THE Road & Highway Thread (merged)

by **jrob8503** » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 00:15:05

...were diverted to rail, the nation could save as much as 200 million gallons of fuel annually.

I got stat from the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Line website. It's the line I use to commute to school (U of Ill-Chicago) everyday. Is it true? More importantly, is it significant? Meaning, would this really dent our consumption in the big picture? Trains run on diesel, correct? What other forms of fuel can they run on?

Here are some other pros to rail use, as according to bnsf.com.
Safety
-Our industry has reduced train accidents and employee injury rates by 70% since 1980. As a matter of fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the railroad working environment is safer than other modes of transportation.
-Over the last 20 years, claims for damaged cargo fell 58% while volumes increased by 50%.
-The railroad safety record in transporting hazardous materials compares very favorably to that of trucks. Railroads and trucks carry approximately the same number of ton-miles of hazardous materials. In 2000, there were a total of 1,055 releases involving hazmat on the rails, the vast majority of them minor spills or leaks, often occurring during loading or unloading. By contrast, there were 14,964 releases involving trucks.
The industry's train accident rate has fallen 64% from 1980 to 2000, including 13% since 1990. In fact, according to a Federal Railroad Administration report, recent years have been "the safest years in rail history, for every safety category we measure."
-During the 1990s, railroads invested nearly $140 billion to maintain, improve and expand tracks and equipment, adding safety with each new investment.
-The railroads industry invests hundreds of millions of dollars annually to improve safety at highway-rail crossings and for public education programs.

Service and Efficiency
-Railroad fuel efficiency has increased 68% since 1980, when a gallon of diesel fuel moved a ton of freight an average of 235 miles. In 2000, railroads moved a ton of freight an average of 396 miles per gallon.
If just 10% of the freight moved by highway were diverted to rail, the nation could save as much as 200 million gallons of fuel annually.
-A single intermodal train can take as many as 280 trucks from the highways.
-A standard railroad boxcar can hold as much as 3 ½ to 4 trucks.

Environmentally Sound
-The EPA estimates that for every ton-mile, a typical truck emits roughly three times more nitrogen oxides and particulates than a locomotive.
-According to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2.5 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted into the air annually if 10% of intercity freight now moving over-the-road were switched to rail.
-According to the EPA, railroads account for just 7% of total transportation-related NOx emissions and less than 5% of transportation-related particulate emissions, even though railroads account for 40% of the nation's intercity freight ton-miles.

by **trespam** » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 00:55:30

Every little bit helps.

Also consider this: a lot of the trucks that are driving up and down the highway are filled with completely unecessary crap that people buy and then, soon enough, are trucked to landfills. I think this style of living will be terminated. What do you bet that half of what goes up and down the highway is completely unnecessary to maintain an adequate style of life.

Unfortunately, when less unnecessary crap is running up and down the highways, it implies that a lot of people will be out of work.

I think oil consumption will prove to be more elastic than expected. Company car pools will spring up, companies will underwrite transportation expenses for people who carpool, etc.

by **Malone** » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 01:24:11

Well, consider that world oil consumption is measured in millions of barrels per day...

by **jrob8503** » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 01:35:23

They aren't talking world consumption, they are talking national.

by **MonteQuest** » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 04:05:03

I think there will a rebuilding of rail. Millions of truck tires are required to keep those truck fleets rolling. See my post here:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1653.html

by **Licho** » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 05:33:55

Railroad is going to be transport of the future.. Railroad can and is powered by direct electricity, so there is no problem with expensive energy conversion to hydrogen or some other alternative, and overall efficiency is much higher..
Considering that road transport consumes almost all oil, 10% shift would really help, especially if railroad is electrified..

by **Aaron** » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 08:02:41

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic651.html+oil

by **pip** » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 10:04:08

200,000,000 gallons/year = 13,046 Barrels/day.

I hate to say that's insignificant, but one average size refinery makes 3 or 4 times that much diesel per day.

by **trespam** » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 10:48:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pip', '2')00,000,000 gallons/year = 13,046 Barrels/day.

I hate to say that's insignificant, but one average size refinery makes 3 or 4 times that much diesel per day.

by **Cynus** » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 12:44:59

I wonder how much electricity an electric train uses. Post-peak, cities with electric rail, i.e., subways, will have quite an advantage over freeway dependant cities, won't they? Could cities install windmills in order to provide electricity for trains? (Please ignore the problem of how the trains will move when the wind isn't blowing. We're back in the days of sail when goods and people moved moved by wind-powered boats, aren't we?).

by **Licho** » Wed 29 Sep 2004, 10:19:14

Electric locomotives used here on big trains have power of about 5-7MW (6700-9383hp - just compare it to your car :-)

, so you would need several big tourbines to power it. Electric transmission, engine and other things are very efficient, actual electricity consumption is close to power.

On the other hand, mass transit in city (trolley-busses and similar things) have power of about 150kW - so many could be powered by single tourbine.

by **Licho** » Wed 29 Sep 2004, 10:49:19

Few these

and these:

plus nuke plants to power it, and oil consumption could be down by 50% .. considering almost all goes to transportation..

by **NeoPeasant** » Thu 06 Jan 2005, 22:44:07

My state (Utah) is getting ready to spend >$500 mil to build the first 14 miles of what they hope will eventually be a new alternative highway over 100 miles long at a cost of many billions. This is based on an expectation that the area's 40 million vehicle-miles/year is going to double to 80 million vehicle-miles/year by 2020.

