Living Car Free - Bullet Trains

I just read how Obama's stimulus plan will include Bullet Trains.

My first reaction, was "Oh, great! We can't even get normal trains to go places, and Obama wants to do bullet trains." My second was that "Our rails are in such shambles, maybe it gives us a chance to leapfrog, rather than patch up an antiquated system." What are your observations?

A much better "bang for the buck" as it were, would be upgrading the current rail system & expanding Amtrak routes. "bullet" trains (I assume like the eurostar or tgv ) need seperate rights-of-way, add to that all the cost of infrastructure along with it, and you're talking hundreds of billions of dollars to get something like that set up. 120 mph is more than feasable with some relatively minor (in comparison) upgrades to the tracks, signals, etc.

I had heard the stimulus plan would include Bullet Tooth Tony.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/joemomma2790/btt.jpg

So I was relieved to hear about the trains.

I just read how Obama's stimulus plan will include Bullet Trains...
If we're going to have good passenger rail service, bullet train or regular rail or whatever, we should have separate tracks for passenger rail. The initial phase will obviously be route planning and right of way acquisition. This can be done regardless of what the final implementation looks like. A clean-sheet design would give an opportunity to improve the physical security of the track and also to provide complete grade separation from the road system.

One unintended consequence is that a new fully grade separated passenger rail system will probably cut a lot of useful existing bike routes. Those wonderful, lightly travelled back roads will probably end at the tracks because it won't be seen as cost effective to build a new grade separated crossing. We might have to bike miles out of the way to get to the rail crossing.

I just read how Obama's stimulus plan will include Bullet Trains.

What are your observations?


This is only lip service to the nutcase left. There will be no bullet trains. A fair amount of money will be wasted funding studies, payoffs and such, and nothing will come of it.

This is only lip service to the nutcase left. There will be no bullet trains. A fair amount of money will be wasted funding studies, payoffs and such, and nothing will come of it.

With the exception of maybe a few linkages, such as NYC to DC, no one would ride them anyway. Bullet trains are very effect over distances of a few hundred miles, but in this country, it would probably cost an arm and a leg for tickets and without better local transportation, people will continue to drive to destinations of those distances. I would absolutely love taking trains from NYC to other locales (and often do), but without a personal car, finding local transportation is usually a bigger PITA than most people are willing to deal with. Its still way more convenient and cheaper to drive.

You can't just install bullet trains in this country and expect it be anything other than a total waste. At least not yet. Better local transportation infrastructure has to come first, otherwise you are just connecting one isolated train station to another isolated train station.

One unintended consequence is that a new fully grade separated passenger rail system will probably cut a lot of useful existing bike routes. Those wonderful, lightly travelled back roads will probably end at the tracks because it won't be seen as cost effective to build a new grade separated crossing. We might have to bike miles out of the way to get to the rail crossing.

This is one of those things where, when people try to take care of me, I wish they wouldn't.

Let me (and the other bikers) cross, duly warned with a big brightly colored sign saying that it's our own responsibility to never, ever, get hit by a train, even if it's "coming out of nowhere".

You can't just install bullet trains in this country and expect it be anything other than a total waste. At least not yet. Better local transportation infrastructure has to come first, otherwise you are just connecting one isolated train station to another isolated train station.
The current train stations aren't isolated, why should the newer train stations be isolated? Most times, when I take the train it goes to the downtown. Not always, The Jacksonville FL. station isn't downtown but Jacksonville is all sprawl isn't it? Yeah, I got off the train in Palatka one time too. I had to hitchhike to Gainesville. But look at DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York. Those stations are in no way shape or form, "isolated". It would be dumb to put a bullet train station in the middle of nowhere.

This idea is just that, an idea the gist of it if I can remember is a route from LA to Las Vegas. I think it's a stupid idea. Amtrak can't even run the Acela at anywhere near it's stated speed on most of the runs. We do have a dilema in that we like old ROWs for bike travel but we need rail badly. The money would be better spent providing railroads where people need them than lightening air traffic in Vegas and hoping gamblers will take the train.

This idea is just that, an idea the gist of it if I can remember is a route from LA to Las Vegas..

