The worrying thing here is the assumption that we can choose…
The world has 2 billions individual cars. Lithium extraction rate may not be sufficient to make 2 billions cars by 2030… and that’s assuming we don’t need lithium for computers, smartphones, but also not for batteries for the grid (because no solar cell works at night and wind farms are not on demand erther), and… not for electric trucks! Then comes the question of the other metals: copper, nickel, cobalt, …
Trains will not work everywhere for everyone, but not deploying them now and fast will be a severe issue for North America when resources will get scarce.
We need a smart mix of trains, buses, subways, tramways, shared vehicles, bikes, everything but one individual car per person. That era will come to an end because we’re closer to the bottom of our planet’s natural resources stock than the beginning.
There’s not even a real option of keeping gas cars a little while more, as cheap oil is also coming to an end.
The difference between accepting this and “choosing” individual cars is how ready countries will be when resources will get scarce. It may get ugly…
Yeah, unfortunately what people aren’t getting is that continuing car dependency – electric cars or not – is fundamentally not an option. Sure we’ll probably have electric firetrucks and tractors, but having 1 ton of lithium batteries and 2 to 3 tons of steel per person – plus mind-boggling amounts of asphalt roads and parking lots – was never going to be a sustainable option, be it environmentally, economically, or socially.
We as a society keep shoving forwards as if switching to a better transit mix is a choice. It’s not. Car dependency can never last.
Because trains aren’t economically viable for the vast majority of the US, and where they are economically they are the topic of conversation.
As far as why the conversation would center around the US, that’s just the regular American-centric tilt english conversations generally lean towards. Most of Europe has their shit together in some topics like this (public transportation, for instance) and the US is a huge consumer of automobiles and no one if building mass transit between the middle of nowhere to the other middle of nowhere where we could ‘efficiently’ move individually insignificant numbers of people at a time.
Mostly dirt, but that dirt is also something that has to be travelled over to get between the people…and the scale of the US means there’s a lot more of it to span.
Inside a city electric trains make more sense, but unlike the EU there are very few places in the US between population centers that could economically support the infrastructure needed for high speed rail.
For example, Texas is roughly the size of France, but with only a third of the population, and hundreds of miles between population centers, none of which could expect to see the amount of travel needed to justify that much rail line.
Basically, take Europe and their economically viable rail line, get rid of 3/4 of the population and 3/4 of the cities so each stop is 3 to 4 times further away from each other and ask the people running the trains if they would still be profitable considering they’re still having to cover the same distances with a 1/4 of the income.
Right, Texas is great example. You don’t need to cover all of Texas when most of the state is empty land, yet most of population lives within four metro areas all relatively close to each other. We already have shitty rail on the east coast connecting cities hundreds of miles and it’s wildly successful despite it being slow af.
‘Most’ of the population in the US, or Texas, or wherever…. still leaves a significant number of people and cars. I’m all for trains, and making better trains will certainly be a good direction of encouraging train use, but just making an existing alternative a little better isn’t going to solve the car situation. ‘Most’ of the US car problem isn’t located within an area that can be well served by trains. Places that can be well served by trains, in general, are already served by trains. You can make some dents in the issue, and maybe some significant ones, by leaning into that solution really hard, but it will still be a dent rather than a solution.
Too big in scale? Not so. Around 60% of car trips in the U.S. are under 6 miles. Nobody drives across the Great Plains to go to the grocery store. People live most of their lives in close proximity to home, and it’s irrelevant the size of the rest of the country. And that’s with our sprawling, car-dominated landscape. A human-oriented city could be considerably more compact, and each trip a lot shorter. In fact, a recent study in Wisconsin found that many of its small towns are still quite walkable. (Wausau looks and feels almost exactly nothing like Manhattan, so we can dispense with the usual density canard.)
Furthermore, around 95% of car trips are 30 miles or less. Electric trains don’t have to be a viable option to reconnect old, isolated railroad towns, like e.g. Laramie. By far the greatest need for them is exactly where they excel, the medium distance trips around population centers. That’s where the vast majority of travel actually happens.
