"Airline travel has become nearly as energy efficient as Amtrak." From the Coyote Blog.
The report linked in his post is from the Department of Energy and is 385 pages. It is very interesting because it shows that energy intensity (BTUs per passenger mile) for buses is decreasing while passenger cars are getting better. If the trend continues it will be less energy intensive for vehicle travel. This is not surprising and does not take into account the economic loses of inflexible routes and the schedule costs versus on-demand travel for an automobile.
The beneficial claims of rail efficiency and high-speed rail in particular are very suspect from the information report. Airline efficiency is encroaching on rail efficiency and, again, if the trend continues the energy benefits of air travel may exceed rail travel. Rail will never replace longer trips across the country. I don't intend to spend four days of a seven day vacation traveling by rail just from Detroit to Washington, D.C. - ignoring the insane prices as well. Business travelers will surely not travel more than a few hours by rail even with the kabuki theatre we call the TSA.
Rail has economic losses besides energy intensity. Rail can work but show me it works without subsidy. Amtrak has some very successful lines in the Northeast that would survive unsubsidized. Rail is more inflexible once the high speed routes are established. Business and industry shift geographically over time. The rust belt (note the name) once was the economic engine of the United States. Now different industries in different regions are our economic drivers. There is no reasonable way high-speed rail would substantially supplant air travel for vacationers nor business travelers. Federal rail initiatives will be an expensive long-term subsidized boondoggle that will cost the taxpayers dearly.
No comments:
Post a Comment