archdruidreport is assuming that the primary point of the electrification of rail lines is to allow existing rail freight to move with electric traction.

Given a false premise, the conclusion is invalid and whether it is a sound conclusion from the premise is really beside the point.

So start from archdruidreport's conclusion. We preserve fossil fuels for current rail freight.

Now, we may be able to dispense with much of the freight that was moving on the road, but we still need to move some of it. What is the only way under current technology to shift the long haul truck freight to non fossil fuel? To do so with long distance electric rail and generate that electricity without using fossil fuel.

This project accomplishes both of those objectives.

So rather than archdruidreport's conclusion attacking the Steel Interstate project, the conclusion supports it.

Bear in mind that electrifying the 30,000+ miles of STRACNET is only 20% or so of US rail corridor miles. Electrifying the 15,000+ miles proposed here is only 10% or so of US rail corridor miles.

So taking this proposal as formally equivalent to electrifying all rail ... which archdruidreport's argument tacitly does ... is a category mistake. This proposal is more precisely, "establish a national rapid electric rail system to act as a substitute for a substantial share of existing diesel semi truck freight".


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.