By the way, why the demand that trains be profitable? Wouldn’t it be enough that subsidizing them be economically viable? I mean, that’s better than highways, which we always knew were not profitable, and which we’re slowly learning aren’t economically viable, either.
Well if you’re arguing that walking replace cars, your 5 mile radius thing doesn’t work any better than trains. And economically viable is still relevant even if you are talking taxes and subsidies. I’m 100% in favor of trains and public transport, but that 5 and 30 mile radius is only meaningful when people are grouped in close proximity…if I only share my 30 miles with 10,000 other people, and that 30 miles is even vaguely diffuse, you cant draw up a map where a train schedule works without making have of the 10,000 people employees of the train station.
Move half of the rural population into more rural areas and you get closer to that ideal, but how do you ‘move’ people in a free country? We have a shitload of land, and a significant number of people living spread out in a way that mass transit just doesn’t make sense because not enough of them are going in the same direction at the same time to make it make sense. Even at the subsidy point, you can’t raise taxes to pay for something that doesn’t raise enough taxes to pay for itself. Just throw a dart at a map in the US and come up with a way to make a passenger train make any kind of sense within a thirty mile radius of the dart. Then, after throwing the dart a thousand times and realizing most of your hits don’t contain even 1000 people, eliminate all those areas and start throwing the dart again. Then, after a thousand hits and realizing that even then you aren’t hitting places where more than 10 people are all traveling in the same direction from the same place more than once or twice a day, maybe you’ll realize the futility of trains solving problems in most of the US.
That being said, the places where it does make sense, I’m 100% in support of exploring all kinds of ways to reduce usage of individual cars, electric or otherwise.
Mostly dirt, but that dirt is also something that has to be travelled over to get between the people…and the scale of the US means there’s a lot more of it to span.
Inside a city electric trains make more sense, but unlike the EU there are very few places in the US between population centers that could economically support the infrastructure needed for high speed rail.
For example, Texas is roughly the size of France, but with only a third of the population, and hundreds of miles between population centers, none of which could expect to see the amount of travel needed to justify that much rail line.
Basically, take Europe and their economically viable rail line, get rid of 3/4 of the population and 3/4 of the cities so each stop is 3 to 4 times further away from each other and ask the people running the trains if they would still be profitable considering they’re still having to cover the same distances with a 1/4 of the income.
Trains don’t need to be the miles long trains that you are probably thinking about. Streetcars worked just fine for Americans for decades, until the auto industry forced them to shut down.
Trains, busses subways and trams with room for bikes. Bike and walking infrastructure along roads and in cities. Secure bike parking both publicly and at home. Frequent and flexible busses. And a wide variety of easily avaliable rental cars.
I love good public transport. It’s great to not have to worry about parking or having to drive. Good cities, like many in Europe and New York in the US, a car isn’t really required.
But out in the countryside, a car is a must. Electric cars are massively better for the environment and way cheaper to run (like tenth the cost with a night rate).
Also, no offense here but saying NYC or European cities are good is a perspective I would not agree with. I do not want to live in a high rise apartment and there are a lot of people who do not want that.
European and NYC people are used to it, but that doesn’t make it good.
Having that many people in one place is actually not good. Some of them never experience being in nature. Living conditions aren’t great. It’s cramped and expensive.
All of this so they can say that using public transportation is good? That’s ridiculous.
Edit: Downvote me all you want. This is the truth. Cities are not good.
“Multistory” isn’t the same thing as “high-rise.” A five-floor Boston walk-up like I lived in for a month back in 2013 is a “mid-rise” at most, and plenty of density can be achieved with two- or three-story townhouses or even relatively small stand-alone houses on relatively small lots.
And okay, cool. No one’s gonna make you, no matter how much you fantasize about someone trying. Literally all we argue for here in terms of housing is not having SFH be the only real option like it is in most of the US, so I’d politely request that you stop telling us wrongly what our position is.
Depends on the city. Sure, some are high rise, which isn’t for some, but they aren’t all like that. London for example is relatively flat but has an excellent public transport system. Same with Paris and Brussels. Essen seamer good while I was there. Utrecht was great. Amsterdam too (but it’s just grim due to all the drug tourists). Most European cities are walkable and have at least a basic level of usable public transport.
