schlimm Frankly, the degree of opposition to improving passenger rail transit here makes me wonder if many of you work for the airlines and trucking concerns, not just opposing a government rail subsidy.
I do not work in the transportation industry myself but in healthcare--where one can see abuses going on. We recently had a hoohaw develop over untendered contracts being sent out to friends of people who were in the admin. of a local hospital--to the tune of about $1.45 million dollars. These went for consultants fees and services. A large chunk of change out of a hospital budget that is currently out by a few million. The individual was released from their duties with a nice severance package too, BTW.
Any subsidy would need vetted if these are going to be used. There must be strict guidences on these things to prevent those kinds of incidences --- hence the scepticism towards subsidies --- they can become a means of extending governmental bureaucratic controls--and the bureaucracies as well.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Nope, I am a dispatcher for a class one railroad. I just hate to see my hard earned tax money wasted on someones pipe dream.
Now if you want to talk about banning all long haul trucking I am game! Just think of all the fuel that would be saved, along with the increase in road capacity.
An "expensive model collector"
schlimm htgguy What it looks like to me, is they hauled a whole bunch of commuters. 1.8 billion is a whole lot of people, but I think it should be clear that they aren't all racing about Germany on high speed rail. Glad you examined their site. I wondered at first about that number too. Of course it includes commuters, although not all the commuter or regional services in Germany (there is some competition). But I and others are talking an integrated transport system including HSR where appropriate and upgrades short of true HSR on other routes. BTW, I wonder how many commuters are carried in the US yearly?
htgguy What it looks like to me, is they hauled a whole bunch of commuters. 1.8 billion is a whole lot of people, but I think it should be clear that they aren't all racing about Germany on high speed rail.
What it looks like to me, is they hauled a whole bunch of commuters.
1.8 billion is a whole lot of people, but I think it should be clear that they aren't all racing about Germany on high speed rail.
Glad you examined their site. I wondered at first about that number too. Of course it includes commuters, although not all the commuter or regional services in Germany (there is some competition). But I and others are talking an integrated transport system including HSR where appropriate and upgrades short of true HSR on other routes. BTW, I wonder how many commuters are carried in the US yearly?
Going from wikipedia (if you believe it-I guess I would for this kind of data), my figuring showed about 430 million a year. Wait, that's just heavy rail-I found light rail, and that adds another 530 million a year. So between the two, about 960 million a year. Darn near a billion people a year on rail transit! I am really surprised by that number.
Now I found another site from the American Public Transportation Association. I took the average weekly ridership for heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail, and multplied each of them by 52 weeks. They added up to 737,380,800. So I guess the true number is between about 750 million and 950 million a year. That's rail commuters in the US. Oh I see I missed about 18 million a year trolleybus riders too. That's not much percentagewise.
Then I looked at buses. That looks like another half billion a year, 504,816,000 to be exact using the same methodology as for the trains.
That's what I have found. I'm surprised.
Jim
Visit look4trains.com
A complete system of HSR is just one small component of the national transportation system and its affiliated agenda of switching to 100% renewable energy for all purposes, and the new distribution smart grid that will link to new energy production sites and manage power usage. And then there is the new catenary, track, substations, locomotives, rolling stock, and terminal facilities. All of these facets of the big plan are somewhat interdependent, so they must advance more or less simultaneously.
The $8 billion that has been committed to HSR is just a tiny symbolic token of what must ultimately be committed to the big plan. The whole price tag would likely be in the several trillion-dollar price range, if an accurate price could even be calculated. It is hard to believe that a project this large could be undertaken without spreading out over a long time. But we are told that this is to address a national emergency, so quick action is implied. And the people who have the authority to spend money have unbounded zeal to do so. They will tell us that it is an investment that will yield a handsome return, so don’t worry about the price.
However, I have a hunch that ramping up spending on this scale will be impossible. It would be almost like defying the laws of physics. The institutions that spend money are suited to the flow of spending that they normally handle. If you suddenly give them one-thousand times the amount they spend in one year, and give them one year to spend it, they won’t be able to do it.
It is true that they must have the money to spend in order to spend it, but that is not enough when you ask them to spend way out of scale. The problem is that, even though they are given the money to spend, they will need more resources just to spend it. If you give them a trillion dollars to spend fast, they will need another trillion to ramp up their resources and assets needed to spend the first trillion. And due to the tendency to milk this kind of windfall, they will need a third trillion to spend the first two. It will spiral into spending lockup by its own inertia.
