Drew Dowdell

Terrain does indeed play a factor, which is why HS rail isn't suited for all routes. I'm not familiar enough with the proposed route in CA, but I do assume a large part of the extra high cost is tunnel and bridge associated. A big thing would be the need for moderate speed rail (90mph-110mph) in lieu of HS rail (150mph-180mph) to connect those smaller places. Keep in mind that moderate speed rail is still pretty good. A trip from Pittsburgh to DC (my typical benchmark if you've noticed) would be about 3 hours.... it would still beat air time and cost, but would be much cheaper to build. Seriously? Try again. Highways are most certainly subsidized. Just because the tax is paid at the pump instead of out of your IRS withholding doesn't mean it's not subsidized. It's subsidized by every purchase you make that was shipped over the highways. Anything you buy at Amazon.com subsidizes the Interstate. But still, I'm not saying I want to eliminate highways... I want to supplement them. It's adding a choice for travelers. It's allowing more mobility. Aren't choice and population mobility two of your pet causes? Even 150mph is doable and would be competative. It's easy to run super cheap NYC-DC buses when you're doing it illegally. More then one of those buses has been impounded in NYC already. I"m still trying to figure out the economics of them. I don't see how they pay for fuel much less driver, maintenance, and equipment costs. No, not really. Population density around airports is typically a lot lower than downtown areas. Think about getting out to Reagen National... unless you happen to live within a few miles of it, getting to the airport is going to be a chore. You're either going to have to drive yourself (and pay through the ass to park), take a cab, take a car service, or take a Blue line train. If you're limited to public transit in the DC area, you most likely have an easier time getting to Union Station that Reagan National. Same is true here in Pittsburgh. I can be at Pennsylvania Station in 15 minutes by bus... a vast majority of the city can do it in under 30 minutes even with our craptastic transit system. Unless you're in the southwestern part of Pittsburgh, getting to the airport will take you at least 45 minutes by car and over an hour by bus. For me personally, it's a 2 hour trek because I have to change buses in downtown and there is a wait between them. I think CA might be a bit different from the rest of the nation in that regard. The number of roadtrips to Las Vegas alone is enough to distort that number. The increase in Airline fuel economy is only because they are being forced to retire older planes. Most of the "commuter" lines run jets that are at least 15 years old. You could still see 30+ year old 737s coming in and out of LGA (they have a distinctive engine shape and note) as recently as 2008. The 737 is one of the most popular jet liners in service... but it'd been around forever. As they get phased out there will be a large jump in efficiency.

4.9 hours? I.C.E. could do it in 3.5 hours or less. Non-stop to LA would be 2 hours flat. Getting to Santa Monica... well you'd need Regional rail most likely, I doubt HS rail would go there from LA.

Yes, freight is a LOT more efficient on rail than by truck for long distances. It was so good in fact, that during the run up of fuel costs prior to the market crash, all the major freight railroads were experiencing capacity problems. You can also do some interesting efficiency tricks if it's electric. If you time the schedule properly, you can have decelerating trains feed power back into the wires to power trains accelerating out of stations. Back in the 1930s, The Virginian RR was hauling record amounts of coal. It used electric locomotives for their strong torque. They timed the trains so that as one loaded with coal was headed down the mountain, another train with empty cars would head up the mountain on a parallel track. The descending loaded train would literally power the empty train up the mountain.

I picked 800 miles because that is just over the driving distance from NYC to Chicago (788 miles). A DeutscheBahn I.C.E. train could complete the trip in about 4.3 hours non-stop. The I.C.E could even have 6 stops along the way <they usually only stop for 10 minutes> and still tie the airlines in a race. The best flight from LaGuardia is 2 hours 21 minutes "wheels up" to "wheels down" Add: 30 minutes runway taxiing total 1.5 hours at check in, security, and boarding (I'm being charitable here) 30 minutes baggage pickup 45 minutes getting from Mid-town to LGA 45 minutes getting from O Hare to downtown Chicago (again being charitable) edit: You could have the following station stops: New York City, Scranton PA, Binghamton NY, Erie PA, Cleveland OH, Toledo OH, South Bend IN, and Chicago IL. = Total 899 miles, 6 hours

I want to be sure to frame the parameters of the debate: High Speed Rail is for connecting urban centers, probably over 200k people, and for distances over 100miles and under 800 miles. ' More than 800 miles, and Air travel is more time efficient. Less than 200k people and regional rail (sub-75mph) is more cost efficient.

