Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Thanks to the work by Paul and RWM, we now know that the power needed to electrify most railroads in the U.S. is only about 2-4% of what is being produced in the country now.  That number seems surprisingly small to me, just thinking in terms of general perception.  I think of all the work being done hauling trains, but I guess it is still small compared to all the light bulbs, heating, cooling, industrial, etc. blanketed across the county.  Squeezing out another 2-4% of power in this country does not seem like a showstopper, the banning of coal notwithstanding. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> Assuming that power is available then, it seems there is no question that electric operation would be cheaper.  But there is a question about the payback and whether the capital investment would be justified by the payback over time.  The fact that it is not happening tells me that the answer to the question is, no.  But there is a tipping point on that question somewhere as oil prices rise.  We may or may not be anywhere close to that tipping point at this time.  <o:p></o:p> However, the Trains article did not explore this dollars and cents aspect of the economic return on the investment.  Instead, author Scott Lothes makes a case based on platitudes about sustainability, renewable energy, job creation, and his conclusion that if other countries are doing it, it must be the right thing to do here.  He also justifies electrification on the premise that it will draw business away from trucking.  He cites an intermodal system where trucks only haul containers to the nearest railhead and then transfer them to a train, and he says that will produce a 65 percent reduction in both fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. <o:p></o:p> He cites Phillip Longman who says this: “As the volume of freight is expected to increase by 57 percent between 2000 and 2020, the potential economic and environmental benefits of such an intermodal system will go higher and higher.”  (my emphasis) <o:p></o:p> I would not conclude, however, that economic and environmental benefits necessarily move together, in the same direction, as Mr. Longman implies.  In many cases economic benefits are sacrificed in order to advance environmental benefits.  With the growth of his intermodal system, environmental benefits will surely rise higher and higher, and the economic benefit of lower fuel usage per ton will rise as well.  But what about the economic benefits of meeting the market demand for speed?  Trucking today is apparently filling a useful market niche in carrying containers much farther than just to the nearest railhead.   <o:p></o:p> What if Mr. Longman’s vision results in an intermodal system that saves fuel and reduces emissions, but moves slower than the conventional approach today?  Time is money.  What if the market prefers the speed of today’s system even if it uses more fuel and makes more emissions than Mr. Longman’s intermodal vision?   <o:p></o:p> Author Lothes clearly expects government to step in and implement his electric rail, intermodal dream with public funding, as though the mission were tied more to our collective national well being rather than to the business interests of the individual railroad companies.  With his freight transportation vision riding solely on the green sustainability objective, do you think he could be dissuaded by concerns over loss of speed and private business revenue in the pursuit of the greater environmental good?   Or would he prefer to just tighten the emissions laws for trucks, driving up their costs, thus forcing the market to give up faster, but higher cost trucking in trade for the lower cost of Mr. Longman’s intermodal vision?
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