What is the future for funding mass transportation?

[WildCat]

If Obama were to announce an Apollo Project for High Speed Rail, I'd be very interested. Such a project would, similarly to the original, demand a quantum leap forward in fields as diverse as materials science, energy storage and transmission, locomotive powertrains, rail system management, economic and demographic analysis, and a host of others.

It would have manufacturers, inventors, and academics all over the country submitting proposals and competing for contracts, all looking to reap the rewards of prestige, technical know-how, and marketable new technologies.

The result would be an HSR system like no other, decades ahead of previous efforts, a shining example of technological prowess, and a source of wealth for years to come.

I'm sure modern science could design a buggy whip like no other also, with the latest materials with spectacular properties. Wouldn't make it any less obsolete.

 

[WildCat]

For that matter, what is the economic benefit of travel between LA and SF by any mode of transport? I mean, what kind of hit would our economy take if it just wasn't practical to do that at all (figured independently of whatever factors made it impractical in the first place)?

Not what we're arguing here. We already have roads, rail, and airlaine traffic. What net benefit does HSR add to this mix?

I think that's the wrong question. The right question is will HSR fares be less than future airplane fares.

Doubtful.

I certainly don't assume that, and I'd be surprised if Travis does either. Assume may not be quite the right word for it, but based on everything I've seen on the impending global energy crunch, I can easily see a future where more trips are accomplished by bicycle, horseback, and shank's mare than by gas-powered automobile.

Where do you see cheap electric automobiles in this mix? Do you think bicycle/horseback/shank's mare travel will increase, decrease, or stay the same?

I don't see why it would be much different than the prospect for air travel in an age with cheap gas-powered automobiles.

But we will still have cheap air travel. And automobile travel.

Once the electric car replaces gas-powered cars the price of petroleum will plummet. About the only engines that will need to be powered by petroleum products are airplane engines, which make up a tiny percentage of petroleum use.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

1) They just announced it, wait for it to be made practical (re battery)

2) HSR has several pluses for everyone if used effectively in certain corridors. And considering that we are a nation... you know.

I'm not a fan of it, but I'm not really going to say it's bad. It's more.. I really think we should focus on light-rail transit between bus depots and such, and funding public transit within metro areas. (Or even dispersed areas.)

But I bet that HSR is coming. Eventually. (Like Winter.)

 

[WildCat]

1) They just announced it, wait for it to be made practical (re battery)

I think it's inevitable that an automotive battery will be perfected, and sooner rather than later. The financial incentives to put one on the market are enormous.

2) HSR has several pluses for everyone if used effectively in certain corridors. And considering that we are a nation... you know.

As a nation we shouldn't be blowing our cash on obsolete or niche transportation systems, which leaves us with much less cash to take advantage of future technologies which will make HSR even more marginal.

 

[geni]

A lot of this really turns on that little word, "IF", doesn't it?

Indeed it is possible that china will get nuked back to the stoneage within the medium term however outside that senario then realisticaly energy costs will continue to rise.

 

[geni]

I think it's inevitable that an automotive battery will be perfected, and sooner rather than later. The financial incentives to put one on the market are enormous.

The problem is the likely timeframe. Our battery technology is already significantly ahead of other areas of solid state chemistry which means we are unlikely to see major advances at a significant pace.

 

[WildCat]

The problem is the likely timeframe. Our battery technology is already significantly ahead of other areas of solid state chemistry which means we are unlikely to see major advances at a significant pace.

I just linked to a major advance.

And the timeframe for a nationwide HSR network is 50-100 years, I expec practical automobile batteries long before that.

 

[Dymanic]

We already have roads, rail, and airlaine traffic. What net benefit does HSR add to this mix?

It does not depend on petroleum fuels.

Where do you see cheap electric automobiles in this mix?

Increasing, along with the others I mentioned, relative to gas-powered automobiles.

But we will still have cheap air travel. And automobile travel.

I don't see that as a safe assumption at all.

Once the electric car replaces gas-powered cars the price of petroleum will plummet.

Yes, it's all so drop-dead simple and easy to predict, isn't it? All we need is some electric cars and the right batteries. Never mind rebuilding an entire electrical generation and distribution infrastructure to handle the thirty-odd quads we presently obtain from petroleum; that's just a minor detail that neither we nor any of the other countries with which we compete for petroleum fuels will have the least trouble accomplishing, despite the fact that the political will to undertake is likely to remain weak until economies are already in free-fall as a result of price increases for petroleum.

About the only engines that will need to be powered by petroleum products are airplane engines, which make up a tiny percentage of petroleum use.

