Gasoline engines are usually ~25% efficient (convert 25% of the energy of gasoline into mechanical energy)
Diesil engines are ~30% efficient
A brushless DC electric motor is around 85% efficient, the most efficient of electric motors. But those are expensive 3 phase motors, and need powerful permanent magnets.
For electric motors large and powerful enough to move a car, their efficiency ranges in the 70%-80% range.
Also, it's a lot less energy to make electricity than it is to make gasoline or diesel fuel. You just either need a way to continually power the vehicle (ala trains/subways) or have good batteries (this is the current technology problem) and/or lots of recharge points (make every parking meter into an electric outlet).
As I understand it, the only problem with widespread electrical care usage would be finding enough of the rare earth metals to make all the batteries. And that can be overcome, it's just a matter of cost right now. It's not true at all that "we can't make enough energy to power 200 million electric vehicles".
Yup, the batteries are where the problem is right now. Purely electrical storage batteries are hard to mass produce because of the materials.
Which is why fuel cells where a big thing, because you take two abundant elements and let them create electricity as they become water. And then you can use electricity to separate hydrogen out for refueling stations. The whole process is still more efficient than gasoline or diesel powered cars, but requires new infrastructure to be build for hydrogen stations.
Finding ways to store a lot of electricity is really hard. And current ideas of a car is a small thing that can go anywhere, which makes it even harder.
Yup, the batteries are where the problem is right now. Purely electrical storage batteries are hard to mass produce because of the materials.
Which is why fuel cells where a big thing, because you take two abundant elements and let them create electricity as they become water. And then you can use electricity to separate hydrogen out for refueling stations. The whole process is still more efficient than gasoline or diesel powered cars, but requires new infrastructure to be build for hydrogen stations.
Finding ways to store a lot of electricity is really hard. And current ideas of a car is a small thing that can go anywhere, which makes it even harder.
Fuel cells, unfortunately, require either difficult-to-maintain operating conditions (e.g. the molten carbonate fuel cell) or expensive and rare catalysts.
My money is on batteries or ultra-high-density capacitors when it comes to electric cars.
I don't know what you're saying adytum. Are you saying that it sucks? I can agree that housing in the metropolitan areas tend to be... astronomical. For instance, I can have an apartment 10 minutes outside of my city for $600. In the city? That shit jumps to $800 for a fucking loft. No thanks. I'd rather bike to work.
It also seems to be with tourism in mind. Pretty much all the stops were within 1 mile of the thing.
Just saying that what might seem to work well as a tourist downtown on the weekend isn't necessarily as good as it seems for residents. Yeah, the DC Metro can be great, but it's not a reliable mode of transport for the majority of people in the area. The bus systems in DC and VA are hilariously bad, for example.
MM points out some of the other weaknesses.
Ah, well, point taken.
That said it is so far beyond what we have that I'd rather deal with it. That doesn't mean it can't be redesigned. I'm looking forward to X-country high speed rail though, I'd love to be able to visit California without dumping 2 grand into it.
High speed rails is best used for regional transit. Across the country it is still quick and probably easier to fly.
Here is an image of the old proposed high speed rail lines around the US - spoilered for huge sauces.
Rail for regional transit only makes sense if there good public transport at your destination. Right now WI is trying to build a rail link between Milwaukee and Madison(~90 miles). The tickets will cost $40(with a subsidy) and the train will take 85 minutes to get there(as there are stops in the western burbs of milwaukee). Except public transit in these cities is just shitty buses, so unless you are going somewhere right next to the depot, you are going to get to add 30+ minutes to that to get anywhere. And boom you've now spent $60 and a 110 minutes to do a drive that takes 90 min, and 6 gallons of gas.
I make a weekly commute from CHI to MKE. the train takes about 80 min. the drive takes about 120 in shitty traffic. Except the train depot in CHI is 45min away by bus(and I need to get there early), and the depot in Milwaukee is 10 miles away from where I work(and no transport). And the tickets are also $35(subsidized).
The solution is for Milwaukee to bring back the trams they got rid of in the 1950s. Their bus system isn't that bad, but you basically have to wait 20 minutes for a bus unless you're on Wisconsin Ave.
Regional rail isn't really going to cut it until they stop subsidizing gasoline to be so cheap (most people don't seem to realize that - outside of oil-producing countries - gas is about twice as expensive as in the US). Or they'll need to work out actual express lines so that trains get places in a timely manner. Where's the 200mph train that makes either of those routes take about 30 minutes?
Gasoline engines are usually ~25% efficient (convert 25% of the energy of gasoline into mechanical energy)
Diesil engines are ~30% efficient
A brushless DC electric motor is around 85% efficient, the most efficient of electric motors. But those are expensive 3 phase motors, and need powerful permanent magnets.
For electric motors large and powerful enough to move a car, their efficiency ranges in the 70%-80% range.
Also, it's a lot less energy to make electricity than it is to make gasoline or diesel fuel. You just either need a way to continually power the vehicle (ala trains/subways) or have good batteries (this is the current technology problem) and/or lots of recharge points (make every parking meter into an electric outlet).
In the end, modern production electric cars are probably around 50-60% efficient. It's hard to find solid numbers because so many companies are being secretive about their technology and research.
Synchronous, brushless DC motors are exactly what Toyota and Honda are sticking in their hybrid cars right now, utilizing neodymium magnets.
Related note: we'd save a A LOT of oil if a viable solid-state hydrocarbon fuel cell were developed. They take your energy extraction from petrol from 40% at best to 85%, which would also get you efficiency improvements from electric motors over ICE's.
Plus, if there's anything I remember from Bill Nye it's that it is a lot easier to clean and scrub wastes from an electric power plant than it is from each and every car on the road.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I don't know what you're saying adytum. Are you saying that it sucks? I can agree that housing in the metropolitan areas tend to be... astronomical. For instance, I can have an apartment 10 minutes outside of my city for $600. In the city? That shit jumps to $800 for a fucking loft. No thanks. I'd rather bike to work.
It also seems to be with tourism in mind. Pretty much all the stops were within 1 mile of the thing.
Just saying that what might seem to work well as a tourist downtown on the weekend isn't necessarily as good as it seems for residents. Yeah, the DC Metro can be great, but it's not a reliable mode of transport for the majority of people in the area. The bus systems in DC and VA are hilariously bad, for example.
MM points out some of the other weaknesses.
Ah, well, point taken.
That said it is so far beyond what we have that I'd rather deal with it. That doesn't mean it can't be redesigned. I'm looking forward to X-country high speed rail though, I'd love to be able to visit California without dumping 2 grand into it.
