But that's been outlawed now, presumably due to potential for metal toxicity (any mineral you need in your diet is also lethal at higher doses). We're leaving powdered copper at every stop light.
I don't think it's terribly harmful for humans if it's safe for a women's uterus. California tends to be exceptionally concerned for the environment in general. All that copper dust making it into the coastal marine environments isn't going to be good for it, considering the same stuff is used to keep marine life off boats.
"The issue has been under consideration since the 1990s, when cities south of San Francisco were having trouble meeting Clean Water Act requirements to reduce copper in urban run-off flowing into San Francisco Bay. Preliminary studies indicated that brake pads were a significant source of copper in that runoff. Tiny amounts of copper fall onto the streets and parking lots every time drivers step on their brakes."
As I suspected, it doesn't appear to be primarily a human toxicity concern. It's to protect the marine environment.
Asbestos isn't that harmful, until it goes airborne. My understanding from research (I worked expanding a landfill that took asbestos at one point). is that the particles are too small to be caught by our bodies defenses and when it ends up in your lungs its cancerous. Asbestos in brakes seems like a bad idea.
I believe a lot of the stopping power comes from ceramic cinders in the pads. Those showed up in high end bicycle brake pads about 25 years ago, and I think they were old news in high performance cars before that. I have a fuzzy recollection that they trickled down into mid-tier vehicles not long after that. 2000-ish?
edit: Very odd that both mine and the contradictory reply to it are both down voted. What I said is a fact, so I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with it.
Edit: Yes, you can probably find some no-name pads with asbestos if you look hard. Nobody is selling them knowingly in the US or EU. There are definitively some pads/shoes from the far east that contain asbestos. They don't get purchased by the auto parts stores and big parts suppliers that supply the shops that change most of the countries brakes. They get sold to importers who don't care what they're made of who are selling them on Amazon/Ebay/etc to DIYers at bottom dollar prices. That is such a tiny slice of a tiny slice of all pads it's basically nonexistant.
Brake pads since 2015 sold in California and Washington must have less than 0.1% asbestos by weight (it's unclear to me if that's asbestos alone, or asbestos and other heavy metals like cadmium or mercury). Since the ban was put into place in 2015, you can reasonably infer a) that there were brake pads above that limit in 2014 and b) there are brake pads slightly under that limit today.
> The Raymark facility operated at (the Stratford) location from 1919 until 1989, manufacturing asbestos brake linings and other automotive asbestos products.
so it hasn't been true for 30 years. :)
Thanks all for the clarification.
Apparently the company hasn't produced a product with asbestos in it since the 80s.
The massive waste of resources involved in hauling 2 tons of steel and glass down from speed to 0, for _absolutely no reason 99% of the time_, accelerating it back up to speed again, just to do the same, over and over, boggles the mind. The noise pollution, the air pollution, the "trash" byproducts in the form of brake dust and tire dust. Why on earth would you voluntarily do this to your neighborhood? It doesn't stop speeding; it's a crappy form of traffic control, and it makes every traffic-related measure of living near it worse. Add to all that the time wasted. I feel the same way about traffic lights, particularly the over-proliferation of red arrows everywhere, telling us that we can't judge for ourselves when it's safe to go, and instead, we have to create gridlock and extensive waits for minimal gain.
Most of these problems could be solved by keeping traffic at a moderate, consistent level through the use of roundabouts, rather than the waste of constant stop-and-go.
When I rule the world, there will be a ban on 4-way stops, red arrows, and parking lots without walkways. I don't even have kids, and I find it infuriating that parking lots force us to walk behind rows and rows of parked cars, hoping that we don't get run over by someone backing out of a space in one of the ever-increasingly-difficult-to-see-out-of cars we're bringing to market in the name of 'safety'.
I don't mean to sound snarky or judgemental, so please understand that is not my intention... Sometimes they do this to dissuade people from commuting to work through neighborhoods. Again, I don't mean to judge, that might be the best/safest/only/etc way for you to get to work and you may not be the target of these stop signs.
There is a 4 way stop in my neighborhood that is going to be converted to a traffic circle next year to keep traffic moving. Waze currently routes a lot of traffic through our neighborhood when the freeway is backed up at rush hour. I think the traffic circle might make it worse since the "pain" of the 4 way stops will be gone so the backup might be gone but the traffic volume would be higher. I might be wrong, but I'm curious to see the final effect. I'm also not sure which is worse for overall health and safety -- the higher volume with no bottleneck or lower volume with a bottleneck.
