We compared land transport options for getting to net zero. Hands down, electric rail is the best.
We compared land transport options for getting to net zero. Hands down, electric rail is the best.
The only way to reduce soaring transport emissions is to shift as much travel as possible to the lowest-emission option.
What really annoys me about this is that we had good rail infrastructure here in Germany, then it got privatized in the 90s, which made it shit over the last few decades, which means everything is transported via trucks now, which just puts those costs onto the more expensive roads. Like, that was just a bad decision even before the public cared about climate change.
It's the whole neoliberal "sell everything not nailed down" approach to government infrastructure that was taken right across the Western world, even from ostensibly left-wing parties. Turns out you can get some cheap money from selling things off and get to brag about a surplus. Who cares that you eventually run out of things to sell and are left with expensive infrastructure and services that only private companies can profit from, that's a future government's problem!
I always find this so funny, like people are talking “needing to innovate to solve the climate crisis”. like, FFS, WE’VE HAD ELECTRIC TRAINS FOR OVER 100 YEARS!
They don’t even need batteries! They just need a power line and a little hook!
Adam something has been saying this for ages now... We have the solutions, the problem is greed
Adam Something is a dick though. His urbanism-videos are well-meant but they're mostly him stating obvious facts angrily, and he's openly a European militarist and a Russophobe.
Edit: found this post saying "nuclear war actually isn't that bad guys"
Wait… Less rolling resistance is superior to more rolling resistance? How come?
Different efficiency in the engines? Energy sources? Manufactoring costs?
Operational costs? Personell costs? Infrastructure costs?
Thanks for posting this. We knew this for a long time, didn't we? How did Trucks ever win out in long range land-based transport?
Massive subsidies.
Railroads have to pay to maintain the tracks they run on. They also have to pay property tax for owning the rails and land.
Trucks run on public highways that the government pays for. Trucks do pay taxes, but not nearly as much as they would need to to cover the wear they cause to the roads.
If all freight had to fully fund their own infrastructure, overland cargo would be almost exclusively carried by rail, even more so if they had to cover the damages of their carbon and particulate emissions.
NAZIs, I guess?
(No, seriously: Nazi Germany invented Autobahns to help blitzkrieg tactics, then Eisenhower saw the strategic advantage and copied them to create the Interstate Highway System, then everyone else copied the US.)
No they didn't, they took credit for the previous administration: https://www.dw.com/en/the-myth-of-hitlers-role-in-building-the-autobahn/a-16144981
As a guy who knows nothing about much. I loves me some trains. More trains please.
Coming from a transport modeller, the title of this article is incredibly flawed, and the write up should row back a bit.
The study itself seems great; looking in detail at the carbon cost of a transport mode throughout its lifecycle. However, it emphatically shouldn't be used to inform transport policy on its own.
This will have a focus on the UK, as this is what I'm familiar with.
Rail schemes, particularly heavy rail, has massively high start up costs due to all the engineering that has to go in place (because if rail goes wrong, it tends to go very wrong, and so the rail industry and legislation is naturally very cautious).
We don't just need to get to net zero; we need to get to net zero fast. Bus rapid transit is much faster to get off the ground, and can be electrified by putting batteries in and having quick charging at certain stops and, crucially, has a capx that a cash strapped local government is more likely to swallow.
BRT is easier to get going, but still is way less effecient than an electrified tram. Trams usually won't need to charge as they can be wired full time or charge on sections that are wired.
Local governments are cash strapped because of our ridiculous roads (north american perspective). The average neighbourhood doesn't generate enough taxes to maintain their infrastructure. We need to fix that as well through changing the way we build and tax land in our cities.
OK so a massive tax hike to pay for it but how much coverage is the Tram network going to have? And is it a 24 hour service? What capacity should it have, how many people will need to travel at peek times?
If you want to cover everywhere and serve everyone when needed then you need a big network of trams that sync somewhat conveniently for passengers, due to the nature of the infrastructure this means you'll be running a lot of unused capacity most the time especially if usage patterns change.
This is why busses are more popular with transport authorities outside high volume consistent use routes, the bus routes in my area change regularly to match demand. There's also a considerable portion of journeys that are unsuitable for tram or bus, taking trash to the tip or collecting six small trees for example.
There are solutions to these issues but we need to be aware of the problems that need solving and work towards intermediary steps so transition is possible. What we build now should be working towards an integrated transit network that's able to evolve towards efficient and complete mass transit where and when appropriate. Trams have places they work really well, we should be identifying them and highlighting them, pushing for trams everywhere is a mistake though.