Nowhere in any of the public debates about this proposed highway have I heard a hint of a clue of anything related to any possible problem with oil supplies in the future. I was planning to go to the public hearing tomorrow night and, if given a chance to speak, try to shine some light on this giant black hole in the public discussion by bringing up the subject of Peak Oil.

It is my opinion that in 2020, not only will there not be 80 million vehicle-miles travelled per year, there will probably be far less than the 40 million of today. It seems like those in power ought to at least have some awareness of the issue before committing gigabucks to this new road while worthy light rail projects go begging.

by **Tyler_JC** » Thu 06 Jan 2005, 22:55:34

I know the feeling. I live in Massachusetts and we just spent >15billion on a new underground highway that doesn't work and floods daily. Actually, it was mostly your money anyway. The state of MA only paid for a small portion of it.

Anyway, we could have improved the local subway, the "T", or built an alternative energy research mecca. But no, we built an undreground highway that doesn't work and floods daily.

Better yet, we could have bought a small army and invaded Rhode Island. The enslaved "islanders" could have pulled our carts around the city, thus elminating the need for cars completely. But no, we built an underground highway.

Did I mention that it doesn't work?

by **Peepers** » Fri 07 Jan 2005, 00:51:21

Worse yet, early in the Big Dig's planning life, a double-tracked rail line linking North Station (serving the northern suburbs and Amtrak service to Maine) with South Station (serving the southern suburbs and Amtrak's high-speed line to New York City and Washington) was part of the plan. Rail's inclusion was then reduced to one track and finally eliminated from the plan. Brilliant.

But planning for huge new road projects is only part of the transportation picture. A $16 billion expansion of O'Hare Airport in Chicago is getting ready to move forward. It should be known that 30-40 percent of all flights out of O'Hare go to cities less than 500 miles away. If it were legal for federal Airports & Airways Trust Fund money to be used for high-speed rail, that $16 billion might be better spent on electrically powered high speed trains linking downtown Chicago AND O'Hare with large cities throughout the Midwest. The trains would then serve as connecting "flights", as done in Europe. That would free up capacity at O'Hare for longer-distance flights which are more efficient per-mile than the shorter hops. And, it would conserve oil to keep all planes flying -- period.

But, no, we'd rather use up all the "cheap" oil first, then decide what we're going to do.

by **savethehumans** » Fri 07 Jan 2005, 02:07:42

NO!

If they've got to do something, try repairing city roads! Bicycles can hit potholes, too, you know!

I empathize. I live in Texas, and our wonderful governor is proposing the building of a Superhighway for trucking traffic! :roll:

These people want to believe that life on this planet will go on as it "always" has (i.e., since WWII), or get even better. And if they just keep building and constructing (and close their eyes real, real tight and wish hard), that's exactly how it will turn out!

And they call us crazy?! :evil:

by **The_Virginian** » Fri 07 Jan 2005, 04:27:42

the question may well be not "if" such building should take place, but if we have the momentum to even attept a halt of such commercial endevours?

Let it play out, don't knock you head against a wall. Eventualy they will be the ones a knockin'.

by **eastbay** » Fri 07 Jan 2005, 04:58:24

There's a lot less freeway construction miles under construction now than at just about any time since the 50's, I would guess. It's just that every mile built or expanded is astronomically more costly these days.

Speaking of freeways, there's no place on earth like China for superhighway construction. I'd offer the links but maybe all of us here are already aware of it but it rivals the freeway building the USA undertook in the 50's. And we all know about their ongoing frenzied auto building spree.

The airport construction, typified by the coming (in '08) new Guangzhou International Airport, is happening in many PRC cities representing a serious investment in fuel based transport.

In my opinion China is fast heading down an investment dead end in infrastructure and in a decade or two will be looking at beautiful largely unused travel networks littered with dead cars.

EastBay

by **NeoPeasant** » Tue 11 Jan 2005, 18:54:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NeoPeasant', 'M')y state (Utah) is getting ready to spend >$500 mil to build the first 14 miles of what they hope will eventually be a new alternative highway over 100 miles long at a cost of many billions. This is based on an expectation that the area's 40 million vehicle-miles/year is going to double to 80 million vehicle-miles/year by 2020.

Nowhere in any of the public debates about this proposed highway have I heard a hint of a clue of anything related to any possible problem with oil supplies in the future. I was planning to go to the public hearing tomorrow night and, if given a chance to speak, try to shine some light on this giant black hole in the public discussion by bringing up the subject of Peak Oil.

It is my opinion that in 2020, not only will there not be 80 million vehicle-miles travelled per year, there will probably be far less than the 40 million of today. It seems like those in power ought to at least have some awareness of the issue before committing gigabucks to this new road while worthy light rail projects go begging.

by **OldSprocket** » Tue 11 Jan 2005, 19:38:05

The US of A must continue building as many roads as possible. Or add new lanes wherever they will fit. We cannot show any doubt about the eternal supply of oil.

The town in which I live plans to pave another half-mile of gravel road, and I asked the selecmen to keep it narrow if possible. One of the selecmen accepts Peak Oil.

This thread, though, reminds me of the stages of grief or acceptance. Forgive me if I confuse my psychobabble, but it seems that the country as a whole will have to get smacked with PO then go through denial, anger, bargaining, and a bunch of other stages before they can comfortably say that we should slow with the paving machines.