rail needed to help reduce global warming .

David Benton wrote:http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/n ... re/nr06_18

The British politicians are now talking a lot about climate change. So far they haven't committed themselves to any serious actions. But tackling the growth of air travel ought to be one set of objectives. At present prices it is hard for rail to compete against air travel, but a genuine high speed route to the north could eliminate most demand for air travel within Britain. As it is rail travel times have come down considerably. As a student I used to travel between London and Edinburgh several times a year. That journey has become very much quicker since then. If fuel for aircraft were taxed as much as it is for other forms of transport at least the air operators would be competing more fairly. But there should also be a charge for emitting carbon, whereas rail travel uses, potentially, non-emitting nuclear power. Short air journeys ought to be discouraged.

Someone has recently proposed that the barrage across the Severn Estuary (not yet planned) should be dedicated to transport and supply the energy for the whole rail and tram network. Thus the whole public transport network in Britain would not emit carbon. Following that road transport should be made progressively more expensive.

The US of course starts from zero, having made no investments in rail travel for half a century at least. Its dinosaur-like heavy trains are not energy efficient.

Perhaps after today's elections there will be a new attitude present in Congress at least, and an end to denial that anything needs to be done.

george matthews wrote:
The US of course starts from zero, having made no investments in rail travel for half a century at least. Its dinosaur-like heavy trains are not energy efficient.

Although our national system (Amtrak) is in somewhat of a status quo, it should be noted that state and local governments here have made good progress in the area of new and extended light rail and commuter rail operations with several new startups planned or in progress, for example New Mexico, Denver Colorado, Charlotte.

george matthews wrote: Perhaps after today's elections there will be a new attitude present in Congress at least, and an end to denial that anything needs to be done.

Agreed. It certainly can't get any worse!

I should note I have travelled to the UK every few years and 2 years ago while on a business trip I had occasion to go from London to Cambridge plus ride the Heathrow Express and was impressed by how the UK seems to be turning things around from the dark days of privitisation. One only hopes we have a similar turnaround here in the US.

Jon

jonnhrr wrote:

george matthews wrote:
The US of course starts from zero, having made no investments in rail travel for half a century at least. Its dinosaur-like heavy trains are not energy efficient.

Although our national system (Amtrak) is in somewhat of a status quo, it should be noted that state and local governments here have made good progress in the area of new and extended light rail and commuter rail operations with several new startups planned or in progress, for example New Mexico, Denver Colorado, Charlotte.

george matthews wrote: Perhaps after today's elections there will be a new attitude present in Congress at least, and an end to denial that anything needs to be done.

Agreed. It certainly can't get any worse!

I should note I have travelled to the UK every few years and 2 years ago while on a business trip I had occasion to go from London to Cambridge plus ride the Heathrow Express and was impressed by how the UK seems to be turning things around from the dark days of privitisation. One only hopes we have a similar turnaround here in the US.

Jon

I have travelled on Amtrak quite a lot. I like it, but it's not serious modern rail travel. The electrified NEC is about up to British Rail of the 1970s. The long distance trains are something else. I found the lack of time keeping irritating as for example I arrived in Chicago on the International so late that it was difficult to find anywhere to stay (although it had been on time in Canada). Actually a nice missionary lady put me up.

I have also been on the Lake Shore (both directions), the Capitol from Chicago, and locally in Florida, Winterhaven to Orlando, and West Palm beach to Winterhaven. Oh, and Adirondack and the Vermonter (starting by the bus from Montreal). And Milwaukee to Chicago - seriously useful as the bus can be very slow on congested roads.

The main problem for me in Britain is that rail travel has become much more expensive. I tend to use the coach instead as I can't afford it, unless I get a special offer.

one would hope people such as Al Gore have great influence amongst the democrats . Certainly it would be a great boost if the USA did do something about Global warming . as far as transport oges , rail would have to benefit from that .