No, nobody ever even proposed a train to Vegas. I think some of the critics of the administration made that one up to try and make the idea look silly.

Very shameful thread. A lot of volatile opinions were expressed, but there wasn't even one that was based on research or reality. :(

The reality is that Michigan is getting closer to a high speed maglev train that will be financed by private investors. There are still a lot of "ifs" but the project is moving along.



Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Michigan high-speed rail backers have prototype funding

Karen Bouffard / The Detroit News

East Lansing -- Private investors have stepped forward with enough money to build a prototype for a futuristic elevated rail system that would race along freeway routes between Lansing, Ann Arbor and Detroit, according to experts who testified at a hearing on the proposal Monday.

State Rep. Bill Rogers, R-Brighton, who heads a task force looking into whether the state should grant easements for the rail line along Interstate 96, U.S. 23 and I-94, said the system is possible -- provided there's private funding to meet the $2.3 billion price tag.
"If they truly can finance it, I don't know why it couldn't exist," Rogers said. "I just don't know if the money is there."

The "MagLev" rail line would incorporate hydrogen and solar technology, and magnetic forces would help propel train cars along stainless steel tubes. Other tubes could serve as conduits for fiber optic cable, electrical lines and utilities like water and natural gas. All are technologies in use in high-speed rail systems in Japan, China and Portugal, its developers said.

Connie Murry Cole of Interstate Traveler Co. LLC, the Detroit company that developed the system, said they have at least enough funding to build a prototype within a year, although the location has not been determined.

The company is also exploring its options in other countries, Cole added.

"We don't want it to leave Michigan," Cole said. "We want our state to come back up as a leader in the world."

Michigan State University professor James Anderson, an economic historian, said the plan could revolutionize transportation -- if it gets off the ground. He testified in support of the plan.
"It's going to provide increased transport speed, efficiency and safety," Anderson said. "And we haven't even begun to count its job creation potential."

Larry Jasper, the Bloomfield Hills-based Omega Investments Ltd. chief executive officer, said his company has committed to a major investment in the venture. "The MagLevis the only way we're going to get into the 21st century," Jasper said. "It is the future (of transportation)."

The task force will hold its next hearing July 10 in Ann Arbor.
kbouffard@detnews.com (http://www.detnews.com/article/20090616/METRO/906160357/mailto:kbouffard@detnews.com) (517) 371-3660

With the exception of maybe a few linkages, such as NYC to DC, no one would ride them anyway. Bullet trains are very effect over distances of a few hundred miles, but in this country, it would probably cost an arm and a leg for tickets and without better local transportation, people will continue to drive to destinations of those distances. I would absolutely love taking trains from NYC to other locales (and often do), but without a personal car, finding local transportation is usually a bigger PITA than most people are willing to deal with. Its still way more convenient and cheaper to drive.

You can't just install bullet trains in this country and expect it be anything other than a total waste. At least not yet. Better local transportation infrastructure has to come first, otherwise you are just connecting one isolated train station to another isolated train station.

AFAIK, every train station in America has a connection to local transit such as buses, light rail, taxis and/or subways. Many train stations are within walking distance of their downtown area.

One unintended consequence is that a new fully grade separated passenger rail system will probably cut a lot of useful existing bike routes. Those wonderful, lightly travelled back roads will probably end at the tracks because it won't be seen as cost effective to build a new grade separated crossing. We might have to bike miles out of the way to get to the rail crossing.

I frequently pick up my bike and trot right across the tracks.

Very shameful thread. A lot of volatile opinions were expressed, but there wasn't even one that was based on research or reality. :(

What? My post was based on my physical presence using train stations in the cities I named. I stand by my observations as based in reality, I really did use those stations and the ones I mentioned as not isolated were not isolated in any way shape or form. OK, I didn't research the public transit options in Palatka, maybe there were but I was a dumb college puke at the time and I hitched home. These fat black women picked me up and drove out in the woods where they wanted to smoke dope and ball. I told them I needed to get back and they wanted to drive me all the way to my place but I had them drop me off on campus. What did I know? They intimidated me, I didn't want them to know where I lived.
If I had found the public transit option I may not have remembered the day.

