I’m not too concerned about where people stand on climate change. We’re at a point where people agree that’s it’s happening, but for some there is debate on the role humans play.
Fine.
Then let’s define the debate this way:
One side says we have to cut our burning of fossil fuels to stem climate change. This side includes the chief executives of 10 major corporations (citation from FOX News), a UN panel of 2,500 scientists (citation from Reuters), and the more than 160 nations that have ratified or at least accepted the Kyoto Protocol (see list).
The other side says the jury is still out on the role humans play in climate change. The science of climate analysis is anything but precise, and there have been countless shifts in the climate over Earth’s long history. There are scientists out there with evidence that shows how these and other ideas disprove the claims of environmentalists worried about climate change (look at this scientific looking website).
To some, the latter camp is populated by crackpots and schemers. To others, the former camp is composed of alarmists and conspirators. No matter where you situate yourself, the topic is hot. It is on the public’s mind, and I was wondering about the role it would play in the speeches last night.
Despite nearly overwhelming public concern on the issue, President Bush didn’t make much of climate change in his State of the Union Address, apparently siding himself with the latter camp. Indeed he is a hero to those who claim the concerns over climate change are exaggerated, as he is one of the only leaders from a developed nation to reject the Kyoto Protocol. (I will accept that this decision may be influenced more by the President’s belief in corporate freedom than his denial of the overwhelming scientific evidence. And now don’t take this to mean I’m happy with those who signed on to Kyoto.
Nevertheless, something in the speech did touch on the issue. The President would like
He did get me thinking, however.
It is transportation, specifically air and auto transit, that accounts for the vast majority of the world's consumption of oil. Europe can’t figure out how to deal with the issue, and
My answer is trains.
Here’s my thinking. I hate traveling by plane, and I don’t care for driving. I love trains. Can’t say why, but I think trains are great. The rise of short-haul airlines has ruined the train industry here in
Developed nations need to invest in suburban and commuter rail lines. They need to make rail more comfortable and competitive. Trains should be made significantly cheaper than air travel. The cost of gas, tolls, and time should be comparable to the cost of a monthly train pass. There should be internet access and a gym-car on commuter lines. The cafes shouldn’t price gouge. And yes, I think this should all be made possible with tax dollars.
My question for readers is this: am I letting my love of trains cloud my judgment, or does this sound like part of a solution?
7 comments:
Hoges, lovelovelove the blogger, keep it up, it's a great site! A quick comment on this issue which feels more like a confession. Having just moved from New York City to Chicago, IL, I am in the midst of developing some heavy feelings on the train idea, and that is this: man, how can I convince myself to take a train instead of my car? As a New Yorker I fell in love with trains, and then, after five years, out of love with them. I'd say, in retrospect, spending at least two hours a day in the subway, even the nice, new talking L train cars, and unable to afford and utilize a vehicle is in the top five reasons why I left NYC. THE STRESS!!!! Even for trips to Jersey, I preferred the car. While once in a while trains gave me a deep and rewarding sense of community, most of the time they made my blood pressure sky rocket, and I think anyone who uses trains daily will have to partially agree. I went from making fun of "Cab Queens" to wishing I had enough money to be one (Kab King, that is). Now that I have access to a car here, I use it constantly, even though the elevated train is about 100 feet from my front doorstep! My point is this- no matter where you put the trains, the automobile offers privacy, convenience, and a sense of empowerment which feels alot like like freedom. The stress level, even with Chicago traffic, which rivals that of LA, NYC, etc. for me remains 100 times less than when I was using a train. It is truly an overwhelmingly wonderful feeling to have a car again. SO, in addition to and even more, dare I say, importantly than trains, I feel the immediate issue for investors, government and citizens truly lies in the development of the evironmentally-friendly automobile. We are too hooked, they are too convenient, and our cities here are built far too well for and, at this point, too dependantly on the car. I feel anyone who is able to at last afford one, after using it long enough, will have a difficult time going back. And those of us who have grown up in them will find it even more difficult to change unless the cars are taken away from us completely, as was the case for me in NYC. In utopia, I agree-the train would be society's mode to move. But the sometimes desired isolation, the freedom to choose what time you want to move, and the power to manipulate the course to take you there are, as I now know, rather addictive, if not healthier for alas, my aging heart. I feel trains will be a secondary option to those who can afford an environmentally-friendly independent vehicle, and the changes necessary to convince people otherwise will have to be revolutionary. A train platform resembling my living room, a radio in every private train car, and a train leaving anytime I want it, even if I can't find the keys to my apartment for like twenty minutes. And maybe a steering wheel and horn fixed to the front window that I can pretend to drive with. I do realize these are trivial sacrifices one can make for the better of the greater good, and this is truely a confession from somone who adored and still adores mass transit for what it could be. I would be ashamed, but for the hope of a car that drives without polluting our air. -drewski
In response to Drew’s comments, I should first say that he’s absolutely right. The car/train issue is much stickier when you look at the less tangible advantages of a car. To put an even simpler spin on his stance, commuters with enough money to drive will do so, if only to avoid the working-class stiffs and the homeless people that come with the public transit package.