High speed rails is best used for regional transit. Across the country it is still quick and probably easier to fly.
Here is an image of the old proposed high speed rail lines around the US - spoilered for huge sauces.
It still amazes me that they didn't connect the Little Rock and Meridian lines via Memphis.
I don't know what you're saying adytum. Are you saying that it sucks? I can agree that housing in the metropolitan areas tend to be... astronomical. For instance, I can have an apartment 10 minutes outside of my city for $600. In the city? That shit jumps to $800 for a fucking loft. No thanks. I'd rather bike to work.
It also seems to be with tourism in mind. Pretty much all the stops were within 1 mile of the thing.
Just saying that what might seem to work well as a tourist downtown on the weekend isn't necessarily as good as it seems for residents. Yeah, the DC Metro can be great, but it's not a reliable mode of transport for the majority of people in the area. The bus systems in DC and VA are hilariously bad, for example.
MM points out some of the other weaknesses.
Ah, well, point taken.
That said it is so far beyond what we have that I'd rather deal with it. That doesn't mean it can't be redesigned. I'm looking forward to X-country high speed rail though, I'd love to be able to visit California without dumping 2 grand into it.
High speed rails is best used for regional transit. Across the country it is still quick and probably easier to fly.
Here is an image of the old proposed high speed rail lines around the US - spoilered for huge sauces.
It still amazes me that they didn't connect the Little Rock and Meridian lines via Memphis.
You could also do KC-Tulsa via Wichita and (the big one) Jacksonville to Orlando. Then you could get from Portland, ME to Miami, FL without leaving the train network.
Also, Pittsburgh-Cleveland and Louisville-Atlanta via Nashville (aka the I-65/I-24 corridors) are pretty obvious connections to make.
I don't know what you're saying adytum. Are you saying that it sucks? I can agree that housing in the metropolitan areas tend to be... astronomical. For instance, I can have an apartment 10 minutes outside of my city for $600. In the city? That shit jumps to $800 for a fucking loft. No thanks. I'd rather bike to work.
It also seems to be with tourism in mind. Pretty much all the stops were within 1 mile of the thing.
Just saying that what might seem to work well as a tourist downtown on the weekend isn't necessarily as good as it seems for residents. Yeah, the DC Metro can be great, but it's not a reliable mode of transport for the majority of people in the area. The bus systems in DC and VA are hilariously bad, for example.
MM points out some of the other weaknesses.
Ah, well, point taken.
That said it is so far beyond what we have that I'd rather deal with it. That doesn't mean it can't be redesigned. I'm looking forward to X-country high speed rail though, I'd love to be able to visit California without dumping 2 grand into it.
High speed rails is best used for regional transit. Across the country it is still quick and probably easier to fly.
Here is an image of the old proposed high speed rail lines around the US - spoilered for huge sauces.
It still amazes me that they didn't connect the Little Rock and Meridian lines via Memphis.
You could also do KC-Tulsa via Wichita and (the big one) Jacksonville to Orlando. Then you could get from Portland, ME to Miami, FL without leaving the train network.
Also, Pittsburgh-Cleveland and Louisville-Atlanta via Nashville (aka the I-65/I-24 corridors) are pretty obvious connections to make.
Why would you take a train from Maine to Florida though? Thats 1600 miles, aka a long time to sit on a train.
Expedia is giving me ~6 hour(1 stopover flights) for only $240 (including tax).
How much Tulsa to Wichita traffic is there in one day? Thats the biggest problem with all the rail schemes. It'd be really great to connect these 2 cities, with trains, except no one is going to ride the trains, because not that many people do a 150 mile each way commute day to day. And the more intermediate stops you add, the slower the train becomes, and getting off a train in the middle of nowhere just to wait for a ride/take a cab so you can get where you actually need to go kills the train as an appealing/efficient way to travel.
Another example, I'm in Chicago which is Amtrak Central
CHI to DC
Amtrak: on the fastest train 17h30m for $166 from MKE add $22 dollars and 1h30
Or I can fly (with a stop in PHI) from ORD to DCA in 3h35m for $250 from MKE Save $82 and 1h47 cause Airtran has a nonstop to DCA ...its actually 10 cents cheaper to FLY from MKE to DC than it is to take the train, and it takes 1/10th the time.
On the distances people may commute every day rail sucks cause of the overhead of getting to the rail/from the rail. On long distances it sucks cause planes are so much better.
Related note: we'd save a A LOT of oil if a viable solid-state hydrocarbon fuel cell were developed. They take your energy extraction from petrol from 40% at best to 85%, which would also get you efficiency improvements from electric motors over ICE's.
I thought the second law of thermodynamics limits efficiency to 75% or so.
Who needs peak oil when you can just have middle east unrest increase the price of oil.
Edit: I've also been reading some interesting this over the past few years about ceramic battery/capacitors which over time might be able to shrink to fit in a car.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I don't know what you're saying adytum. Are you saying that it sucks? I can agree that housing in the metropolitan areas tend to be... astronomical. For instance, I can have an apartment 10 minutes outside of my city for $600. In the city? That shit jumps to $800 for a fucking loft. No thanks. I'd rather bike to work.
It also seems to be with tourism in mind. Pretty much all the stops were within 1 mile of the thing.
Just saying that what might seem to work well as a tourist downtown on the weekend isn't necessarily as good as it seems for residents. Yeah, the DC Metro can be great, but it's not a reliable mode of transport for the majority of people in the area. The bus systems in DC and VA are hilariously bad, for example.
MM points out some of the other weaknesses.
Ah, well, point taken.
That said it is so far beyond what we have that I'd rather deal with it. That doesn't mean it can't be redesigned. I'm looking forward to X-country high speed rail though, I'd love to be able to visit California without dumping 2 grand into it.
High speed rails is best used for regional transit. Across the country it is still quick and probably easier to fly.
Here is an image of the old proposed high speed rail lines around the US - spoilered for huge sauces.
The new Wisconsin Governor's first act as Governor was to say "don't start building high speed rail because I'll pull workers off the line the second I take power, SOCIALSIMSAISMSIMS"
Related note: we'd save a A LOT of oil if a viable solid-state hydrocarbon fuel cell were developed. They take your energy extraction from petrol from 40% at best to 85%, which would also get you efficiency improvements from electric motors over ICE's.
I thought the second law of thermodynamics limits efficiency to 75% or so.
its not a heat engine so the limit is higher. But thermodynamically imposed efficiency limits are a meaningless way to compare engines, because 1) they are never at that limit and 2) supply chain energy can't be discounted.