The reality is that Michigan is getting closer to a high speed maglev train that will be financed by private investors. There are still a lot of "ifs" but the project is moving along.

Roody, this is what Kunstler says on this weeks blog regarding railroads. I presume you disagree with him?

"The sad truth is it's too late now. But the additional sad truth, at this point, is that Californians (and US public in general) would benefit tremendously from normal rail service on a par with the standards of 1927, when speeds of 100 miles-per-hour were common and the trains ran absolutely on time (and frequently, too) without computers (imagine that !). The tracks are still there, waiting to be fixed. In our current condition of psychotic techno-grandiosity, this is all too hopelessly quaint, not cutting edge enough, pathetically un-"hot." The fact that it is not even considered by the editors of The New York Times, not to mention the governor of California, the President of the United States, and all the agency heads and departmental chiefs and think tank gurus and university engineering professors, is something that will have historians of the future rolling their eyes. But for the moment all it shows is that we are collectively too stupid to survive as an advanced society."

http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/06/too-stupid-to-survive.html

Very shameful thread. A lot of volatile opinions were expressed, but there wasn't even one that was based on research or reality. :(

Um excuse me, mine was based in reality. How many of these pie in the sky projects ever get built???

The reality is there is not the money for this, there is not the need for this, and there is not public support for this. Trains? Really? You think the voting population is going to support trains? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is not real.


There is some reality for you.

Roody, this is what Kunstler says on this weeks blog regarding railroads. I presume you disagree with him?

"The sad truth is it's too late now. But the additional sad truth, at this point, is that Californians (and US public in general) would benefit tremendously from normal rail service on a par with the standards of 1927, when speeds of 100 miles-per-hour were common and the trains ran absolutely on time (and frequently, too) without computers (imagine that !). The tracks are still there, waiting to be fixed. In our current condition of psychotic techno-grandiosity, this is all too hopelessly quaint, not cutting edge enough, pathetically un-"hot." The fact that it is not even considered by the editors of The New York Times, not to mention the governor of California, the President of the United States, and all the agency heads and departmental chiefs and think tank gurus and university engineering professors, is something that will have historians of the future rolling their eyes. But for the moment all it shows is that we are collectively too stupid to survive as an advanced society."

http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/06/too-stupid-to-survive.html

Kunstler might be forgetting that in 1927 trains did not have to compete with jet airliners. How many business travelers will take a 100 mph train from Detroit to Chicago, or LA to SF, when the alternative is a 500 mph turbo-jet?

Also, the reduction of pollution is much greater with the more advanced trains.

A much better "bang for the buck" as it were, would be upgrading the current rail system & expanding Amtrak routes. "bullet" trains (I assume like the eurostar or tgv ) need seperate rights-of-way, add to that all the cost of infrastructure along with it, and you're talking hundreds of billions of dollars to get something like that set up. 120 mph is more than feasable with some relatively minor (in comparison) upgrades to the tracks, signals, etc.

One of the problems with the high speed rail system in the NE is that the tracks are so close together that the tolerances of two trains passing in places like corners, where a high speed train would lean, would put them very close together. That's too close for regulations and they could cause a collision. That's why the speed on those trains are limited compared to if there was adequate track. I think the limit is something like 90 mph up until past philly where it can reach upwards of 120mph. I figure the numbers aren't correct, but that's the issue as was stated on one of the sites about the high speed train system.

Now to upgrade the current rails, that would probably mean moving rails apart, which would probably cost as much as, if not more than, laying new track.

The northeast is the only place in this country I could see bullet (or just faster) trains as a viable option. Say, Philly-Balt-Was-NYC-Boston.

The northeast is the only place in this country I could see bullet (or just faster) trains as a viable option. Say, Philly-Balt-Was-NYC-Boston.

I say as far south as Richmond maybe. Every place else would have to have so much track to cover distances between big cities and then expanding out west from the NE would take a lot of work with the mountains and everything.

I'd seriously take a train from Baltimore to Boston if I could make it in 4 hours. Beats driving and I'd probably spend as much on gas as I would on a ticket.

