Journalist: "So what do you think long-distance air travel is going to look like in 2050?"
Climate Scientist *laughs derisively*: "By 2050, most long-distance holiday destinations will be uninhabitable, so I expect the majority of long-distance air traffic to be non-existent by 2050."
Phew. Hadn't heard it THAT bleakly during a live interview yet.
What is a "long distance holiday destination".
London, Germany, New York are all far away. But so is 99% of the planet
@Br3nda @tbaldauf
And a book tour by train across the country?
Or to a single festival or event if there aren’t others lined up along the route?
There’s no way I can tour my #accordion book in North America
There’s bands who have done tone tours by bicycle
North America is so damn big
Times I wished I lived in Europe .6
Author readings could so easily be virtual
But I’d miss talking with real people
Maybe pair local author events? Vancouver/Berlin
@AccordionBruce
> North America is so damn big
Bigger than China, where you can get almost anywhere by train, many of them by electric fast train or sleeper train?
@strypey It's big and empty, compared to China. That doesn't entirely work as an excuse though. Mostly US infra is a policy failure rather than a natural consequence.
@Geoffberner explained to a European that touring in Canada is something like “Tonight’s gig is in Amsterdam, now drive through a blizzard because our next show is a tiny club in Kazakhstan”
@strypey @Br3nda @tbaldauf @Geoffberner
I heard so many stories of bands having deaths and near deaths driving in winter weather after I moved to Canada
@strypey @AccordionBruce @Br3nda @tbaldauf Canada, China, and USA are all pretty similar in size — in the world, Canada is no. 2, China no. 3, and USA no. 4*.
But together, Canada, USA, Mexico (which is no. 14 in the world) — ie. North America — are more than twice the the size of China and, in fact, bigger than the largest country in the world, Russia. So yes, North America is so damn big.
Should there be better rail offerings in North America? Of course there should. But the problems posed by sheer size are non-trivial.
* depending on how you count, USA can be larger than China — but they are regardless pretty close.
@fgraver @strypey @Br3nda @tbaldauf
The fact that 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border means that getting anywhere Else in the country is a real problem
It’s when population density is factored in that “North America is big“ comes into play
There’s other isolated parts of the world, but less people in some US States than most cities I’ve lived in
Those big open spaces make trains hard to fund with the US’s archaic government
@AccordionBruce
> Those big open spaces make trains hard to fund with the US’s archaic government
This is my point. It's a political-economic problem. As the examples of China, Russia, India and even SEA demonstrate, the logistical and technological obstacles can be overcome, even with far less wealth (per capital or per acre) than the US or Canada has at their disposal.
@fgraver
> together, Canada, USA, Mexico... — ie. North America — are more than twice the the size of China and... bigger than the largest country in the world, Russia
OK, but Russia also seems to offer better rail services than North America;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Russia
... as does India;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_India
... although neither is as advanced as China. If you look at rail across China, India and Russia as a whole, that's much bigger than North America.
@fgraver
> Should there be better rail offerings in North America? Of course there should. But the problems posed by sheer size are non-trivial
Granted, but I raised China as an example of how size is not a barrier to a functioning passenger rail system if the political-economic decision-makers prioritise it. I doubt we disagree that people in North America suffer from generations of over-investment in roads and cars, and underinvestment in passenger rail.
@sj_zero
> China is a poor example since to be comparable you'd need approximately 8 billion people on the American continent
Please explain the logic underlying this conclusion.
@strypey @sj_zero@social.fbxl.net @fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf why am I tagged on this?
@strypey @fgraver @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf
Pretty sure whoever you're reply to has blocked me.. But I've never heard of them so more likely they were blocked/defederated
@Br3nda
> why am I tagged on this?
I presume you were part of a thread this one branched off from. I will do my best to remember to untag you if @sj_zero bothers replies and I bother respond.
> Pretty sure whoever you're reply to has blocked me.. But I've never heard of them so more likely they were blocked/defederated
Your instance may have been blocked by theirs, but given the instance you're on, the reverse is more likely.
@strypey thanks for that. The thread just starts out of nowhere for me.
