Strypey
@fgraver
> Should there be better rail offerings in North America? Of course there should. But the problems posed by sheer size are non-trivial
Granted, but I raised China as an example of how size is not a barrier to a functioning passenger rail system if the political-economic decision-makers prioritise it. I doubt we disagree that people in North America suffer from generations of over-investment in roads and cars, and underinvestment in passenger rail.
sj_zero
Strypey
@sj_zero
Wow! That's an incredibly thorough explanation. Thanks for putting in the effort. I hope you've put it up as a blog piece or somewhere less ephemeral than the verse, as it's a valuable contribution to the debate on the logistics of passenger rail.
Obviously I'm going to need to think about it deeply and carefully before responding, because you've covered a lot of ground there (pun intended).
sj_zero
Strypey
@sj_zero
> China is a poor example since to be comparable you'd need approximately 8 billion people on the American continent
Please explain the logic underlying this conclusion.
sj_zero
Strypey
@sj_zero
> You're not the first person to suggest a blog, but it's more about the journey
Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure you know that what you've written would be worth preserving and circulating, if you were so inclined.
Strypey
@sj_zero
> I forgot to mention that a high-speed rail system needs to have a much different level of workmanship
I did mention that. I also mentioned that the upgrades can be done in stages. Fast trains can travel slow over unimproved sections, with travel times getting get shorter and shorter as more upgrades are done. Which is why they're a better choice than new tech like mag-lev, which can go faster, but entire lines have to be built from scratch.
sj_zero
Strypey
I do think that railways lines themselves are a natural monopoly. If they are owned by for-profit companies, and especially if those companies can be bought out by those invested in car/ oil/ airline/ hyperloop etc, is unlikely to result in passenger-friendly development.
So railways either need to be (re-)nationalised, or heavily regulated to make sure decision-making prioritises the interests of passengers, and the network as a whole.
(6/6)
Strypey
Having said that, do I think there should be a train linking every population centre? No. You're right that mass transit only makes sense for routes where it is (or likely will be) common for a large number of people to travel. There are journeys where trains can't replace buses, private vehicles and active transport.
But based on what I saw in China, I think they can and should replace most (if not all) domestic air travel.
(5/?)
Strypey
It does seems logical to start with the most populated areas and work out from there. Which explains your observations about the correlations between high population density and train corridors. But so does the fact that causation goes in the other direction too. A small town on a new or upgraded train line between two major centres can become a much more attractive place to live, when some of the trains stop there. Plane links can't do this.
(4/?)
Strypey
Remember we're not talking about starting from scratch here. An extensive track network already existed in China before they started electrifying and upgrading tracks for fast trains. As it does across North America;
US;
https://stb.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=96ec03e4fc8546bd8a864e39a2c3fc41#!
Canada;
https://rac.jmaponline.net/canadianrailatlas/
https://ontheworldmap.com/mexico/mexico-railway-map.html
Every piece of track electrified or upgraded adds value to the network as a whole.
(3/?)
Strypey
If they were electric trains, and adding enough renewable generation to power them was part of the project, I can't see how they wouldn't. Yes, that would require some *big* investment.
But both the electrification, and the upgrading of tracks to allow faster speeds, can be rolled out in stages, as it was in China.
(2/?)
Strypey
@sj_zero
> When it comes to climate comparisons, I think it isn't so simple as "trains use less fuel per passenger"
Agreed, and this is where the rubber meets the road. If you accept the greenhouse effect, and that the planet is warming, then it's worth investing in things that aren't financially efficient, as long as they reduce carbon emissions.
So the key question is, would a China-style fast train network in North America reduce carbon emissions?
(1/?)
AccordionBruce
@strypey @sj_zero @fgraver @tbaldauf
I recently learned that the new #FastFerry here uses more fuel than flying between #Vancouver and #Victoria
I didn’t expect flying to be more efficient than water-travel, but I guess if you speed up the boat pushing it through the water costs a lot
So doing the math on these projects may turn out results we don’t anticipate
And long distance travel may end up being harder to justify
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.