Except like... now? I've already shown where Amtrak has better than 50% market share in the markets it serves with HS rail. How is that not major? Amtrak's service isn't even as good as it could be because some of it's infrastructure is too old to handle 180mph trains. Once those infrastructure improvements are completed, the Acela's top speed will be even higher. That's like saying "the car will fail because roads have been around since the Roman age" Watch that video I posted and try telling me that's 1930's technology.......

True. Quite simply.... false.

K... lets look at that "good stuff" 1. "The French travel by car 20 times as much, and by air 3 times as much" As always, lies, damn lies, and statistics....the parameters of their travel aren't defined. It would be rather stupid to travel by HS rail to the grocery store..just as it would be stupid to land a 737 at the mall. Similarly, define the air travel as "in the EU-25". As I've said earlier, HS rail is best when the distance is around 800 miles or below, but Europe offers other problems as well.... two big ones... the Alpes and the Mediterranean. One would NEVER take the TGV from Paris to Rome... Get me the statistics for long distance travel inside France.... 2. Ditto for Japan, except bureaucrats got involved and ran up the debt... You don't run HS rail to every little village out there.. It's for major urban centers. Use slower regional rail for the smaller towns. 3. Page 21 of the PDF you posted cites figures of $25m per mile for high speed in Florida and $67m per mile in California. These numbers are supposed to scare people... but it only works as a scare number if they don't know the cost of highway generally starts at $30m per mile and goes up from there. Want interchanges? Add another $30m per interchange. Need a tunnel? There's another $10 million to start. Need a river crossing bridge? Base models start in the $20 million range. Be sure to ask about rust proof under coating..... 4. On page 41, the author compares travel times of HS rail to Air.... but he only compares the "wheels up" to "wheels down" air travel time.... Do I really need to go over that again? I can drive to DC faster than I can fly there.... don't tell me that rail at 180mph would be slower than total air travel time. 5. On page 41, the author complains that rail travel only serves downtown areas and states that only the wealthy 1% would have access to it. However 78% of American live in a metropolitan area with more then 200k people. Those areas already have strong infrastructure in place to get people downtown and onto a train. Conversely, if you don't drive yourself to an airport, you have to take a cab, hire a shuttle, or take public transit that doesn't enjoy the regularity of service that being in downtown provides. 6. Page 46 just makes &#036;h&#33; up... and you know how I feel about that. It makes up the statistic that most intercity car travel has 2.4 passengers... the only published statistics I could find were in the 1.7 range.... It makes up the statistic that Amtrak trains are only 50% full... I assume he is counting all Amtrak, even the lines with poor service. Again, build a crappy system and it will run crappy. In markets where Amtrak offers good service, the trains are usually packed. I'm not sure how he is even measuring airline efficiencies.... but if he is talking about the seats... they feel way more then 3% smaller. 7. Because of #6, pages 48-54 are bunk. I like this.... you should send me your anti-government Powerpoint presentations more often.

Well... 180mph. Most high speed rail caps out at 300kmh... which is 180kmh. There is one line in China on traditional rail that runs up to 350kph which is about 217mph. After that you get the 500kph Chinese MagLev... which is far to costly to be viable. The French TGV can get to within 5kph (3 mph) of Mag Lev speeds on conventional rail, but there isn't any service scheduled that fast. <div style="background:#000000;width:440px;height:272px"><embed flashVars="playerVars=showStats=yes|autoPlay=no|videoTitle=World's Fastest Rail Train TGV 574,8 KPH Inside Footage" src="http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/508521/worlds_fastest_rail_train_tgv_574_8_kph_inside_footage.swf" width="440" height="272" wmode="transparent" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" name="Metacafe_508521" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></div><div style="font-size:12px;"><a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/508521/worlds_fastest_rail_train_tgv_574_8_kph_inside_footage/">World's Fastest Rail Train TGV 574,8 KPH Inside Footage</a> - <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/">Click here for more blooper videos</a></div>