I hear this reasoning all-too-often from people here in Budapest, where the city isn’t built for cars, and as a result the traffic is bad from seven in the morning until seven at night. Still, people don’t want to ride shoulder-to-shoulder with a man who shat himself last night and is yet to do anything about that (not an exaggeration).
Privacy, control, and convenience are great selling points for cars, and great reasons to push clean fuels. Still, what if an advertising exec could use his 60 minute commute to get his morning emails out of the way, or get in a workout and shower before arriving to the office? What if he could do that at a price that compares to the cost of gas, service, insurance, maintenance, parking, tolls, and time? Wouldn’t that take a few cars off the road? What do you think, Drew?
And beyond that, I’m more concerned about shout-haul airlines. These are pollution monsters that prey on a false sense of convenience. Flying is quick, but it is a horrible way to travel. The airlines treat people like retarded cattle. The security system, while necessary, is unpleasant to say the least. And the actual flight is essentially 3-4 hours of being locked in a school bus with limited amenities and recycled air.
There was a time when customer service came with the price of an airline ticket, but those days are gone. Now it is just point A to point B. Trains allow the journey to be part of the vacation. They typically stop in city centers, making stopovers interesting. They often travel through parts of the countryside untouched by interstates. You can bring more carry-on. The security takes less time (not because it’s lax, but because security procedures don’t have to end when the trip starts). And there is room to move around on a train. I think trains need to try and get this market back, but to me it seems as though they’ve surrendered it entirely.
Hogan,
Since my blog more often than not talks about how a two-year-old ate and slept on a particular day, I read yours and feel it is out of my intellectual league to make any comments (mommy-brain, you know.). I am no expert here, but I would love to see more public transportation, especially trains. For us it is about a 45 minute drive to get to Cincinnati. If we go there to see a baseball game, I would love not to pay $20 to park ten blocks from the stadium. Cars are great for lots of things, I'm not sure I would stop driving in the five mile radius we spend most of our time in, but I would love to be able to get downtown, in Dayton or Cincinnati, by train. There was a lot of talk about a light rail between Dayton and Cincinnati a couple of years ago, but neither city was willing to pay for it. There is a pretty extensive bus system here in the area, I looked into taking it to school so I wouldn't have to deal with the nightmare of parking. Unfortunately the trip that takes 20-25 minutes by car would take nealry two hours and many bus changes. So for now the car wins, but I'd hope a train to campus in a second.
energy has to come from somewhere right? trains cause pollution too. we need some per person carbon emissions thing, and of course make it realistic to consumption habits.
for my jobby job, i go from business to business to business on any given day. i don't have a standard every day job location. so trains aren't a viable alternative for my work. which is something i really hate in general. my job is very eco-non-friendly. with all the computer shit i setup/replace for businesses in austin, i wonder how fucked it's making the earth. i suppose most of the effects are not in my backyard, so i don't really feel it day to day, but dam where does all this plastic/silicon come from and where does it go after three or so years in use?
anyway back to trains.
trains are cool.
i think city planning trains into cities without them, to make them a viable alternative to the convenience of cars is impossible. people will go battery powered cars way before they'll give up the protect social shell of the car.
which brings up another point, society is choosing to be separated more and more. neighbors not really interacting etc etc. so why would a society bent on separation in the really world decide on a transportation method that puts them in contact with all sorts of other strange people?
but seriously, trains. i like em. my friend just took a train up to dallas for the weekend last weekend. it was 100 bucks for a round trip ticket that included meals and a room for him and his wife, so 100 bucks per person. not bad, but mass transit in dallas i bet sucked.
so hurdles to trains.