Take LNG plant powering an electric vehicle for example, you need to refine and compress the NG, put it on a ship, which uses it to power itself and keep it refrigerate, re-vaporizing it so its useful can cost you 5% of the total energy in your tanker, its then used in a combined cycle plant thats 60% efficient, you lose 6.5% in transmission lines, then put it into a car that stores it in batteries at some x% efficency, before using that to drive motors that are y% efficent, and then theres average energy lost to road friction/drag/breaking etc etc.
so even if your battery->wheel is running at 95% efficiency...thats not a 1:1 comparison to a compressed natural gas ICE thats maybe only 40% engine to wheels, which has its own entire set of supply chain inefficiencies.
Yeah, the DC Metro can be great, but it's not a reliable mode of transport for the majority of people in the area. The bus systems in DC and VA are hilariously bad, for example.
MM points out some of the other weaknesses.
I would like to quibble over this point. The DC Metro sucks giant fucking monkey balls, and if parking and road infrastructure would allow it, everyone would be infinitely happier driving. HOWEVER. Given that it is completely impossible for everyone in the area to commute by driving daily, the metro does serve its purpose reliably and acceptably. 75% of the people I know rely on the metro trains and buses for their daily commutes to work. No one has ever been fired for being unable to get to work reliably. 25% of the people I know in the area don't even own cars.
The metro system is hilariously badly managed, and is by no means a perfect system. If the population continues to expand, we're utterly fucked since metro is at capacity and the roads have been at capacity for years. However, as it is, the metro is a serviceable system and business around here is able to rely on it.
Yeah, the DC Metro can be great, but it's not a reliable mode of transport for the majority of people in the area. The bus systems in DC and VA are hilariously bad, for example.
MM points out some of the other weaknesses.
I would like to quibble over this point. The DC Metro sucks giant fucking monkey balls, and if parking and road infrastructure would allow it, everyone would be infinitely happier driving. HOWEVER. Given that it is completely impossible for everyone in the area to commute by driving daily, the metro does serve its purpose reliably and acceptably. 75% of the people I know rely on the metro trains and buses for their daily commutes to work. No one has ever been fired for being unable to get to work reliably. 25% of the people I know in the area don't even own cars.
The metro system is hilariously badly managed, and is by no means a perfect system. If the population continues to expand, we're utterly fucked since metro is at capacity and the roads have been at capacity for years. However, as it is, the metro is a serviceable system and business around here is able to rely on it.
CC didn't say that. ;-)
You're not saying anything I wasn't. It's an adequate system in some ways, but it utterly fails to deal with a lot of the widespread traffic problems in the area. It might seem "great" like Bowen said if you're in town for a weekend, and staying downtown. Other parts of WMATA, like MetroBus, are horrible everywhere. I've had so many problems in D.C. waiting or buses, and the schedules in the suburbs are laughable.
Yeah, the DC Metro can be great, but it's not a reliable mode of transport for the majority of people in the area. The bus systems in DC and VA are hilariously bad, for example.
MM points out some of the other weaknesses.
I would like to quibble over this point. The DC Metro sucks giant fucking monkey balls, and if parking and road infrastructure would allow it, everyone would be infinitely happier driving. HOWEVER. Given that it is completely impossible for everyone in the area to commute by driving daily, the metro does serve its purpose reliably and acceptably. 75% of the people I know rely on the metro trains and buses for their daily commutes to work. No one has ever been fired for being unable to get to work reliably. 25% of the people I know in the area don't even own cars.
The metro system is hilariously badly managed, and is by no means a perfect system. If the population continues to expand, we're utterly fucked since metro is at capacity and the roads have been at capacity for years. However, as it is, the metro is a serviceable system and business around here is able to rely on it.
CC didn't say that. ;-)
You're not saying anything I wasn't. It's an adequate system in some ways, but it utterly fails to deal with a lot of the widespread traffic problems in the area. It might seem "great" like Bowen said if you're in town for a weekend, and staying downtown. Other parts of WMATA, like MetroBus, are horrible everywhere. I've had so many problems in D.C. waiting or buses, and the schedules in the suburbs are laughable.
Stupid quote trees.
The bus schedules in the suburbs are definitely wretched, and I would never want to catch a bus without using one of the phone apps to make sure I wasn't stuck waiting for an hour.
Saying that it "fails to deal with the widespread traffic problems" is like saying that antibiotics fail to deal with global infections. It's a systemic problem far beyond the reach of a simple solution. The Metro system is pretty impressive compared to most of its peers. Tallest midget, if you will.
I don't know what you're saying adytum. Are you saying that it sucks? I can agree that housing in the metropolitan areas tend to be... astronomical. For instance, I can have an apartment 10 minutes outside of my city for $600. In the city? That shit jumps to $800 for a fucking loft. No thanks. I'd rather bike to work.
It also seems to be with tourism in mind. Pretty much all the stops were within 1 mile of the thing.
Just saying that what might seem to work well as a tourist downtown on the weekend isn't necessarily as good as it seems for residents. Yeah, the DC Metro can be great, but it's not a reliable mode of transport for the majority of people in the area. The bus systems in DC and VA are hilariously bad, for example.
MM points out some of the other weaknesses.
Ah, well, point taken.
That said it is so far beyond what we have that I'd rather deal with it. That doesn't mean it can't be redesigned. I'm looking forward to X-country high speed rail though, I'd love to be able to visit California without dumping 2 grand into it.
High speed rails is best used for regional transit. Across the country it is still quick and probably easier to fly.
Here is an image of the old proposed high speed rail lines around the US - spoilered for huge sauces.
The new Wisconsin Governor's first act as Governor was to say "don't start building high speed rail because I'll pull workers off the line the second I take power, SOCIALSIMSAISMSIMS"
John Meier, who knows something about hauling people to Madison, doesn't know where the state's going to come up with a third of a million people for its almost-there train.
Mind you, Meier, third generation in his family to run Badger Coaches, says his company will work with whatever rail service the Doyle administration installs. At the moment, the $810 million plan is for trains that top out at 110 mph between three stops on the way to a station at Madison's airport. Or maybe, for a slight additional fortune, a new station on an undistinguished corner of Madison's east side two miles from downtown.
This will carry, the state reckons, 372,000 people a year at $44 to $66 per round trip. The ridership's important because the more paying passengers, the better the chance we can hold the taxpayer subsidy merely to the $26 per ride we now contribute to Amtrak service from Milwaukee to Chicago.
