Isn’t the price of gas just great? I know I love paying over $4 dollars a gallon! How about you? Well one solution that isn’t mentioned much in combating this crisis is in the transportation industry. By transportation industry I mean freight as well as passengers. What would be the best way? Obviously planes and automobiles have been standard fare (pun intended) for so long that I think we overlook maybe the best and most obvious solution: Trains.
And interesting study on fuel efficiency can be found here: http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html
I find it pretty interesting that Train fuel efficiency is so much higher and better than other modes of transportation. It seems like a simple no brain solution but…
There is always a ‘but’
1. It isn’t as fast. Typical freight travel across country by truck is 3-5 days, by train it leaps to 7-10. It takes longer to take a train from New York to LA then it would a plane. Obviously a huge consideration for people traveling.
2. Do people even remember trains? Outside a few loyal enthusiasts our culture has almost forgot the train. I think people look at them as anachronism’s of long forgotten age. Which is too bad.
It all speaks to our culture and those values (I’m using the word lightly) we hold so important like “I want that yesterday” or “now isn’t soon enough”. We can’t wait! Business can’t wait! Consumer’s can’t wait! I can’t wait!!!
In the meantime lets talk corn fuel and try and feel better about ourselves.
“Do people even remember trains?”
No they don’t.
Mainly because not enough people listen to Johnny Cash songs anymore!
-Perk
By: Perk on July 11, 2008
at 1:38 am
Sounds like a democratic solution. Lets spend trillions of dollars instead of coming up with a real solution.
By: NWDrew on July 17, 2008
at 4:28 pm
NW did you even read the article? Who said anything about spending trillions of dollars? It is an infrastructure that is already in place and costs considerably less that what is used currently to transport goods and service.
It might save trillions of dollars and is a real solution. Next time read the article before making a comment. (;
By: freedomphil on July 17, 2008
at 4:45 pm
“i mean freight as well as passengers”
1. to make this a viable solution for passengers would take trillions of dollars in infrastructure changes. The average person is not going to take a train to work, beach, school, etc. unless it is within a couple of miles of their home.
2. People are not going to wait longer for anything no matter how good it is for the environment. So, to make more freight a viable solution would also take billions and billions of dollars in infrastructure changes.
3. the current railway system in America is already facing major problems because it has not kept up a proper level of maintenance. So, unless billions of dollars are put into fixing, repairing, and rebuilding the current system, it won’t even be around for very much longer.
4. Next time don’t accuse people of not reading! ;>O
5. How much would it cost to make this a viable solution for China and India which have about one third of the earths population?
By: Drew on July 21, 2008
at 3:09 pm
Again I don’t think you read it. Where did I advocate spending trillions of dollars? For goods and services (mentioning nothing about passenger travel) there is already a fairly extensive structure in place. The reason it isn’t used is because it is not as ‘fast’ as trucking.
If we transferred a large portion of goods and services (again no mention of passenger travel but you seem caught up on that) using the existing network it could save billions if not trillions of dollars which of course could be used to further invest in our fast failing infrastructure (roads, rail and the like).
So instead of using this to give your two cents about overspending read the article for what it is a viable solution to reduce spending on fossil fuels. Or is $700 Billion annually on foreign oil just not enough money for you? I’d prefer we find solutions where we can stop lining the pockets of Russian oligarchs and Arab sheiks.
By: freedomphil on July 21, 2008
at 5:01 pm
Agreement: We need to find solutions to replace fossil fuels.
Disagreement:
1. The article you mention spends the vast majority of its content on passenger service.
2. The current rail system uses primarily fossil fuels. (the majority of freight trains are diesel. A large percentage of Americas electricity production comes from coal and diesel.) Your saving, but not finding a solution.
3. One of the major problems with the current rail system is the people who know how to make it work are retiring. You would need to train an entirely new workforce to make this viable. You would also need to make major changes to the infrastructure to handle the increased usage. These are the costs I’m reffering to.
4. People are not going to choose to use something that is slower. FedEx, ups, and dhl are not successful because people want to save money or the environment. They are successful because people want things faster at any cost.
By: Drew on July 24, 2008
at 7:39 pm
I know it does. My point was not so much the specifics as I doubt people will convert to trains, though an article from the Wall Street Journal shows Amtrack ridership is up significantly.
The main point of my article is the extremely high fuel efficiency of transporting goods and service via rail where that extremely high fuel efficiency can be used to our advantage. As I outlined in the article this would mean a large paradigm shift in our culture of ‘I want it now!’ which makes such a change unlikely.
Unfortunately too many have bought into that mindset and don’t realize the magnitude of this energy crisis and how it can/will affect the US in both the short and long term.
By: freedomphil on July 24, 2008
at 7:51 pm
700 billion is not enough. How much will it cost us to reemploy the truckers? What about the cost of trucking companies going bankrupt? What about the losses to shipping companies? The government is already supporting the auto industry so that those workers can continue to be employed. How would the government react to the situation you are talking about?
By: Drew on July 24, 2008
at 7:55 pm
That’s 700 billion annually. You wanted a work force to take over from the aging rail engineers? I think you answered that one yourself.
To be honest the Government helps/subsidizes several industries so what does that have to do with anything? You want an easy solution? There aren’t any but taking advantage of an existing transportation network that is more fuel efficent (ie won’t cost as much and will reduce spending) is one solution but it can’t be or should be the only solution.
Finding alternate sources needs to be of extreme importance but this is one example that can help.
By: freedomphil on July 24, 2008
at 8:21 pm
The interesting thing is that trains could be a better alternative in both fuel and efficiency if the would just invest a little into making the infrastructure viable for high speed rail. The benefit far outways the costs and provides a better solution for long distance commuters. A number of years ago the dept of transportation approved a high speed line between Eugene and Vancouver BC but sadly no progress has ever been made on that. This type of solution would get freight and passengers there twice as fast at a higher efficency.
By: Foxman on August 13, 2008
at 9:46 pm