Trains to solve gas crisis?
Paul Weyrich, after commemorating the 50th anniversary of the National Defense Interstate Highway System, points to one possible solution to the current high gas prices: rail travel. Before the Interstate, major long-distance travel was done by railcar. The railroads crisscrossed the nation, hauling freight as well as people. Few Americans used cars even for travel within their towns, and buses had their own problems.But the Interstate--and affordable automobiles--changed everything and the rail system is currently a former shadow of itself. Weyrich supports funding of the rail system, which is not currently receiving a lot of money from the government. Weyrich points out, for example, that an average train can move 700 people with one motorman. Ten buses with drivers would be required to move an equivalent amount. More importantly, modern trains are powered by electricity which would drastically reduce dependency on oil. All what would be needed, Weyrich argues, is more light rails especially in major metropolitan areas. Such systems would remove what is considered rail's greatest disadvantage.
We have misgivings about Weyrich's argument. Even he admits the cost of constructing such a rail system would be initially high. There's also the environmental impact of all those rails spread out across a city. Would switching from roads to rail be trading one set of problems for another?
[Source: Renew America]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
prattacus 3:03PM (7/13/2006)
It's not a solution. It's a persistant option. But the problem is the price point has never been right. Demand has been low, so there's been oversupply for, er, 100 years or so.
If we simply cranked up the gain on our gas taxes, we'd suddenly see it as a much more competitive option.
It's got obvious advantages and disadvantages. You just got to make the business case for it.
One thing about US business, it adapts lightening quick to market shifts. A higher gas tax would drive them to rail in droves.
Reply
prattacus 3:08PM (7/13/2006)
I should add: "funding" is the WRONG way for rail. Taxing everything else is a better option. Our system of federal government has been proving it's relative incopetence in managing rail systems for a long, long time. I think it's time to turn rail over to the free market and let 'er fly.
As to the post's closing comments about rail polluting more - you've got a bit of an uphill battle on that one. It's called "defining trend in Japan and Europe, two regions much more pollution sensitive than the US".
Of course, you could go into the efficiencies of engines over the course of an accel/decel cycle, the relative ease of adopting hybrid technology (yes, gasp, Toyota didn't invent it) to rail, etc.
Rail is WAY cleaner, even if you have to run a few tracks over the poor part of town.
DOH! Some things will never change.
Reply
DJ 5:41AM (7/14/2006)
There is a chicken and egg problem here. If enough people use it the business case would be obvious and there would be sufficient service. If sufficient service exists then many people will use it. Another thing is cost of running trains seem prohibitively expensive here. Some of it may be the ancient rules that still apply to the running stock regarding weight etc.
Reply
Darren Beckett 10:52AM (7/14/2006)
1. Every time there's a train bombing in another country, I am thankful we don't rely on trains to get us around.
2. I've done a train trip from LA to San Fran and one from Detroit to Chicago. Both were relaxing, you just sit and eat, drink, converse, etc. However, it cost more than it would have to drive and I didn't have a car to drive around in once I got to my destination. Even with the provided mass transit options, I did a LOT of walking.
3. Why is it every time someone says, "well it runs off electricity not oil", they fail to explain how the electricity is being made?
Reply