Meier's buses, which run six round trips a day, carry about 120,000 people a year. "Mostly, it's college kids," he said, though there are commuters. "We get some attorneys who will go back and forth," he said.
You, by the way, pay nothing for this: Buses pay a lower diesel fuel tax, a savings amounting to 6 cents a rider, but taxpayers didn't buy his buses or build him a bus-only road for $810 million. "We've had not one tax dollar given to us," he said.
Trains will carry, the state figures, three times what Badger does. Presuming they drive his company entirely out of business, they'd still have to lure twice again as many people out of cars to make even their subsidized numbers work. Backers say it'll happen because trains are so much cooler than buses.
But consider: Badger recently stopped running buses to what had been its Madison station, west of the Capitol. It instead makes scheduled stops at a park-and-ride lot and curbside on the University of Wisconsin's campus. Few riders, Meier said, actually wanted to get on or off at the station. So why bother?
"That's one of the advantages as a bus," he said. "If a stop isn't very popular, we can stop going there."
And go instead where passengers want, rather than where the tracks go. Or when passengers want: Meier says his buses don't sell out because "we know when we have to add extra buses. It's really easy to do."
The train idea, which, as I've pointed out before, will cost billions more once built as backers demand upgrades, is being sold on two contrary ideas. One is that Wisconsin must provide alternatives to cars for those who can't drive. Backers talk of how many elderly Wisconsinites cannot drive, for instance.
But why would we think seniors and students, these riders of necessity, would prefer trains over a bus that's nearly as fast and half the fare? Why spend scarce resources to replace a perfectly functional ride?
The other idea is that only a train is nice enough to lure people who don't need it, to get the Madison-bound businessman out of the Benz. Meier takes some issue with that: Train backers dream of power outlets and Wi-Fi on trains so commuters can compute, but Meier's buses already have those and satellite TV on seatbacks. "It's a good ride," he said.
But if we're talking the prestige trade, trains will have to be especially nice to overcome the inherent comfort and privacy of a car. Maybe they can on the sensible train trip to downtown Chicago, but light-traffic Madison is far different.
And trains cannot beat cars' greatest advantage: flexibility. They go where you want, rather than where the tracks end, eight miles from the University Research Park. When the biotech industry moves to a new office park on the Beltline, at least Badger Coaches can reroute. Trains? No way.
If the train is to lure drivers away from such convenience, it will have to be much nicer and much faster than what's proposed. Then we will have the spectacle of Wal-Mart clerks in Wausau being taxed still harder to subsidize a train luxurious enough to make well-to-do riders overlook its failings.
Why, again, do our leaders think this idea makes any sense?
TLDR version: Theres a bus company that runs a bus line between Milwaukee and Madison. A ticket costs 1/2 what a train ticket train will(after subsidies), and they only manage to carry 1/3 the number of people every year that the train will need to hit that price point. And it actually can drop people of on campus/near the capital building(I remember it having 3-4 different pickup/drop off points on the way in and out of both cities), so the arrive there just to spend 20min getting where you need to go, isn't nearly as bad as with a train. And they run more trips a day than the train will.
If you really wanted to get people off the roads, subsidize the bus ticket by $26 round trip. That'd make a round trip ticket cost like $5. Which would actually pull people out of their cars, cause it would be cheaper than driving. Rather than expecting people to pay $40 for a less convenience, and all things considered a slower trip.
TLDR version: Theres a bus company that runs a bus line between Milwaukee and Madison. A ticket costs 1/2 what a train ticket train will(after subsidies), and they only manage to carry 1/3 the number of people every year that the train will need to hit that price point. And it actually can drop people of on campus/near the capital building(I remember it having 3-4 different pickup/drop off points on the way in and out of both cities), so the arrive there just to spend 20min getting where you need to go, isn't nearly as bad as with a train. And they run more trips a day than the train will.
If you really wanted to get people off the roads, subsidize the bus ticket by $26 round trip. That'd make a round trip ticket cost like $5. Which would actually pull people out of their cars, cause it would be cheaper than driving. Rather than expecting people to pay $40 for a less convenience, and all things considered a slower trip.
I can't shake the notion that the reason so many urban planners love high speed trains is because they spent time in college backpacking around Europe with a Eurail pass and thought it was the coolest thing ever.
Of course, when you're 20 years old and have no set schedule, hanging out in train stations waiting for the 1:30 to Lyons is a good way to meet other sexually promiscuous students. If you're living in the real world, and live anywhere less densely populated than Germany or the Northeast Corridor, the realities of trying to travel by train over longish distances aren't as appealing.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
It's only a stupid fucking idea if you haven't read anything else in this thread.
No the train won't be economical now, but trains dont spring up over night.
When gas is $6 a gallon get back to me on how stupid of an idea it is.
Edit: I'm not disagreeing with subsidizing the bus ticket either, but if the whole train system was completed you could take a train from madison to st louis, which wouldn't be fun but planes for anything other than essential business travel are going to become a thing of the past unless the US realizes that corn ethanol is stupid and invests in cellulastic or sugar cane ethanol heavily.
If gas goes up to $6 a gallon, more bus companies will open up. If need be, we can subsidize tickets for the poor or whatever.
That seems a lot cheaper and flexible than pumping billions into trains that maybe, potentially, might see more riders sometime in the future, theoretically.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I don't know what you're saying adytum. Are you saying that it sucks? I can agree that housing in the metropolitan areas tend to be... astronomical. For instance, I can have an apartment 10 minutes outside of my city for $600. In the city? That shit jumps to $800 for a fucking loft. No thanks. I'd rather bike to work.
It also seems to be with tourism in mind. Pretty much all the stops were within 1 mile of the thing.
Just saying that what might seem to work well as a tourist downtown on the weekend isn't necessarily as good as it seems for residents. Yeah, the DC Metro can be great, but it's not a reliable mode of transport for the majority of people in the area. The bus systems in DC and VA are hilariously bad, for example.
MM points out some of the other weaknesses.
Ah, well, point taken.
That said it is so far beyond what we have that I'd rather deal with it. That doesn't mean it can't be redesigned. I'm looking forward to X-country high speed rail though, I'd love to be able to visit California without dumping 2 grand into it.
High speed rails is best used for regional transit. Across the country it is still quick and probably easier to fly.
Here is an image of the old proposed high speed rail lines around the US - spoilered for huge sauces.
It still amazes me that they didn't connect the Little Rock and Meridian lines via Memphis.
You could also do KC-Tulsa via Wichita and (the big one) Jacksonville to Orlando. Then you could get from Portland, ME to Miami, FL without leaving the train network.