NY was the only American city I’ve been to which had a decent transport system I used. Seattle I saw trams but was on business with Texan sales people, trams with out the question. Austin buses felt very much like what only poor people used and walking the 2 miles from the apartment to the office, involved some fence holes and minor trespassing to be even possible. Mostly nice river walk though.
All cities should have decent public transport and be walkable. Car based urban sprawl has got to go. Older, pre-car, cities are often the nicest.
Edit : Wuppertal, that was my German favourite. It’s like an alternative timeline city. Love its "floating tram.
I think the problem is that most European and East coast US cities were built for walking / horses. The western US is entirely built around having a car and much of it is empty. There are massive swaths of land that is too hot for biking and it would be incrediblely expensive to change any of this.
Public transit good, but in america public transit is not well funded and only really available in big cities. I think sadly it will be years before americans can give up the independence of being able to have transportation direct from point a to point b. Consider that in rural areas it could be a 30 minute drive to get groceries with no transit options. As long as americans are going to drive cars, we can at least try to make them electric vs ICE.
I will continue to vote for public transit initiatives and if we had a bus or train system in my town I would use it. I have a fuel efficient ICE car but trying to buy electric as soon as I can afford to buy something that isn’t a telsa pile of crap.
The issue with this is that electric car batteries cause lots of damage to the environment in their production. Manufacturing any new car is environmentally destructive. You may want to reconsider buying a new car if it’s just for environmental reasons as you may be doing more harm than good.
If you can convert it to run on biofuel that’s potentially a better option. This is easier if it’s a diesel vehicle and diesel engines are inherently more efficient to begin with. The reason environmentalists don’t like them is to do with nitrous oxides and carbon particles rather than carbon dioxide emissions.
This is true of our modern age and is something we need to address in battery technology. There are already some alternatives to LiPO (lithium) although theh have their draw backs as well as their strengths. This post is about electric trains, which require similar batteries to electric cars. All ICE vehicles require a battery and typically lead-acid is used, which although possible to recycle can have a significant environmental impact if it makes its way to the landfill.
I am not sure how easy it would be to convert a non-diesel engine to a biodiesel engine, and I have a non-diesel engine. The reasons you say environmentalists don’t like biodiesel seem relevant although I can’t weigh the environmental impact of those chemicals. CO2 is a great thing for plants, not really for humans, mammals and climate. Kids love nitrous at parties… idk.
The reasons you say environmentalists don’t like biodiesel seem relevant although I can’t weigh the environmental impact of those chemicals.
I am talking about why governments and environmentists dislike fossil diesel, not biodiesel. Though they also apply to biodiesel it’s worth it not to contribute to climate change.
I am not sure how easy it would be to convert a non-diesel engine to a biodiesel engine
I don’t think it’s possible. You would replace the engine. Still easier than replacing an ICE with an electric drive train.
We have reached the point in this discussion where it’s being said cars are still required for some people. I am trying to say how they can be made more environmentally friendly besides electric cars which are horrific to produce.
Electric trains don’t use batteries like electric cars use. Don’t know where you are getting this idea from. They take power from the grid via electrified railway.
Lots of trains run on diesel though. For these I think Biodiesel is also a good idea rather than trying to replace every single one. This is more for railcars than locamotives though, since all locamotives are electric anyway. Diesel locomotives have electric motors and drive train powered by a diesel generator; these are called diesel electric trains.
My issue here, as is thr case with americans, is that we don’t have a great train system (only goes city to city, mostly freight because amtrak is crippled). The rails we have aren’t electrified. If U wanted to take the train somewhere, I would need to drive hours to a train station, where I could then go to a handful of cities and it would take a few days to do so. It’s also possible the train will be derailed.
This isn’t me shitting on trains, this is me shitting on america’s train system. Some cities have light rail, and when I could i used that all the time. My daily transport to and from the office was by light rail, because my office was downtown and I happened to find a rental that was a mile from a train stop, not too bad of a walk. Light rail can be great for cities, assuming the city is large enough to support the cost and taxpayers willing to foot the bill. Otherwise you get some “light rail but it’s a bus that has a dedicated lane and runs on fossil fuels but hey we don’t always ask for fare when you board so it’s basically light rail” bullshit.