Again, sorry for being a pedant but I am a traffic engineer and the distinction between these two traffic control devices matters. Here is a link to roundabout specific information from the Federal Highways Administration https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/roundabo...
To reflect your pedantic efforts: does it matter in _this_ discussion? Colloquially they are the same thing when not having a technical discussion.
A decent use of a rotary is in Massachusetts where Drum Hill Road and Old Westford Road meet US 4 (North Road) right over top of Interstate 3. It's a 6-way intersection, with the elevated rotary helping to deal with the high speed of Interstate 3. The intersection used to be even nicer, free of traffic lights and with a smooth elliptical shape, prior to Interstate 3 being widened.
Even without slowing down this is huge waste of resources. The fact we allow people to do this is insane.
> When I rule the world, there will be a ban on 4-way stops, red arrows, and parking lots without walkways.
You are insane if you think you can make cars safe. They should just not be around people at all.
mgh = 0.5mvv
Cancel out the mass, round g to 10 m/s/s, assume a velocity of 30 m/s, and solve for h:
h = 45
We thus need a rotary that is elevated 45 meters above the road. That is about 150 feet. This could work for a highway, especially if it is in a road cut.
If roundabouts are made large enough to be pleasant, they are fine but take up a lot of space.
I'm very impressed with countries that slow down traffic by making the street a little narrower.
I can tell ya - I'd notice 1500 credit cards worth of plastic hanging out in my body. That's 5g * 1500 = 7.5kg (16.5lbs) of plastic.
I bought a Patagonia fleece the other day, and realized the thing is practically made out of microplastics, or 'recycled polyester'. And Patagonia claims to be an eco-friendly company, even though they acknowledge the microplastics problem.
It was believed that the tires would create reefs, encouraging sea life, and at the same time take care of on ongoing tire disposal problem that occasionally led to catastrophic fires.
I wonder what other modern "environmentally friendly" things we're doing now that will turn out to be bas ackward 30 years from now.
It even fits the part where we really wanted to believe it, so it wasn't hard to convince ourselves.
> Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved
> Results: Almost all commercially available plastic products we sampled—independent of the type of resin, product, or retail source—leached chemicals having reliably detectable EA, including those advertised as BPA free. In some cases, BPA-free products released chemicals having more EA than did BPA-containing products.
I have always postulated that the increase of estrogenic compounds may have some impact on what seems to be an utter surge of reported cases of gender dysphoria amongst others other disorders that typically arise when you mess with hormonal/endocrine systems. Has there been any scientific research done on this topic or is just viewed as an untouchable subject due to fear of backlash (which would be a shame if so)? It's no secret by now that we have been consuming large amounts of estrogenic compounds now in large amounts, whether it is indirectly through plastics and other industrial compounds, hormone-filled meats and dairy, other animal by-products, prescription of hormones, or more directly through the over-prescription and overuse of hormones and other drugs that have a pseudo-hormonal effect on our brains such as steroids (there is even hormones in our drinking water!) I just wonder if we are barking up a tree we have so little understanding of.
As an anecdote, I as a male suffered from gynecomastia. I did a lot of research. I learned what once used to be almost always guaranteed to be denied by insurance because it was considered purely cosmetic, is now so common insurances felt the need to cover it. So the insurance companies seem to have even caught whiff of something being "in the water" so to speak.
I wonder if we will look back in 50 years, just like some of us can point back and say about our grandparents and great grandparents generation and say "oh yeah it was all that lead you were exposed to which caused all those adverse effects (health-wise, personality-wise, and IQ wise)" if we will point back and say "oh yeah it was all those hormones or hormone disruptors you pumped into everything"
Plastics, daily dairy consumptions (every meal!), soy, sedentary lifestyle, processed food, lack of minerals in soil/food, not being exposed to natural fungus in soil and nature, not consuming enough fermented foods because we have refrigeration, not enough meditation we would get from sitting in front of a fire, not enough exposure to heat/cold in the natural seasons, not using natural ground water...
obviously not all of that, but my point is that it could be anything.
(Although now I’m reading the methodology behind that number may be flawed)
Just... don't understand why we learn so slow.
