Rail accounts for only 2% of all trips made

[al78]

How does a taxi reduce carbon emissions compared to a car?

A taxi driver can make multiple calls that are relatively close by, rather than several people taking one car each onto the road, so the accumulated mileage is lower if the taxi driver picks up, drops off then picks up another close by, drops off, picks up another close by etc. Similarly, home delivery can have a lower carbon footprint because the delivery driver can take many people's loads where the people live in the same suburb, which is less mileage and more energy efficient than every individual taking one car each to collect their goods.

 

[al78]

Quite. The same article talks about all (or virtually all) cars being electric by 2050 and rail will not have lower CO2 emissions once this happens.

I'm not sure that can be claimed without some facts, figures and analysis (long thin vehicles have a low carbon footprint per passenger if full, and high speed trains may be worse than cars), but trains will always be more efficient at transporting a lot of people who wish to travel from roughly the same place to roughly the same place. A train takes up less of a ground footprint when full than an equivalent number of motor vehicles on the road, plus it is safer, and helps reduce congestion on the primary roads.

 

[al78]

Or a bus. Or a shared car. Or a taxi (Uber included....). Rail isn't the only solution, particularly for short journeys.

For short journeys, a bicycle is often a feasible option, more feasible than some people want to believe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A taxi driver can make multiple calls that are relatively close by, rather than several people taking one car each onto the road, so the accumulated mileage is lower if the taxi driver picks up, drops off then picks up another close by, drops off, picks up another close by etc.

Erm, no. A taxi has dead mileage, though this approach minimises it. A car has zero dead mileage. You drive it to where you want, then you drive it back; 100% of the mileage is "in service". It also doesn't carry the weight of an additional person (the driver). It is not emitting carbon while sat in a car park.

Taxis only really contribute beneficially when they are added to bus or rail journeys in order to enable that journey to be done by bus/rail when it couldn't be otherwise. Used standalone they have no benefit over a car and many negatives.

If you're talking about a shared taxi then it does have those benefits, but that is no different to a family car with a family in it (which is a very efficient method of transporting 4 people, both environmentally and in terms of road space).

 

[Bletchleyite]

For short journeys, a bicycle is often a feasible option, more feasible than some people want to believe.

And electric bicycles narrow that gap. My (often incredibly lazy) housemate is even considering one - no way would he ride a normal bike.

 

[Captain Bigwig]

I'm not sure that can be claimed without some facts, figures and analysis (long thin vehicles have a low carbon footprint per passenger if full, and high speed trains may be worse than cars), but trains will always be more efficient at transporting a lot of people who wish to travel from roughly the same place to roughly the same place. A train takes up less of a ground footprint when full than an equivalent number of motor vehicles on the road, plus it is safer, and helps reduce congestion on the primary roads.

I must admit I was imagining a future in which all electricity comes from nuclear/ renewables (as imagined in the BBC article that started this conversation). If that were the case electric cars would release no CO2 at all (other than that involved in manufacture and disposal). The other benefits of trains (safer, less congestion, less road space occupied) are all true and noteworthy, but unrelated to CO2 emissions.

 

[The Ham]

Erm, no. A taxi has dead mileage, though this approach minimises it. A car has zero dead mileage. You drive it to where you want, then you drive it back; 100% of the mileage is "in service". It also doesn't carry the weight of an additional person (the driver). It is not emitting carbon while sat in a car park.

Taxis only really contribute beneficially when they are added to bus or rail journeys in order to enable that journey to be done by bus/rail when it couldn't be otherwise. Used standalone they have no benefit over a car and many negatives.

If you're talking about a shared taxi then it does have those benefits, but that is no different to a family car with a family in it (which is a very efficient method of transporting 4 people, both environmentally and in terms of road space).

Cars do have dead miles, such as driving it to get it serviced, driving it to fill it with fuel, driving to drop people off somewhere, driving a short distance when you could have walked but didn't want to our because the other way is with a large item, etc. Probably not as much as taxis, but it does still happen.

Taxis work well for those who use them infrequently and otherwise don't own a car (or can most cope with one car). Especially given the amount of energy needed to produce the car in the first place.

The other thing that using taxis does is it makes people more mindful of the journeys they make.

 

[squizzler]

I do not think electric cars have a prayer of replacing all the existing ones on grounds of resource scarcity. The lithium, rare earths and exotic metals used in the drivechain will constrain things long before that happens.

Longer serving observers might recall the talk of driverless cars that were much ballyhooed a couple of years ago and now look like a busted flush.

 

[paddington]

Cars do have dead miles, such as driving it to get it serviced, driving it to fill it with fuel, driving to drop people off somewhere, driving a short distance when you could have walked but didn't want to our because the other way is with a large item, etc.

The same is true for taxis. When I didn't have a car, I had a large appliance which needed dumping, but the council only allowed you to enter the recycling centre by car. A taxi would have cost £60. I won't say what happened to the appliance.

