Train is the single most economically efficient way to travel wtf
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
566 points (97.3% liked)
Fuck Cars (not all) & Car Dependant Infrastructure
1 readers
2 users here now
Discussion about the harmful effects of car dominance on communities, environment, safety, and public health. Aspiration towards more sustainable and effective alternatives like mass public transit and improved pedestrian and cycling infrastructure.
NOTE: ~~THIS SUBLEMMY IS FOR SHARING IMAGES ONLY, FOR SHARING NEWS ARTICLES AND DISCUSSIONS PLEASE CHECK OUT THIS SUBLEMMY:~~ [email protected]
NOTE2: I changed my mind, discussions and sharing news articles are now allowed.
Related communities that may interest you:
- [email protected] - Discussion about the path towards 15 minute cities. Post examples and discuss about how to make this a reality!
- [email protected] - A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I raise you walking.
JK I love trains
I understand that you are joking, but when you think about it, trains aew very likely more efficient and cleaner than a human (per kill metertravelled).
We need water, cooling, rest, food (that food needs water etc etc).
Just thinking out loud.
I once saw a calculation. If someone rode a bicycle from London to Bournemouth (UK), fueled primarily by beef steak, it's actually more CO2 emissions than driving a small efficient car. That was years ago too, so likely gotten even better.
I believe a more vegetarian based diet still wins however.
But the traveler is going to eat roughly the same amount whether he rides the bike or drives so there is little marginal carbon impacts from riding while 100% of the car emissions are marginal (since the alternate scenario produces none).
It was the energy differential that was calculated. It was, originally, mostly a dig at how carbon inefficient beef farming was.
But the traveler is going to eat roughly the same amount whether he rides the bike or drives so there is little marginal carbon impacts from riding while 100% of the car emissions are marginal (since the alternate scenario produces none).
the part I think you are missing is the human can only eat so much because it takes not as long to go by car or train as opposed to walking
inb4 challenge accepted
People eating a wholely natural diet and biking on cleanly made bikes is carbon neutral, most other forms of travel aren't and won't be as efficient because of it.
but that's a car, so a train is most likely better
You are might be right but idk. It would be interesting because by walking the humans are getting exercise. If the humans would instead by getting exercise by running on a treadmill or playing a sport the inputs wouldn’t really change. You also have to account for the environmental costs of manufacturing the train and spread that over the km per person travelled
Wasnt there an MIT study that proved on short distances walking is worse than driving?
No, that would be superconducting trains. Only one rail, no wheels and so on.
It depends on how many passengers it can transport in an area. Building a train infrastructure only for 100 people to use it will be less economically viable than having those people buy cars and build a road for them. It is all about perspective and every situation is different
Flying is the worst too because you have to show up at minimum an hour early to get through security, then wait for the thing to show up and board, plus taxi time across the run way (some airports are awful about traffic).
Trains you just gotta get there with enough time to get on before it leaves.
I always feel stressed when flying. I never or rarely feel stressed taking the train.
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ Come to Germany. And you will be stressed. Train infrastructure is a Desaster. It’s just not flexible enough to accommodate all destinations and cargo.
Disaster is relative. I've used it and can see its flaws but compared to other places, it's still amazing.
Intercity is actually a mostly enjoyable experience, if there wasn’t the horrendous price.
Regional travel though is a bad experience. Maybe not as bad as in India, or other countries with their own problems, but for European standards, it’s pretty shitty.
Though it is underfunded.
Whenever something doesn’t work, then everyone claims that it is underfounded.
Maybe it’s just too complex to work properly. One mistake always starts a chain reaction and due to the centralised organisation of train infrastructure, there are not many options to solve diverse issues.
Mhm that dedicated infrastructure could move cargo... just a thought. Perhaps some other country thought of that... Just maybe...
Oh yeah the rest of the fricking world does it for intracontinental!
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-railroading
We have the best freight rail system in the world.
Are you swiss?
Expensive and dedicated infrastructure.... Like the Eisenhower Interstate System
tbf transit infrastructure in the north America is really expensive for no reason
Our government contract acquisition system invites grift. Concrete poured as building foundations by the US Forest Service in the 1950s still does an excellent job supporting the buildings they're for 70 years later. Meanwhile the contractor hired by WMATA under recommendation of a former president poured concrete that didn't provide structural integrity from the time it was poured to when the stations were supposed to open for riders. Our infrastructure systems are expensive on a per mile basis because they're done cheaply.
Think about a cheap pair of flip flops from wal mart, and a nice pair of sandals from someone like Luna Sandals. Which pair do you think will last longer? Which will need replaced more frequently? How long will a cheap pair of sandals need to last to be cheaper on a per mile basis than an expensive pair?
Then let's take it a step further. Forget sandals. Imagine dress shoes. The Walmart pair wears out, it's done forever. The $300 Goodyear welted pair last longer, and can be rebuilt for $80 when they're worn out. The rebuilt pair lasts just as long as they did originally. How long until the Walmart shoes are costing you more than the nice shoes?
Until the 1980s, this country was pretty consistently making the long term investments and doing work internally. Then we saw a policy shift to believing that the private sector could do things cheaper and more effectively. Turns out, all they did it with was with an excess of profit. Which gets us to now where we're the Walmart shopper that knows the $300 dress shoes would last longer and be cheaper in the long run, but we have a job interview tomorrow and bills to pay. We keep making the long term more expensive decision because things have decayed bad enough that we need something now.
The fix? Shockingly simple! Tax the rich. There's no reason we should let them siphon off 45 years of government money without expecting something back
maybe monoxide did, but then I forgot
The US technically has one high speed rail corridor.
Ahh yes, those inventions literally over 100 years old are so hot and fresh
Cars are over 100 years old too.
Yes that was my point. As are airplanes
view more: next ›