Once in a while I'll see something about the history of food preservation and it's always funny because the more optimistic folks will point to a particular date and inventor as the birth of pasteurized canning. And then a more curmudgeonly person will sometimes point out that the tin from those cans would leach in and turn the food black.
Not quite the victory people make it out to be. It was a bit later before they got the process to store food that people would eat.
I tend to use glass for anything other than water. Anything without a neutral pH can make your container more reactive, no matter what it's made of. I put tea or coffee into a double wall stainless, but only occasionally.
Of course I have a friend who found some ceramic food storage containers with lids. They're lighter than glasslock but I already have more than I use, and they have better seals.
1: discover they are poison
2: invent a new one
3: ten years pass
4: GOTO 1
Big fan of this channel in general, he at least tries to back up his research (there's a recent one on the perceived danger of overheating non-stick pans).
For instance, I'd like to know if my hard-plastic Camelbak water container is now basically safe considering I've had it for about 4 years and refill it about 2/3 times a day, or if it's leaching at essentially the same rate as when it was new.
Right now the research seems to show plastic micro particles show up in a lot of places, but whether that actually causes harm remains to be seen.
I definitely think it's something that should be studied more though.
> The EPA believes the lead came from fill material used by the neighborhood's original developers to level out some of the lots more than a century ago.
It can be assumed that any well-trafficked road during or before this period has substantial lead contamination.
That said, there are enough other sources of lead (e.g. old paint) that this isn’t guaranteed to be right.
Except in California, which had leaded fuel well into the 90's for rich people's collector cars. Another example of the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do sorts of things that happen in California.
>Rubber is also considered plastic, both natural (isoprene) and synthetic (styrene butadiene).
From riding a bicycle as a hobby, most of my puncture flats on the road come from tiny steel strands that come off of tires that have been used a little too much. I imagine the steel fibers just rust away eventually but the kevlar just gets ground into tinier and tinier bits.
When I last bought new tires, I found out that tires lose a ton of their performance even at 50% wear rating. I thought I was doing well picking better tires than factory for my vehicles but it turns out any new tire would have had better handling because it was new.
As is common, people don't talk about the problems with their product until they have a solution. Michelin was experimenting with tire construction and formulas that were both greener and retained more of their behavior at 50% (or was that 70%?) wear level. Part of the rubber compound was derived from seed oils.
Of course, any woodworker knows about boiled linseed oil. When exposed to air it undergoes an exothermic reaction with oxygen that polymerizes it. Bioplastic. I'm not entirely sure nature makes a distinction between that substance and synthetic plastics.
So I'm a little skeptical of Michelin's woo woo about natural materials, since I'm no chemist and who knows what happens to those oils during the manufacturing process. I bought the tires but only patted myself on the back for having a safer car, not saving the planet via consumption.
Eliminating car culture is non optional if we want to save the planet.
Bicycle tires are made of and release much less rubber than cars.
Would require a lot cleaner cities. Clean bare feet could become a sign of affluence: "I'm so rich, I only walk where it's clean."
Three of those four fail to address the tire issue, which is at the root of this problem.
You are on to something though, in that Columbus, the largest city in Ohio, and several of the other major cities are not served.
The major cities of Columbus, Akron and Dayton do not have Amtrak service. Columbus is the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. without passenger rail service. Columbus last had service with the National Limited in 1979. Dayton (which lost service in 1979) and Akron (which lost service in 2005) are the eleventh and twelfth.
Trains are far more heavily subsidized than autos, for example, on a per-passenger mile basis. Studies that account for the full bore of taxes which apply to personal vehicles (sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, registration fees) show that cars provide significant net income to government far exceeding infrastructure outlays.
I think that trains being less fuel efficient than cars with 2 occupants also is a good reason why “non-internalized negative externalities” have a hard time helping trains catch up in the final accounting.
If you can cite a study which supports your claim I would be very interested to read it. However, I don’t think the science of accounting for PM2.5 tire and brake dust is at the point where we can calculate the economic cost.
Meanwhile, are you including in your thought process any of the following?
- Public land permanently dedicated to roads, highways, parking lots, etc
- Parking minimums in zoning codes
- Police resources dedicated to traffic enforcement
- Wars of aggression fought to preserve oil prices
- Oil industry subsidies
- Innocent deaths and crippling lifetime injuries caused by automobiles
- Massive declining public health due to sedentary lifestyles (sitting on your butt in a driver's seat)
Public land will be permanently dedicated to rails and stations and things, if you want to cover the same area with transit access, you'll need similar, if not the same public land.
