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.