We do already have a very efficient rail systemEven if we discount our near-dead passenger rail system, "efficient" is hardly the word to speak regarding our rail system. Try just these quick returns on a search for "railroad" at Forbes.com:
1. U.S. Railroad Profits Tied To New InvestmentThe positive tone of these articles speaks for the moribund state of and absence of efficiency in our rail system. That last story is about one railroad, Norfolk Southern, that finally figured out that using 100-year old technology to route its trains ain't "efficient." The rest of the industry has years to catch up. That first article may also seem positive, but the fact that our rails operate at capacity is not good news. That's like praising highway congestion.
June 15, 2006. The main cause of the rail capacity crisis is increased traffic.
2. Railroads Can Move Forward
May 05, 2006. Track improvements and intermodal freight handling can create a more aggressive U.S. rail system.
3. This Is How To Run A Railroad
February 13, 2006 The boom in global trade has made the rail business hot again. Norfolk Southern is leading the way by adding technology, marketing and customer service to a sooty old business.
Our highway transportation system today is in a state of atrophy. As the railroads died to regulations and price, highways and air transit provided new options. The Interstate Highway System led to dramatic decreases in the cost of transportation and logistics, dropping from 20% of the GDP in 1980 to 10% in 1990. Since that time there's been no further decrease in those costs -- that is, no increase in overall efficiency. Our highways are where are railroads were fifty years ago: dying.
If we keep to the same-olds of gas/tires taxes of the Federal/State program and draining of those funds for "other than roads," and etc., and the general system of road-bulding-as-politics, our highways will be in danger of collapsing. The System is getter worse, not better. We need innovation in funding, building, and maintenance. The CA, TX, IL, IN, and on-coming other projects that are using market principles will invigorate the System. Just as the railroads collapsed (freight, nearly, passenger, totally) to the government-led destruction of competition (which industry likes, btw), our highways are dying of the same illness. These are necessarily and brilliant fixes.
As this thread alone illustrates, too many objections to these innovations are based upon hysterias that have little to do with transportation.
B'wahahahahahahaha!
TOTALLY BOGUS B.S.
Here is one such study of dramatic increases in railroad efficiencies between 1978 and 2004:
Therein you will find some relevant conclusions as I have abstracted here:
The operational changes have been dramatic. The AAR Analyses show that between 1978 and 2004 revenue ton-miles per mile of road have grown from 4.5 million to 12.2 million, average lengths of haul have increased from 617 miles to 902 miles, and the percent of train-miles completed in unit trains has expanded from 7 percent to 37 percent.Operational changes have been accompanied by various technological improvements including higher adhesion locomotives, re-engineered rails and cars, better maintenance of way equipment, and automated inspection techniques. The overall effect has been a much higher level of productive efficiency in the rail industry.
Labor output (Figure 2) has grown from 1.8 million revenue ton-miles per employee in 1978 to 10.5 million in 2004.
Fuel productivity (Figure 3) has increased from 216.4 revenue ton-miles per gallon to 408.5 revenue ton-miles per gallon.
Equipment productivity (Figure 4) has increased as well: revenue ton-miles per locomotive increased by about 250 percent, and revenue ton-miles per freight car has increased by about 450 per cent.
[All of the data are from the Analyses of Class I Railroads.]The economic effect of these changes has been a significant reduction in railroad operating costs. These are illustrated by the bottom line in Figure 5--operating expenses per revenue ton-mile--which dropped from 2.46 cents (current) in 1978 to 2.11 cents (current) in 2004. (Operating revenue per revenue ton-mile, the top line in Figure 5, is treated below as a dimension of allocative efficiency.)
What we have reported here are “partial” productivity measures in which outputs (e.g. revenue ton-miles) are divided by a specific input (e.g. labor hours). Other “total factor” productivity measures are available which take into account not only the relative increases of outputs and inputs but the residual effect of “technological progress” i.e. more efficient combinations of factors such as capital and labor. Most recent econometric studies of rail costs show total factor productivity gains in the rail industry of about three to four percent annually. See, for example, Ivaldi and McCullough (2004). P. 6
III. US Railroads and Allocative Efficiency
The role of transportation in fostering economic growth may have been exaggerated by highway builders and others who benefit directly from transportation spending. It is analytically difficult to disentangle the extent to which transportation investment generates economic activity or economic activity spurs transportation investment.
....
Various independent studies have shown that railroads have a definite allocative efficiency advantage over other modes in providing some transportation services. When all costs are taken into consideration—internal costs absorbed by firms and external costs such as pollution and congestion--railroads often generate lower marginal costs than the other modes. An efficient economy would favor railroads in these cases.