Parking minimums are not about being pro-car so much as being about anti-poor. This is a subsidy to entrenched interests, not to cars.
Police make money from traffic enforcement. Many departments get their whole budget from that. Many towns get their whole budget, above and beyond the PD, from it. Eliminate cars tomorrow and you bankrupt a huge percentage of non-major cities and all small towns.
Wars of aggression over oil are likely over due to fracking and oil sands, but I'll grant that they were bad while they were happening. Now, how are your predominantly diesel trains going to be powered without oil?
Oil subsidies are a problem. I would love to see congestion pricing and an end to all subsidies for transit, trains, buses, cars, bikes and pedestrian behaviors. We do not and never will again live in that world.
Deaths due to automobiles are at a record low per passenger mile and continuing to fall. Every time we make roads and cars and esp new cars more expensive, these rise as people limp their dangerous old clunker along a bit more. Weirdly, the requirements for safety technology cause people to drive older, less fuel efficient cars and the requirements for better emissions cause people to drive older, less safe cars all due to rising prices. Perhaps we should subsidize the removal of old cars (cash for clunkers)?
I don't think you can blame sedentary lifestyles on driving. That's a step too far -- it's a factor, but it's by no means the biggest or the most consistent. I doubt that we'd be able to attribute anywhere near enough health problem to only and specifically long commutes to even really price this externality.
2) Phrase it as you may, parking minimums raise cost of housing and/or disperse the cities increasing distances traveled, turning cheap options of walking or cycling into requisite car travel, which again widens roads, increasing distances...
3) No idea if true. Even so, less cars and less oil should leave more available resources for more useful things. Bad funding schemes are an argument, but I would consider it a sufficient one.
4) Yes they were bad. Probably still are. Trains can be electrified and no idea how that relates to wars.
5) I agree car subsidies are bad. Not sure about feasibility or seriousness of proposed end on pedestrian subsidies. Would you stop building sidewalks? Roads?
6) I will deflect to a more pressing concern and argue car travel inflicted pollution collectively does significantly more harm to health and quality of life of most residents, than the few, yet no less tragic traffic accidents.
How about we don't incentivize car usage, including all the reasons that make it convenient, useful and often almost unavoidable, like zoning, parking, wide roads, cheap fuel etc? Car is a car, and in this instance, newer cars may be even worse polluters with their tire particulate.
7) Sedentary life style is not about length of commute. If you don't own a powered personal transporter, you will almost certainly either walk more or cycle more or at least stand on your motorized scooter as you do want to get somewhere.
$66 billion a year in use taxes including fuel, excise, and registration.
That’s just the direct revenue. If you want to include externalities, you also have to include economic activity enabled by these investments, and the taxes on those activities.
Just the auto sector alone produces $60 billion of income tax revenue for state and Federal governments.
But that’s not even scratching the surface of total economic activity supported by the national highway infrastructure, or state and local infrastructure, which arguably holds up double digits percentages of GDP. State income taxes rise and fall based on their infrastructure investments.
Even the Big Dig (at $14 billion in cost I assume due to massive fraud) eventually not only pays for itself but is massively profitable from a combination of vehicle cost savings and in future revenue streams from increased economic activity enabled by the new infrastructure and added prime real estate. 
A lot of people die or are injured on the highways. Did you also attempt to measure the lives bettered and saved because of those same highways?
An informed discussion balances positives and negatives of any activity, along with the positives and negatives of a proposed substitute.
There’s a reason why infrastructure spending is one of the very few things which garners almost universal support from all political parties.
 - https://www.edrgroup.com/library/highways/economic-impact-ce...
There’s a difference between direct revenue & expenses and second-order effects.
As a second order effect, roads are necessary for something on the order of $10 trillion of economic activity in the US.
It’s a high price to pay to be sure, for the modern world. I look forward to self driving technology significantly reducing that number over the next 10-15 years.
 - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/motor-vehicle-crashes-u-...
I'm not talking infrastructure externalities, I'm talking about environmental externalities, especially (but not exclusively) tailpipe emissions.
In my opinion I think rail would displace a great deal of airline traffic because air travel security is such a chore, airlines have done their very best to squeeze out every last nickel and concerns about how green air travel is or is not. Add in the fact that there is far more room per passenger in a train and with dining cars (which are slowly dying) the food can be much better.
