rail needed to help reduce global warming .

RussNelson wrote:

David Benton wrote: and represents a mindset change in the biggest player in the world energy market .

You meaan China??

Still the USA .
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html

george matthews wrote:When Bush is gone there will be some changes,

Agreed, but ... they won't actually accomplish anything. Show changes to keep the sheeple happy.

One thing to remember: the US has 5% of the world's population but emits 24% of the warming gases. Everyone else knows this.

China and India aren't required to make any changes, they have double-digit growth economies, and they've got a third of the world's people between them. Without China and India, there will be no reduction in warming gases. So why should the USA cripple its economy to no good end?

It won't cripple the economy , http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/sto ... d=10422999 , it will obviously hurt some companies that are now benfitting hugely , namely the oil companies .

I'm not sure about India , but there's plenty of remedial work going on in China . Both these countries are importers of energy , so its in thier interest to curb energy use , and therefore carbon use .
How can the west say to these countries , (Whose per capita energy use is a tenth of ours ) , you must stop your citizens using more energy , even though our citizens use 10 times as much ????

David Benton wrote:How can the west say to these countries , (Whose per capita energy use is a tenth of ours ) , you must stop your citizens using more energy

I'm not saying that we should say that. I'm saying that because we CANNOT, that nothing can be done to stop emission of greenhouse gases. Thus, a reasonable person will accept that the world will get warmer, and will seek other methods of amelioration more likely to succeed.

I'd also point out that there are technologies more appropriate for the 21st century than 19th century railroads. Sorry, but as much as I love railroads, I need to advocate for sensible public policy rather than my first love. For example, the Chevy Volt, or the Rapid Urban Flexible (http://www.ruf.dk/).

Interesting system , but all i can imagine is chaos at the interchange points . to form a train , you need cars going from the same interchange point to another interchange point in common . The key problem with all monorail systems is switching . This one has a novel approach to it , but i can't see how it can work , on any system big enough to justify the expense of the monorail system .
I would agree however , that rail is only a part of the solution .
making the private car more efficent is probably the biggest opportunity for reducing warming .
as an aside , was talking to a guy that has been experimenting with hydrogen as a fuel . he was saying they were getting amazing and unexpected results , from feeding a small amount of hydrogen into a petrol engine (gas to you i quess ) . it seems it combines with the exhaust gases to create a vaccum on the exhaust stroke ,thereby doubling the power of the engine . will be interesting to see if theres any factual basis to it .

In Auckland , New Zealands biggest city , it seems a regional petrol tax will be imposed to pay for new electric commuter trains . good news .

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.c ... d=10426990

David Benton wrote:Interesting system , but all i can imagine is chaos at the interchange points . to form a train , you need cars going from the same interchange point to another interchange point in common . The key problem with all monorail systems is switching . This one has a novel approach to it , but i can't see how it can work , on any system big enough to justify the expense of the monorail system .

Don't forget that the vehicles are driven by computer, so they can merge with inches to spare, and without the start-and-stop required by human drivers. Vehicles on a segment of guideway will automatically form trains. Of course, traffic may not warrant forming a train, in which case ... they don't.

I would agree however , that rail is only a part of the solution .
making the private car more efficent is probably the biggest opportunity for reducing warming .

That's why I'm so enthusiastic about the RUF, because it combines the advantages of trains with the advantages of cars.

David Benton wrote:In Auckland , New Zealands biggest city , it seems a regional petrol tax will be imposed to pay for new electric commuter trains . good news .

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.c ... d=10426990

The London Congestion charge is supposed to be used for buses and other public transport. It may contribute towards some new tram routes. It has reduced congestion a bit and the buses run faster and so are more attractive. But it isn't enough to pay for Crossrail.

In Paris there is a tax on employers for bringing their employees in from the suburbs. This has paid for the extensive network of RER (Reseau Express Regionale) trains.

I doubt if any of these quasi-monorail systems will ever compete against conventional rail and trams. Their capital cost tends to be high in comparison to existing technology. They will I am sure remain within science fiction. Several have been proposed in Britain. They never get beyond the initial presentation.

One system that does have a future is the tram that can run on heavy rail. Several examples are found in Germany. They have the advantage of speed on the suburban rail systems and the ability to go on streets. Amsterdam also has a system of this kind.

george matthews wrote:I doubt if any of these quasi-monorail systems will ever compete against conventional rail and trams. Their capital cost tends to be high in comparison to existing technology.

Compare the cost of a RUF $7M/mile to building another four lanes on a highway. Don't neglect the time cost of the emiinent domain process in acquiring the extra width needed for these lanes.

Hmm CO2 heavier than air so how does it rise into the atmosphere.

April 1975 Newsweek calling for action in the next ten years to stop the global ice age.

The first earth day kids carrying signs about global cooling.


Nuff said lets quit beating a dead horse.

http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom52.htm


Forgot that link in my post. Feel free to read.

RussNelson wrote:

george matthews wrote:I doubt if any of these quasi-monorail systems will ever compete against conventional rail and trams. Their capital cost tends to be high in comparison to existing technology.

Compare the cost of a RUF $7M/mile to building another four lanes on a highway. Don't neglect the time cost of the emiinent domain process in acquiring the extra width needed for these lanes.

Outside the United States conditions are rather different. In a very crowded country like Britain there is absolutely no question of building more roads. US prescriptions are irrelevant to other countries.

route_rock wrote:http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom52.htm


Forgot that link in my post. Feel free to read.

It's a great pity that the country with 5% of the world's population and producing 24% of the problem has so many people denying they are responsible.

The rest of the world needs the energy and ingenuity of the Americans to help us solve this problem together.
Here's an article that might make you think
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/clima ... 45,00.html

george matthews wrote:

RussNelson wrote:

george matthews wrote:I doubt if any of these quasi-monorail systems will ever compete against conventional rail and trams. Their capital cost tends to be high in comparison to existing technology.

Compare the cost of a RUF $7M/mile to building another four lanes on a highway. Don't neglect the time cost of the emiinent domain process in acquiring the extra width needed for these lanes.

Outside the United States conditions are rather different. In a very crowded country like Britain there is absolutely no question of building more roads. US prescriptions are irrelevant to other countries.

Let's look at history. Why were street railroads tolerated in some places, and elevated railroads required in other places? Or conversely, look at how many houses Robert Moses took to build the LIE. Do you think a present-day Robert Moses could get away with the same tactics? I doubt it. Only way to increase lanes is to go up, and once you do that, a RUF guideway is much cheaper per mile than an elevated roadway.

RussNelson wrote:Let's look at history. Why were street railroads tolerated in some places, and elevated railroads required in other places? Or conversely, look at how many houses Robert Moses took to build the LIE. Do you think a present-day Robert Moses could get away with the same tactics? I doubt it. Only way to increase lanes is to go up, and once you do that, a RUF guideway is much cheaper per mile than an elevated roadway.

You are looking at American history. I don't think there is much there to interest people outside the US. Have you travelled to any other countries? This is the worldwide section - non-American. Each country has its own conditions. For example a city with structures that have been in place for 1000 years is a different kind of place than a new suburban sprawl.

Transport policies in Europe have to fit the conditions we have here. As the US has a long history of neglecting public transport, I suspect that the more densely settled parts of the US could usefully study European conditions. This would be of interest for the medium term future when the very low density suburbs in the US may have to be abandoned because it will soon be too expensive to serve them with transport.