followed by an ebike. All of these rely on density, and are poorly represented due to sprawling development patterns in Aus (and North America).

adhesive_wombat 4y ago

> High speed rail is all electrified And now that Europe is finally, 30 years too late, starting to see the light on nuclear (as an adjunct to solar and wind) this is pretty important. Trains are vulnerable to one hypothetical technology: self-driving electric coaches. If it ever happens, it would be some time away, and for the long distance high-speed routes, will probably never be as fast as a 350kph+ train. But I can see swarms of e-coaches dominating regional trains because they're far more flexible. I just hope they're comfortable, but I don't really think they will be, compared to trains.

danhor 4y ago
Even self-driving coaches will have congestion issues. Even if there are dedicated travel lanes and all vehicles are connected, capacity will (probably) at most double (going down much further as speeds increase, since a safe braking distance is still needed). In that mode, the new techniques that are getting developed in rail signalling (ETCS level 3 moving block) might be transferred in some way, but capacity is still very much limited. If E-Coaches are shared, you'll have difficulties getting them to you at the point & time you want to travel (probably requiring at least ~15-30 min prior information in non-urban environments, where congestion doesn't limit adoption). They'll also have to drive in-and-out of multiple residential areas (if shared), which will increase travel time. I think self-driving cars (personal use)[1], autonomous electric busses (with many of the limitations as current busses, but lower cost & higher comfort as well as more flexible (smaller) capacity options) and rail transit will cover most demands, with on-demand transportation covering the night hours and uncommon travel routes. Some transit agencies are experimenting with services like ViaVan (providing most of the features of self-driving electric coaches, excluding the self-driving part) and adoption seems to be low, mostly working as a complement if no other attractive transit options exist, not as a displacement. [1]: I fear that this will be primary form of transportation, since costs aren't going to be much higher than current cars (or perhaps even lower). The possibility of doing something other than driving will make congestion more palatable and searching for a parking spot will probably not require a human on-board. There will still be a personal space owned by someone and stuff can be (permanently) left inside the car.

kkfx 4y ago

Yes, if you measure JUST the travel you can state little CO₂ respect of other means (even if measuring pollution in CO₂ terms have NO scientific basis, it's done just to make pollution a market for private profit) BUT if you count the total cost: - how much raw materials are needed, and processed, to build, and maintain, rails - how much people per train go, because rarely they run at full capacity and when they do people is not that happy for obvious reasons - how much raw materials, processing and energy is consumed by the side services needed Than things completely change. Than a STOL able to land on a natural surface pollute FAR LESS compared. Keep attention when you read research how this research is done because it's easy to stretch the reality to depict a result, mathematically true, but meaningless in practice sold as meaningful and really true in the broad sense. Start with a classic http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-sustainability http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-... than you can dig in the LITTLE we have on that topic, since some dislike certain research.

SECProto 4y ago
The source you cited doesn't mention trains or planes at any point.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Surely, but they clearly states that cities pollute far more than large spread areas, i.e. "rivieras". Did you see how unfit are big rails train/stations and big infra in general in a riviera? Being spread means that any "large artery" is not much fit to serve people.
  - SECProto 4y ago
    > Surely, but they clearly states that cities pollute far more than large spread areas No, your source is highly specific in that it is looking at grid emissions from cities in Australia, which has one of the dirtiest grids in the developed world at 527 gCO2/kWh. For comparison, the US is at 379, Canada is at 124, France is at 68, and the other European countries are somewhere in the 200-350 range. The results are very sensitive to this. The source even specifically covers some other things that make it irrelevant to extrapolate: > With regard to energy consumption overall warm weather causes may make Australia a special case due to its climate being very different to that in northern countries. If dwellings are too close together they are more difficult to cool whereas it is easier to heat them. The figure it uses to calculate emissions from rail transport is 105 gram per passenger-km. For Eurostar, that value is 6grams, due to higher ridership and much cleaner grid. Plus, the lowest carbon form of transport you can use is your own two feet. Next up is a bike, followed by an ebike. All of these rely on density, and are poorly represented due to sprawling development patterns in Aus (and North America).