GM Exec Speaks Out Against Efficient Transit

[DetroitDad]

Save Energy: Take The Car

Link: http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2...c/18/spauldng/

After reading about the states of Ohio and Wisconsin turning down $1.2 billion to build high-speed rail systems, a headline in Car and Driver makes sense: “Save Energy; Take the Car.”

Although the subsequent article stressed light-rail projects, the same reasoning applies to high-speed ventures. As The Wall Street Journal [[WSJ) reported: “The Obama administration and Congress set aside $8 billion in the economic-recovery act last year to build 13 regional, high-speed rail networks. States submitted applications totaling $102 billion in requests for grants.”

Virginia, which proposed high-speed service between Washington and Richmond, is for now largely limiting its efforts to improving a bridge and doing preliminary environmental studies.

I thought this entire effort was to provide instant employment! At the same time, Oregon has delayed rebuilding a train line between Eugene and Portland — it failed to come up with “only” $3.3 million in required matching funds.

“You’re competing against all the other needs of the state,” said Betsy Imholt, Oregon’s rail study director. “When we’re talking about cutting school days and cutting seniors’ programs and closing prisons, you kind of have to weigh the timing of this [[rail system).”

California, which has its own budget-deficit problems, is one of the states receiving money formerly destined for Ohio and Wisconsin. As the WSJ states, “… Earlier this month its high-speed rail authority approved construction on the first 65-mile segment of a 500-mile bullet train. The first miles will connect the small towns of Borden and Corcoran in the Central Valley for a mere $4 billion. Yes, that’s billion.”

One other detail: The segment won’t even begin operating until more of the line is completed, which based on the present trend could be never.

The WSJ conclusion: “A realistic concern is that the state [[of California) will have to terminate the project after completing the first segment because the feds and private investors won’t pay to finish it. California doesn’t need a high-speed train it can’t afford, and we hope Republicans on Capitol Hill will pull the plug on this and other trains to insolvency next year.”

“Light rail,” as seen by Car and Driver, “is the darling of transit boosters these days, operating or under construction in 26 American cities, including Phoenix and Seattle-Tacoma … most light-rail systems use as much or more energy per passenger mile as the average passenger car, several worse than the average light truck, and none is as efficient as a Prius,” writes Randal O’Toole, in a new study from the Cato Institute.

“Ready for a radical idea? Forget building new light-rail for commuters — few ride it anyway — and streamline the roads instead. Here’s why: New rail systems take at least 10 years to plan and build, then last 30 to 40 years before needing a major overhaul. So new rail planned today will, on average, be in the middle of its life in the 2030s. So it must compete with the cars on the road then …

“This will be a tough league. Although rail systems are locked into today’s technology for years to come, cars respond very quickly to new mileage requirements. The average car sold in 2020 will get 35 mpg — it’s the law!”

Another point this column has attempted to make several times is: Where does the source of energy for rail systems originate? For example, Washington, D.C., Baltimore and Philadelphia depend on fossil fuel.

Stick with the automobile, America!

Car and Driver agrees: “In the reach for fuel efficiency between cars and mass transit, put your money on cars.”

Cars have one other advantage that trains will never match: Cars do not run when nobody wants the trip!

Happy motoring in your machine which provides mobility, freedom and independence!

Dr. George G. Spaulding is a retired General Motors executive and distinguished executive-in-residence emeritus at the School of Business at the College of Charleston. He can be reached at 2 Wharfside St. 2A Charleston, S.C., 29401.

[English]

This is a losing battle. I don't get why the Big Three believe that it will be the late 20th century forever [[although it can be argued that our entire region seems to believe that). The future is not the internal combustion engine, sorry.

[Ray1936]

This is a losing battle. I don't get why the Big Three believe that it will be the late 20th century forever [[although it can be argued that our entire region seems to believe that). The future is not the internal combustion engine, sorry.

You're right, English. When all the wells finally run dry, you'll see a boom in rail travel like never before. Gonna need some new roadbeds and other infrastructure, but it's going to happen, probably by the end of this century. Wonder if we'll see a return of the old coal-fired steam locomotives? God, they were beautiful.

[English]

You're right, English. When all the wells finally run dry, you'll see a boom in rail travel like never before. Gonna need some new roadbeds and other infrastructure, but it's going to happen, probably by the end of this century. Wonder if we'll see a return of the old coal-fired steam locomotives? God, they were beautiful.

