What sort of “infrastructure emissions”? That doesn’t really make sense to me, once you build the infrastructure it already exists, so it doesn’t just emit on its own. Also rail infrastructure being worse than road infrastructure doesn’t makes sense. Electric trains have extremely negligible emissions (I dare say practically none in normal operation). Electric road vehicles (of any type) still have tyre emissions (and make them worse because they are heavier). Electric trains are over all the best way forward dice intercity transport.
This seems too unbelievable for me to take your word for it. Find the source or stop spouting nonsense.
Repairing asphalt roads causes a huge amount of emissions, and the more traffic those roads see, the more often they need to be replaced.
In what world does maintaining a rail line even come close to the emissions produced by maintaining buses, trucks, and the road itself?
The article you linked makes no mention of maintenance and infrastructure emissions. There’s just a single table that seems to be based on fuel emissions at the time of travel. It’s also specific to existing rail infrastructure, which is fine, but for the purposes of argument and comparison, it would be ideal to compare the most efficient bus/roadway system with the most efficient rail system. Zero-emissions trains exist, yet somehow just maintaining the rail line would completely offset that according to your argument?
Asphalt is an oil product, yes, but it still needs to be processed and turned into asphalt. That also emits pollution. So does transporting it to the destination, and all the other environmental factors with building up a road surface. You can’t just hand wave that away “because we already made a ton of it”. That’s not how sustainability works. We’re explicitly trying to reduce our reliance on oil.
You also seem to be ignoring that rail lasts orders of magnitude longer than asphalt, and don’t constantly have to be patched and repaired for pot holes.
Steel is also one of the most recycled materials on the planet. (Nearly 70% of all steel here in the US is recycled). Melting down old cars or whatever into new rail tracks uses significantly less energy than refining new metal.
When the argument is emergency vehicles and “rail infrastructure for every house” it is clear that you are talking with an American that has no idea what they are talking about
On the topic, the debate was never regarding if streets would exist or not. This is a moved-goalpost argument made by people who are trying to fight the pro public transport movement.
Supporting and promoting public transport doesn’t require to demolish the streets or make cars illegal. Or cars cease to exist at all. This is an irrational fear of such peopke and it is actually funny when this is the counterargument.
Modern OHLE standards are significantly less messy than they were 100 years ago. And if they really are still that bad, conductor rails work almost as well.
OHLE is a conductor too. The issue with conductor rials is that they use DC rather than AC, which means that voltage is lower, meaning substations need to be more frequent. However, the conductor rail takes up no additional space in the loading gauge compared to OHLE, so for underground systems, or systems that need minimal clearance, conductor rails are better.
“Conductors” as in any piece of metal that conducts electricity? Those overhead wires are also conductors, and will see some energy loss over their length like any other conductor.
The whole thing about trolleybuses is that they don’t pollute inside of the city. Obviously that pollution still happens somewhere, but it isn’t under your nose.
Trolleybuses can use renewable electricity from wind and solar. This works today, right now. Diesel is still fossil carbon coming out of the ground and burned. It would be a different story if we could synthesize diesel using electricity, or used 100% biodiesel, but currently we can’t and we don’t.
Or better than solar panels is cheap, clean and safe uranium nuclear power :3 And even if that power is made from diesel, the pollution happens outside of the city
deleted by creator
What sort of “infrastructure emissions”? That doesn’t really make sense to me, once you build the infrastructure it already exists, so it doesn’t just emit on its own. Also rail infrastructure being worse than road infrastructure doesn’t makes sense. Electric trains have extremely negligible emissions (I dare say practically none in normal operation). Electric road vehicles (of any type) still have tyre emissions (and make them worse because they are heavier). Electric trains are over all the best way forward dice intercity transport.
And those emissions that exist happen outside of the city
deleted by creator
This seems too unbelievable for me to take your word for it. Find the source or stop spouting nonsense.
Repairing asphalt roads causes a huge amount of emissions, and the more traffic those roads see, the more often they need to be replaced.
In what world does maintaining a rail line even come close to the emissions produced by maintaining buses, trucks, and the road itself?
deleted by creator
The article you linked makes no mention of maintenance and infrastructure emissions. There’s just a single table that seems to be based on fuel emissions at the time of travel. It’s also specific to existing rail infrastructure, which is fine, but for the purposes of argument and comparison, it would be ideal to compare the most efficient bus/roadway system with the most efficient rail system. Zero-emissions trains exist, yet somehow just maintaining the rail line would completely offset that according to your argument?
Asphalt is an oil product, yes, but it still needs to be processed and turned into asphalt. That also emits pollution. So does transporting it to the destination, and all the other environmental factors with building up a road surface. You can’t just hand wave that away “because we already made a ton of it”. That’s not how sustainability works. We’re explicitly trying to reduce our reliance on oil.
You also seem to be ignoring that rail lasts orders of magnitude longer than asphalt, and don’t constantly have to be patched and repaired for pot holes. Steel is also one of the most recycled materials on the planet. (Nearly 70% of all steel here in the US is recycled). Melting down old cars or whatever into new rail tracks uses significantly less energy than refining new metal.
deleted by creator
When the argument is emergency vehicles and “rail infrastructure for every house” it is clear that you are talking with an American that has no idea what they are talking about
deleted by creator
Apologies for misidentifying you then.
On the topic, the debate was never regarding if streets would exist or not. This is a moved-goalpost argument made by people who are trying to fight the pro public transport movement.
Supporting and promoting public transport doesn’t require to demolish the streets or make cars illegal. Or cars cease to exist at all. This is an irrational fear of such peopke and it is actually funny when this is the counterargument.
deleted by creator
Also overhead wires are hideous
Modern OHLE standards are significantly less messy than they were 100 years ago. And if they really are still that bad, conductor rails work almost as well.
deleted by creator
OHLE is a conductor too. The issue with conductor rials is that they use DC rather than AC, which means that voltage is lower, meaning substations need to be more frequent. However, the conductor rail takes up no additional space in the loading gauge compared to OHLE, so for underground systems, or systems that need minimal clearance, conductor rails are better.
“Conductors” as in any piece of metal that conducts electricity? Those overhead wires are also conductors, and will see some energy loss over their length like any other conductor.
The whole thing about trolleybuses is that they don’t pollute inside of the city. Obviously that pollution still happens somewhere, but it isn’t under your nose.
Trolleybuses can use renewable electricity from wind and solar. This works today, right now. Diesel is still fossil carbon coming out of the ground and burned. It would be a different story if we could synthesize diesel using electricity, or used 100% biodiesel, but currently we can’t and we don’t.
Or better than solar panels is cheap, clean and safe uranium nuclear power :3 And even if that power is made from diesel, the pollution happens outside of the city
deleted by creator