Perspective: CA High-Speed Rail a profligate “energy hog”
Image by ILRI on Flickr
The State's HSR project—voter-approved in 2008 and today, billions of dollars later, still without a single actual track to its name—has proven a masterclass in suspense (whether you call it a slow burn or, along with transit experts, a wildly overbudgeted crash and burn). The Cato Institute points out that once built and operated, CA HSR will inefficiently and excessively waste energy (compared to airplanes and conventional trains) and raise GHG emissions significantly.
It takes a lot more energy to move a train at 220 mph than to move one at conventional speeds of 60–80 mph. “The power required increases with the cube of the train speed,” notes engineering professor Alan Vardy.35 To partially make up for this cube law, high‐speed trains are built especially light, but they still require more energy to move. The East Japan Railway Company, which operates both high‐speed and conventional trains in Japan, says that moving a high‐speed train car one kilometer requires 57 percent more energy than a conventional train car.36
Most high‐speed trains are powered by electricity, which brings up another inherent inefficiency. Because of losses in generation and transmission, electrical generation plants must consume three units of energy (such as British thermal units, or BTUs) to deliver one unit to customers.37 Most estimates of high‐speed‐train energy consumption are based on the energy delivered to the train, not the energy required to generate that power.
Many comparisons of the energy efficiency of high‐speed trains with planes assume both are equally full. But, prior to the pandemic, airlines filled 85 percent of their seats while Amtrak filled only 51 percent of its seats.38 That’s because most airline flights are nonstop, so the airlines can base the size of the plane on the projected demand for each individual route. Most passenger trains, however, make many intermediate stops, and the trains must be sized to meet the maximum demand along the route. As a result, many trains tend to be relatively empty for much of their journeys, greatly reducing their energy efficiency.
Rail proponents also generally assume that competing modes will be no more energy efficient in the future than they are today. In fact, the Department of Energy says that airliner fuel economy has improved at the rate of 2.9 percent per year since 1970 while intercity passenger trains have improved at only 1.7 percent per year.39 Because airplanes are not tied to one type of infrastructure the way high‐speed trains are, they can make improvements much faster than railroads.
The biggest factor working against the energy efficiency of high‐speed rail is the huge amount of energy required to build it as well as to periodically replace infrastructure such as rails and power facilities. Airports are practically the only infrastructure required for airlines, but high‐speed rail lines need mile after mile of roadbed, ties, rails, power supplies, signals, and stations to operate. Even if high‐speed train operations used somewhat fewer BTUs per passenger‐mile than airlines, the high energy costs of building and replacing infrastructure would more than make up for that savings.
High‐speed rail construction also releases a huge amount of greenhouse gases, particularly for concrete ties, steel rails, and other construction materials. One study predicted that building California’s 520‐mile line would release 9.7 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, or 18,650 tons per mile. Assuming that California’s high‐speed trains would fill, on average, 50 percent of their seats, the study estimated that operating those trains would reduce greenhouse gases but that it would take 71 years to repay the construction cost.40 Since rails, concrete ties, and other infrastructure must be replaced or rebuilt every 30–40 years—and even more frequently on lines with frequent train service—and since such replacements would require the release of more greenhouse gases, the savings would never make up for the cost.
Even if we ignore construction emissions, high‐speed rail does not appear to offer any environmental benefits. Outside of the West Coast and a few other states, most of the electricity that would power U.S. high‐speed trains is generated by burning fossil fuels, so rail wouldn’t significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions at all. While green‐energy advocates hope to eventually replace fossil fuels, adding trains to electrical demands would simply increase the time and effort required to build a non‐fossil‐fuel electrical system.
This article originally appeared in the Cato Institute. Read the whole thing here.
Related:
State’s HSR affordability argument falls flat after latest budget spike
CA HSR advances at snail’s gallop, leaving trail of wasted taxpayer dollars
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.