Also, Pittsburgh-Cleveland and Louisville-Atlanta via Nashville (aka the I-65/I-24 corridors) are pretty obvious connections to make.
Why would you take a train from Maine to Florida though? Thats 1600 miles, aka a long time to sit on a train.
Expedia is giving me ~6 hour(1 stopover flights) for only $240 (including tax).
How much Tulsa to Wichita traffic is there in one day? Thats the biggest problem with all the rail schemes. It'd be really great to connect these 2 cities, with trains, except no one is going to ride the trains, because not that many people do a 150 mile each way commute day to day. And the more intermediate stops you add, the slower the train becomes, and getting off a train in the middle of nowhere just to wait for a ride/take a cab so you can get where you actually need to go kills the train as an appealing/efficient way to travel.
Another example, I'm in Chicago which is Amtrak Central
CHI to DC
Amtrak: on the fastest train 17h30m for $166 from MKE add $22 dollars and 1h30
Or I can fly (with a stop in PHI) from ORD to DCA in 3h35m for $250 from MKE Save $82 and 1h47 cause Airtran has a nonstop to DCA ...its actually 10 cents cheaper to FLY from MKE to DC than it is to take the train, and it takes 1/10th the time.
On the distances people may commute every day rail sucks cause of the overhead of getting to the rail/from the rail. On long distances it sucks cause planes are so much better.
Well yeah, it just seems weird to have these regional networks that are completely unconnected.
I'm well aware that Amtrak is expensive and slow, but we need alternatives to airplanes ready to go for when fuel prices double or triple and suddenly that airline ticket is $500 instead of $160.
Of course, when you're 20 years old and have no set schedule, hanging out in train stations waiting for the 1:30 to Lyons is a good way to meet other sexually promiscuous students. If you're living in the real world, and live anywhere less densely populated than Germany or the Northeast Corridor, the realities of trying to travel by train over longish distances aren't as appealing.
Well the ticket infrastructure for high-speed regional rail would be similar to regional airlines - you buy a ticket and it tells you when the train is leaving and you show up then. I'm not sure what usage scenario you're imagining.
Train ticket $44-$66.(ignoring Cab/Bus fare to actually get to the depots and to your final destination, and the $26 a ticket that some non-hippie tax payer had to chip in) You're clearly right, at $6 a gallon the train MIGHT be cheaper than driving a pick-up truck between MAD and MKE, then again the F150s are getting close to 25 highway now...so maybe not.
And I'll point out that even at $6 a gallon the subsidized bus would only cost $10(the buses get ~200 passenger miles/gallon),
And tin, your post assumes there is only one person travelling in the car. Gas would have to go up dramatically before buying train tickets for a family of 4 becomes cheaper than driving.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
And tin, your post assumes there is only one person travelling in the car. Gas would have to go up dramatically before buying train tickets for a family of 4 becomes cheaper than driving.
Yeah I think people arguing that high speed regional rail is a viable replacement for personal autos is crazy (barring a massive increase in fuel prices). I do think that it would make sense for longer trips (I'm pretty unhappy driving more than 4 hours, but that's a personal thing) that are currently served by small jets (your Embraers and CRJs, maybe even MD-88s) if you want to get there in under 6 hours.
Buses are efficient on a passenger*mile/gallon basis, but they are really really slow for anything beyond the shortest trips. When I was in college I would sometimes take Greyhound from Atlanta to Birmingham (a 2.5 hour drive) and it usually took 3.5 hours.
Besides, anyone whose ever watched Top Gear knows Cars>Trains
DB9 vs french TVG : Winner DB9
GT-R vs Japanese public transport: Winner GT-R
1949 Jaguar Vs 1949 Black Shadow vs 1940s era steam locomotive: Winner Jaguar
And tin, your post assumes there is only one person travelling in the car. Gas would have to go up dramatically before buying train tickets for a family of 4 becomes cheaper than driving.
Yeah I think people arguing that high speed regional rail is a viable replacement for personal autos is crazy (barring a massive increase in fuel prices). I do think that it would make sense for longer trips (I'm pretty unhappy driving more than 4 hours, but that's a personal thing) that are currently served by small jets (your Embraers and CRJs, maybe even MD-88s) if you want to get there in under 6 hours.
Buses are efficient on a passenger*mile/gallon basis, but they are really really slow for anything beyond the shortest trips. When I was in college I would sometimes take Greyhound from Atlanta to Birmingham (a 2.5 hour drive) and it usually took 3.5 hours.
Would high speed rail be a better method for moving CARGO though? Trucker unions are insanely defensive of their jobs, but reducing the number of trucks on the road would also significantly impact congestion. Although truckers are, by far, the most respectful, best net effect drivers in terms of preventing traffic in the first place.
I guess the Madison to Milwaukee isn't really worth it then, although I think we should still expand rail for freight as trucks will be less viable in the future
Still think it'd be great to have the proposed rail system so trips as far south as st louis could easily be accomplished without airplanes.
Yea the more I think about the more it makes sense to expand bus service before trains. It'd be great if every city had bus service like Vegas, even if it wasn't profitable (people can't decide to give up their cars if there isn't reliable mass transit after all)
Would high speed rail be a better method for moving CARGO though? Trucker unions are insanely defensive of their jobs, but reducing the number of trucks on the road would also significantly impact congestion. Although truckers are, by far, the most respectful, best net effect drivers in terms of preventing traffic in the first place.
The US already has an extensively developed freight rail network. IIRC our freight rail usage rates surpass those of Europe. Though they have the advantage of more coastline if I recall correctly, so it isn't a perfect comparison. I don't really see what we would use high speed rail for in lieu of normal freight.
Would high speed rail be a better method for moving CARGO though? Trucker unions are insanely defensive of their jobs, but reducing the number of trucks on the road would also significantly impact congestion. Although truckers are, by far, the most respectful, best net effect drivers in terms of preventing traffic in the first place.
The US already has an extensively developed freight rail network. IIRC our freight rail usage rates surpass those of Europe. Though they have the advantage of more coastline if I recall correctly, so it isn't a perfect comparison. I don't really see what we would use high speed rail for in lieu of normal freight.
Our freight rail network is extensive but much it is in desperate need of repair and modernization
Our freight rail network is extensive but much it is in desperate need of repair and modernization
You have a cite for that? I've never heard of any real problems with our rail network. It isn't really at the mercy of the drought in infrastructure spending that have plagued things like our roads from what I understand since it is privately owned. And the rail companies don't seem all that poorly run in aggregate. Passanger rail is of course a shoddily run mess.