David Benton wrote:one would hope people such as Al Gore have great influence amongst the democrats . Certainly it would be a great boost if the USA did do something about Global warming . as far as transport goes , rail would have to benefit from that .

The whole world needs American know-how and ingenuity. There are plenty of Americans who are well aware of the problem and the techniques, but so far the (federal) government has been controlled by people who for one reason and another deny there is a need to do anything.

I think lightweight high speed rail could be a useful means of cutting air travel, and also some road usage. The present system is stuck in the 1950s and has not had the continuous evolution of European and Japanese systems. They could build alongside motorways, like the TGV Nord in France and some German new lines (neubaustrecke)

Thats for sure . not to mention diplomatic power .

Mr Perkowski has provided a link in the Amtrak forum , to an article regarding the thermal power industries view that a carbon tax is likely in the USA . http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6881347 . This is good news to those of us who think a Carbon tax would be a useful tool against global warming , and represents a mindset change in the biggest player in the world energy market .

David Benton wrote:Mr Perkowski has provided a link in the Amtrak forum , to an article regarding the thermal power industries view that a carbon tax is likely in the USA . http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6881347 . This is good news to those of us who think a Carbon tax would be a useful tool against global warming , and represents a mindset change in the biggest player in the world energy market .

I am not a believer in the deification of the Market. The Market is a tool to be used when appropriate. Putting a tax on carbon may be useful in changing behaviour bit it's not enough. It will only be effective when there is an alternative source of energy. Thus energy taxes in Britain have been used mainly as a source of revenue. If there is a hydrogen system in place then the tax on fossil fuels should be set so that carbon fuels are more expensive than hydrogen derived from solar derivatives. But until there is an alternative there is not much point to it, and in a democratic society people will rightly vote against it.

Americans worry that they won't be able to use their cars if we phase out oil (and oil will phase itself out, anyway). I think they are right. Their society has been constructed on the assumption of cheap oil. But the cheapness of oil is not under the control of their government. So, no I don't think they will be able to use their private cars as much as at present. And so their very low density housing developments will be so much useless ruins. That's a frightening thought but that seems to me the reality of the situation.

The implication of that is the evolution of a more European pattern of settlement - high density cities separated by countryside, connected by rail and served by trams.

I think we are on the brink of very serious problems. For example James Lovelock - in his "Revenge of Gaia" thinks the world population of 6 billion cannot possibly be supported in the new climate. He should be taken seriously.http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews ... index.html

Actually, I believe the opposite in terms of transportation will be true, in that the rather long period of non-research of alternate fuels in the US (more or less stopped by the Reagan administration over 25 years ago) is coming to an end. A lot of time was wasted in that regards, as by now we could have avoided some of the dead ends (IMO, Ethanol from Corn - although most people have finally agreed that it's energy positive, there are much better feed stocks such as sugarcane to provide a much larger return in energy) and instead perfected, say, biodiesel from algae beds (current the far and away champion of potential energy return) or stored energy via capacitors or fuel cells (electricity generated...somehow). For most people (including me) the general standard must be that of an average vehicle in terms of power and distance (and refill/recharge times equivalent to pumping gasoline) - but when the problems are worked out, who cares what particular form this energy takes - biodiesel, ethanol, stored charge, hydrogen, and so-on.
Now, consider this - vehicles powered by Carbon neutral sources, with no other pollution (in effect - no NOx, no Sulpher, no lead, etc.). Blam - the currently most popular argument of those pushing LRT/passenger rail agendas is gone, just like that - no Green House Gases (GHG) emissions to demonize those private automobile (heck, they continue the old Ford emission removal research, and vehicles actually remove pollution from the atmosphere). Now what are you gonna say?

Now what are you gonna say?

I don't believe we shall see cheap motoring again. Americans are so wedded to their cars that they don't want to face this fact.

george matthews wrote:

Now what are you gonna say?

I don't believe we shall see cheap motoring again. Americans are so wedded to their cars that they don't want to face this fact.

