dagblog - Comments for "For and Against Rail"

Interesting stuff,

Verified Atheist — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:07:13 +0000

In reply to Thanks! The linkie workies

Interesting stuff, Beetlejuice. So, if unleaded gas has 8.91 kg of CO₂ per gallon, then a car that gets 30 mpg would presumably emit about 0.3 kg of CO₂ per passenger mile when carrying a single passenger, which isn't that far off from the 0.60 to 0.40 kg you mention for air travel. More precisely, cars with and 14.9 and 22.3 mpg, respectively, would correspond to those emission levels for air travel.

Thanks! The linkie workies

Beetlejuice — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:56:58 +0000

In reply to I fixed that link. Re jet vs

Thanks! The linkie workies now! Looks like I was on the right track after skimming the article too!

Also note on that CO2 emissions blogpost, a Kg = 2.2 pounds so the ...

London to Paris by Eurostar

3.5 hours, 244 Kg/CO2

2.75 hours, 22 Kg/CO2

is informative.

Also this ...

Air Travel
CO₂ emissions in air travel vary by length of flight--ranging from 0.60kg CO₂ per passenger mile to 0.40kg CO₂ per passenger mile depending on the flight distance. Our calculator allows the user to take the issue of radiative forcing into account. (Sources: EPA Climate Leaders. For more information on air travel-related radiative forcing, please see this IPCC document.) *Assumes Coach Class, please contact us directly for business and first class emissions.

Rail Travel
The CO₂ emissions for rail travel vary by distance of the trip. On average, commuter rail and subway trains emit 0.35 lbs CO₂ per passenger mile, and long distance trains emit 0.42 lbs CO₂ per passenger mile (Source WRI: Employee commuting spreadsheet.) For rail trips under 20 miles we calculate your emissions at 0.35 lbs CO₂ per passenger mile, and over 20 miles we calculate at 0.42 lbs CO₂ per passenger mile. Transportation conditions vary in real life beyond what can be estimated. To ensure that our rail calculators fully covers your trip, we add 10% to the total mileage of your trip to account for potential detours, stop-overs, and other issues that may arise on your trip.

http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/carbon_calculators/category/Assumptions

As for what the weight means, here's an example they give with a motor vehicle ...

Unleaded gasoline has 8.91 kg (19.643lbs) of CO₂ per gallon

That's 2.2 pounds to a Kg

I fixed that link. Re jet vs

Donal — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:55:00 +0000

In reply to I skimmed the first tree, but

I fixed that link.

Re jet vs train, here is a blog post about the relative CO2 emissions, which should be a clue to the energy used.

I just got quick quotes: A round trip ticket from Baltimore to NYC would be $204 coach on a regional train and $296 business on the Acela Express. Travelocity gave me a round trip cost of $327 to fly.

I skimmed the first tree, but

Beetlejuice — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:16:38 +0000

In reply to For and Against Rail

I skimmed the first tree, but number 4 is blocked ... domains.googlesyndication.com is blocked by my security software ... purposely.

What I didn't see was a floorplan for a rail system, although there are hints all over the articles.

A bullet train rail system is a necessity no doubt and does offer advantages an airport doesn't. Think about it ... where are most rail stations located in the US before they were torn down ??? Normally they were located in city centers thus eliminating the need for taxis and bus services ferrying passengers in and out of a city which was already serving the needs of the local population.

A smart plan would link major cities following air traffic patterns with high speed rails which would terminate at local train stations. Passengers would then either get off because they were at their designated termination point or transfer to the slower, but efficient, local lines to continue their travels. They could even work out baggage check-in/check-out systems like airports too. A high speed rail system coupled to local train rails would drastically cut down consumer demand for fuel.

The trick for high speed rails is distance, time and money ... how far, how fast and how much. It doesn't make much sense to put in one where a local rail line is functioning because the time difference wouldn't be enough to justify the cost. But it would boost demand for the local line.

But the public needs to be educated. I left military service in 1981 at the end of a 4 year tour in Europe where I learned to use the rail and bus services to get around. I was living in San Diego looking for work and found a position in Santa Ana ... Los Angeles area. I applied for the position and was offered and interview. At the time I didn't have a car so I took a bus to the train station in downtown San Diego and rode the rail to Santa Ana. The business office for the interview was only a city block from the train station. The interesting part of the interview was the interviewer was shocked I had arrived without a car ... he couldn't believe it was possible. I remember him asking if I were hired would I be moving up to Santa Ana. My rely was eventually ... the cost for train fare was really cheap and if hired I figured I could commute and take my time in locating accommodations in the local area. I didn't get the job and figured commuting from San Diego may have been an issue with him.

I believe the biggest obstacle for all rail systems in the US will be for people to let go of their cars and use public transportation. Of course, it will be on those operating the rail systems to make absolutely sure they run on time and people have ample time to catch their connecting rail lines and their baggage isn't lost ... just like the airlines.

As for fuel/energy ... has anyone figured out how much fuel/energy it costs to fly between LA and NY then determine the amount fuel/energy it would cost for a single non-stop bullet train to make the same run? Again, distance, time and money will be the determining factors if a high-speed rail system would be a feasible alternative to air travel or driving a car.