Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
6884 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 2:38 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: larsb (Jul 10, 2008 3:03 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 10, 2008 8:16 am) I am not very familiar with California Geography, but it seems the California HST authority has such plans http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ According to their site, LA to SD would need about 1 hour 18 minutes for 167 miles of track I guess taking the car for the same distance would require about twice as much time. It looks like the ticket price would basically match the price of gas burnt, depending greatly on the car fuel efficiency. Using the HST for commute would be possible if you have reasonable access to origin and destination stations. I guess that those will be planned with enough car accomodation , like airports, and I hope they will be complemented by some arterial rail / light rail network. The French HST made possible daily commuting to Paris from cities up to 150 miles away. In turn, this boosted real estate values of those cities, previously seen as provincial. > we can get a senior pass to ride all the bus and trolley lines for $16 per month I think the trolley line/ light rail network in the L.A. area is patchy at best and can not reasonably and consistently bring you to the key spots in reasonable conditions. I consider buses as the poor man's public transit as they combine both the disavantage of road transport (oil dependant, traffic dependant ) and those inherent to public transport (time tables, served areas, frequency, comfort, tarrif) They could be of help if they were supported by a rail backbone, but will collapse (in terms or ridership) if let alone. I may add that I am a car enthusiast myself. I vigorously support building HST /mass transit infrastructure because I want to be free to choose how I want to travel. It is good to have one other transport mode when the first one fails for whatever reasons. Moreover, more people taking the train means fewer cars on the roads and fewer planes in the sky. a real win-win situation I am convinced there is no freedom if there is no choice. Currently, if I want to go to LA to SF, I only have the choice between burning gas or burning kerosene. I really think Californians deserve a third choice (2h38 minutes estimated by HST)
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jul 10, 2008 8:44 am) the highest seating capacity is currently when coupling two 2-level TGV together for a total of 1024 seats. One TGV set is made of 8 cars between 2 heads for about 200 meter long (656 feet). This limitation is necessary for older rail infrastructures (stations) to accomodate the TGV. in the US where so many things are bigger, I would not be surprised to see much longer units for a total capacity of about 1500. this would represent nearly 4 B747 extract from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_train#Technology A typical capacity is 15 trains per hour and 800 passengers per train (as for the Eurostar sets), which implies a capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction. By way of contrast, the Highway Capacity Manual gives a maximum capacity for a single lane of highway of 2,250 passenger cars per hour (excluding trucks or RVs). Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people [24], a standard twin track railway has a typical capacity 13% greater than a 6-lane highway (3 lanes each way), while requiring only 40% of the land If we add things up together, we easily have in excess of one million passenger per week capacity (say 15 hours service per day) or more than 50 million per year. >Trains like these do NOTHING to help the individual in the U.S. commute, shop or do their other misc. travel. I would not take the TGV myself to go grocery shopping. They must be complemented by local interest lines. I think vast areas like those of L.A. (the one I am a bit familiar with) would be suitable for light rail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T_Third_Islais.jpg it is not as capital intensive as heavy rail, but offer much better average speeds than buses thanks to their own tracks. All the strength of mass transit is in the network. >In fact while in France, I noticed that despite the high gas-price, there was a lot of auto traffic, and very few people on bikes, scooters or walking. I think that French mass transit system only cover 25-30% of potential needs. the lack of choice still put too many on the roads. Of course," a lot" of traffic is always a relative thing. Coming back from China, I find Paris traffic looking like that of a small provicial city... 