@Br3nda
In my app it starts here;
https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/112431651073452504
... but this was a branch of a thread you posted on here;
It would be great if threading in the fediverse was more self-healing, so we could always see a post in some kind of context. But it's an engineering challenge to ensure that in a federated network, while still making sure to respect post deletes, Block/ Mute decisions etc.
That's why I often quote extensively in my replies. I don't assume a reader will have access to the preceding posts, so I try to supply as much context as possible in-post.
@sj_zero @fgraver @strypey @tbaldauf
I just saw a long video where some guy had worked out his ideal plan for high-speed rail from Vancouver, BC to Eugene, Oregon
As a native of Tacoma Washington, we got screwed again and left out
Those N/S high density corridors are the ones that might have the population for such rail lines
But this guy’s single multi billion dollar decades-spanning train line had like five stops
@sj_zero
Wow! That's an incredibly thorough explanation. Thanks for putting in the effort. I hope you've put it up as a blog piece or somewhere less ephemeral than the verse, as it's a valuable contribution to the debate on the logistics of passenger rail.
Obviously I'm going to need to think about it deeply and carefully before responding, because you've covered a lot of ground there (pun intended).
@sj_zero @fgraver @strypey @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf this exchange is one of the reasons I love the Fediverse. Thanks all for giving me a little much-needed 'faith-in-human-kindness' injection.
@sj_zero
> You're not the first person to suggest a blog, but it's more about the journey
Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure you know that what you've written would be worth preserving and circulating, if you were so inclined.
@sj_zero @Br3nda @fgraver @strypey @AccordionBruce @tbaldauf Funny to encounter this today. Yesterday my sister-in-law and friends were supposed to go to Colorado by train from small Indiana town through Chicago. Two trains were running late and caused them to miss the third. There was no alternative train for the last leg within their holiday schedule. The great USA train trip was a bust.
@sj_zero
> When it comes to climate comparisons, I think it isn't so simple as "trains use less fuel per passenger"
Agreed, and this is where the rubber meets the road. If you accept the greenhouse effect, and that the planet is warming, then it's worth investing in things that aren't financially efficient, as long as they reduce carbon emissions.
So the key question is, would a China-style fast train network in North America reduce carbon emissions?
(1/?)
If they were electric trains, and adding enough renewable generation to power them was part of the project, I can't see how they wouldn't. Yes, that would require some *big* investment.
But both the electrification, and the upgrading of tracks to allow faster speeds, can be rolled out in stages, as it was in China.
(2/?)
Remember we're not talking about starting from scratch here. An extensive track network already existed in China before they started electrifying and upgrading tracks for fast trains. As it does across North America;
US;
https://stb.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=96ec03e4fc8546bd8a864e39a2c3fc41#!
Canada;
https://rac.jmaponline.net/canadianrailatlas/
https://ontheworldmap.com/mexico/mexico-railway-map.html
Every piece of track electrified or upgraded adds value to the network as a whole.
(3/?)
It does seems logical to start with the most populated areas and work out from there. Which explains your observations about the correlations between high population density and train corridors. But so does the fact that causation goes in the other direction too. A small town on a new or upgraded train line between two major centres can become a much more attractive place to live, when some of the trains stop there. Plane links can't do this.
(4/?)
Having said that, do I think there should be a train linking every population centre? No. You're right that mass transit only makes sense for routes where it is (or likely will be) common for a large number of people to travel. There are journeys where trains can't replace buses, private vehicles and active transport.
But based on what I saw in China, I think they can and should replace most (if not all) domestic air travel.
(5/?)
I do think that railways lines themselves are a natural monopoly. If they are owned by for-profit companies, and especially if those companies can be bought out by those invested in car/ oil/ airline/ hyperloop etc, is unlikely to result in passenger-friendly development.
So railways either need to be (re-)nationalised, or heavily regulated to make sure decision-making prioritises the interests of passengers, and the network as a whole.
(6/6)
@sj_zero
> you have to consider the total environmental cost of building and maintaining massive rail lines
As already mentioned - with network maps supplied - the rail lines already exist. Upgrading those has a tiny environmental impact compared to building them from scratch.