Domestic air carriers alone accounted for 6.5% and 6.3% of total US petroleum consumption in 2007 and 2008 respectively. Call that "tiny" if you want, but it looks like a hell of a lot of fuel to me.
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb29/Spreadsheets/Table1_16.xls

 

[daenku32]

Now for the ridiculous:

And nothing says "big plans" like taking 50 years to build 300 miles of track! The first few miles of track will have to be rebuilt before the last few are completed.

I'd like to know where he got the 50 year number from. Maybe he was talking about nationwide bullet train system, since he referred to the interstate system as a comparison.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, it's all so drop-dead simple and easy to predict, isn't it?

Why yes, yes it is.

All we need is some electric cars and the right batteries. Never mind rebuilding an entire electrical generation and distribution infrastructure to handle the thirty-odd quads we presently obtain from petroleum; that's just a minor detail that neither we nor any of the other countries with which we compete for petroleum fuels will have the least trouble accomplishing, despite the fact that the political will to undertake is likely to remain weak until economies are already in free-fall as a result of price increases for petroleum.

Yes, we will need more electric power in the future. And we will build it. And more importantly, people will use it and pay a premium for it. That's why your electric company doesn't need a yearly government subsidy to stay in business. And the entire country benefits, not just the fraction that lives nesar the train stations and the fraction of them that need to go somewhere the train does. HSR will not, and can not, replace the automobile.

Domestic air carriers alone accounted for 6.5% and 6.3% of total US petroleum consumption in 2007 and 2008 respectively. Call that "tiny" if you want, but it looks like a hell of a lot of fuel to me.
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb29/Spreadsheets/Table1_16.xls

It is tiny. Reduce petroleum fuel demand by 93.5% and you have a glut, particularly since most other developed countries will take the same route.

 

[WildCat]

I'd like to know where he got the 50 year number from. Maybe he was talking about nationwide bullet train system, since he referred to the interstate system as a comparison.

He was referring to HSR in Illinois, and only in Illinois.

Illinois is in even worse financial shape than California, because boneheaded politicians like Pat Quinn (who I had high hopes for but has greatly disappointed) have driven us to bankruptcy with such idiotic policies.

 

[geni]

I just linked to a major advance.

No you linked to a press release. At the present time the tech has not undergone real world testing and does not in any case appear to adress the energy density problem

And the timeframe for a nationwide HSR network is 50-100 years, I expec practical automobile batteries long before that.

No thats the timetable if you don't treat it as a priority. You could do it a lot more quickly if you really wanted to. However there's no real point. About the only thing worth moving that fast is people and most traveling isn't done over that kind of distance.

Of course it would be sensible to keep options open by aquiring purchase rights along viable routes.

 

[geni]

Why yes, yes it is.

Not really. In particular future patturns of population when people respond to increased energy costs mess up a lot of predictions.

Yes, we will need more electric power in the future. And we will build it.

Evidences? One of the real headaches the UK goverment is facing is that power companies are not interested in significantly investing in new generating capacity (with the possible exception of gas).

And more importantly, people will use it and pay a premium for it. That's why your electric company doesn't need a yearly government subsidy to stay in business.

It's called roads.

And the entire country benefits, not just the fraction that lives nesar the train stations and the fraction of them that need to go somewhere the train does. HSR will not, and can not, replace the automobile.

It's not meant to. HSR is mostly targeted at air travel. Cars are for the time being more effectively replaced by buses, trams and variours forms of urban rail either underground or overground.

It is tiny. Reduce petroleum fuel demand by 93.5% and you have a glut, particularly since most other developed countries will take the same route.

I thought most of your cars were petrol driven which is a bit light for aviation fuel.

 

[Dymanic]

HSR will not, and can not, replace the automobile.

A lot of the discussion I've seen on high speed rail is directed more toward its potential for replacing air travel, particularly on high-traffic and relatively short distance corridors like LA <=> SF. I don't disagree that HSR can't replace the gasoline-powered automobile, but then, nothing else can either. Electric cars might be fine for around town (if you could keep them from getting creamed by SUVs), but, as we've discussed before, they suck on the highway. LA to SF would be bad enough; try LA to Phoenix. In July. In a vehicle that can't spare the power to run an air conditioner without seriously compromising its range.

Reduce petroleum fuel demand by 93.5% and you have a glut, particularly since most other developed countries will take the same route.

Wow. Reduce petroleum fuel demand by 93.5% and hey presto! Problem solved! Gosh, you know, you're right. I never would have dreamed that it could be so freaking simple. How about we just reduce demand by 100%, and make gas free?

 

[daenku32]

He was referring to HSR in Illinois, and only in Illinois.

Illinois is in even worse financial shape than California, because boneheaded politicians like Pat Quinn (who I had high hopes for but has greatly disappointed) have driven us to bankruptcy with such idiotic policies.