1. designing them into existing cities. not sure how big a hurdle. i know their are train tracks in austin here and there, so maybe it's a bit decieving on how hard it would be, but of course we still need rails for bulk shipping and such.
2. generating the energy for trains, is it really going to reduce consumption of fuels from cars/air plains enough to make a difference? and how will the trains them selves pollute?
3. social awkwardness. will society adapt to being social with mass transit when the alternative is the shell of a car?
4. social timing. cuz like I wanna go when I wanna go. trains may work for people already used to using light rail/metro systems. but here in texas for example, the liberal people of Austin TOTALLY shot down light rail, and when with toll roads! hurray! fucking gay!
i hope to get on a train ride with you sometime in june Hogan.
-chumpo
Brad's comments echo a lot of what Drew said, and he puts a nice spin on it with the "social awkwardness" idea.
I do have to take issue with the question about fuel consumption rates of trains vs. cars/planes. Trains only need one engine, albeit a bigger one, to move many more people. Mass transit has always been considered a cleaner option than cars. And as far as planes are concerned, trains don't have to leave the surface of the earth. The energy needed to keep a plane in the air is massive.
Aside from all that, I'm a huge proponent of clean fuels, and as soon as it happens for cars (where the consumer market is pushing the research), I think it should be fit into every available vehicle - trains included.
Both Brad and Drew's comments make me wonder about the value/pitfalls of consumption culture, which is on the march here in Hungary. But I think that might be better left for a proper entry. That's the plan for tomorrow.
cool to see so many old friends posting here.
the question of viability in the US is an important one: almost every major city west of the mississippi and most off the eastern seaboard was built assuming personal transportation (covered wagon, horse and buggy, car, whatnot) and the individualist philosophy embedded in the american dream makes everyone's goal to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want. that's freedom! so the infrastructure just isn't in place. or even if it were in place it isn't anymore with all these rapidly expanding suburbs, sprawl, flight. public works can't hardly keep up with it. LA was the city with the best public transit after world war II, if you could believe it.
and damned if i don't like my car and all the freedom it brings; i couldn't have gotten to any of those amazing national parks like bryce canyon, the badlands, olympic, sequoia, or zion were it not for my car. i couldn't have driven myself and all my stuff across the country this summer were it not for my car. in order for the train thing to work, you'd have to ask americans to give some freedom up, which is political suicide. uh oh.
my compromise: bicycle. i choose to live in a place where biking is feasable, and in this place biking usually is the quickest way to get around in the city. because of my bike i manage to exercise a lot more, get more in touch with the natural environment, live a little more dangerously, and fill up my gas tank about once every 5 to 6 weeks, unless i'm doing a big-ass trip out of town. i do work up a little sweat from time to time, especially if i'm in a hurry, but that usually doesn't matter all too much. so if people just have to get themselves around without too much stuff (which is what most commuters do), pedal up. no insurance policies or registration renewals! runs on food!
I'm feeling better. So I plan to move on to a new post today, but I wanted to leave one more thought here.
From the comments above, it seems that people read my train idea as, "Build more trains. Destroy people's cars."
I never meant for that to be the premise. The freedoms that Dave and Drew talk about are important. And the need for a car in certain service-related fields (like Brad's job or the photographers working for my dad)is undeniable.
I don't want people to give up their cars. I just think certain commuters and shout-haul flight customers could be persuaded to switch to trains if the rail industry got smart (and maybe got subsidized).
We need to find way to REDUCE the amount of engines on the road. I was not suggesting we eliminate cars altogether.
Post a Comment