Um excuse me, mine was based in reality. How many of these pie in the sky projects ever get built???

The reality is there is not the money for this, there is not the need for this, and there is not public support for this. Trains? Really? You think the voting population is going to support trains? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is not real.


There is some reality for you.

The voting population may go for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_1A_(2008)). Of course, this is California's voting population we're talking about so it may not reflect reality.

Um excuse me, mine was based in reality. How many of these pie in the sky projects ever get built???

The reality is there is not the money for this, there is not the need for this, and there is not public support for this. Trains? Really? You think the voting population is going to support trains? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is not real.


There is some reality for you.

Well the status quo depends on the world consuming 80 million barrels of oil every day, and it is getting harder all the time to keep up. Fairly soon, the maximum amount that can be produced will start to fall, and all the drilling in the world isn't going to help.

The advantage of trains is that they use far less oil than most other forms of transportation. And if you electrify the trains, the amount of oil consumed essentially becomes negligible.

All things being equal, people may prefer their cars. But when the gasoline price spikes, all of a sudden people start to look for alternative ways of getting around.

Um excuse me, mine was based in reality. How many of these pie in the sky projects ever get built???

The reality is there is not the money for this, there is not the need for this, and there is not public support for this. Trains? Really? You think the voting population is going to support trains? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is not real.


There is some reality for you.

Actually there were a couple of polls done fairly recently where a sizable percentage of the American public was in favor of trains. I will post the link when I find it...national poll BTW.

Aaron:)

One of the problems with the high speed rail system in the NE is that the tracks are so close together that the tolerances of two trains passing in places like corners, where a high speed train would lean, would put them very close together. That's too close for regulations and they could cause a collision. That's why the speed on those trains are limited compared to if there was adequate track. I think the limit is something like 90 mph up until past philly where it can reach upwards of 120mph. I figure the numbers aren't correct, but that's the issue as was stated on one of the sites about the high speed train system.

Now to upgrade the current rails, that would probably mean moving rails apart, which would probably cost as much as, if not more than, laying new track.

There is also the problem that the radii of curvature at the turns needs to be larger. The acela compensates for this by leaning but that only takes care of some of the problems. Each turn is there for a reason, and I imagine that that reason also would make it harder to position a wider turn at most corners. I'd be happier if they'd let us roll our bikes into the baggage cars. They used to let us do that on "the Vermonter" a daily train from DC to Vermont. I'd take it to Philly. Its so nice to just roll your bikes on and off.

Another place where it might be easier to expand passenger rail is the east coast of Florida. The right of way is there, and the parts I've seen are pretty straight. I was a kid in the Eau Gallie area and the historians would talk about how people used to take the train to Jacksonvile to do their Christmas shopping. Good passenger rail (with roll on bike service) down their might relieve car traffic on I-95.

I say as far south as Richmond maybe. Every place else would have to have so much track to cover distances between big cities and then expanding out west from the NE would take a lot of work with the mountains and everything.

I'd seriously take a train from Baltimore to Boston if I could make it in 4 hours. Beats driving and I'd probably spend as much on gas as I would on a ticket.

One thing that happens at Union Station in DC is they switch engines from electric to diesel electric. That is why you have that longish layover in the schedule there. So an easy improvement is to electrify the route from DC to Richmond- maybe power it with one of those new nuclear stations they got a permit for at Lake Anna? Then the engine switching could occur in Richmond instead of DC and get one source of pollution out of DC. Sometimes when you take the train south out of DC when you're still in the tunnel the diesel fumes enter the passenger compartment.

Kunstler might be forgetting that in 1927 trains did not have to compete with jet airliners. How many business travelers will take a 100 mph train from Detroit to Chicago, or LA to SF, when the alternative is a 500 mph turbo-jet?

Also, the reduction of pollution is much greater with the more advanced trains.

