Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Samantha"] The point is that the changes in the technology of competing transport modes are likely to reduce if not wipe out the rail advantage envisioned by the PRWG.  By 2050, for example, there is a good chance that most of the vehicles on the road will be powered by zero emission engines or motors, thereby taking away the argument that trains are more environmentally benign.  [/quote]Zero emission vehicles do not automatically translate into zero emissions overall. An electric car may have zero emissions, but the power plant that produces the electricity to charge the car may not be so clean. Hydrogen fuel, if it ever becomes viable, produces water vapor as the combustion byproduct. It's clean, for sure, but if hydrogen cars ever become the standard, I predict that people will start complaining that our cities will be too humid. Furthermore, emissions are only a part of the environmental equation. You still have to produce the energy somehow, and "renewable" forms of energy are relatively expensive to produce. The cost of energy will no doubt rise as more renewables come available, so efficiency will still be a significant concern. And then there's the impact on the land itself. RR tracks lay much more gently on the land than pavement does. They have less problem with directing dripping lubricants into storm drains (which don't go through treatment plants) and from there into waterways. Aesthetically, tracks almost disappear into the landscape when viewed from a distance. Pavement scars the landscape and fragments wildlife habitat. Many states are turning to rail because of the high environmental cost of building more highways. Acquiring new right of way is also a problem for highway builders. Land values are so high in California now that the cost of new right of way is often prohibitive. Adding passenger capacity to existing RR rights of way is much more economical. In regards to technological developments in general, there are many promising developments on the  horizon, but don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Fifty years ago nuclear power was expected to be "too cheap to meter." [quote]The other point that I was making is that the PRWG focused on a single solution, whereas the solution to the nation's transport challenges lies in a multi-faceted approach. [/quote]Actually, the PRWG is one subcommittee of a larger commission called the <a href="http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/">National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission </a>analyzing transportation as a whole. Their work was the subject of a House transportation infrastructure committee hearing just a few days ago. Rail was just one of many topics covered. A 25-40 cent increase in the gasoline tax was also discussed to finance existing highway maintenence needs. They are looking at the big  picture. I haven't read their full report yet, though, so I have no comment on that.
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