@sj_zero
> you can't do high speed rail on normal rail infrastructure
Again, that was mentioned in the thread you're replying to.
> you'd need a lot more material
As spelled out in an edit you may not have seen...
> the rail lines already exist. Upgrading those has a tiny environmental impact compared to building them from scratch.
@sj_zero
> stuff like trees don't hold carbon for very long in geological timeframes
Individual trees, no. Forests potentially. Where do you think coal comes from?
@sj_zero
> Coal almost exclusively comes from an era hundreds of millions of years ago called the carboniferous period before any organisms learned to digest cellulose
Huh. I did not know that..
>After that period, wood that would just sit there and sink into coal beds instead gets converted back into CO2 by fungi
... and reabsorbed by growing plants. As long as forests aren't cleared, they can hold carbon indefinitely.
@sj_zero
> The CO2 in a tree is gathered over years and years, whereas rotting can occur in a relatively short period of time.
Right, but you're not seeing the forest for the trees. What you call "rotting" is mostly fungi, bacteria and other decomposers, eating dead plants and using the carbon to form mycelium etc. A wild forest has a wide range of plants and fungi, all of which are absorbing carbon as they grow.
(1/?)
New forests absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. Once the biodiversity stops increasing - adding more species to absorb carbon in the same area - they become carbon neutral. So returning cleared areas to wild forest, wetlands etc, is a fantastic way to reduce net atmospheric carbon in the short term, and potentially hold it for centuries. With a bonus effect of helping to restore biodiversity.
https://phys.org/news/2020-04-dont-mature-forests-carbon-dioxide.html
(2/?)
@sj_zero
> When you're talking about tens of thousands of kilometers of rail, the amount of steel and cement required are almost beyond human comprehension
Bridges and such use concrete, but I'm not sure it's needed for most rail lines.
@sj_zero
> I forgot to mention that a high-speed rail system needs to have a much different level of workmanship
I did mention that. I also mentioned that the upgrades can be done in stages. Fast trains can travel slow over unimproved sections, with travel times getting get shorter and shorter as more upgrades are done. Which is why they're a better choice than new tech like mag-lev, which can go faster, but entire lines have to be built from scratch.
@sj_zero
> Calling construction an upgrade doesn't mean it doesn't use material
Calling an upgrade "construction" implies ripping a path through unaltered countryside. It implies having to buy or seize the land required from existing owners.
Yes, the upgrades and ongoing maintenance have an ongoing resource cost. As does upgrading and maintaining roads, although I'd wager rail maintenance is much less resource intensive per kg carried than road maintenance.
@sj_zero
> you need to redesign corners because something you can safely take at 40mph is suicidal at 200mph
You can also slow down for those sections of the trip. So for every such section, it becomes a calculus of how much reduction in travel time you can get, for the cost and clearing of new ground involved in smoothing out a corner.
(1/2)
@sj_zero
> for something like the new york to la route, an airplane may be the most environmentally conscious method because while you burn a lot of fuel you don't need to build or maintain any infrastucture between the points
You also don't serve any of the communities between the points, or help them travel to the points. So the cost of maintaining 2 airport+fuel vs. the cost of maintaining a high speed railway+fuel is not apples vs. apples.
(2/2)
@strypey @sj_zero @fgraver @tbaldauf
I recently learned that the new #FastFerry here uses more fuel than flying between #Vancouver and #Victoria
I didn’t expect flying to be more efficient than water-travel, but I guess if you speed up the boat pushing it through the water costs a lot
So doing the math on these projects may turn out results we don’t anticipate
And long distance travel may end up being harder to justify
The post you're replying to is just a jumping off point, as indicated by the (1/?) at the bottom. Did you read the whole thread?
@strypey
I did
Funny how mastodon threads work
I was responding as much to what was above with my random interjection
Sorry
@AccordionBruce
> I was responding as much to what was above with my random interjection
No worries. Just trying to figure out some more context before deciding if it needed a reply from me.