GreenSpeed has been campaigning in the UK for lower speed limits >20mph>>55 for the last 30 years. This would trigger a virtuous circle including lower emissions from ICEs, lowering their competitive advantages over EVs, increasing efficiency of EVs, modal shift to other low carbon modes, fewer and less severe accidents, less noise and wear and tear.. In 1974 Ivan Illych claimed that ‘..only a ceiling on energy use can lead to social relations that are characterised by high levels of equity ...beyond a critical speed no one can save time without forcing another to lose it...’ I think that he had in mind a speed of about 25mph.
I suppose it is over a decade ago that the Car Guys, Click and Clack the Tappet Brothers, had a show on NPR called Car Talk. A caller asked them one time, which is better, drive with your windows open, or closed with the air conditioner on? They answered that it depends on speed. Above 42 miles per hour, close the windows, below, keep them open. It turns out that 42 mph (coinciding with Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy's answer to the meaning of life as 42) is just about the speed for maximum efficiency of a car, electric or ICE (not the goon squad deporting our neighbors in the US). We need to slow down, and we need to consume less, I could not agree more. I even disagree with Bill McKibben a bit on solar panels. Don't get me wrong, I love solar electricity and have panels on my house. They are not ugly, don't pollute, and I can export power to others who can't afford to install them. But they are still stuff. We need to reduce total energy consumption, not simply change the source of energy, though the latter is essential. We need to have all our energy solar, use less total energy, and consume less stuff, especially stuff made from or using fossil fuels and unsustainably harvested renewable natural resources.
Lloyd. I could not agree more. But, with one exception.
Being a serious train aficionado, I understand and appreciate the practicality, value and wisdom of substituting zero-emissions (electrified) high-speed rail service in place of short- and mid-range flights where practicable. If people deem these to be competitive with aviation, they will use them as has proven to be the case in many parts of the world. In order to be competitive with aviation, passenger-train service must be fast. At the same time, and so as to lower greenhouse gas emissions, HSR must run on clean, renewable energy.
The world should advocate for more high-speed rail systems while at the same time calling for fewer short- and medium-range flights.
I completely agree wrt short and medium haul flights and I would also add long car journeys. No matter how good electric vehicles are, we cannot replace ICE vehicles one for one in this equation. Our larger cities are already at capacity for vehicles, and no matter how many times we rearrange traffic flow, we're not going to improve congestion, unless we remove vehicles.
Public transit in and between cities needs to be efficient and cheap enough that one just does not consider using one's own car.
Of course an obvious answer to speed, is to install speed limiters on vehicles........!!!
Very interesting you should mention that “Public transit in and between cities needs to be efficient and cheap enough that one just does not consider using one’s own car.”
Add to your list making transit: accessible (goes where people need and/or want to go), reliable and safe, and what more could you ask for?!
Zero emissions [insert transportation mode] are only zero at the point of use. Its energy source is, if one looks at the Energy Institute's chart that Lloyd presented, ISN'T coming from REs anytime soon given the tiny percentage they add to the mix.
Here in the US, we have now seen that the US can't build HSRs well at all - HOW many billions did CA waste and not a single track laid just for the "to Nowhere 1 to Nowhere 2" line?
It is doubtful that short and medium flights are going to go away soon - the economics just aren't there.
And don't forget that for many, that old adage still runs true: time is money. When I was still doing consulting trips, no way would I take a train and waste DAYS of billable time. Heck, early on, I was hauling a "luggable" laptop (remember those, old-timers here?) on HOURS long flights just to be able to continue to work at a reasonable pace.
But surely if we're talking about short haul flights, with the security arrangements and lead times for flights, train could well be faster and with better working conditions?
It's possible but for the US, trains only work economically in dense population areas. Where would the special HSR tracks be laid? Even if placed next to current tracks, the cost of eminent domain would be sky high before a single spike is pounded.
I agree - more space, larger chairs, and easier ability to walk around would be draws for some. However, for both, there is the "get to" and "get from" times and transportation costs and the complete destination times for each.
And then there is the convenience factors of those short hauls. Lloyd has already talked about re-doing Canada's rail system to blanket the entire southern tier. Where does that leave the Great White North folks?
We've already seen what happens when railroads and highways bypassed the US equivalent cities and towns - the secondary factor in redoing transportation.
It really will depend on the free market in which producers try to serve a new set of consumers to switch from their current habits to make it happen. And that is unknowable until that infrastructure is built.
Which means coming back to my set of basic questions that none here will answer: cost, time, resources, Govt regulations, and the political will to get Govt out of the way. Solve those constraints on the project plan and the above para starts to be knowable. Otherwise, its just wishful thinking until the hard work is in process.
It's my experience that most people 1) don't understand that the speed of a car affects its efficiency and 2) won't slow down regardless. This sort of education and cultural shift will take time. Furthermore, mother earth has made humans a speed-loving and adventurous primate, with some reptilian habits that come out inside the hard shell of a car.
Personally, I drive like a "hyper-miler"--trying to be as efficient as possible.
Carter passed the 55 mph rule and lost big in the next election, and the law got repealed eventually. In the US, people think that the speed limit means they can drive 10mph faster. In 75 zones, people drive 85. Not good. Higher risk of killing animals at high speed too, and getting into accidents.
Exactly. Great perspective here. There are a bunch of us coming at this from slightly different angles, but it adds up. Or, I should say, sometimes it subtracts.
