A step-by-step approach that makes greater use of electric rail to reduce America's dependence on oil.
Open Access Article Originally Published: July 10, 2007
This article is reprinted from the ASPO USA Peak Oil Review for 9 July 2007.
We also recommend reading Local Rail on The Oil Drum.
Step One – Electrify US Freight Rail Lines and Shift Freight to Rail
Japanese and most European railroads are electrified. The Russians recently finished electrifying the Trans-Siberian Railroad, from Moscow to the Pacific, and to the Arctic port of Murmansk. So there are no technical limitations. Electrifying railroads and transferring half the truck ton-miles to rail should save 6.3% of US oil consumption.
Electrified railroads also expand rail capacity since they accelerate and brake faster.
Today’s diesel railroads are roughly eight times more energy-efficient than heavy diesel trucks. Railroads carried 27.8% of the ton-miles with 220,000 barrels/day while trucks carried 32.1% of the ton-miles with 2,070,000 b/day (2002 data).
When we convert trains to electricity, the rule of thumb is that 1 Btu of electricity will do the work of 2.5 Btus of diesel on rural plains, and 1 to 3 in mountainous and urban areas. Generating electricity back into the grid when braking is the difference.
These savings are multiplicative. Switch freight from truck to diesel rail (x8 savings) and electrify the railroad (x2.5 savings) and end-use goes from 20 BTUs of diesel to one BTU of electricity.
Faced with cheap oil and toll-free interstate highways for decades, US railroads reduced their capacity (often by tearing up one of two tracks) and ceded much cargo to trucking. Today, intermodal shipments (local trucking, long distance by rail via containers) are growing rapidly – but this trend must be accelerated.
USA railroads have pointed to property taxes as the reason that they have not electrified (no taxes on their diesel, property taxes on electrification infrastructure). Exempting any rail line that electrifies from property taxes under the Interstate Commerce clause would promote the rapid electrification of many rail lines. Expanding capacity would then be more economically attractive without the burden of property taxes. Removing property taxes on electrified rail lines would take the thumb off the scale in the economic competition between rail and trucks. Trucks pay no property taxes, directly or indirectly, on their right-of-way. Trains do. Local property tax losses above a certain percentage of total taxes could have the excess compensated by the Federal Government.
Step Two – Increase Urban Rail Federal Funding
Building the gas-saving equivalent of twelve DC Metros would save 4% of US oil use (6% of transportation oil use). New electric mass transit will benefit the USA much more than new highways.
In 1970, 4% of DC commuters used city buses to get to work. Today over 40% use public transit. The difference is the 106 miles of Washington Metro. Washington Metro saves between a half-billion and a billion gallons of gasoline per year; changes in urban and suburban development patterns contribute to these savings. Such savings will only increase over time.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 10582 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
8 comments so far...
11-Jul-2007
57066
| |
Great article! Another worthwhile investment is truckstop electrification. Just as an airplane at the airport gate receives electricity and air conditioning from the ground infrastructure, trucks should be cooled and powered by clean electricity rather than idling diesel engines. Some truck freight cannot be converted to rail freight, but truck stop electrification could clean up the industry a little.
The improved acceleration of freight trains seems like it could be a huge benefit to the railroads. What about the cost to electrify freight lines?
Posted by: Steve Erlsten
|
|
11-Jul-2007
57074
| |
Step #1 is kill the pig-bear-man monster.This is oil,auto,asphalt,labor unions and concrete industry lobbyists.They have kept the federal funding away from the most logical modes of transportation.When will people change the way politicians fund their election campaigns?We will need a major shift in government or the pig-bear-man monster will consume all of our planets life-giving resoures.Earth,no deposit,no return!
Posted by: John Hurt
|
|
12-Jul-2007
57089
| |
Two worthwhile links.
A map of freight railroad studies of electrification in the 1970s.
http://www.trains.com/ctr/objects/images/railroad_electrification_1970s.gif
(they missed the Dallas to Houston study by the KATY railroad).
And another of my essays on Ready-to-Go Urban Rail Projects
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-04a.htm
Best Hopes,
Alan
Posted by: Alan Drake
|
|
12-Jul-2007
57092
| |
Great point on the exemption of property taxes for the railroads. Holdout municipalities have often used this tactic to squeeze excess tax revenues from the railroads. A more insidious form of payoff will be reduced as the railroads will not have to deal with the many creative ways that local politicians game the railroads against the local citizens and for their own personal benefit.
Posted by: David Steiner
|
|
13-Jul-2007
57112
| |
The Milwaukee Road had an electrified system from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest. It was torn out because the price of the electrification was much higher than the cost of diesel fuel. Remember, you are talking about private companies, the railroads, whose major competitor (the United States Government and their highway system) wants them to spend more money on something they know won't work? Yeah right!
Posted by: Tony Burzio
|
|
13-Jul-2007
57116
| |
"Know cannot work"
How ignorant the Japanese, Russians, Swiss, French, Germans, etc. must be. France has announced that they will be 100% electrified by 2026. "Not one drop of oil" said Chirac in announcing the plan.
Lots of studies on "what will not work".
http://www.trains.com/ctr/objects/images/railroad_electrification_1970s.gif
Canceled when oil dropped. And, as always, property taxes on electrification but not on diesel (RRs get fuel tax-free like farmers).
The Milwaukee electrified with 3000V DC overhead. Two divisions were electrified; a plan to connect them was never completed. The 438-mile section from Harlowtown, Montana to Avery, Idaho operated under wire from 1916 to 1974. The 207-mile section between Tacoma and Othello, Washington was electrified from 1919 to 1971. {Not as far as you claimed]
The cost of replacement of worn out equipment after 60 years (and property taxes on the new equipment) did not pencil out when traffic was dropping and oil cheap. The same reason why railroads tore up double tracks and went to single tracks on many lines. And operations were changing, requiring longer stretches of electrified rail (like Chicago to Tacoma).
Alan
Posted by: Alan Drake
|
|
21-Jul-2007
57282
| |
Excellent article, Alan. This is one of the best plans I've seen for actually addressing peak oil. Thank you for your cogent contribution to the topic.
Posted by: John Richter
|
|
16-Jul-2007
57157
| |
I think these are all great ideas, and getting the word out to the public is a good start. Electrification of rail, increased usage of rail, increased funding for rail, and increased bicycle infrastructure all seem like great ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while creating many other indirect benefits.
Where do we go from here though? Are there websites with letters to senators that people can electrically sign to indicate their support for bills promoting such measures?
Posted by: Eric Cote
|
|
