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.
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.
Let me rephrase it: infrastructure maintaining emissions.
You have to think about all the people involved in organising train infrastructure each day. It’s immense.
I can’t find the source anymore. But a german agency once published a calculation, that on a 100 km trip, the train was still emitting less, including every emissions connected to this one train ride. But the difference to a diesel Bus became basically unmentionable. Just a few kg CO2 more. But not much.
And keep in mind that a bus is much more flexible than a train.
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.
Not quite. As every city is dependant on road infrastructure. It starts with the building of houses and the transport of material. You cannot use rail infrastructure for every house. It does not bring the needed flexibility. Same goes for emergency services, police, firebricks, ambulance, craftsman,… asphalt based infrastructure is irreplaceable. Might as well use it for public transport instead of creating a second infrastructure to care for.
One little new building project and a rail route in a city is blocked for 1-2 years. Car infrastructure is flexible and can evade this problem.
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?
Asphalt is a byproduct of oil refinery. It’s literal main component is production waste. There is a ton of it.
Steel on the other hand must be produced in the so called blast furnace process. It’s the reduction of iron oxide with carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. But the hydrogen is it added separately. It’s a byproduct of the process that reacts as well reductive towards iron oxide.
You need to burn immense amounts of coal to create elemental iron.
And trails are equally time consuming and resources consuming with maintenance as asphalt streets are.
I don’t know what kind of source you want there. Do you need a link towards Wikipedia? Or can you find the production of iron and asphalt yourself?
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.
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.
I cannot look everything up. Soooooo … trust me bro.
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?
There also exist zero emission cars. So this argument doesn’t work so well.
We are talking about real life applications. And that’s why it is absolutely reasonable to compare existing infrastructure. Germany has invested heavily into both, automobile infrastructure and Railroad infrastructure. So the comparison seems to be alright.
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.
And so does steel and concrete.
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.
I can hand wave this off completely fine, since it would be technically possible to frac bitumen into synthesis gas as well. So asphalt is still bound carbon. And that’s alright that way.
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.
This is wrong. They need to be ground down regularity, they need to be replaced regularity due to material fatigue, railroads need intense care - freed from plants regularity, much more frequent in fact than asphalt, due to its open structure.
In Addition to rails, there is need for electrical wiring above the train. This wiring is also needed to replace regularity due to material fatigue, constant rubbing of the metals onto each other.
Then we also have further infrastructure for people, so called train stations. Especially larger train stations must be heated in winter with immense amounts of gas and train stations made of glass in summer are in desperate need of cooling.
You just have to take a look at the prices for a ride. If it compares financially, then it most likely compares in emissions as well.
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.
While this is correct, it is still very inefficient to melt down steel and then clean it up to recreate the requested alloys. Asphalt on the other hand can be recycled much easier. It is in fact a thermoplastic material. It needs much lower melting temperatures and is not dependant on reductive agents.
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
You are talking with a European. A German in fact.
And I was not talking about rail to every house, I was mentioning the absolute necessity for asphalt streets. And that this infrastructure is far more flexible and adaptive than all the alternatives. Something irreplaceable in fact.
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.
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.
I am not against public transport. But the pro public transport movement often leans into the extreme.
Asking for the removal of individual transport (well only cars, not bicycles).
But from my standpoint, it is clear that an infrastructure, that is irreplaceable and an absolute necessity, must be used to the fullest extend. This means that the primary objective in planing transport in a city must be to fill the streets with busses, cars and bicycles.
Rail comes secondary.
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.
Well, I might be a little sensitive, but some people here support a movement against individualistic solutions rather than a positively conotated idea of feasible reasonable, not ideological solutions.
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
Let me rephrase it: infrastructure maintaining emissions. You have to think about all the people involved in organising train infrastructure each day. It’s immense. I can’t find the source anymore. But a german agency once published a calculation, that on a 100 km trip, the train was still emitting less, including every emissions connected to this one train ride. But the difference to a diesel Bus became basically unmentionable. Just a few kg CO2 more. But not much. And keep in mind that a bus is much more flexible than a train.
Not quite. As every city is dependant on road infrastructure. It starts with the building of houses and the transport of material. You cannot use rail infrastructure for every house. It does not bring the needed flexibility. Same goes for emergency services, police, firebricks, ambulance, craftsman,… asphalt based infrastructure is irreplaceable. Might as well use it for public transport instead of creating a second infrastructure to care for. One little new building project and a rail route in a city is blocked for 1-2 years. Car infrastructure is flexible and can evade this problem.
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?
Asphalt is a byproduct of oil refinery. It’s literal main component is production waste. There is a ton of it.
Steel on the other hand must be produced in the so called blast furnace process. It’s the reduction of iron oxide with carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. But the hydrogen is it added separately. It’s a byproduct of the process that reacts as well reductive towards iron oxide. You need to burn immense amounts of coal to create elemental iron.
And trails are equally time consuming and resources consuming with maintenance as asphalt streets are.
I don’t know what kind of source you want there. Do you need a link towards Wikipedia? Or can you find the production of iron and asphalt yourself?
For sure a car cannot compete with a trains emissions. But a diesel driven bus can. Here is a source. You might need a translator. It’s a German article. link to a german news agency. citing a study by the Umweltministerium (ministry for Environment)
I am in fact not spouting nonsense. I am merely stating the truth.
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.
I cannot look everything up. Soooooo … trust me bro.
There also exist zero emission cars. So this argument doesn’t work so well. We are talking about real life applications. And that’s why it is absolutely reasonable to compare existing infrastructure. Germany has invested heavily into both, automobile infrastructure and Railroad infrastructure. So the comparison seems to be alright.
And so does steel and concrete.
I can hand wave this off completely fine, since it would be technically possible to frac bitumen into synthesis gas as well. So asphalt is still bound carbon. And that’s alright that way.
This is wrong. They need to be ground down regularity, they need to be replaced regularity due to material fatigue, railroads need intense care - freed from plants regularity, much more frequent in fact than asphalt, due to its open structure. In Addition to rails, there is need for electrical wiring above the train. This wiring is also needed to replace regularity due to material fatigue, constant rubbing of the metals onto each other. Then we also have further infrastructure for people, so called train stations. Especially larger train stations must be heated in winter with immense amounts of gas and train stations made of glass in summer are in desperate need of cooling. You just have to take a look at the prices for a ride. If it compares financially, then it most likely compares in emissions as well.
While this is correct, it is still very inefficient to melt down steel and then clean it up to recreate the requested alloys. Asphalt on the other hand can be recycled much easier. It is in fact a thermoplastic material. It needs much lower melting temperatures and is not dependant on reductive agents.
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
You are talking with a European. A German in fact.
And I was not talking about rail to every house, I was mentioning the absolute necessity for asphalt streets. And that this infrastructure is far more flexible and adaptive than all the alternatives. Something irreplaceable in fact.
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.
No offence was taken.
I am not against public transport. But the pro public transport movement often leans into the extreme. Asking for the removal of individual transport (well only cars, not bicycles). But from my standpoint, it is clear that an infrastructure, that is irreplaceable and an absolute necessity, must be used to the fullest extend. This means that the primary objective in planing transport in a city must be to fill the streets with busses, cars and bicycles. Rail comes secondary.
Well, I might be a little sensitive, but some people here support a movement against individualistic solutions rather than a positively conotated idea of feasible reasonable, not ideological solutions.