Drew Dowdell

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 $h! 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.

Where the oil comes from factors only minimally and any difference is only in the cost of shipping. Oil that is pumped in Saudi Arabia goes to the same world market as the oil that is pumped in Oil City, PA and then sold to the highest bidder. It's not political. It's not environmental. It's just plan old economic supply and demand. Two points from this: 1. Most of the U.S. has been tapped out. Any further finds are not likely to be large enough to make a material change in the price of gasoline. 2. The are a whole bunch of people in India and China who are going to land on that demand side of the equation in the next 10 years.

Can I haz diesel too? :cry:

One of the reasons I don't like tinted glass is that at night I have difficulty seeing out of it. The electrochromatic glass would be perfect for me.

What is the point of this over something like Mobile 1? Anything?

Chevrolet-Buick-GMC-Cadillac Sales Up 25 Percent in July 2010-08-03 Steady progress in rebuilding sales one year after launch of new GM Calendar-year-to-date sales for GM's four brands up 31 percent Tenth month in a row that GM's four brands have increased retail and total sales Strong Buick and Cadillac sales show balance of GM brand portfolio DETROIT – July sales for Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac increased by a combined 25 percent to 199,432 units. Buick and Cadillac brands each sold more than twice as many vehicles in July, compared with the same month a year ago. July marks the 10th straight month in which total and retail sales for GM's brands increased year-over-year, demonstrating the continued strengthening of each brand in the marketplace as GM continues to rebuild momentum a year after its launch as a new company. "When we say we want to design, build and sell the world's best vehicles, we're not talking about just one vehicle, one brand, or one month," said Don Johnson, vice president, U.S. Sales Operations. "Our July results again reflect that each of our brands has contributed significantly to our gains. "The size and scope of the U.S. market demands a strong portfolio of well-targeted brands," Johnson said. "The success of Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac month in and month out, indicates that the new GM's brand strategy is sound." Buick sold 16,799 vehicles in July, a 137-percent increase over last year. Cadillac delivered 14,919 units, up 142 percent over July last year. These are the highest sales totals for the two brands since August 2008. Chevrolet total sales in July increased 12 percent compared to July last year, and GMC total sales were up 27 percent compared with the same month last year. GM's newest vehicles including Chevrolet Camaro and Equinox, Buick LaCrosse and Regal, GMC Terrain, and Cadillac SRX, CTS Coupe and CTS Wagon continue to contribute significant sales gains. Total combined sales for these vehicles were up 77 percent in July and are up 211 percent yeartodate. GM further strengthened its position as the industry leader in crossover sales. Total combined sales in July for the Chevrolet Equinox, HHR and Traverse, Buick Enclave, GMC Terrain and Acadia, and Cadillac SRX increased 41 percent in July and have risen 73 percent so far this year. Combined total sales for GM's full-size pickups, the Chevrolet Silverado and Avalanche, and the GMC Sierra, were up 22 percent during the month, with year-to-date sales 14 percent higher than a year ago. Year-To-Date Gains Reflect Balanced Contribution of Brands Year-to-date total sales for GM's four brands have risen 31 percent to 1,269,009 units, while retail sales for GM's brands have risen 18 percent – outpacing the industry. "Our four brands have sold 125,210 more vehicles this year than our former company sold with eight brands during the same period last year," Johnson said. "This gain has been a result of solid consumer demand across our lineup of cars, trucks, and crossovers." Chevrolet has led the increase with total sales 28 percent higher through July, compared to 2009. Retail sales for Chevrolet have increased 12 percent for the year, propelled by the strong retail sales of the Chevrolet Malibu, Camaro, Silverado, Equinox, and Traverse, which are up a combined 33 percent for the year. Buick remains one of the industry's fastest-growing brands, with total sales 60 percent higher than 2009 through July. In the first seven months of the year, retail sales of Buicks have increased 41 percent on the strength of LaCrosse and Enclave which are up 175 and 14 percent, respectively. GMC total sales through July are 28 percent higher than 2009. The brand's retail sales have increased 30 percent yeartodate on the strength of the GMC Terrain, Sierra and Acadia – up 326 percent, 13 percent and 21 percent respectively. Total sales for Cadillac are up 46 percent for the year through July. Retail sales for the brand are 32 percent higher this year, with the all-new Cadillac SRX surging 487 percent – leading it to gain the most market share in the luxury crossover segment so far this year. Month-end dealer inventory in the U.S. stood at about 424,000 units, which is about 15,000 units below June 2010, and about 43,000 lower than July 2009. July Key Facts and Brand Results: Tenth consecutive month of total and retail sales gains for GM's four brands. Seventh consecutive month that sales for Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac have increased by 20 percent or more. Tenth consecutive month that GM crossovers have increased by more than 30 percent. Sixth month in a row of total sales improvement for GM's full-size pickups. Fifth consecutive month of double-digit retail sales increases for GM's brands. Tenth consecutive month of retail sales increases for GM passenger cars. Chevrolet: Chevrolet delivered 139,916 vehicles in July, a 12 percent gain year-over-year. Year-to-date total sales are up 28 percent . Buick: Buick posted a 137 percent sales increase in July compared to the same month last year. Driven by customer demand for the LaCrosse and all-new Regal, retail sales rose 104 percent. GMC: GMC reported a 27 percent increase in total sales in the month of July, compared to the same month last year. This includes a 29 percent increase in retail sales, marking 10 consecutive months of year-over-year retail sales gains for GMC. Cadillac: Total sales for July were 142 percent higher than last July. Retail sales increased 123 percent on the strength of consumer demand for the SRX, which posted its best month since it was introduced in 2003. Fleet sales for GM's four brands were 50,048 for the month.