I suspect we will see that just with the $8 billion for HSR. The bigger the chunk of money we lay on the table, the less efficiently it will be spent. I would not be surprised if $8 billion only buys some track improvements.
Certainly the government can spend money in any amount if they simply transfer it in one big chunk. But the kind of spending that will be required with these infrastructure projects needs bids, contracts, and management-- all performed by government bureaucracies. Think what that will cost for letting a trillion dollars worth of work.
So, in my opinion, spending on this scale, in a short time frame, will simply not be possible. There is not enough money or resources anywhere on earth to meet the ballooning cost of managing spending on this scale. It will consume money like a black hole.
Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:
"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009: "A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."
So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?
And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter?
What is the point of your post in this discussion? If I posted statistics that showed how much more carbon dioxide was emitted as a result of travelling by rail versus bicycle, would that be the basis of an open and shut case to eliminate rail travel? Why not?
htgguy schlimm Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009: "A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car." So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)? And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter? What is the point of your post in this discussion? If I posted statistics that showed how much more carbon dioxide was emitted as a result of travelling by rail versus bicycle, would that be the basis of an open and shut case to eliminate rail travel? Why not?
Strange context mangling in that article.
Maybe we could advocate for wind powered waterborne vessels---also known as the tall ships I guess
htgguySo, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)? And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter? What is the point of your post in this discussion?
What is the point of your post in this discussion?
Apparently the point was missed. The article is only saying that air travel produces a lot of CO2, not any of the "straw man" points you interjected.
Again: Read the sentence you wrote down here. The thing was comparing two specific contexts here--air travel and car. I am not sure why a mode of travel--in this case air travel to another continent over the ocean was used to compare a local commute with!! To me this only proves that you can use any statistical tool to prove anything---all you gotta do is find something that'll have a higher number -- in this case they used air travel---not just LOCAL air travel but a LONG DISTANCE one! Sheesh!!
blownout cylinderTo me this only proves that you can use any statistical tool to prove anything---all you gotta do is find something that'll have a higher number -- in this case they used air travel---not just LOCAL air travel but a LONG DISTANCE one!
Calm down. I didn't make the comparison. The study cited in the Times did. Anything that shows air travel in a somewhat negative light seems to get you so upset. Anyway, I suspect a short-hop flight would produce a lot of CO2 also. Take-offs and low altitude flights burn a lot of fuel compared to cruising at 35000.
schlimm blownout cylinderTo me this only proves that you can use any statistical tool to prove anything---all you gotta do is find something that'll have a higher number -- in this case they used air travel---not just LOCAL air travel but a LONG DISTANCE one! Calm down. I didn't make the comparison. The study cited in the Times did. Anything that shows air travel in a somewhat negative light seems to get you so upset. Anyway, I suspect a short-hop flight would produce a lot of CO2 also. Take-offs and low altitude flights burn a lot of fuel compared to cruising at 35000.
I'm calm--I just use drama to emphesise the point! LOL!! The article itself is problematic in that the way the thing was constructed could have been used to advocate tall ship travel as the way to go then. And take off/landing will have been taken care of by just adocating a much slower form of travel----mmm--I wonder how many travellers will go for that As for short hop commuter flights, that might haave been a better thing to do the comparison with-----
blownout cylinder htgguy schlimm Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009: "A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car." So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)? And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter? What is the point of your post in this discussion? If I posted statistics that showed how much more carbon dioxide was emitted as a result of travelling by rail versus bicycle, would that be the basis of an open and shut case to eliminate rail travel? Why not? Strange context mangling in that article. Maybe we could advocate for wind powered waterborne vessels---also known as the tall ships I guess
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Did it happen to say how long the average commute is? The flight from London to Los Angeles is 5442 miles long. I drive about 10 miles each way to work a day. My yearly drive would be about 5200 miles, NOT counting the three weeks of vacation that I don't drive, the 10 personal days which I can use, or any sick days that I might need. However since I will go in on by days off for OT every now and then, we will stick to the 5200 miles. Now I would think that 242 miles traveled extra would produce more carbon dioxide. Lets look at some other things about long haul flights, did the study factor in air freight? Just about any widebody flight, along with many narrowbodys, with have any room in the cargo carpartment that is not used for passenger's bags filled with freight. It can vary from fresh fruits to autos. Weight has a large effect on carbon output. My 5200 miles commute a year is just little old me, with no freight to speak of. What kind of aircraft was it, a 20 year old 747-400, or a 2 year old A330? I am sure my 2006 Mustang puts out much less CO2 than Blownout's 68 429CJ or Ed's 71 Challenger. Did they study what the new, all composite 787 or A350 would be? Both of those aircraft are making some large promises on how efficient they will be. Maybe a better study, and less misleading, would be the amount of carbon dioxode produced vs ton hauled...