Not trying to be confrontational on that btw. Honestly curious and I couldn't dig up anything really on EBSCO or google.
And tin, your post assumes there is only one person travelling in the car. Gas would have to go up dramatically before buying train tickets for a family of 4 becomes cheaper than driving.
Yeah I think people arguing that high speed regional rail is a viable replacement for personal autos is crazy (barring a massive increase in fuel prices). I do think that it would make sense for longer trips (I'm pretty unhappy driving more than 4 hours, but that's a personal thing) that are currently served by small jets (your Embraers and CRJs, maybe even MD-88s) if you want to get there in under 6 hours.
Buses are efficient on a passenger*mile/gallon basis, but they are really really slow for anything beyond the shortest trips. When I was in college I would sometimes take Greyhound from Atlanta to Birmingham (a 2.5 hour drive) and it usually took 3.5 hours.
Would high speed rail be a better method for moving CARGO though? Trucker unions are insanely defensive of their jobs, but reducing the number of trucks on the road would also significantly impact congestion. Although truckers are, by far, the most respectful, best net effect drivers in terms of preventing traffic in the first place.
I don't think a high-speed freight network would really be necessary. Businesses are pretty good with logistics and typically can account for the travel time of current rail/truck transport effectively. If you're going to spend all of this money, it needs to be an exclusively passenger network (or mixed passengers/freight in the sense of modern airliners).
Would high speed rail be a better method for moving CARGO though? Trucker unions are insanely defensive of their jobs, but reducing the number of trucks on the road would also significantly impact congestion. Although truckers are, by far, the most respectful, best net effect drivers in terms of preventing traffic in the first place.
There doesn't seem to be any real need to shave a few hours off cargo travel time. There's only a very small percentage of cargo that needs to be shipped very quickly, and UPS and Fedex handle that very well. If you're shipping DVD players from LA to Kansas City, shaving off a day of travel time really doesn't make any difference.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Cable from the US embassy in Saudi Arabia, leaded by wikileaks, indicate that Saudi Arabia was overstating its oil reserved by 40%. That means we've pretty much reached peak oil, right now.
Cable from the US embassy in Saudi Arabia, leaded by wikileaks, indicate that Saudi Arabia was overstating its oil reserved by 40%. That means we've pretty much reached peak oil, right now.
Idk, I read it more as Oil Exec says: 'No oil is really scarce now, Crazy oil prices were totally not caused by rampant speculation and market manipulation, scouts honor"
That said I really hope we can transition away from oil sooner rather than later, mostly cause then we can stop caring about the assholes/armpits/taints of the world.
So, should I drop what I'm doing, go check out the survivalist thread we had a while back, and prepare ASAP for the oilpocalypse?
Eh, I think it will be more like a really long recession/depression when prices do actually rise. Which will really suck and will make food even less affordable for the very poor. This means you will have more "locally" grown food that is dependent on seasons. When it is time to find a new car go out looking for a car try and find one that is really fuel efficient or completely electric.
Also reading that leak sounds pretty damn bad if it is even close to accurate. From other things I've read we need Saudi to increase production past 12million bbpd to make up for drops in production from other countries. Sure we will be able to get more oil from those difficult reserves as time goes on but it will be more expensive to obtain.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
If gas goes up to $6 a gallon, more bus companies will open up. If need be, we can subsidize tickets for the poor or whatever.
That seems a lot cheaper and flexible than pumping billions into trains that maybe, potentially, might see more riders sometime in the future, theoretically.
The trains are guaranteed to have riders. Amtrak as it stands is a joke, and nobody actually wants to drive their car from Omaha to Rapid City because you're essentially just driving a train car that will go off the road and flip over and explode if you stop actively paying attention for more than 10 seconds. Or be able to jump down to Lincoln and back just as we ride the bus across the city now. Right now, you have one time of day to catch the train.. near midnight. When the busses in the city are no longer running.
Plus we already have subsidized bus tickets/rides here. If your city doesn't have it, I guess they're just behind the times.
Also, they wouldn't put cargo on HSR. Trucks and freight trains still do that better for the forseeable future, as we have to build seperate tracks for HSR anyway.
Posts
As I understand it, the only problem with widespread electrical care usage would be finding enough of the rare earth metals to make all the batteries. And that can be overcome, it's just a matter of cost right now. It's not true at all that "we can't make enough energy to power 200 million electric vehicles".
Which is why fuel cells where a big thing, because you take two abundant elements and let them create electricity as they become water. And then you can use electricity to separate hydrogen out for refueling stations. The whole process is still more efficient than gasoline or diesel powered cars, but requires new infrastructure to be build for hydrogen stations.
Finding ways to store a lot of electricity is really hard. And current ideas of a car is a small thing that can go anywhere, which makes it even harder.
My money is on batteries or ultra-high-density capacitors when it comes to electric cars.
The solution is for Milwaukee to bring back the trams they got rid of in the 1950s. Their bus system isn't that bad, but you basically have to wait 20 minutes for a bus unless you're on Wisconsin Ave.
Regional rail isn't really going to cut it until they stop subsidizing gasoline to be so cheap (most people don't seem to realize that - outside of oil-producing countries - gas is about twice as expensive as in the US). Or they'll need to work out actual express lines so that trains get places in a timely manner. Where's the 200mph train that makes either of those routes take about 30 minutes?
Synchronous, brushless DC motors are exactly what Toyota and Honda are sticking in their hybrid cars right now, utilizing neodymium magnets.
They're not *that* expensive.
It still amazes me that they didn't connect the Little Rock and Meridian lines via Memphis.
Also, Pittsburgh-Cleveland and Louisville-Atlanta via Nashville (aka the I-65/I-24 corridors) are pretty obvious connections to make.
Why would you take a train from Maine to Florida though? Thats 1600 miles, aka a long time to sit on a train.
Expedia is giving me ~6 hour(1 stopover flights) for only $240 (including tax).
How much Tulsa to Wichita traffic is there in one day? Thats the biggest problem with all the rail schemes. It'd be really great to connect these 2 cities, with trains, except no one is going to ride the trains, because not that many people do a 150 mile each way commute day to day. And the more intermediate stops you add, the slower the train becomes, and getting off a train in the middle of nowhere just to wait for a ride/take a cab so you can get where you actually need to go kills the train as an appealing/efficient way to travel.
Another example, I'm in Chicago which is Amtrak Central
CHI to DC
Amtrak: on the fastest train 17h30m for $166 from MKE add $22 dollars and 1h30
Or I can fly (with a stop in PHI) from ORD to DCA in 3h35m for $250 from MKE Save $82 and 1h47 cause Airtran has a nonstop to DCA ...its actually 10 cents cheaper to FLY from MKE to DC than it is to take the train, and it takes 1/10th the time.
