Department of Transportation allocated about
$67 million for the Corridors of the Future
study, aimed at reducing congestion on half a
dozen major interstate routes carrying about
22 percent of the nation’s traffic. part of the
project investigates the feasibility of building
dedicated truck lanes alongside existing interstate highways. Separating truck traffic from cars
would make it easier for freight companies to
run road trains, but obviously at a vast cost in
new construction — roughly $32 million per
mile. in some science-fiction future, those truck
lanes will also be electrified, and hybrid-electric
trucks, like the trolley buses of old, will use no
liquid fuel at all while on the interstate. That too,
would be expensive, but in the long run, it would
save a lot of lettuce. ST
ELECTRIC RAIL:
financially and politically feasible?
AMillennium Institute Study, “Evaluat- ing the Creation of a Parallel Non-Oil
Transportation System in an Oil Constrained
Future,” published in 2009 in the Transport
Policy Journal, notes that putting a truck container on an electric railroad exchanges 20 British thermal units (Btu) of diesel fuel for 1 Btu
of electric power. The Defense Department
would like to electrify some 32,421 miles of
strategic rail line to handle transport needs
during an oil embargo, and the Millennium
study finds that these routes could handle
80 percent of all civilian freight. It would cost
about $2 million to $2.5 million per mile, or
roughly $75 billion, and it could be done in
six years. It would be a good start toward
upgrading the entire 60,000-mile system of
track and electrifying it to handle high-speed
freight and passenger trains. The total cost for
a full system overhaul, capable of handling
83 percent of freight traffic and displacing a
lot of air travel, would be about $500 billion.
If the system were to be powered through
non-fossil sources (in part by wind and solar
facilities built along the right of way), it would
reduce the national carbon footprint by about
40 percent from the 2006 level. It might be
financed through public-private partnerships
among governments, railroads, shippers and
electric utilities. The investment would be a
great deal more attractive under a carbon-pricing scheme.
Phillip Longman, a senior research
fellow at the New America Foundation,
believes that rail electrification is politically feasible. In a January article titled “Steel
Wheel Interstates” ( newamerica.net), he
concluded, “We’re not talking about bailing out a failing industry, but about helping an expanding, more energy efficient
one to grow fast enough to meet pressing
public needs. Nor would we be making big
bets on unproven technology. Also, it is
important to remember that big trucking
companies, facing acute driver shortages
and increasing highway congestion, are
increasingly shifting their containers to rail
and so have an interest in improved rail
infrastructure. With trucking companies
morphing into logistics companies, it’s
a new day in the special interest politics
of freight.” Moreover, he wrote, it would
“facilitate the coming of true high-speed
rail passenger service to the United States,
a goal President Obama committed to as a
candidate. Its success, however, would not
depend on persuading a single American
to take the train instead of flying or driving.
This is change we can believe in.”
