Comments on: Is Rail Really a Fuel Saver? (rethinking a rationale for Obama's National Transportation Plan)

By: BCassidy

BCassidy — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:06:30 +0000

Not to mention, I’d much rather read a book or take a nap for a couple of hours rather than drive the hellish nightmare of I-10, I-45, or I-35 (one of the deadliest roads in the country) for 5 to 6 hours.

By: BCassidy

BCassidy — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:03:28 +0000

Even 110 mph is pretty slow. I wouldn’t be inticed to take that over just driving from Houston to Austin or Dallas myslef. Not when you consider you have to park, get in line, and then get transportation at your destination.

I’d be more interested in the European capacity numbers. Do they hit 70+ %? I would be MUCH more likely to ride knowing I could get to Dallas in about 2 hours.

It seems obvious, but each area/region should evaluate its needs and then decide if they need rail. I live in Houston (used to live in Austin), and I think we need a high speed (200+ mph) rail system. The distances between San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, and Houston are pretty big. I’d also connect up to Baton Rouge. There are a lot of people traveling between Houston and Baton Rouge because of the industry here. I think it would be very popular, decrease energy use, and more importantly, probably save quite a few lives by taking people off the road.

By: Do Passenger Trains Save Energy? Another Look — MasterResource

Do Passenger Trains Save Energy? Another Look — MasterResource — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:01:41 +0000

[...] response to my recent post about whether passenger trains save energy, a reader asked about the “life-cycle costs of [...]

By: Sid Burgess

Sid Burgess — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:11:19 +0000

I never thought that the train was an alternative to the vehicle solely based on BTU consumption. Nor do I believe that most towns considering rail are using that as a talking point.

Rail, as it has for nations all around the world, provides an alternative to the rivers of steel and concrete a growing population of cars demand. This isn’t an issue about whether one may get better gas millage than the other, it is an issue of, should the government subsidize highway construction at such astronomical rates thereby forcing communities to pick between no money or highways. As long as the government is in charge of handing out transportation funding (which I don’t support in the first place), I applaud cities for considering the alternative or rail.

Granted, not all projects will be viable, which is why the money should come from local sources. Accountability and local peer review would scrutinize any project doomed to failure.

But do we need to list the countless highway projects that have equaled nothing but a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

Free market principles demand that we first object to the Federal government choosing our infrastructure for us, and secondly, that we protect our cities from building infrastructure that isn’t sustainable.

I am curious if you would, or have done, a post outlining the life-cycle costs of both forms of transportation. It is my understanding that the train has much better efficiencies over a long period. What have you discovered?

I enjoy your work and appreciate you working hard to promote free market principles.

Peace.

Sid

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:11:18 +0000

And one might add, Not all human problems are…

(Okay, I’m not the one who first said that, but I can’t remember where I heard it)

By: Richard W. Fulmer

Richard W. Fulmer — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:04:12 +0000

Perhaps H. L. Mencken had public transportation in mind when he stated: “There is always an easy solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.”