No, part of Kunstler's rant is that the airlines are going to go broke so we have to have the rail system up to snuff. The people who fly first class now might still be flying in Kunstler's future but all the people in coach will want to be on a train. My impression is that he thinks the airlines that trains compete with have been unfairly subsidized. My impression is that the government subsidizes stuff that is useful for warfare. At one time trains were great for moving armies. We built the interstate highway system so the military vehicles could move themselves. We subsidized air travel and shipping for moving armies too. NASA might seem like this friendly science kind of thing but a lot of the people involved say "Its all about war." I went to high school on the space coast, there were often rocket launches with no information about the mission other than "Air Force Payload". So, I'll bet when the military sees its fuel costs sky rocket you'll get a lot of government subsidy of passenger rail. Just like the airlines the string attached is "If the military needs to move some stuff- you'll be called on to do it." I remember this guy saying that it was surreal when he went to Viet Nam. The soldiers flew over on a commercial plane and the airline kept the stewardesses. The stewardesses did their job like it was a regular tourist flight. I forgot the snappy name they have for the program where the airlines turn their planes over to the military as needed in return for the subsidies. Anyway, when the military decides rail is important, we'll have a decent rail system.

I just read how Obama's stimulus plan will include Bullet Trains.

My first reaction, was "Oh, great! We can't even get normal trains to go places, and Obama wants to do bullet trains." My second was that "Our rails are in such shambles, maybe it gives us a chance to leapfrog, rather than patch up an antiquated system." What are your observations?

I belive only California, Florida and Michigan are even considering high speed rail. However, all three states are BROKE! LOL!

California was further down the road on this issue and actually passed Proposition 1A to finance the train. However, this was before the bubble burst and the economy when to shambles. Today, California is going to lay-off thousands of teachers, close dozens of parks, discontinue health care for children etc, etc. Where is the state going to get an additional 65-80 billion dollars (est.) for high speed rail? Obama's plan only put 8 billion in matching funds for the train. A drop in the bucket!

Here's what we can and should do. Use this money to build 3 light rail lines thus reviving those urban districts of those cities. By doing this, you'll bring in needed business and jobs into those communities, something we badly need today. My lightrail line brought in over 2 billion dollars of investment capital for business, luxury hotels and condo development. All this can happen in the next 10 - 15 years if you start today! The California high speed rail wasn't supposed to be completed until 2030!

Don't hold your breath.

I belive only California, Florida and Michigan are even considering high speed rail. However, all three states are BROKE! LOL!


Well, if you're talking about spending stimulus money, it might make more sense to spend it in states that are broke. I also understood that there were 5 areas under consideration in Obama's plan--the 3 you mentioned, plus the Northwest and Texas. I don't believe they are hoping to do all five areas right away.

In Michigan the situation is confusing. If I understand it correctly, there are 2 separate proposals:


One proposal is the privately financed prototype system that I mentioned in a previous post. This would go first as a prototype to Detroit, Flint and Lansing. Later it would be expanded to Chicago. These would be maglev trains running in excess of 200 mph.

The other proposal is part of the Chicago Hub system that's one of 5 (?) systems in the Obama plan. This second plan would include high speed trains in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and maybe Iowa and Minnesota. These would be conventional higher speed trains on upgraded track, say 100 to 150 mph.

http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/hotbike/00000004-3.jpg

I took a picture of a TGV while I was in France. I'm all for high speed rail in the USA.

We used to have a great light rail system in So Cal years ago.But it seems as though some tire makers and oil producers thought it was a bad idea,bought it and buried it.Some of the tracks are still around.

I think we should get the same oil and tire companies that have made countless trillions of dollars,to help pay for the system they buried.How's that sound?

We used to have a great light rail system in So Cal years ago.But it seems as though some tire makers and oil producers thought it was a bad idea,bought it and buried it.Some of the tracks are still around.

I think we should get the same oil and tire companies that have made countless trillions of dollars,to help pay for the system they buried.How's that sound?

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

AFAIK, every train station in America has a connection to local transit such as buses, light rail, taxis and/or subways. Many train stations are within walking distance of their downtown area.
So what you're saying is....... if the US government forced everyone to pay for lots more trains, and also got rid of other forms of motorized transportation..... people would ride the train a lot more? :rolleyes:

-----

The future of transportation is not in any form of mass-transit, it is in more-efficient means of individual transit.