If he thinks it takes 50 years to build a HSR in Illinois, he surely is a bonehead.

 

[eeyore1954]

Domestic air carriers alone accounted for 6.5% and 6.3% of total US petroleum consumption in 2007 and 2008 respectively. Call that "tiny" if you want, but it looks like a hell of a lot of fuel to me.
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb29/Spreadsheets/Table1_16.xls

I can't get to that link but it just doesn't sound right to me. 6.5% of total consumption is domestic air planes.

 

[WildCat]

A lot of the discussion I've seen on high speed rail is directed more toward its potential for replacing air travel, particularly on high-traffic and relatively short distance corridors like LA <=> SF. I don't disagree that HSR can't replace the gasoline-powered automobile, but then, nothing else can either. Electric cars might be fine for around town (if you could keep them from getting creamed by SUVs), but, as we've discussed before, they suck on the highway. LA to SF would be bad enough; try LA to Phoenix. In July. In a vehicle that can't spare the power to run an air conditioner without seriously compromising its range.

You're not getting it. Electric cars aren't some hypothetical thing, they exist right now. Current versions are certainly impractical, but even that could be solved with swappable batteries. At some point, when the price of gas becomes high enough and the cost of electric cars is low enough and practical enough, the switchover will occcur. There will always be a demand for personal transportation devices.

Wow. Reduce petroleum fuel demand by 93.5% and hey presto! Problem solved! Gosh, you know, you're right. I never would have dreamed that it could be so freaking simple.

It really is that simple. Less petroleum burned in cars leaves more that can be burned as jet fuel. The US wouldn't even need to import a single drop.

How about we just reduce demand by 100%, and make gas free?

How about we argue the subject at hand, and not resort to ridiculous hyperbole?

 

[Dymanic]

I can't get to that link but it just doesn't sound right to me. 6.5% of total consumption is domestic air planes.

Sorry. Should have tested that link. Try it from here; it's the one at the bottom of the page:
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter1.shtml

And it's 6.5% of the petroleum used in transportation, not 6.5% of our total use (though most of our petroleum goes to the transportation sector anyway).

 

[Dymanic]

You're not getting it. Electric cars aren't some hypothetical thing, they exist right now. Current versions are certainly impractical, but even that could be solved with swappable batteries. At some point, when the price of gas becomes high enough and the cost of electric cars is low enough and practical enough, the switchover will occcur.

You're right. I'm not getting it (your logic, that is). Electric cars exist now, but are impractical, but they'll get better. I'm not seeing that as much of an argument against high speed rail. That technology also exists right now, and does not even suffer from the drawback of being impractical over long distances (which is where electric cars are impractical now and would require technological breakthroughs to become more practical in the future).

It really is that simple. Less petroleum burned in cars leaves more that can be burned as jet fuel. The US wouldn't even need to import a single drop.

Of course, it also leaves more that can be burned as automobile fuel, and due to the sometimes-not-so-simple effects of this principle known as "supply and demand", one of the effects of creating a "glut of petroleum fuel" by putting massive numbers of electric cars on the road (along with all that supporting infrastructure you're still mostly ignoring) would be to decrease the price of that fuel, hence increasing demand for vehicles that use it.

How about we argue the subject at hand, and not resort to ridiculous hyperbole?

Like waving a magic wand and making 93.5% of the demand for petroleum vanish? I can agree to that.

 

[WildCat]

You're right. I'm not getting it (your logic, that is). Electric cars exist now, but are impractical, but they'll get better. I'm not seeing that as much of an argument against high speed rail. That technology also exists right now, and does not even suffer from the drawback of being impractical over long distances (which is where electric cars are impractical now and would require technological breakthroughs to become more practical in the future).

I have already listed 2 solutions to the distance problem. Nobody claims gasoline powered cars are impractical since they can only go 250 miles or so per fillup. The switchover will occur, the technological problems will be solved. And it would be foolish not to account for this wrt demand for HSR.

Of course, it also leaves more that can be burned as automobile fuel, and due to the sometimes-not-so-simple effects of this principle known as "supply and demand", one of the effects of creating a "glut of petroleum fuel" by putting massive numbers of electric cars on the road (along with all that supporting infrastructure you're still mostly ignoring) would be to decrease the price of that fuel, hence increasing demand for vehicles that use it.

Doubtful, lawmakers will phase out gas-powered cars once practical electric models are available. Zero emission vehicles will be law.

Like waving a magic wand and making 93.5% of the demand for petroleum vanish? I can agree to that.

There's nothing magical about it. Just like no one waved a magic wand to make leaded gasoline disappear, or lead paint.