On the distances people may commute every day rail sucks cause of the overhead of getting to the rail/from the rail. On long distances it sucks cause planes are so much better.
I thought the second law of thermodynamics limits efficiency to 75% or so.
Edit: I've also been reading some interesting this over the past few years about ceramic battery/capacitors which over time might be able to shrink to fit in a car.
The new Wisconsin Governor's first act as Governor was to say "don't start building high speed rail because I'll pull workers off the line the second I take power, SOCIALSIMSAISMSIMS"
its not a heat engine so the limit is higher. But thermodynamically imposed efficiency limits are a meaningless way to compare engines, because 1) they are never at that limit and 2) supply chain energy can't be discounted.
Take LNG plant powering an electric vehicle for example, you need to refine and compress the NG, put it on a ship, which uses it to power itself and keep it refrigerate, re-vaporizing it so its useful can cost you 5% of the total energy in your tanker, its then used in a combined cycle plant thats 60% efficient, you lose 6.5% in transmission lines, then put it into a car that stores it in batteries at some x% efficency, before using that to drive motors that are y% efficent, and then theres average energy lost to road friction/drag/breaking etc etc.
so even if your battery->wheel is running at 95% efficiency...thats not a 1:1 comparison to a compressed natural gas ICE thats maybe only 40% engine to wheels, which has its own entire set of supply chain inefficiencies.
I would like to quibble over this point. The DC Metro sucks giant fucking monkey balls, and if parking and road infrastructure would allow it, everyone would be infinitely happier driving. HOWEVER. Given that it is completely impossible for everyone in the area to commute by driving daily, the metro does serve its purpose reliably and acceptably. 75% of the people I know rely on the metro trains and buses for their daily commutes to work. No one has ever been fired for being unable to get to work reliably. 25% of the people I know in the area don't even own cars.
The metro system is hilariously badly managed, and is by no means a perfect system. If the population continues to expand, we're utterly fucked since metro is at capacity and the roads have been at capacity for years. However, as it is, the metro is a serviceable system and business around here is able to rely on it.
CC didn't say that. ;-)
You're not saying anything I wasn't. It's an adequate system in some ways, but it utterly fails to deal with a lot of the widespread traffic problems in the area. It might seem "great" like Bowen said if you're in town for a weekend, and staying downtown. Other parts of WMATA, like MetroBus, are horrible everywhere. I've had so many problems in D.C. waiting or buses, and the schedules in the suburbs are laughable.
Stupid quote trees.
The bus schedules in the suburbs are definitely wretched, and I would never want to catch a bus without using one of the phone apps to make sure I wasn't stuck waiting for an hour.
Saying that it "fails to deal with the widespread traffic problems" is like saying that antibiotics fail to deal with global infections. It's a systemic problem far beyond the reach of a simple solution. The Metro system is pretty impressive compared to most of its peers. Tallest midget, if you will.
No its cause the train is a stupid fucking idea.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/87280437.html is probably the best explanation why.
Mind you, Meier, third generation in his family to run Badger Coaches, says his company will work with whatever rail service the Doyle administration installs. At the moment, the $810 million plan is for trains that top out at 110 mph between three stops on the way to a station at Madison's airport. Or maybe, for a slight additional fortune, a new station on an undistinguished corner of Madison's east side two miles from downtown.
This will carry, the state reckons, 372,000 people a year at $44 to $66 per round trip. The ridership's important because the more paying passengers, the better the chance we can hold the taxpayer subsidy merely to the $26 per ride we now contribute to Amtrak service from Milwaukee to Chicago.
Meier's buses, which run six round trips a day, carry about 120,000 people a year. "Mostly, it's college kids," he said, though there are commuters. "We get some attorneys who will go back and forth," he said.
You, by the way, pay nothing for this: Buses pay a lower diesel fuel tax, a savings amounting to 6 cents a rider, but taxpayers didn't buy his buses or build him a bus-only road for $810 million. "We've had not one tax dollar given to us," he said.
Trains will carry, the state figures, three times what Badger does. Presuming they drive his company entirely out of business, they'd still have to lure twice again as many people out of cars to make even their subsidized numbers work. Backers say it'll happen because trains are so much cooler than buses.
But consider: Badger recently stopped running buses to what had been its Madison station, west of the Capitol. It instead makes scheduled stops at a park-and-ride lot and curbside on the University of Wisconsin's campus. Few riders, Meier said, actually wanted to get on or off at the station. So why bother?
"That's one of the advantages as a bus," he said. "If a stop isn't very popular, we can stop going there."
And go instead where passengers want, rather than where the tracks go. Or when passengers want: Meier says his buses don't sell out because "we know when we have to add extra buses. It's really easy to do."
The train idea, which, as I've pointed out before, will cost billions more once built as backers demand upgrades, is being sold on two contrary ideas. One is that Wisconsin must provide alternatives to cars for those who can't drive. Backers talk of how many elderly Wisconsinites cannot drive, for instance.
But why would we think seniors and students, these riders of necessity, would prefer trains over a bus that's nearly as fast and half the fare? Why spend scarce resources to replace a perfectly functional ride?
The other idea is that only a train is nice enough to lure people who don't need it, to get the Madison-bound businessman out of the Benz. Meier takes some issue with that: Train backers dream of power outlets and Wi-Fi on trains so commuters can compute, but Meier's buses already have those and satellite TV on seatbacks. "It's a good ride," he said.
But if we're talking the prestige trade, trains will have to be especially nice to overcome the inherent comfort and privacy of a car. Maybe they can on the sensible train trip to downtown Chicago, but light-traffic Madison is far different.
And trains cannot beat cars' greatest advantage: flexibility. They go where you want, rather than where the tracks end, eight miles from the University Research Park. When the biotech industry moves to a new office park on the Beltline, at least Badger Coaches can reroute. Trains? No way.
If the train is to lure drivers away from such convenience, it will have to be much nicer and much faster than what's proposed. Then we will have the spectacle of Wal-Mart clerks in Wausau being taxed still harder to subsidize a train luxurious enough to make well-to-do riders overlook its failings.
Why, again, do our leaders think this idea makes any sense?
TLDR version: Theres a bus company that runs a bus line between Milwaukee and Madison. A ticket costs 1/2 what a train ticket train will(after subsidies), and they only manage to carry 1/3 the number of people every year that the train will need to hit that price point. And it actually can drop people of on campus/near the capital building(I remember it having 3-4 different pickup/drop off points on the way in and out of both cities), so the arrive there just to spend 20min getting where you need to go, isn't nearly as bad as with a train. And they run more trips a day than the train will.