Mass-transit becomes less time-efficient the more stops are added, yet its utility value is lowered as more stops are taken away.

Individual transportation offers the maximum time-efficiency (because you are free to choose your own route to any destination) and the highest utility value (because it goes from your origin directly to your destination).
~

http://www.uncanny.net/~wetzel/pedemise.htm

Directly and indirectly,they(and others) buried it,along with the other electric options.

Mass-transit becomes less time-efficient the more stops are added, yet its utility value is lowered as more stops are taken away.


~
This is what is wrong with the interstate highway system. As suburban sprawl occurs the developers get interchanges put in everywhere where they want to build a shopping mall. I'm not sure that the utility value statement is true, our subway system has a lot of utility where the stops are close together. Elevators too. But with the interstate highways, the interchanges become choke points when they're too close together. This is really apparent on the outskirts of DC. Instead of eliminating interchanges, the urban planners built this huge project just to service mall developers. Well I rode over the overpass near the completed interchange two sundays in a row. Both times the super interchange below me looked like a parking lot, just like it did before the project. The project just moved the congestion about 1/2 mile away from where it used to occur. Its so nice to be car-free. I pedal past the backup and realize how smart I was to ditch the car.

The future of transportation is not in any form of mass-transit, it is in more-efficient means of individual transit.
.
~

How efficient can motorized transport get? We are seeing the price of gas going right back up to $4.00 dollars a gallon in the next 18 months because of OPEC and the speculators. It takes years for the car companies to raise the MPG on the standard motorcar an additional 10 miles per gallon. However, the price of fuel can go up an additional 40 cents in three months. With this type of price increase, you'll always have to buy a new hybrid to beat the high price of gas.

As far as I'm concerned, we are already seeing the next form of transporation as people changed over to buses in record numbers. With gas going up again, they won't be changing over to hybrids in record numbers becuase the days of buying a new vehicle every 3 or 4 years are over. We saw for the first time once gas hit $4 bucks a gallon how record number of people drove less than ever before in our history. Guess where gas is going to be in 2 years from now?

When you think about it, all it took was gas to hit $4.00 dollars a gallon to force millions out of their vehicles or to use them less. All you read or heard were people not being able to travel or drive like they used to because they could not afford the price of gas or a costly 20K Honda Insight! Buying a new hybrid does not save you any money at all. It's just a new loan, higher insurance and more bills.

Let me give you some advice. When gas hits $5.00 dollars a gallon, you better start looking for a place close to where you work. Maybe move to a town that offers bus service to your job or just relocate to a different state altogether. It's time to start looking at going car free while you still can. Should gas go sky high, instead of being stuck indoors during the weekend, afraid of wasting gas, you'll be ready.

Well, if you're talking about spending stimulus money, it might make more sense to spend it in states that are broke. I also understood that there were 5 areas under consideration in Obama's plan--the 3 you mentioned, plus the Northwest and Texas. I don't believe they are hoping to do all five areas right away.

In Michigan the situation is confusing. If I understand it correctly, there are 2 separate proposals:


One proposal is the privately financed prototype system that I mentioned in a previous post. This would go first as a prototype to Detroit, Flint and Lansing. Later it would be expanded to Chicago. These would be maglev trains running in excess of 200 mph.

The other proposal is part of the Chicago Hub system that's one of 5 (?) systems in the Obama plan. This second plan would include high speed trains in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and maybe Iowa and Minnesota. These would be conventional higher speed trains on upgraded track, say 100 to 150 mph.



Not to get into a p&r discussion, but do you know where this "stimulus" money actually comes from?

.... I'm not sure that the utility value statement is true, our subway system has a lot of utility where the stops are close together. Elevators too. ...
Well, these things are not alike, for the most part.
The few subways I have seen always stopped at every station, if anyone appeared to be waiting to get on, or get off, or not
.
An elevator does not always stop at every floor, it only stops at the floors where someone pushed a button. An elevator is mass-transit, but it does not act like mass-transit unless there's more than one person in it, or waiting for it.