I no longer live in the city. The city with all the light rail is a two hour drive away. If I didn’t have a car, that would mean a 2 hour bus ride, a 2 hour cab ride or if I had a friend out here with a plane and a pilots license willing to fly me, an hour flight from the tiny regional airport. There isn’t even bus service here. The town is pretty walkable, although very hilly. But the kicker is that if you need something specific, you need a car. America is not europe. America is a large land with most people spread out and few options for travel besides car. America is car country, and I guess it’s infectious. A friend of mine in poland recently bought an american car because they like them or are facinated by them. I don’t even understand that. Europe is very well connected with transit and the roads are tiny… what benefit does a huge american car have there?!
All I am saying is that unless the american people and government get on board it will be near impossible to kill the train lobby that cripples amtrak, expand amtrak, allow competitors, build new rail, electrify it, upgrade our grid to use more renewables (that one is coming slowly), etc. I will always vote this way but I am one vote. I will try to encourage others but you gotta realize half of this country likes to “roll coal” (remove the cat converter and exhaust black smoke near people or protestors, to be obnoxious). They beleive that there is such a thing as “clean coal” and that we’ve already fixed the environmental impact of burning coal, that anyone who says otherwise is a liberal cuck who is in the pocket of big solar.
I agree that cars are necessary in some countries and places. Why are you preaching to the converted?
That’s why I am suggesting things like Biodiesel because I know cars aren’t going away everywhere. I also know diesel trains aren’t going anywhere for at least a decade, hence why I also suggest biofuels here too.
If you want a new car that’s good for the environment, buy a second hand diesel then use it with biofuel. You can buy or make biodiesel yourself. Some engines can run straight vegetable oil too or can be converted to do so. This is handy because vegetable oil can be bought from any super market and many businesses throw away used oil that cane be reused for running a car.
We are both preaching, thats what the comment section is. I am telling readers (not just you) that if we want a less car brain america we have a lot of work to do.
You are preaching to other readers (not just me) about why biodiesel > electric cars. If you were talking directly to me, I would say:
one does not simply replace the engine on a low mileage honda into a diesel. Sure, if I find myself having to choose between fossil fuels and biodiesel i will choose biodiesel but I ain’t buying a car for a long while. I want to run my car to the ground first and maintain it instead of just buying a new car.
you personally haven’t made a convincing argument about why electric cars are worse for the environment. This may be true now but may not be in the future. electrified trains still run on fossil fuels to from power generation (in america). Renewable and battery tech is improving. Personally I have been all in on buying a good electric car but I haven’t found a good option yet. I have a hard time weighing the environmental cost of mining lithium over the environmental cost of burning biodiesel or wood, should you want to convert your car to run off wood gas.
a friend of mine had a biodiesel car in LA and would talk about how she would go around to restaurants to get used vegetable oil to run her car. Cool. Not really scalable but neat. I suppose there are a few more biodiesel stations around, that number likely needs to expand and production of biodiesel needs to be ramped up. Assuming the demand is there.
It would be easy to write me off as another carbrain, and maybe I am. My larger point is just that this shit is a lot more complicated than people think (for america at least). I didn’t even mention the whole towns that support the coal / oil industries because they employ half the town. In america, conservationism is blocked by conservatives.
cars don’t need to be driverless to be electric. i’m in favor of public transport but as long as we’re in the long process of building it out it’s still a lot better to have electric cars than gas guzzlers, with drivers still included.
there is a doctrine here where you fuck up a less optimal but easier solution just to force the world to adopt the better one but it’s a shitty thing to do. public transport and electric vehicles aren’t exclusive. in fact, for lower density stuff we will need buses and those should be electrified too.
![[meme] Trains are 100000x easier to electrify and automate than cars, so why does everyone keep talking about electric and driverless cars?](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/11c37658-7c32-4cc2-b12c-6ced348bd09d.png){kind=link}
Add comment