If you build a crap system, it will run like crap. If you build a system that will get people from Philly to NYC in an hour, they'll ride it. DeutcheBahn posts a profit from it's passenger operations. The last time we were there, Albert and I couldn't even sit next to each other because there were no double seats available. I'm sure the Germans have seen the error of their ways in the past 12 months, so I'll let you know how decrepit the system has gotten when I'm back over there next month. Oh yea, our ticket for the 116 mile trip from Frankfurt to Cologne (which takes 55 minutes to complete) will cost 29 euro each (about $37.50) Autobahn robbery I tell you... Autobahn robbery! But still even with the poor state of repair Amtrak is in,you can't claim people aren't riding it in the markets where it offers a competitive time/cost equation. The railroad, which gets operating cash from taxpayers, carried 65 percent of air or rail travelers from New York to Washington and 52 percent from New York to Boston, Boardman said. The previous market-share record was 63 percent to Washington and 50 percent to Boston since Acela began service in 2001, according to Amtrak. Amtrak has better then 50% market share over all the airlines combined! Before you even begin to yelp about subsidies.... the North East Corridor is where Amtrak makes most of it's revenue. It's the lines where service is slow (thus low value cost/time equation) where Amtrak loses money. They wouldn't be running 48 trains per day, one way, between NYC & Philly, if they were losing money on the service. Edit: I have to come back and fix your revisionist history also. The trains died in the 1950s because of heavy government regulation AND the ill effects from the war AND that giant federally paid subsidy called the "Eisenhower Interstate System"

High speed rail can be competitive with air travel (time wise) for up to about an 800 mile radius. That means NYC to Chicago could be a 5 hour trip via rail. It easily takes that long via air. The fastest flight from LGA to ORD is 2h21m... that's just "wheels up" to "wheels down". Add on check in, baggage claim, boarding, runway taxiing, travel time to LGA, travel time from O'Hare, security check..... you're well over the 5 hour mark. Pittsburgh to Chicago would be about 3 hours via HS rail. The fastest flight is 1h 30m "wheels up" to "wheels down", but then I have all the overhead time of just getting to the airport and on the plane. Getting high speed rail would open up a LOT of travel availability to people. Washington DC, Chicago, Columbus, even NYC all become day trips for people in Pittsburgh. The airlines have made that impossible. I wouldn't DREAM of flying to DC anymore... I'd rather drive... I can make it there faster, cheaper, and more comfortably. I will NEVER understand all the pushback against high speed rail... if you're not a first class passenger, the airlines hate you and wish you'd just go away. Why not give them some competition?

Next Gen Dodge Durango spied outside of Denver Member GM4Life snapped these pics of the next generation Dodge Durango on I-76 about 75 miles south of Denver. Related: Dodge Durango name confirmed Dodge Durango Interior exposed Dodge Durango Rendered

It's rare that I agree with CSpec, but in this case I do. HOWEVER, I also feel there should be heavy public subsidy (at least initially) to light rail and bus systems. If you don't give people an alternative to driving, you'll just create traffic jams when you cut down on parking spaces.

No. Free Parking causes cars.

Remember, we're not allowed to have trains. That would be socialism. .I am predicting this thread will get moved rather soon.

Couldn't it also be used to give pushrod V6es a new lease on life?

I liked Big Ed. I wished he stuck around longer. I like the no-nonsense attitude.

Supposedly, on the highway those 3100 Malibus were more efficient than 4-cylinder Camry's because the top gear was lower.

I don't know where they're getting new numbers for old cars. I doubt they're going back and retesting them.