Yes. I'm not even just thinking car travel; I am a frequent flier and believe that air travel will be the first to go unless we figure out other fuel sources. Also, air has become far more inconvenient and stressful post-9/11. Took Amtrak business class to Chicago for a job interview earlier this year and swore I'd never drive or fly there again...

[lilpup]

The future will continue to be, as the past has been, a mix of transportation modes. Each has its pros and cons.

[dtowncitylover]

I think we can all agree to ignore the cranky, old man.

[lilpup]

air travel will be the first to go unless we figure out other fuel sources

an algae-based product is already in the works

[mwilbert]

There will always be fuel, the question is how much it will cost. Algal-derived fuels are still quite expensive--the algal fuel the Navy tested this year cost $800/barrel. No doubt production processes will improve, but there is no telling where the cost will end up. I don't know exactly what the demand curve looks like, but I am positive that if it costs more than maybe $200/barrel in 2010 dollars there will be much less commercial aviation.

[Huggybear]

A retired GM exec.

[lilpup]

I wouldn't take pricing on a Navy project as typical [[see: $1,000 screwdrivers). EADS has developed a fuel that is more efficient [[helping price point) than petroleum-based fuels and burns cleaner - http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06...wered-flights/

[mwilbert]

This is from an WSJ interview this spring with Craig Venter who as you are probably aware is well known for his work on the human genome and synthetic biology and is now working on algal biofuels. The whole interview is at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...809632222.html but I am pretty sure it is paywalled.

MR. MURRAY: When do they expect you to actually be able to deliver fuel?

DR. VENTER:Scalability is the biggest issue. There's over 200 algae companies, I think, in the U.S. alone. If we can't generate billions of gallons of fuel per year per facility, it's not going to work. But I think with the Exxon engineering team and their money, we have a chance to scale it up. Our optimistic view is on the order of a decade before you would have gasoline in your tank made from CO2.

MR. MURRAY: If you look 20 years, 30 years down the road, how much of our fuel could come from this sort of algae?

DR. VENTER: Theoretically, all transportation fuels. There's no shortage of areas with lots of sunlight and seawater. It is going to get down to the cost equation. And it's too early to know.

This accords with the other information I have on this subject: It may work. It should be researched. We can't do it economically yet. We don't know if we will be able to.

[tallboy66]

A car is more efficient in terms of getting you to a destination that a train won't go.
Trains aren't made for 5 mile trips to the grocery store or the mall but in a major city with mass transit more people can be moved with less cost overall and a single train carrying 100 people takes up a lot less space than 100 single passenger vehicles.

[East Detroit]

Took Amtrak business class to Chicago for a job interview earlier this year and swore I'd never drive or fly there again...

Is it just business class that is better than driving, or Amtrak in general?

What was the train powered by?

[wolverine]

I minored in transportation planning in grad school. It's not my profession and I'm by no means an expert, but when you start doing some research you discover that, yes....in fact mass transportation such as subways and light rail do use more energy to carry the same number of passengers the same distance. It's unfortunate to transit boosters, but just as we've improved fuel efficiency in cars, who is to say rail technology will remain static forever?

But that isn't the issue here. Rail transit solves differences issues:
1. Provides grade separated mobility that is not disrupted by traffic
2. Concentrates development creating job centers and high-rise residential districts [[excellent for business growth, and larger tax base)
3. Provides low-cost mobility. Automakers cannot win this point unless they pay the individual. $380/month parking space, probably $140 in insurance, gas, and offer me a lease that is the same as my cta pass: $80/month. Ignore subsidies. Road...rail...what's the difference....it's all publicly funded.

It's a valid point automakers can bring up, but not the winning argument. Our world has built many great cities without the automobile. There's no need to discard rail transit as the "darling of rail boosters"

[LeannaM]

A car is more efficient in terms of getting you to a destination that a train won't go.
Trains aren't made for 5 mile trips to the grocery store or the mall but in a major city with mass transit more people can be moved with less cost overall and a single train carrying 100 people takes up a lot less space than 100 single passenger vehicles.

True.

Transit is very useful in a city. For example, the people picking the site for the DNC wanted an efficiently-traveled city with transit for their convention. It makes sense.

That said, I'm not surprised that an auto exec would not like transit. The more extensive transit is, the more his profits decline.

[lilpup]

That said, I'm not surprised that an auto exec would not like transit. The more extensive transit is, the more his profits decline.