The best example of "dead miles" for a personal car would be finding a parking space, when a taxi could just drop you off at the destination. As I experienced today when I spent 40 minutes circling around looking for a free (as in £0) space because I didn't feel like paying the £4.50 for a more convenient space. Public transport would have involved 3 changes and cost about £6 each, but fuel cost was £4, and I didn't have to carry 8kg of items in my backpack all day, and even if I had parked I would have spent the 40 minutes waiting for my wife.

 

[stevetay3]

All the cars with one person in, sat in jams on our roads at all times of day, not just peak hours.
100% pollution 25% occupancy.

 

[Ken H]

what about my neighbour. Drives his missus to the station about 2.5 miles away and then drives home. Reverse in the evening. He is retired, she still works. So 5 miles of unwanted mileage a day then...

 

[Adlington]

Drives his missus to the station about 2.5 miles away and then drives home. Reverse in the evening. He is retired, she still works. So 5 miles of unwanted mileage a day then...

"unwanted mileage" - tell it to the missus....

 

[Kite159]

what about my neighbour. Drives his missus to the station about 2.5 miles away and then drives home. Reverse in the evening. He is retired, she still works. So 5 miles of unwanted mileage a day then...

Although probably cheaper than the missus driving herself to the station and paying to park all day.

 

[kevin_roche]

Although probably cheaper than the missus driving herself to the station and paying to park all day.

That reminds me that they will probably need to have a few charging points in station car parks so that your car is charged and ready when you get off the train.

 

[edwin_m]

I must admit I was imagining a future in which all electricity comes from nuclear/ renewables (as imagined in the BBC article that started this conversation). If that were the case electric cars would release no CO2 at all (other than that involved in manufacture and disposal). The other benefits of trains (safer, less congestion, less road space occupied) are all true and noteworthy, but unrelated to CO2 emissions.

But in that version of the future the trains would be at least as carbon-neutral as the cars (and probably rather better if using proper electrification).

 

[Captain Bigwig]

But in that version of the future the trains would be at least as carbon-neutral as the cars (and probably rather better if using proper electrification).

All I said was that the railway won't have a CO2 advantage over cars.

 

[Ken H]

Although probably cheaper than the missus driving herself to the station and paying to park all day.

its free

 

[The Ham]

I must admit I was imagining a future in which all electricity comes from nuclear/ renewables (as imagined in the BBC article that started this conversation). If that were the case electric cars would release no CO2 at all (other than that involved in manufacture and disposal). The other benefits of trains (safer, less congestion, less road space occupied) are all true and noteworthy, but unrelated to CO2 emissions.

All I said was that the railway won't have a CO2 advantage over cars.

The problem with battery cars is the material used in producing the batteries as such is a significant limiting factor in how many could be created.

This is compared to trains where it's mostly steel (trains, trails, OHLE) and it's much easier to produce more.

As such there's a need for significantly more rail capacity. Pair this with electrically assisted cycles (which have a much smaller power requirement) and electric/hydrogen buses and a lot of the current journeys could be catered for, with the rest being cared for by electric taxis/hire cars.

 

[Ken H]

The problem with battery cars is the material used in producing the batteries as such is a significant limiting factor in how many could be created.

This is compared to trains where it's mostly steel (trains, trails, OHLE) and it's much easier to produce more.

As such there's a need for significantly more rail capacity. Pair this with electrically assisted cycles (which have a much smaller power requirement) and electric/hydrogen buses and a lot of the current journeys could be catered for, with the rest being cared for by electric taxis/hire cars.

where does the leccy come from to make the hydrogen and to charge the battery powered vehicles? On a cold dark windless February?

 

[underbank]

That reminds me that they will probably need to have a few charging points in station car parks so that your car is charged and ready when you get off the train.

Realistically, when (if) all cars are electric, they'll need probably 25% of parking spaces in all car parks to have charging points, maybe even 50% or even 100%. People aren't going to risk not being able to charge it in the car park, i.e. if the charging point places are already occupied. I think they'll have to redesign car parks so there is a cluster of parking spaces around each charger, maybe 4 spaces per charging point, at first, to give flexibility, i.e. the cars parked all day can be unplugged once charged, and the charger can be used for another without the first car needing to be moved. It's wasteful to take up a charging point space for several hours if another car can't use it. But then we'll having "charging wars" instead of parking wars, when someone unplugs someone else's car to charge theirs leaving the first car uncharged. I think we've a very long way to go to deal with the practicalities of charging - it's another of those things that sounds good in theory but pretty much impractical in reality (just like driverless cars really!).

 

[The Ham]

where does the leccy come from to make the hydrogen and to charge the battery powered vehicles? On a cold dark windless February?

Hydrogen can be stored from times when there's excess power generation.