GM Announces CEO Succession Process Dan Akerson to Become CEO, Whitacre Remains Chairman DETROIT – General Motors today said that Edward E. Whitacre, Jr. will step down as chief executive officer on September 1, 2010, and as chairman of the board by the end of the year, having successfully led the company's return to profitability after the most turbulent period in its history. Ed Whitacre stepping down as CEO

GM Announces CEO Succession Process Dan Akerson to Become CEO, Whitacre Remains Chairman DETROIT – General Motors today said that Edward E. Whitacre, Jr. will step down as chief executive officer on September 1, 2010, and as chairman of the board by the end of the year, having successfully led the company's return to profitability after the most turbulent period in its history. Earlier today, GM reported its second consecutive quarter of profits after a string of losses dating back to 2007. Dan Akerson, 61, who has served on the GM board of directors since July 2009, will become CEO on September 1 and chairman by the end of the year, ensuring a smooth transition and continued positive momentum for company. "My goal in coming to General Motors was to help restore profitability, build a strong market position, and position this iconic company for success," said Whitacre. "We are clearly on that path. A strong foundation is in place and I am comfortable with the timing of my decision." Whitacre, 68, joined GM as chairman of the board on July 10, 2009. On December 1, 2009, he was named chief executive officer. He led the company after it emerged from a historic bankruptcy to become a profitable automaker again. "Ed Whitacre was exactly what this company needed, at exactly the right time," said Pat Russo, lead director on the GM board. "He simplified the organization, reshaped the company's vision, put the right people in place, and brought renewed energy and optimism to GM." "Dan Akerson has been actively engaged in and supportive of the key decisions and changes made at the new GM. He brings broad business experience, decisive leadership, and continuity to this role," said Russo. "The board of directors deeply appreciates the leadership Ed has provided and is pleased with the serious commitment Dan is making to the company. We look forward to his leadership." In addition to serving on the GM board since July 2009, Akerson has had a distinguished career in finance as a managing director at the Carlyle Group and in telecommunication, serving as chairman and chief executive officer of XO Communications and at Nextel Communications. He was also chairman and CEO of General Instrument Corp. "There are remarkable opportunities ahead for the new GM, and I am honored to lead the company through this next chapter," said Akerson. "Ed Whitacre established a foundation upon which we will continue building a great automobile company."

Did you even read the entirety of my initial post on this? I address the fuel efficiency concerns AND the cost of energy during production concerns. There is lower caloric content of the fuel but more of the caloric content can be extracted (as a percentage) than can be done with low octane gasoline. All of the numbers you've posted are true for CORN ethanol. Stuff like kelp, algae and brewery waste can be produced at a small fraction of the cost of corn ethanol and at a faster rate as well. Right now the entire ethanol v. petroleum market is distorted because of the Corn lobby and the Oil lobby.

Again, none of these are the only solution. Stop picking out just one basket in my post to put all your eggs in. The great thing about ethanol is that you can use many different biomasses. You can build kelp tanks at electrical plants AND off shore kelp farms AND algae tanks in the great lakes AND sugar cane fields in Alabama AND use waste byproducts of breweries in Virginia AND switch grass from Kansas AND sawdust from North Dakota AND sugar beats from Georgia AND farm waste from Iowa AND.....the list goes on. It may be a viable fuel, but the economy has already shown it can't handle sustained $4 a gallon gasoline. I want us to end this hostage situation we're in from using so much imported fuel.

Take away the 70-some billion in subsidies that Big Oil and Big Coal get..... and see how economical it is then. You ignored the entire part of my post about algae and kelp. Why? It takes very minimal energy to cultivate it and you can even run the exhaust of an electrical plant through the kelp tanks to greatly increase growth (it both keeps them warm and provides LOTs of CO2) I wasn't arguing from an environmental perspective at all. Simply an economics supply and demand issue. Demand for petroleum is going up while supply is peaking. And in 2060... we do what exactly? Your strategy is roughly similar to Henry Ford saying "that whole automobile thing will NEVER take off.... maybe in 60 years we'll see something. No what we need is more efficient buggie whip production!". Or GM saying "Eh, the Electric car may come out sometime in 2050, in the meantime we'll just build 1985 Cavaliers till then" Just remember. For every $1 the government "wastes" on renewable energy. It "invests" $12 in fossil fuel development. I want to flip that equation the other way.... but whatever your stance on government spending is, you can at least admit that the renewable energy isn't getting a fair shake on the balance sheet.