The biggest downside to rail travel in the US is the rail lines are owned by and geared for freight train operators. You really need completely separate lines (as you have in Japan) to compete on speed, but then competing on price would be difficult since it means building entirely new infrastructure. It could require government subsidy and in the current political climate that seems unlikely.
That depends entirely on the distance traveled; no one is suggesting a replacement of transcontinental flights with trains. But there's plenty of medium and short haul flights (for example) that would be far more comfortable on a train with little difference in total travel time once you've factored airport security overhead.
I'll give you a practical example: my wife and I live in Houston and regularly visit New Orleans. It's a one hour and five minute flight on Southwest which is one of the few airlines that still allow two suitcases per passenger for free. That's a five to six hour drive if I choose to go by car and with rare exception I choose to drive. I'm happy to trade two to three more hours on the road versus the hassle of dealing with the airport.
>Passengers will trade better wifi, food, space, etc, in exchange for longer travel times but only up to a point.
The time to travel between Houston to New Orleans would be two to three hours by high speed train. That's competitive with the Southwest flight and fast enough I'd seriously consider versus driving myself. In fact at those speeds I'd start looking at longer trips either to Mexico, farther West to Arizona, New Mexico or Colorado or farther East to tourist destinations there. At least for me it would increase my travel options and I'd be sure to take advantage over it over flying.
Adding a train line requires an immense real-estate investment, likely with lots of battles with existing land owners who don't want to sell. After that, you're stuck with that route whether it makes money or not, and how many riders really travel between those cities in the first place?
This is the problem with CA's high speed rail line. They ended up placing both ends in the middle of nowhere when even the LA->SF route would have barely gotten the ridership needed to work.
Planes can reroute all the time and independently control schedules and payloads to account for actual passenger demand, while also only needing an airport on either end which already exist.
If a train was built, you'd be paying 10x more for a ticket than the airline. Is that something you would do? Something many others would do?
The same arguments against rail can be made (for example) against new roads and exactly for the same reasons: they just go one place, you have to fight land owners to put them in and what if no one uses them?
If a train was built, you'd be paying 10x more for a ticket than the airline. Is that something you would do? Something many others would do? Just to get there at basically the same time in the end?
If you're going within a city, then home->dest time is roughly equal to home->station->train->station->dest, so if you're going to use a car anyway then you might as well just drive all the way, with more comfort, privacy, and convenience. Stations within walking distance are not realistic except in very dense urban areas like NY (which already has subways).
If you're going between cities, traffic is actually not much of an issue so it's again the same equation. Once distance increases to the point of a train being faster (even with stops), air travel then starts to become a better option.
Rail requires density. American cities are very spread out and internally sparse internally. Last mile is a serious problem, and that's before considering politics, real-estate, security and defense issues, pricing models, taxes, and other factors. Meanwhile roads are cheap and give people ultimate flexibility.
We would all love better transport, but pretending it's simple just because some other country somewhere has some trains isn't very useful.
The upshot of this is that quite a modest train network could easily serve 50%+ of Americans. Once that's done, then you can come back and complain about how it's hard to run trains to that one guy who lives in a shack somewhere, and I'll agree with you.
Think of it like the interstate highway system. Yes, not every single American has a highway running to their door. But a heck of lot of people make daily use of the system and 100% of the population benefits from it.
Obviously, it makes sense for those who do but most of America is sprawly and isn't designed for rail transit efficiency.
I'd appreciate good quite rail but it isn't anywhere near feasible in these sprawly landscapes.
but MOST of the people do live (or around) densely populated areas, no? (just checked - google says 82% of US population is in urban areas). Addressing issues for most of the people first would have the most impact.
50% of the US population live in just 35 metropolitan areas (Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Chicago, IL; Philadelphia, PA; Washington, DC; Detroit, MI; Houston, TX; Atlanta, GA; Dallas, TX; Boston, MA; San Bernardino, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Minneapolis, MN; Orange County, CA; San Diego, CA; Nassau, NY; St. Louis, IL; Baltimore, MD; Seattle, WA; Tampa, FL; Oakland, CA; Pittsburgh, PA; Miami, FL; Cleveland, OH; Denver, CO; Newark, NJ; Portland, OR; Kansas City, MO; San Francisco, CA; Fort Worth, TX; San Jose, CA; Cincinnati, OH; Orlando, FL; Sacramento, CA; Fort Lauderdale, FL) that together have 173328 square miles. That is a density of 654 inhabitants per square mile or 253 inhabitants per square kilometer. Compare that with the 232 inhabitants per square kilometer in Germany, or the 118 inhabitants per square kilometer in France. And yes you can live without a car even in rural Germany (at least if you don't have kids).
