Mirror, for those hit by the paywall: https://archive.is/KkWIr Books being recommended (links to official publishers): Street Smart: The Rise of Cities and the Fall of Cars. By Samuel I. Schwartz...
See, any time you compare American driving to... Well, anywhere but Japan in specific you're already on shaky ground. Yeah, the Internal Combustion Automobile Culture that really bloomed in the...
See, any time you compare American driving to... Well, anywhere but Japan in specific you're already on shaky ground.
Yeah, the Internal Combustion Automobile Culture that really bloomed in the 1950s and onward has likely peaked but I would argue that happened with the introduction of world cars and the homogenisation of models. AUS losing their DM, Stellantis as a whole, the CUV boom, in my opinion, are all more instrumental than the much more important climate crisis.
Yes, we should be biking everywhere and riding the train but that's not going to work for rural food production that supports the cities that allow for those lifestyles. As a frequenter of car alternative solutions, less public space devoted to parking and all that faff, I feel this article was... I dunno, pointless? Even the opener from Adams, who I also love, rang hollow. Adams also quipped that the universe was a bad idea, should we go about unmaking that?
This reads more like a good reads list from your local fair trade coffee roasters than an informative article.
On an industrial scale? This is not accurate. Rail freight transportation is by far the most energy-efficient mode out there, except maybe barge shipping along certain waterways. This is why a...
that's not going to work for rural food production that supports the cities that allow for those lifestyles
On an industrial scale? This is not accurate. Rail freight transportation is by far the most energy-efficient mode out there, except maybe barge shipping along certain waterways. This is why a very large portion of raw materials in the US are shipped via rail. There is no reason that agricultural producers cannot also make use of existing rail infrastructure. There are plenty of operating refrigerator cars for perishable food items. Virtually everything that a truck does, a train does better, as long as it has a track to run on and proper operational procedures.
When people say "rail transit doesn't work in rural areas," they may be accurate when referring to passenger services in particularly low-density areas. But there is a ton of freight railroad activity in rural places. Additionally, the majority of goods do not have the same travel-time requirements as passengers, including most food products. Ideally, basically zero long-distance transportation should be happening with trucks. While some trucking may be necessary for "last-mile" journeys to connect with rail hubs, it is not optimal or necessary for trucks to do most of the transportation. Inter-modal trans-shipment costs are a real thing but ought not to preclude more rail activity. (And there is no technical reason that a large agricultural operation or factory could not build a railway connection to a nearby mainline. Many such lines already exist for bulk goods. It is relatively inexpensive to build excepted-class or otherwise slow-speed railroad tracks, electrified or not. Low-speed tracks have a small footprint, use few materials, and have lenient curvature and signaling requirements.)
Trucking is so common in the US in part because the federal government has neglected to provide railways adequate funding for infrastructure upgrades for decades, which makes the mode less competitive than it ought to be. Instead, states and the fed spend hundreds of billions annually on highway maintenance and expansion – unnecessary expansion, I may add, which encourages even more trucking and driving. While both modes have their uses, there is an obvious favorite, and is the wrong one. A carbon tax would go a long way toward discouraging this incredibly inefficient and externality-filled mode of transportation.
A freight modal shift from trucks to trains would have benefits of reducing freight transportation-related emissions by 75% or more, significantly reducing roadway wear (trucks do exponentially more damage to roads than personal vehicles), reducing traffic (fewer vehicles on the roads), reducing the number of lanes needed on highways and reducing the need for their expansion (saving taxpayer dollars and reducing highway footprint/localized ecological damage), and reducing pedestrian deaths (trucks are heavy and have terrible visibility, making them a hazard).
The article waffles for 2 paragraphs and the rest is paywalled. It's probably for the best; I agree with the initial premise, and it's not healthy to read too many articles telling you why you're...
The article waffles for 2 paragraphs and the rest is paywalled. It's probably for the best; I agree with the initial premise, and it's not healthy to read too many articles telling you why you're exactly correct.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/KkWIr
Books being recommended (links to official publishers):
Street Smart: The Rise of Cities and the Fall of Cars. By Samuel I. Schwartz
Driven: The Race to Create the Autonomous Car. By Alex Davies
Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains The World. By Henry Grabar
Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. By Peter D. Norton
How Cycling Can Save the World. By Peter Walker
cc: @PuddleOfKittens
See, any time you compare American driving to... Well, anywhere but Japan in specific you're already on shaky ground.
Yeah, the Internal Combustion Automobile Culture that really bloomed in the 1950s and onward has likely peaked but I would argue that happened with the introduction of world cars and the homogenisation of models. AUS losing their DM, Stellantis as a whole, the CUV boom, in my opinion, are all more instrumental than the much more important climate crisis.
Yes, we should be biking everywhere and riding the train but that's not going to work for rural food production that supports the cities that allow for those lifestyles. As a frequenter of car alternative solutions, less public space devoted to parking and all that faff, I feel this article was... I dunno, pointless? Even the opener from Adams, who I also love, rang hollow. Adams also quipped that the universe was a bad idea, should we go about unmaking that?
This reads more like a good reads list from your local fair trade coffee roasters than an informative article.
On an industrial scale? This is not accurate. Rail freight transportation is by far the most energy-efficient mode out there, except maybe barge shipping along certain waterways. This is why a very large portion of raw materials in the US are shipped via rail. There is no reason that agricultural producers cannot also make use of existing rail infrastructure. There are plenty of operating refrigerator cars for perishable food items. Virtually everything that a truck does, a train does better, as long as it has a track to run on and proper operational procedures.
When people say "rail transit doesn't work in rural areas," they may be accurate when referring to passenger services in particularly low-density areas. But there is a ton of freight railroad activity in rural places. Additionally, the majority of goods do not have the same travel-time requirements as passengers, including most food products. Ideally, basically zero long-distance transportation should be happening with trucks. While some trucking may be necessary for "last-mile" journeys to connect with rail hubs, it is not optimal or necessary for trucks to do most of the transportation. Inter-modal trans-shipment costs are a real thing but ought not to preclude more rail activity. (And there is no technical reason that a large agricultural operation or factory could not build a railway connection to a nearby mainline. Many such lines already exist for bulk goods. It is relatively inexpensive to build excepted-class or otherwise slow-speed railroad tracks, electrified or not. Low-speed tracks have a small footprint, use few materials, and have lenient curvature and signaling requirements.)
Trucking is so common in the US in part because the federal government has neglected to provide railways adequate funding for infrastructure upgrades for decades, which makes the mode less competitive than it ought to be. Instead, states and the fed spend hundreds of billions annually on highway maintenance and expansion – unnecessary expansion, I may add, which encourages even more trucking and driving. While both modes have their uses, there is an obvious favorite, and is the wrong one. A carbon tax would go a long way toward discouraging this incredibly inefficient and externality-filled mode of transportation.
A freight modal shift from trucks to trains would have benefits of reducing freight transportation-related emissions by 75% or more, significantly reducing roadway wear (trucks do exponentially more damage to roads than personal vehicles), reducing traffic (fewer vehicles on the roads), reducing the number of lanes needed on highways and reducing the need for their expansion (saving taxpayer dollars and reducing highway footprint/localized ecological damage), and reducing pedestrian deaths (trucks are heavy and have terrible visibility, making them a hazard).
The article waffles for 2 paragraphs and the rest is paywalled. It's probably for the best; I agree with the initial premise, and it's not healthy to read too many articles telling you why you're exactly correct.
One hopes.