Edit...found this study on the web. If this is true and the goverment is serious about the enviorment, I think the 8 billion would be better spent on sending America to the Biggest Loser rather than HSR.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517264,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/20/thin.global.warming/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/story?id=4865889&page=1
Nope it didn't make the comparison, but you did post it.....here is the link by the way
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/science/earth/18offset.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=carbon%20dioxide&st=cse
Anyway short haul flights could be a lot more efficient, by using turboprops instead of jets. Anything under 500 miles the prop is much more efficient. That being said, the public has shown an unwillingness the fly props, most feel that they are old or unsafe, regardless of the age of the aircraft and what the safety stats say. So the aircraft builders came out the the "regional jet" which for the most part has taken over the under 500 mile aircraft routes.
Interesting parallel: after 9/11 the post office stopped shipping USMail on passenger flights over the US, and look at what the lost revenue did to the airlines, and decades earlier, railroads.
Also, CO2 isn't the problem. It's just an easy target. I read somewhere that it accounts for only about 10% of the effects of "global warming". Water vapor in the atmosphere is almost 10x more effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. So let's ban di-hydrogen monoxide like California allegedly almost did. Without sunshine on the ocean creating evaporation, the number one source would be contained. Shall we ban sunshine, too? Using reductions in CO2 production to justify electrification of railroading is a paper lion. Barring government mandate (most likely unfunded to make it worse) electrification will have to stand on its own merits. In our myoptic quarterly results driven management style, it won't happen.
IMHO, the one to watch is BNSF, once Mr Buffet takes ownership. Freed of the tyrrany of satisfactory quarterlies, they may have the ability to make a long-term, strategic, bet-the-company, investment that won't see results for several years in reduced operating costs. If they can't do it, in all likelyhoood, no one can.
rrnut282Using reductions in CO2 production to justify electrification of railroading is a paper lion. Barring government mandate (most likely unfunded to make it worse) electrification will have to stand on its own merits.
Regardless of what anybody believes about the effects of CO2, congress intends to take action to reduce it, based on the belief that it is a big problem.
These are the probable scenarios leading to near universal rail electrification:
1) A private business investment by the railroads similar to the decision to dieselize.
2) A government offer of public financing to railroads to make it financially feasible to voluntarily electrify.
3) A government law making carbon caps that raise the operating cost of railroads to the point that it is cheaper to electrify, coupled with government offer of public financing to railroads to make it financially feasible to voluntarily electrify.
Item #1 is unlikely because the cost is too high to justify the investment. Item #3 is the most likely scenario.
I believe that you are right in your assessment that the first action on this matter is likely to be on the BNSF.
Bucyrus [Regardless of what anybody believes about the effects of CO2, congress intends to take action to reduce it, based on the belief that it is a big problem.
[Regardless of what anybody believes about the effects of CO2, congress intends to take action to reduce it, based on the belief that it is a big problem.
I have a real problem with that statement. Other voters may, too.
And of your scenarios, I agree, with the current politcal environment, #3 is most likely to happen. By the time anything does happen, #2 may be more likely. I just hope the unfunded costs, if this does happen, don't cripple railroading as we know it, or worse trigger more retrenchment.
Just reread the Trains article this thread concerns. To read some of the posts here, you'd think they were talking about some other article.
