Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Paul_D_North_Jr"] If the 'hidden agenda' is indeed related to no oil and less greenhouse gases, etc., their electrification push is barking up the wrong tree.  Freight railroads use less than 4 % of all transportation fuel, Amtrak is only a smidgen of that, and most other urban rail transit is already electric.  So even if those electrifications all could happen overnight, there still would not be much of an effect. Instead, it seems that some other - unstated - social and structural changes are contemplated in order for electrifcation to have the magnitude of benefits that are claimed - such as replacing the private auto with urban mass transit ?  While those may be valid tools to worthwhile goals that should be debated, they have nothing to do with electrifying freight railroads, and in that context serve only to clutter up and obscure the discussion. - Paul North. [/quote] But the discussion here is about the Trains article, not about electrification as it has often been discussed and analyzed.  And the Trains article is precisely all about massive social changes needed to address a looming crisis in transportation, energy, and climate.  So, I don't think that the discussion is being cluttered and obscured by those issues.    Replacing the private auto with mass transit is definitely part of what the article advocates, along with taking the majority of trucks off of the highway.  Look at the concept illustration at the beginning of the article.  Notice the quaint little roadway has reverted back to a bucolic setting of the 1920s while the people and freight are on the rails.  The basic freeway of today has been converted to a freight/passenger corridor.  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> The article focuses on rail electrification only as a component of a much larger National Energy Policy, and it presents that rail electrification focus for the benefit of a target audience that has an interest in railroads.  But the article does clearly at least outline the larger agenda which has nothing at all to do with the economics of rail electrification as it pertains to private business return on private investment.   <o:p></o:p> Specifically regarding your point where you said:   “If the 'hidden agenda' is indeed related to no oil and less greenhouse gases, etc., their electrification push is barking up the wrong tree.  Freight railroads use less than 4 % of all transportation fuel, Amtrak is only a smidgen of that, and most other urban rail transit is already electric.  So even if those electrifications all could happen overnight, there still would not be much of an effect.” <o:p></o:p> First of all, I would not say that it is a hidden agenda, although the agenda might be overlooked if one were to expect the article to analyze rail electrification in a pure business sense as it usually is.  And while it is true that rail is already the most fuel efficient transport means, the larger agenda is to use rail to assume most of the non-rail transportation function in the country, which is currently being performed by trucks and automobiles.  Since trucks and autos are much less fuel-efficient than rail, replacing them with rail will be where the massive oil savings will result.  And then by electrifying rail, even further oil savings will result.  So the tree they are barking up is the right one for what they actually intend to accomplish.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag