4 ms·

So what should I do? Take a train? Doesn't go there. Bus? Again. Fly? That's not more efficient. Maybe grandma just doesn't need a visit from her grandki

So what should I do? Take a train? Doesn't go there. Bus? Again. Fly? That's not more efficient. Maybe grandma just doesn't need a visit from her grandkids. Instead, I bought an electric car. I bet it compares quite favorably to a typical bus. And grandma does like to see her grandkids, let me tell ya.

bee_rider 4y ago
I expected to see better performance from the bus, but it is surprisingly poor: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint Haven't dug into their sources, but I assume this is because buses often run with low utilization. Anyway the answer is trains, the answer is always trains in public transit.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Trains are a tough sell, at least in the western US. So much wide open space, trains are slow, high speed trains too expensive to justify given the sparse population. I remember once doing the math and finding that there are many times when our local light rail is less efficient than just putting four people in a sedan. When the train is full, though, it's unbeatable. EVs throw another wrench into that math since they're so much more efficient than ICEVs.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Not to mention, eventually the whole grid should be mostly renewable rendering questions of efficiency more-or-less moot.
  - gernb 4y ago
    The sparse population argument seems kind of BS Switzerland has a low population and is covered in trains https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32180236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32180236
    - a4a4a4a4 4y ago
      > sparse population > low population These are not the same thing. Switzerland has a pretty dense population. The section with low population is the Alps, where you're not going to put trains anyway. https://www.atlas.bfs.admin.ch/maps/13/de/12614_75_3501_70/20695.html https://www.atlas.bfs.admin.ch/maps/13/de/12614_75_3501_70/2... Most people that live in remote areas have cars anyway, since sometimes busses only run twice a day. It's a tricky problem to measure "access to public transit". (The BFS is an amazing source for information, they publish all kinds of statistics)
      - gernb 4y ago
        Switzerland has a similar number of people the bay area, 7-8 million, and is twice as large. So it stands to reason the bay area could have a system as large, useful, and as efficient as Switzerland if not better given it has the amount of same people in a smaller less mountainous area.
        kortilla 4y ago
        You just confused the Bay Area with “the western US”.
        gernb 4y ago
        How so? Population Bay Area 7.7 million https://www.google.com/search?q=population+bay+area https://www.google.com/search?q=population+bay+area Population of Switzerland: 8.6 million https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+swizterland https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+swizterland Size of Bay Area: 6900sq miles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_th... Size of Switzerland: 15940sq miles https://www.google.com/search?q=size+of+swizterland https://www.google.com/search?q=size+of+swizterland
        kortilla 4y ago
        You picked a tiny subsection of the western US to be representative of it. See if your comparisons make any sense looking around Fresno and Bakersfield (which is still generous). Then do the area around Elko Nevada.
ATsch 4y ago
> Take a train? Doesn't go there. It should, that's the point. The only reason it doesn't is because the US has been regressing on rail infrastructure for a century. > Bus? Again. It should. And it should be so often you don't need to check a schedule.

bee_rider 4y ago

I expected to see better performance from the bus, but it is surprisingly poor: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint Haven't dug into their sources, but I assume this is because buses often run with low utilization. Anyway the answer is trains, the answer is always trains in public transit.

rootusrootus 4y ago
Trains are a tough sell, at least in the western US. So much wide open space, trains are slow, high speed trains too expensive to justify given the sparse population. I remember once doing the math and finding that there are many times when our local light rail is less efficient than just putting four people in a sedan. When the train is full, though, it's unbeatable. EVs throw another wrench into that math since they're so much more efficient than ICEVs.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Not to mention, eventually the whole grid should be mostly renewable rendering questions of efficiency more-or-less moot.
- gernb 4y ago
  The sparse population argument seems kind of BS Switzerland has a low population and is covered in trains https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32180236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32180236
  - a4a4a4a4 4y ago
    > sparse population > low population These are not the same thing. Switzerland has a pretty dense population. The section with low population is the Alps, where you're not going to put trains anyway. https://www.atlas.bfs.admin.ch/maps/13/de/12614_75_3501_70/20695.html https://www.atlas.bfs.admin.ch/maps/13/de/12614_75_3501_70/2... Most people that live in remote areas have cars anyway, since sometimes busses only run twice a day. It's a tricky problem to measure "access to public transit". (The BFS is an amazing source for information, they publish all kinds of statistics)
    - gernb 4y ago
      Switzerland has a similar number of people the bay area, 7-8 million, and is twice as large. So it stands to reason the bay area could have a system as large, useful, and as efficient as Switzerland if not better given it has the amount of same people in a smaller less mountainous area.
      - kortilla 4y ago
        You just confused the Bay Area with “the western US”.
        gernb 4y ago
        How so? Population Bay Area 7.7 million https://www.google.com/search?q=population+bay+area https://www.google.com/search?q=population+bay+area Population of Switzerland: 8.6 million https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+swizterland https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+swizterland Size of Bay Area: 6900sq miles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_th... Size of Switzerland: 15940sq miles https://www.google.com/search?q=size+of+swizterland https://www.google.com/search?q=size+of+swizterland
        kortilla 4y ago
        You picked a tiny subsection of the western US to be representative of it. See if your comparisons make any sense looking around Fresno and Bakersfield (which is still generous). Then do the area around Elko Nevada.

ATsch 4y ago

> Take a train? Doesn't go there. It should, that's the point. The only reason it doesn't is because the US has been regressing on rail infrastructure for a century. > Bus? Again. It should. And it should be so often you don't need to check a schedule.