Well, clearly we disagree here, because as far as I see it is not a fact. However, if you mean cheap gasoline/diesel-based motoring in the coming decades, yeah, I agree with you there.

Maybe this is a good place to ask - I understand that fuel is fairly expensive in the UK (and Europe in general), but how much of that price is because of fuel costs, and how much because of taxes which are a.) Transporation related (like in the US) and b.) General Funds related (not transporation related) - what I have seen on the web ("It must be true!") is that the taxes are high, and most goes into general funds - in other words the motorist is viewed as a "cash-cow".
Also, mixed in with the SNP Scottish Indepedance discussions no less is the current thinking that North Sea Oil & Gas reserves will start petering out within a decade - what is the general consenus on what that will mean (also I have comtemplated what the UK would have been like if there was no North Sea Oil/Gas reserves in their sector - what the economy would have been like from, say 1965 onward).

Again, everything I read so far in various media channels (i.e. Web, Magazines, Newspaper) indicates that gasoline IC engines will finally wane within 2 decades, replace by some technology that either I mentioned or yet to be reveled - yes, inflation-adjusted fuel costs will likely be higher than what North Americans are generally used to over the past 5 decades, but nowhere near current European levels (including taxes). I am rather peeved that Reagan (and both Bushes, and even Clinton) set back research for decades (bit late to get really riled up now), but finally people are getting it into their heads that we must move forward this.

Ignoring such Sci-Fi technology as transporters and hover-boards, the private vehicle will continue to reign for...well centuries (and yes, the flying cars pushed on Discovery's '2057' count as private vehicles).

Ignoring such Sci-Fi technology as transporters and hover-boards, the private vehicle will continue to reign for...well centuries (and yes, the flying cars pushed on Discovery's '2057' count as private vehicles).

Yes, I am sure you think that. Most Americans seem to think that, but it's a hope really. Cheap motoring to sustain very low density housing is not going to happen.
Climate Change is going to be quite bad and we shall see some bad times.

I have just come back from a walk in the woods. They are full of the signs of spring. Not good for January.
Here's an article from New Scientist.http://environment.newscientist.com/art ... 325874.000

A quick answer to Sir Rays question , i believe the proportion of petrol (gas) cost in some european countires is up to 75% . Hence the railways there can charge higher fares there , and still be competitivie .
Here in New Zealand , i think around 50 cents of the roughly $ 1.50 a litre we pay (NZD) , is taxes of various kinds . Some of that goes into the general fund . The govt put on another 5 cents tax jusdt before the last election , there wasnt so much oppostion , and the govt survived . It is believed that despite the tax , road transport does not cover the cost to socirety as a whole . There has been quite alot of studies carried out here .
Also , it is suggested that the wind farms built here recently , wouldnt have gone ahead if it wernt for carbon tax ( not yet introduced , politics),and carbon trading . so i think a relatively small tax , not enough to cripple peoples movemnt , is enough to start a change . Its all avbout changing the mindset , somethin i think we have witnessed to high degree ,in the recent changes in the USA midterm elections .

A quick answer to Sir Rays question , i believe the proportion of petrol (gas) cost in some european countires is up to 75% . Hence the railways there can charge higher fares there , and still be competitivie .
Here in New Zealand , i think around 50 cents of the roughly $ 1.50 a litre we pay (NZD) , is taxes of various kinds . Some of that goes into the general fund . The govt put on another 5 cents tax jusdt before the last election , there wasnt so much oppostion , and the govt survived . It is believed that despite the tax , road transport does not cover the cost to socirety as a whole . There has been quite alot of studies carried out here .
Also , it is suggested that the wind farms built here recently , wouldnt have gone ahead if it wernt for carbon tax ( not yet introduced , politics),and carbon trading . so i think a relatively small tax , not enough to cripple peoples movemnt , is enough to start a change . Its all avbout changing the mindset , somethin i think we have witnessed to high degree ,in the recent changes in the USA midterm elections .