re: #210 laZardo

As far as I know, there are better arguments for rail transportation for cargo in the United States than, say, rail transportation for passengers.

Just wondering though, is that where low-cost airlines are filling the gap?

Passenger rail is a whole ‘nother matter. You can’t beat the speed of jet transport, and for people, time is money. For cargo, though, it’s hard to beat trains in terms of energy efficiency.

Air transport is horrendously energy intensive, no matter how efficient the planes are. You can’t even use the standard “miles per gallon” metric; it’s much more sensible to talk in terms of gallons per mile. Planes are completely off the charts compared to other forms of transport when it comes to energy efficiency. They basically suck at it.

To make matters worse for trains, though, non-stop transcontinental trains are pretty much out of the question. There’s very limited track to run on, so any train is going to have to make frequent stops simply to accommodate passengers along the very few routes that exist. This slows things down even more, making a New York to LA run a multi-day affair, instead of the few hours it takes by air.

It’s a classic trade-off between speed and efficiency.