My point is that there are more people clamoring for a diminishing resource. The oil field in the Gulf that BP was drilling for was considered a "major" find..... yet it doesn't even rank in the top 20 oil fields in the world in terms of size. Further, Saudi Arabia has been lying...for YEARS about their "proven" reserves. My point behind all of this is thus: Why can't we be the leader in alternative fuel production? 1. E85/Ethanol is frequently cited as an energy sink. That is true when corn is used as the base biomass for the E85. Other base biomasses don't share that trait. 2. Algae and Kelp can be farmed with minimal cultivation energy input. In fact, both can be used as CO2 scrubbers for large scale electric generation plants fired by fossil fuels. 3. Algae and kelp can be farmed in tanks, in rivers, in lakes, or out in the open ocean. 4. E85 truly is "FlexFuel" because the fermenting process is basically the same no matter the input biomass. If you've got corn, or algae, or kelp, or grass clippings... fine, just throw it in the pot. Now to address some of the common arguments against using E85: 1. "It's not as efficient per gallon." - So what? The cost is being made artificially high because we're primarily using labor/fuel intensive corn as the base biomass. Switch to another biomass. 2. "It's not as efficient per gallon." - If you're running it through an engine that was originally designed for gasoline, this is true. But this is also like complaining that your gas engine doesn't run too well when you put diesel fuel in it. A typical E85 engine is something like the 3.5 V6 in the Impala. The Impala 3.5 has a relatively modest (these days) 9.5:1 compression ratio. But E85 has an octane equivalency of 110.. which means it can handle substantially higher compression ratios than normal gas. The Opel Corsa sold in Brazil comes with an alcohol burning 1.4 litre 4 cylinder that has an eye popping 12.4:1 compression ratio. This is a rudimentary engine by today's standards. 8 valves, no VVT, no direct injection. It makes 99hp in that form. To put that compression ratio into some perspective. Even the Ecotec Turbo and Ford Ecoboost V6 are only at 9.5 - 10:1 compression. The only car I can find that even approaches the little, old school, Corsa's compression ratio is the12:1 in the BMW V10 M5. Where am I going with this? Everyone here has noticed the trend to downsize displacement lately. Direct Injection and Turbochargers are finally starting to do away with the old "no replacement for displacement" line. I want everyone to put on their imagination caps now. We're going to do some hypothetical surgery: Let's take the Malibu with it's 169hp 2.4 litre. It's a 16 valve engine with VVT. Yet if we look at the old rudimentary Corsa's 8valve non-VVT engine, we find it makes 70.71hp/liter. If we sized it up to the same 2.4 litres the Malibu uses... we get 169hp.. and that's without using another 8 valves or any sort of VVT system. So let's make the goal keeping the Malibu's performance the same, but downsizing the engine. We know that adding 8 more valves can add about 30hp as shown in the Petrol 8v 1.8vers the Petrol 16v 1.8 We also know that adding direct injection can add about 12 hp as shown in the Malibu 2.4 v. Equinox 2.4 Adding those two technologies to the Corsa engine would make an engine capable of about 140hp.... out of a 1.4 litre... That's 100hp/litre without using a turbo. So, in order to size it appropriately to fit our car. We'd need a 1.7 litre I4 that ran on just 110 octane E85. Anyone here need help figuring out how a 1.7 litre Malibu with the same horsepower would be equal or more efficient per gallon than a 2.4 litre even with the reduced energy content of the fuel? And all of this isn't for political or "green" reasons. It simply would switch us away from a diminishing resource to one that we can grow more of when we need it and in doing so greatly stabilize the worlds economies while allowing us to continue driving as we see fit.