If you really wanted to get people off the roads, subsidize the bus ticket by $26 round trip. That'd make a round trip ticket cost like $5. Which would actually pull people out of their cars, cause it would be cheaper than driving. Rather than expecting people to pay $40 for a less convenience, and all things considered a slower trip.
Of course, when you're 20 years old and have no set schedule, hanging out in train stations waiting for the 1:30 to Lyons is a good way to meet other sexually promiscuous students. If you're living in the real world, and live anywhere less densely populated than Germany or the Northeast Corridor, the realities of trying to travel by train over longish distances aren't as appealing.
Rigorous Scholarship
No the train won't be economical now, but trains dont spring up over night.
When gas is $6 a gallon get back to me on how stupid of an idea it is.
Edit: I'm not disagreeing with subsidizing the bus ticket either, but if the whole train system was completed you could take a train from madison to st louis, which wouldn't be fun but planes for anything other than essential business travel are going to become a thing of the past unless the US realizes that corn ethanol is stupid and invests in cellulastic or sugar cane ethanol heavily.
That seems a lot cheaper and flexible than pumping billions into trains that maybe, potentially, might see more riders sometime in the future, theoretically.
Rigorous Scholarship
Well yeah, it just seems weird to have these regional networks that are completely unconnected.
I'm well aware that Amtrak is expensive and slow, but we need alternatives to airplanes ready to go for when fuel prices double or triple and suddenly that airline ticket is $500 instead of $160.
Well the ticket infrastructure for high-speed regional rail would be similar to regional airlines - you buy a ticket and it tells you when the train is leaving and you show up then. I'm not sure what usage scenario you're imagining.
180 mile round trip
20MPG = 9.0 gallons = $53.00
25MPG = 7.2 gallons = $43.20
30MPG = 6.0 gallons = $36.00
Train ticket $44-$66.(ignoring Cab/Bus fare to actually get to the depots and to your final destination, and the $26 a ticket that some non-hippie tax payer had to chip in) You're clearly right, at $6 a gallon the train MIGHT be cheaper than driving a pick-up truck between MAD and MKE, then again the F150s are getting close to 25 highway now...so maybe not.
And I'll point out that even at $6 a gallon the subsidized bus would only cost $10(the buses get ~200 passenger miles/gallon),
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah I think people arguing that high speed regional rail is a viable replacement for personal autos is crazy (barring a massive increase in fuel prices). I do think that it would make sense for longer trips (I'm pretty unhappy driving more than 4 hours, but that's a personal thing) that are currently served by small jets (your Embraers and CRJs, maybe even MD-88s) if you want to get there in under 6 hours.
Buses are efficient on a passenger*mile/gallon basis, but they are really really slow for anything beyond the shortest trips. When I was in college I would sometimes take Greyhound from Atlanta to Birmingham (a 2.5 hour drive) and it usually took 3.5 hours.
DB9 vs french TVG : Winner DB9
GT-R vs Japanese public transport: Winner GT-R
1949 Jaguar Vs 1949 Black Shadow vs 1940s era steam locomotive: Winner Jaguar
Would high speed rail be a better method for moving CARGO though? Trucker unions are insanely defensive of their jobs, but reducing the number of trucks on the road would also significantly impact congestion. Although truckers are, by far, the most respectful, best net effect drivers in terms of preventing traffic in the first place.
Still think it'd be great to have the proposed rail system so trips as far south as st louis could easily be accomplished without airplanes.
Yea the more I think about the more it makes sense to expand bus service before trains. It'd be great if every city had bus service like Vegas, even if it wasn't profitable (people can't decide to give up their cars if there isn't reliable mass transit after all)
The US already has an extensively developed freight rail network. IIRC our freight rail usage rates surpass those of Europe. Though they have the advantage of more coastline if I recall correctly, so it isn't a perfect comparison. I don't really see what we would use high speed rail for in lieu of normal freight.
Our freight rail network is extensive but much it is in desperate need of repair and modernization
You have a cite for that? I've never heard of any real problems with our rail network. It isn't really at the mercy of the drought in infrastructure spending that have plagued things like our roads from what I understand since it is privately owned. And the rail companies don't seem all that poorly run in aggregate. Passanger rail is of course a shoddily run mess.
Not trying to be confrontational on that btw. Honestly curious and I couldn't dig up anything really on EBSCO or google.
I don't think a high-speed freight network would really be necessary. Businesses are pretty good with logistics and typically can account for the travel time of current rail/truck transport effectively. If you're going to spend all of this money, it needs to be an exclusively passenger network (or mixed passengers/freight in the sense of modern airliners).
Rigorous Scholarship
Cable from the US embassy in Saudi Arabia, leaded by wikileaks, indicate that Saudi Arabia was overstating its oil reserved by 40%. That means we've pretty much reached peak oil, right now.
Idk, I read it more as Oil Exec says: 'No oil is really scarce now, Crazy oil prices were totally not caused by rampant speculation and market manipulation, scouts honor"
That said I really hope we can transition away from oil sooner rather than later, mostly cause then we can stop caring about the assholes/armpits/taints of the world.
Eh, I think it will be more like a really long recession/depression when prices do actually rise. Which will really suck and will make food even less affordable for the very poor. This means you will have more "locally" grown food that is dependent on seasons. When it is time to find a new car go out looking for a car try and find one that is really fuel efficient or completely electric.
Also reading that leak sounds pretty damn bad if it is even close to accurate. From other things I've read we need Saudi to increase production past 12million bbpd to make up for drops in production from other countries. Sure we will be able to get more oil from those difficult reserves as time goes on but it will be more expensive to obtain.
Like most of the Wikileaks cables, it was just confirming something that was already pretty widely assumed to be the case.
The trains are guaranteed to have riders. Amtrak as it stands is a joke, and nobody actually wants to drive their car from Omaha to Rapid City because you're essentially just driving a train car that will go off the road and flip over and explode if you stop actively paying attention for more than 10 seconds. Or be able to jump down to Lincoln and back just as we ride the bus across the city now. Right now, you have one time of day to catch the train.. near midnight. When the busses in the city are no longer running.
Plus we already have subsidized bus tickets/rides here. If your city doesn't have it, I guess they're just behind the times.
Also, they wouldn't put cargo on HSR. Trucks and freight trains still do that better for the forseeable future, as we have to build seperate tracks for HSR anyway.