The 20 densest metropolitan areas contain 25% of the US population and have 400 inhabitants per square kilometer, comparable to the 416 inhabitants per square kilometer averaged over the Netherlands.
The lack of public transport in the US is not a density problem. That is just the excuse because people don't want to change.
And before anybody says "but the density in German cities is much higher": I lived for years in a German district with a density of 217 inhabitants per square kilometer, without needing a car.
I lived in a small town of 4,500 people without a car too. Same for a 20,000 person one. Same for a 160,000 one. Same for a 600,000+. I've done it in multiple 1+ million cities too.
It doesn't mean your quality of life is the same as it would be with a car.
Regardless - I don't think comparing Germany to the USA with population density is going to work. A lot of Germany is clustered with high density. You can put a million people in 1 square mile, leave 999 square miles empty and it'll have the same population density as any other 1000 square mile 1000/mi region.
Sprawl is the issue with the USA. That 600 habits per square mile goes out forever whereas in Germany it has a tendency to fall off exponentially.
If you go to places like Norway then you'll notice they won't even let people build outside their city proper. Once you get outside Oslo, it turns completely green and there's just road and rail. Almost no houses until you get to small dense towns. In comparison to the USA where the houses go on and on and on and on and on and on. The lots just get bigger and bigger whereas the homes in these other countries tend to stay the same size and so does the property.
For intercity, trains quickly start competing against airlines which are better for most domestic travel because the US is so big.
Usually we would have taken the subway, but for whatever reason I was feeling lazy this time so we drove. It was almost a half-hour trip across downtown through the tail end of rush hour, and then ten minutes of circling the block looking at parking lots and garages that were already full, and then another ten minutes of walking back to the venue from the street parking we finally found several blocks away.
And no, the solution is not "build more parking", the solution is to further incentivise mass transit use. For example, in this case, I probably would have been dissuaded from driving if Google Maps had not only incorporate traffic delays into its estimate, but also highlighted that the apparently plentiful nearby parking lots were all likely to be full at the time of my planned arrival.
Unless you within walking distance of a station, you're going to get in a car anyway and at that point it's usually faster and cheap to drive. That's the fundamental calculus that prevents large-scale train construction in CA cities.
The reality is, most of the people around us attending the event got there by some combination of transit, walking, and uber/cabs. And we should have too; we'll know for next time.
Density and last mile is the critical factor. Most cities in the US are too spread out currently.
That could work, or you know, we could continue research and development of tires with better PM2.5 ratings and vehicles that run on sustainable energy.
I wonder which could be done without a multi-trillion dollar hit on the global economy?
I take the bus, I'm trading a bit of time for the convenience of having someone else drive, and a forced exercise program walking to the bus stop. Several times a month I need to go someplace where the bus doesn't go without an unreasonably long walk.
Update: I've also stayed several months in Chile, which based on GDP, HDI, and Gini Coefficient, is a more developed country. Fuel is twice the price as in Panama, pedestrian infrastructure is well maintained, and the car driver culture in terms of following rules is the opposite of Panama. Mom and pop shops are the norm there, everywhere I went.
It'll be a long time still before this actually gets to any kind of production use, unless regulation steps in.
That's rare. The vast majority of traffic is 1 person per car, which completely changes the results here to make it worse than the rest.
>In the fuel efficiency information provided below you’ll see that trains are unexpectedly low, but this data can be a bit misleading because it’s from research that only studied trains in the US. There are two things to note:
>1) Americans don’t utilize trains as a mode of transportation very much in comparison with European and Asian countries. This brings fuel efficiency down because there are less people being transported per train moving.
>2)Trains have varying fuel efficiencies themselves. They are powered by either a normal combustion engine using diesel fuel or an electric motor. The efficiency of electric trains is highly variable because of the source of electricity. Electricity from a coal fired power plant will be much less efficient then renewable resources such as hydroelectric, wind, or solar.
We're doing a fine job of emptying the rural areas, heh, so I see no reason this isn't possible.