Rail will still be able to have lower power usage per person if the trains have reasonable loadings.

Power assisted cycles tend not to need to be charged (charge when freewheeling and braking) depending on how much power assistance you require.

 

[Killingworth]

Realistically, when (if) all cars are electric, they'll need probably 25% of parking spaces in all car parks to have charging points, maybe even 50% or even 100%. People aren't going to risk not being able to charge it in the car park, i.e. if the charging point places are already occupied. I think they'll have to redesign car parks so there is a cluster of parking spaces around each charger, maybe 4 spaces per charging point, at first, to give flexibility, i.e. the cars parked all day can be unplugged once charged, and the charger can be used for another without the first car needing to be moved. It's wasteful to take up a charging point space for several hours if another car can't use it. But then we'll having "charging wars" instead of parking wars, when someone unplugs someone else's car to charge theirs leaving the first car uncharged. I think we've a very long way to go to deal with the practicalities of charging - it's another of those things that sounds good in theory but pretty much impractical in reality (just like driverless cars really!).

Recently we stayed at a hotel with 2 charging points below our bedroom, both occupied by charging cars about 11pm. We were awoken by a big argument because a 3rd car was desperate to get a charge and these 2 seemed to be left overnight. I see charging wars ahead!!

 

[kevin_roche]

Recently we stayed at a hotel with 2 charging points below our bedroom, both occupied by charging cars about 11pm. We were awoken by a big argument because a 3rd car was desperate to get a charge and these 2 seemed to be left overnight. I see charging wars ahead!!

The lack of charging points is one reason why people can't change to electric right now. I have a hybrid and I'm glad I opted for that as I rarely find a charging point anywhere near where I'm going. On a recent trip to Oxford I parked at the park and ride only to find that the charge point wasn't working. Further investigation showed it had been out of action for 4 months.

The other issue is that many points are run by local companies who seem to follow the Royston Vasey business model and they are unavailable to someone who arrives as a visitor.

Some charging point suppliers also fine users who overstay a particular window which gives an incentive not to stay plugged in all night.

So although trains may only be marginally greener they may be a lot more convenient than being stuck with nowhere to charge your new electric car.

 

[Lucan]

Another thing about car park EV charging points is that they are generally placed as close as possible to the entrance of whatever the car park serves. Eg they are bang outside the supermarket or motorway service building doorway. It seems that this is assumed to be a favour.

However I like parking away from such locations for a number of reasons. For example I don't want people scraping past my car with supermarket trolleys, or passers-by seeing what is in my car through the windows. I also often sit and eat sandwiches in my car and I don't want to be the object of a passing stream of spectators while I do so.

 

[Jozhua]

Unfortunately a bit of heavy handed town planning in the 60's has made using public transport more difficult...

Problem is with designing cities round cars, is that the more parking you add, the further things are away from each other, meaning more people have to drive, meaning you need more parking. Before you know it, you end up with gridlocked 20 lane roads and residents who complain about the traffic but refuse to use public transport *ahem*California*ahem*

The UK hasn't been as much of a victim of this as the states, but cuts to local lines, roads chopping up city centres, etc haven't helped public transport, walking or cycling. Arguably many places have lost their charm as a result as well. Sometimes (relatively speaking) older technologies such as trains, trams, bikes and good old fashioned walking are the best way of moving large amounts of people!

 

[yorksrob]

I find that what should be some of the most beautiful places in Britain are often spoilt by traffic.

 

[Ken H]

I find that what should be some of the most beautiful places in Britain are often spoilt by traffic.

the lakes is awful on bank holidays. and the main line over shap is shut.

 

[JamesRowden]

All I said was that the railway won't have a CO2 advantage over cars.

The lower energy consumption per passenger mile of buses, trams and trains compared to cars means that more people using public transport (or walking/cycling) rather than using private electric cars makes your carbon neutral future simpler and cheaper. There may never be enough carbon neutral electricity produced to allow everyone to use their own private electric car for every journey.

 

[BigCj34]

the lakes is awful on bank holidays. and the main line over shap is shut.

The laws of induced demand make me sceptical if road widening programmes in the Lakes would be a good idea for general traffic, but the national park really could do with a decent bus metro-style service, possibly having upgraded roads for the benefit of buses and a congestion charge scheme for the worst affected areas.

 

[Ken H]

The laws of induced demand make me sceptical if road widening programmes in the Lakes would be a good idea for general traffic, but the national park really could do with a decent bus metro-style service, possibly having upgraded roads for the benefit of buses and a congestion charge scheme for the worst affected areas.

That would go down like a lead balloon with the locals, many of whom depend on the tourists for their livelihood. Hotels,pubs, guest houses, holiday cottages and grockle shops are most of the lakeland economy now.
The lakes has quite a good bus service. the 555 lancaster - Keswick and the Borrowdale and Gt Langdale valleys services are quite good.