BucyrusA couple things have occurred to me since reading the recent Trains article on electrification. Rail electrification for the traditional purpose may never happen, but there is a new purpose for rail electrification that may compel it to happen very soon. That new purpose is a non-oil, non-carbon, national transportation system for the U.S. The assumed reduced rail operating cost from electrification would shift the competitive balance and divert some road use, further reducing the carbon footprint and progressing toward national energy goals. At the same time, the gas tax, a user fee, needs to be increased to meet system maintenance and improvement needs. The current below-cost recovery level subsidizes and encourages use of less energy-efficient road transportation.There are other reasons to electrify such as improved efficiency, reduced highway accidents, and less asthma, but they do not justify government financing with taxpayer money.Actually, road collisions, emissions (including impact on public health), travel time reduction are monetized for highway and transit improvement cost-benefit and environmental impact analyses for use of tax money. A similar approach could be used to determine public benefit to justify a level of rail electrification federal grant assistance. It is the two-prong crisis of oil supply and carbon footprint that calls for the federal solution.As above there are a number of reasons for federal assistance beside oil supply and carbon footprint, albeit not the focus of some activists. Furthermore, the total scope of the federal solution to this crisis goes beyond the electrification of rail. It also includes shifting the majority of truck haulage off of the highways and onto the rails. Likewise, it calls for HSR to be introduced in conjunction with universal electrification to shift the majority of automobile traffic off of the highways. And it goes on to include massive new rail line improvements, new routes, elimination of grade crossings, ECP brakes, PTC, and new terminal facilities to mesh with the increase in the long haul traffic previously handled by trucks. Couldn't agree with you more; but reality may reign in the scope of electrification to the 25,000 miles level (from the previous thread) or less. Previous business models for electrification have weighed it against transport profit. The new model weighs it against the prevention of a national crisis. The two objectives are not comparable. So there is no guarantee that electrification, according to the new purpose, will reduce costs. The new purpose may call for sacrifice and higher costs in order to confront the national crisis just like the cost of going to war, for example. While a national crisis may be prevented; the railroads are not alone in the equation. Fuel costs for planes, trucks, buses, and automobiles would go up; and likely much higher than any resulting cost increase for rail alternative energy consumption. Railroads say that electrification will be too costly without government funding. If railroads cannot raise or risk the capital for electrification, would they be willing to borrow it if the government would lend it to them? If they are not willing to borrow the money, and the government is willing to fund it anyway, and wants to fund it in the national interest, what role would government then play in the operation of the electrified railroads? Wouldn’t the taxpayers insist on some form of direct government management of the public investment in electrification such as what is being done with GM and Chrysler? While public demand for a government investment position in the respective railroads would be justified, this could be avoided by grants limited to the level that monetized public benefits would be achieved. This approach would seem to favor the more viable, higher traffic volume, railroad electrification prospects and preclude universal mainline electrification. This does not offer a way around the I-81 Corridor and similar situations that would require substantial, costly, line relocation to bring the railway up to modern standards. If, ironically, the Man from Omaha can invest in BNSF, why can't governments get stock in companies they invest in? This would not be nationalization. Furthermore the government would be in a position to trade the stock and recover the public money. While one scenario would be for the government to offer a direct subsidy to the railroads in order to spur electrification, another scenario would be for the government to impose carbon caps that would make diesel operation so costly that they would have to electrify in order to survive. If railroads cannot raise the capital to electrify on a voluntary basis, what will they do if the imposition of carbon caps forces them to electrify? I agree that punitive, discriminatory carbon caps on railroads alone would be a disaster. I could be wrong, but aren't carbon caps typically established near existing levels with provisions for trading? Would truckers pay enough for railroad credits to at least partially finance electrification? How would UP, CSX, NS, and BNSF each feel about becoming a small private operating component of a larger nationalized rail electrification system? Maybe the question should be how would the railroads feel having a large block of stock controlled by the government?
There are other reasons to electrify such as improved efficiency, reduced highway accidents, and less asthma, but they do not justify government financing with taxpayer money.
Actually, road collisions, emissions (including impact on public health), travel time reduction are monetized for highway and transit improvement cost-benefit and environmental impact analyses for use of tax money. A similar approach could be used to determine public benefit to justify a level of rail electrification federal grant assistance.
It is the two-prong crisis of oil supply and carbon footprint that calls for the federal solution.
As above there are a number of reasons for federal assistance beside oil supply and carbon footprint, albeit not the focus of some activists.
schlimm Just reread the Trains article this thread concerns. To read some of the posts here, you'd think they were talking about some other article.
How so?
HarveyK400A couple things have occurred to me since reading the recent Trains article on electrification.......................
Harvey, Thanks for your comments, but when you respond within my quote, it may be confusing to others to as to what you are saying versus what I said. You could go back and edit your post to change the color of your text and leave mine black. You just click EDIT.
schlimm htgguy So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)? And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter? What is the point of your post in this discussion? Apparently the point was missed. The article is only saying that air travel produces a lot of CO2, not any of the "straw man" points you interjected.
htgguy So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)? And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter? What is the point of your post in this discussion?