GreenSpeed has been campaigning in the UK for lower speed limits >20mph>>55 for the last 30 years. This would trigger a virtuous circle including lower emissions from ICEs, lowering their competitive advantages over EVs, increasing efficiency of EVs, modal shift to other low carbon modes, fewer and less severe accidents, less noise and wear and tear.. In 1974 Ivan Illych claimed that ‘..only a ceiling on energy use can lead to social relations that are characterised by high levels of equity ...beyond a critical speed no one can save time without forcing another to lose it...’ I think that he had in mind a speed of about 25mph.
We can have strong economies with less mobility through proximity and access.
I suppose it is over a decade ago that the Car Guys, Click and Clack the Tappet Brothers, had a show on NPR called Car Talk. A caller asked them one time, which is better, drive with your windows open, or closed with the air conditioner on? They answered that it depends on speed. Above 42 miles per hour, close the windows, below, keep them open. It turns out that 42 mph (coinciding with Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy's answer to the meaning of life as 42) is just about the speed for maximum efficiency of a car, electric or ICE (not the goon squad deporting our neighbors in the US). We need to slow down, and we need to consume less, I could not agree more. I even disagree with Bill McKibben a bit on solar panels. Don't get me wrong, I love solar electricity and have panels on my house. They are not ugly, don't pollute, and I can export power to others who can't afford to install them. But they are still stuff. We need to reduce total energy consumption, not simply change the source of energy, though the latter is essential. We need to have all our energy solar, use less total energy, and consume less stuff, especially stuff made from or using fossil fuels and unsustainably harvested renewable natural resources.
Lived through it. It tucked. Imagine driving across the US at 55.
Lloyd. I could not agree more. But, with one exception.
Being a serious train aficionado, I understand and appreciate the practicality, value and wisdom of substituting zero-emissions (electrified) high-speed rail service in place of short- and mid-range flights where practicable. If people deem these to be competitive with aviation, they will use them as has proven to be the case in many parts of the world. In order to be competitive with aviation, passenger-train service must be fast. At the same time, and so as to lower greenhouse gas emissions, HSR must run on clean, renewable energy.
The world should advocate for more high-speed rail systems while at the same time calling for fewer short- and medium-range flights.
I completely agree wrt short and medium haul flights and I would also add long car journeys. No matter how good electric vehicles are, we cannot replace ICE vehicles one for one in this equation. Our larger cities are already at capacity for vehicles, and no matter how many times we rearrange traffic flow, we're not going to improve congestion, unless we remove vehicles.
Public transit in and between cities needs to be efficient and cheap enough that one just does not consider using one's own car.
Of course an obvious answer to speed, is to install speed limiters on vehicles........!!!
Very interesting you should mention that “Public transit in and between cities needs to be efficient and cheap enough that one just does not consider using one’s own car.”
Add to your list making transit: accessible (goes where people need and/or want to go), reliable and safe, and what more could you ask for?!
"... zero-emissions (electrified) high-speed rail service..."
Zero emissions [insert transportation mode] are only zero at the point of use. Its energy source is, if one looks at the Energy Institute's chart that Lloyd presented, ISN'T coming from REs anytime soon given the tiny percentage they add to the mix.
Here in the US, we have now seen that the US can't build HSRs well at all - HOW many billions did CA waste and not a single track laid just for the "to Nowhere 1 to Nowhere 2" line?
It is doubtful that short and medium flights are going to go away soon - the economics just aren't there.
And don't forget that for many, that old adage still runs true: time is money. When I was still doing consulting trips, no way would I take a train and waste DAYS of billable time. Heck, early on, I was hauling a "luggable" laptop (remember those, old-timers here?) on HOURS long flights just to be able to continue to work at a reasonable pace.
But surely if we're talking about short haul flights, with the security arrangements and lead times for flights, train could well be faster and with better working conditions?
It's possible but for the US, trains only work economically in dense population areas. Where would the special HSR tracks be laid? Even if placed next to current tracks, the cost of eminent domain would be sky high before a single spike is pounded.
I agree - more space, larger chairs, and easier ability to walk around would be draws for some. However, for both, there is the "get to" and "get from" times and transportation costs and the complete destination times for each.
And then there is the convenience factors of those short hauls. Lloyd has already talked about re-doing Canada's rail system to blanket the entire southern tier. Where does that leave the Great White North folks?
We've already seen what happens when railroads and highways bypassed the US equivalent cities and towns - the secondary factor in redoing transportation.
It really will depend on the free market in which producers try to serve a new set of consumers to switch from their current habits to make it happen. And that is unknowable until that infrastructure is built.
Which means coming back to my set of basic questions that none here will answer: cost, time, resources, Govt regulations, and the political will to get Govt out of the way. Solve those constraints on the project plan and the above para starts to be knowable. Otherwise, its just wishful thinking until the hard work is in process.
It's my experience that most people 1) don't understand that the speed of a car affects its efficiency and 2) won't slow down regardless. This sort of education and cultural shift will take time. Furthermore, mother earth has made humans a speed-loving and adventurous primate, with some reptilian habits that come out inside the hard shell of a car.
Personally, I drive like a "hyper-miler"--trying to be as efficient as possible.
Carter passed the 55 mph rule and lost big in the next election, and the law got repealed eventually. In the US, people think that the speed limit means they can drive 10mph faster. In 75 zones, people drive 85. Not good. Higher risk of killing animals at high speed too, and getting into accidents.
Thanks so much for the introduction to Jeff McFadden!
Exactly. Great perspective here. There are a bunch of us coming at this from slightly different angles, but it adds up. Or, I should say, sometimes it subtracts.