As far as I have seen, buses normally will not make a stop along a route, unless someone appears to be waiting to board at that transit point. In that way, a bus has a higher utility value than a typical subway does.
.....
And I believe I have said that buses were better mass-transit than trains elsewhere around here, for this as well as other major reasons relating to their route flexibility.

I don't hate the concept of mass transit--I just feel that if the govt is going to go and dump massive amounts of money into such a project, then it should serve the maximum range of users as well as possible. And a train is very, very far from being able to do that, compared to ordinary bus service.


How efficient can motorized transport get?
Motorized bicycle kits can get upwards of 200 MPG, with top speeds of 35 mph. Problem is, they are not legal everywhere. And everywhere,,,, the climate is not congenial to year-round cycling, much as some would like to think it is....


We are seeing the price of gas going right back up to $4.00 dollars a gallon in the next 18 months because of OPEC and the speculators. It takes years for the car companies to raise the MPG on the standard motorcar an additional 10 miles per gallon. However, the price of fuel can go up an additional 40 cents in three months.
I'd agree that excessive legislation is the biggest problem to building more-efficient vehicles.
My hope is for a new smaller class of cars (with severe seating, engine & weight restrictions, and no crash standards) to come about; the concept that "any vehicle that can shield you from the elements year-round must be built like a Sherman tank" is a fantastic bit of ignorance. After all, motorcycles don't have crash standards, they aren't expected to, and nobody gets their undies in a bind about that.


As far as I'm concerned, we are already seeing the next form of transporation as people changed over to buses in record numbers. With gas going up again, they won't be changing over to hybrids in record numbers because the days of buying a new vehicle every 3 or 4 years are over. We saw for the first time once gas hit $4 bucks a gallon how record number of people drove less than ever before in our history.
This is true as far as it goes--gas prices did make many people drive less, but most didn't cut out necessary trips--they just eliminated optional trips such as driving vacations.

It also points out how inefficient hybrid cars really are. Building TWO engines in a vehicle when only one is really necessary is inherently inefficient. For most people, the higher purchase costs of hybrid cars is very difficult to offset with fuel savings over the typical expected ~5-yr lifetime of the car.


When you think about it, all it took was gas to hit $4.00 dollars a gallon to force millions out of their vehicles or to use them less.
I know lots of people who tried to drive less; I don't know anyone who was "forced out" of their car by $4/gal prices.


Let me give you some advice. When gas hits $5.00 dollars a gallon, you better start looking for a place close to where you work. Maybe move to a town that offers bus service to your job or just relocate to a different state altogether. It's time to start looking at going car free while you still can. Should gas go sky high, instead of being stuck indoors during the weekend, afraid of wasting gas, you'll be ready.
I already live 1.6 miles from my job. ;)

But I have pointed this out elsewhere too--that if you want to minimize your transportation energy costs, then you should choose to live close to your work above all else, instead of far from work but close to the "nice neighborhood" you dreamt of. The greatest energy savings are achieved by minimizing the length of the trip that you make the most--and for most of us, that is the commute to work.
~

do you know where this "stimulus" money actually comes from?

Our children. They will be the ones paying back the national debt we are racking up. The U.S. is living on credit cards as it were.

So what you're saying is....... if the US government forced everyone to pay for lots more trains, and also got rid of other forms of motorized transportation..... people would ride the train a lot more? :rolleyes:


No--that's not even close to what I was saying. I said that getting people from the train station to their final destination (the "last mile") is not a major impediment to rail travel.

So roll your eyes at that.


-----

The future of transportation is not in any form of mass-transit, it is in more-efficient means of individual transit.

Mass-transit becomes less time-efficient the more stops are added, yet its utility value is lowered as more stops are taken away.

Individual transportation offers the maximum time-efficiency (because you are free to choose your own route to any destination) and the highest utility value (because it goes from your origin directly to your destination).

I doubt if only one approach will be enough. IMO the future of transportation will have several solutions. One might be the more efficient automobiles that you dream of (but which are so far only a dream). Other solutions will include better mass transit for both local and long-range travel, better city design to shorten trips, more non-motorized travel, and probably others as well.