Now I have to say, just a minute. Let's look back over this discussion. You and I have had a bit of back and forth. You have posted some things that I have responded to. I have tried to do it in a spirit of goodwill, even if I have challenged you a few times. You've requested some clarification. You've asked questions. I've gone out and dug up information to support my position. I have, in return, asked some questions of you. This is at least the second time you have re-directed the conversation.
I think it was fair to ask what your point was when you post a reference to an article, without even including a link, that compared the CO2 emissions of flying from London to Los Angeles, which happens to be about 5500 miles, with the CO2 emissions of a British commuter. I get the point about the airplane, but the article raised other issues. The excerpt of the article you posted is the one that mentions trans-Atlantic flights and commuters. I didn't mix the two. They are not "staw men". So I posed some questions.
You know, schlimm, people are pretty much up to speed on the fact that air travel produces a lot of CO2. I enjoy intelligent debate and discussion on this message board when people can keep it fact based. I come here looking for new information. What you posted earlier about German rail commuters was a great piece of info and prompted me to do some research of my own, which may in some small part help someone else learn something.
If you have a viewpoint to advance, find some pertinent facts to use to support it and share them with the board.
Why would electrification and HSR be seriously considered to be part of the new purpose (other than for use as a political bargaining chip)? I don't see where either would increase political support for those pushing sustainability. Railroads in the general public's perception are a liability.
htgguySo, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?
Sorry, but the "straw man" reference was to your sarcastic speculations cited above. I assume you are being funny/sarcastic, and not serious. Since we were talking about electrification and one of the points raised by proponents was "green" issues, I thought this article was appropriate. Sorry I didn't give the link.
I am as entitled to advance a viewpoint as anyone. I try to give as many facts in support as most, more than some, less than some of the mechanical gurus in this forum. I also try to avoid the "flaming" that seems so common here.
I read the whole report on this and can see why there is a confusion here now. This sentence,when taken out of the context of the article, is very mangled. The 'Straw Man' in this case was this long distance flight . A commuter in England--especially in the London vicinity does tend to travel a fair bit hence his/her total mileage is pretty close to equal. But why it wasn't couched in those terms is kinda weird--
I would like to know why short hop flights were not questioned in the first place.
blownout cylinderThe 'Straw Man' in this case was this long distance flight .
I realize Wikipedia is not the greatest source and this is getting rather far from the original point, but...
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Example: Person A claims: Sunny days are good.Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. You are obviously wrong. Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made."
In his response, htgguy went on to state several misrepresentations.
schlimm"So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?"
I did NOT say that. Try attributing that to someone else---
Again. This is where the comment came from.
schlimmIn his response, htgguy went on to state several misrepresentations. "So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?"
"So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?"
Look again. I cited htgguy.
jclass Why would electrification and HSR be seriously considered to be part of the new purpose (other than for use as a political bargaining chip)? I don't see where either would increase political support for those pushing sustainability. Railroads in the general public's perception are a liability.
I am not sure I understand your question. What I call the new purpose is basically the new reason to electrify, and that new reason is for the achievement of sustainability. In this case, sustainability will be boosted by the use of renewable energy in the form of wind-generated electricity. The use of renewable energy will accomplish the following two objectives:
1) It will eliminate the use of oil, which will insure against a crisis of oil shock, should foreign sources of oil be interrupted
2) It will eliminate CO2 emissions, which will help avert a climate crisis.
The previous main reasons or purpose for electrification was as follows:
1) It would lower operating cost.
2) It would eliminate smoke during the steam age.
The elimination of smoke during the steam age was an emissions issue similar to the CO2 emissions issue of the new purpose, but the objectives are quite different. Up until a couple years ago, CO2 had never been considered to be nuisance or hazardous emission, so no previous objective of smoke abatement was based on the desire to eliminate the CO2 component of smoke emissions. So the two reasons that make up the new purpose for electrification have never been part of the rationale of any previous analysis, proposal, or execution of railroad electrification.
Because rail is low friction, it is inherently more energy efficient than either air or highway transportation. So there is an economic attraction to shifting as much air and highway transportation to rail as possible. And by shifting that present non-rail transport to rail, it can be powered by renewable electricity instead of oil-based, non-renewable fuels. So electrified rail is the centerpiece of this sustainable transportation vision, not only for the traditional rail shipments of today, but for future shipments of much of what is today shipped by truck. Likewise, passengers from air and highway will be diverted to rail and be thus powered by renewable energy.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.