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.
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