He's a retired auto exec.

[laphoque]

A car is more efficient in terms of getting you to a destination that a train won't go.
Trains aren't made for 5 mile trips to the grocery store or the mall but in a major city with mass transit more people can be moved with less cost overall and a single train carrying 100 people takes up a lot less space than 100 single passenger vehicles.

In most major cities you don't drive to the grocery store. You're thinking the suburbs.

Don't start from the perspective that you need a car. The car just ends up owning your wallet before it finally takes out your heart.

[dtowncitylover]

He's a retired auto exec.

lol...Ok, so his lavish pension and stock portfolio.

[reddog289]

From what I see, Detroit and it's burbs are not going to park their cars and "Hop on Board". This isn't Europe, N.Y.C., or even Chicago.I myself live by the Amtrack tracks and Michigan Ave. I don't see full cars headed to the Dearborn Station, Nor do I see crowds of people waiting for the Smart Bus to take them to Detroit or anywhere.
As Ray put it the well must run dry for people to get fired up about this. I have really no use for any rail, bus or other line going anywhere.Spending more tax dollars for something that really isn't wanted at this point in time makes no sense.
Don't get me wrong, I myself love Trains,wish there was a way to get around without having to pay $3.00 a gallon for gas. But till things change, I don't see anything big happening in the way of Mass Transit round here that will be fully embraced by the citizens here.

[Hermod]

But that isn't the issue here. Rail transit solves differences issues:
1. Provides grade separated mobility that is not disrupted by traffic
2. Concentrates development creating job centers and high-rise residential districts [[excellent for business growth, and larger tax base)
3. Provides low-cost mobility. Automakers cannot win this point unless they pay the individual. $380/month parking space, probably $140 in insurance, gas, and offer me a lease that is the same as my cta pass: $80/month. Ignore subsidies. Road...rail...what's the difference....it's all publicly funded.

Just how many workers are paying $380 a month for parking?

For most of the population, parking is free.

[NorthofNormal]

Just how many workers are paying $380 a month for parking?

For most of the population, parking is free.

I wish I lived in your dream world. I work downtown, and parking is about $4/a day. There's a $1/day lot a significant distance from my office, but I'm not entirely comfortable walking that far in the evenings.

That's how things are now. Do you want Detroit to turn around, for all that empty office space to fill up? Demand will go up for parking, which means the cost will go up, too. I lived in DC for a couple years and parking near my office there cost $15/day. Didn't bother me any--I took the subway.

[pffft]

I don't see why it has to be one or the other, all or nothing at all. We need more trains for hauling people back and forth down main corridors, to work, and to Chicago/NYC...be great to see a northern Michigan train again. There are a lot of older people who shouldn't be driving, and as boomers age, there's more to come. We need trains to take them back and forth to Detroit to the museums, the ball games etc. In bad weather, I'd love to go to work on a train.

Having said that, read this as a cautionary tale about how trains aren't perfect...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...mhSCQfdgedGijK

[Hermod]

I don't see why it has to be one or the other, all or nothing at all. We need more trains for hauling people back and forth down main corridors, to work, and to Chicago/NYC...be great to see a northern Michigan train again. There are a lot of older people who shouldn't be driving, and as boomers age, there's more to come. We need trains to take them back and forth to Detroit to the museums, the ball games etc. In bad weather, I'd love to go to work on a train.

Having said that, read this as a cautionary tale about how trains aren't perfect...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...mhSCQfdgedGijK

Unfortunately, the old Michigan Central/New York Central/PennCentral/Conrail Detroit-Mackinac Timberliner route has been ripped up north of Utica.

[BagAJellyDonuts]

Sorry that I wasted the time to open this thread. The title is almost as big a fraud as the article posted.

[Hermod]

I wish I lived in your dream world. I work downtown, and parking is about $4/a day. There's a $1/day lot a significant distance from my office, but I'm not entirely comfortable walking that far in the evenings.

That's how things are now. Do you want Detroit to turn around, for all that empty office space to fill up? Demand will go up for parking, which means the cost will go up, too. I lived in DC for a couple years and parking near my office there cost $15/day. Didn't bother me any--I took the subway.

When I worked at King Street and Shirley Highway, the parking garage in the office building ripped us off for $25 a month. For most of my work life, I never had to pay for parking.

How many factory workers in SE Michigan pay for parking at their place of work?