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 11, 2008 3:21 am) Now to the meat of the issue. Proposition ONE that is on our November ballot is asking to float a bond for $9.95 BILLION to get the ball rolling. It is hoping for Federal funds and additional funds that I would expect to come from the general fund. We are in the middle of massive budget cuts in CA. They are laying teachers off in school districts all over the state. If passed, the ballot measure would provide $9 billion for the construction of the core segment between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Anaheim and an additional $950 million for improvements on local railroad systems, which would serve as feeder systems for high-speed rail mainline. However, the project would still depend on federal matching funds, since a $9.95 billion bond issue would cover at most half of the estimated cost of the initial core segment.According to a 2004 estimate, the complete system from Sacramento to San Diego would likely have a cost of more than $30 billion, with 2007 estimates of the cost being $40 billion. The California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to use the projected operating profit from the initial San Francisco-Los Angeles line to finance further extensions to Sacramento and San Diego. My inclination is to Vote "NO" on the proposition. If the last governor had not pissed away our $39 billion surplus we could have this HST. That money ended up lost in the Enron scandal. Our governor and legislature cannot budget the $100s of billions they now extract from our pockets. This would be an additional tax for those of us that pay taxes. About half the CA residents pay little or nothing. Those are the ones that would benefit from mass transit. If some fat cat like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett want to build a HST and operate it as a private enterprise I would say great. I just do not see it as a good substitute for an efficient vehicle. If I want to ride on one I can take a vacation to France 
|
|
|
The Other Greenhouse Gas An often ignored greenhouse gas makes predicting climate even more uncertain. When most people think of climate change they envision billowing smokestacks, and diesel engines responsible for releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But they’re over looking a far more inconspicuous culprit – methane– emissions of which may be slowing down. Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, behind only carbon dioxide, according to the new report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere had risen to 1732 parts per billion in the 1990’s from 715 parts per billion a century before. Since the 1990’s the methane level has only climbed to 1774 parts per billion, indicating that the rate of methane emissions are slowing. Much man-made methane comes from a surprising low-tech source: “It’s cows burping,” said Elaine Matthews, a methane expert at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, explaining that cud-chewing animals like cows and sheep, along with other agricultural animals and processes, release enough methane to double the natural concentration in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 11, 2008 7:53 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 12, 2008 4:14 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 11, 2008 7:53 pm) I propose that all GW advocates volunteer to go out to the farms all across the country with thousands of large corks. They could plug up this methane problem once and for all. Me, I would help but I'm busy draining swamps.
|
|
|
7/12/2008 WASHINGTON — While others criticized the Bush administration's inaction on greenhouse gases, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe warned Friday that it has put in place a scenario that will bankrupt the U.S. economy. A key player in the years-long debate over climate change, the Oklahoma Republican agreed that using the Clean Air Act to put new regulations in place would be an unprecedented expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency's authority that would impact every household. "Obviously the concept of regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is flawed and the act must be amended by Congress," Inhofe said. "Today's notice should concern all lawmakers; no one should want the EPA to exercise the kind of power and authority that the career staff at EPA contemplates." Last month, he said, the Senate rejected a "cap-and-trade" proposal that would allow companies to buy or sell allowances depending on their level of pollution. "It is ironic that the EPA has proposed an even more economically destructive scheme this close to that bill's demise," Inhofe said. "If Congress does not act, then the resulting regulations could be the largest regulatory intrusion into Americans' personal lives, a nightmare scenario. "Big Brother is alive and well in the career ranks at the EPA." Inhofe's strong comments came after the administration's decision that it would not regulate greenhouse gases despite a Supreme Court ruling that the government was authorized to do so under the Clean Air Act. What specifically drew Inhofe's concern was the EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting public input. Key Democrats also criticized the administration but for not moving forward with a plan. "The Bush administration decision today to effectively reject regulation of global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act creates a clear and present danger to the American people," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said. "Despite the Supreme Court's finding that EPA was ducking its responsibility under the law to control global warming emissions, the Bush administration continues to block all action." Boxer is chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Inhofe serves as that panel's top Republican. The concept of buying one's way out of responsibility with "Carbon Credits" is the Devil in the Global Warming Cult. It is designed to allow the wealthy to keep their status quo and the little guy will have to sacrifice his meager lifestyle to satisfy the enviro gods. |
|
| According to documentation on a history channel program. One of the last ICE AGES ago was triggered by our Sun's solar activities. "Over amping", our puny description of utterly VAST solar activity, can and does cause the opposite.... global warming. | |
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
