Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Changes will be made - cars will either be more efficient, or they will be powered by something other than petroleum. We'll get more bang for our buck from a $10 billion investment in alternative energy sources and increased fuel economy
There is no "1 for 1" oil substitute. If oil-derived gasoline isn't available, then car usage will HAVE to be cut. Hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels, electric cars (unless there is some future - and currently unexpected - leap forward in battery technology) simply won't be able to supply the bang for the buck that oil can.
We're looking at more mass transit in our future (and less travel in general) and the question is what kind.
We're definitely going to see more mass transit in our cities and the areas surrounding them, but I'm not so sure that we're going to see more intercity passenger rail that is not intended for commuting.
We're definitely going to see more mass transit in our cities and the areas surrounding them, but I'm not so sure that we're going to see more intercity passenger rail that is not intended for commuting.
This is what Department of Transportation has to say about high speed rail
The key limitation to upgrading existing lines for high speed rail is the fact that most rail lines being considered are owned by the private companies like BNSF that use them for freight. And those freight hauling companies don't get subsidies and they are making a profit. They will be in even higher demand as fuel costs rise and people finally figure out that it doesn't make sense to send a truck across the country with a single trailer when it can go on a train with a hundred other trailers.
Adding high speed rail service in most parts of the US will require new right of ways, which will be considerably more than $5 million a mile.
I don't understand what "right of ways" means. I read it a lot in those sites but didn't fully understand what they mean. Also, MAYBE they could "rent" the existing rail and then build govt owned ones later on?
The right of way is where the tracks run, and for the most part they are owned by private companies - they aren't public property. They are used primarily for freight. When passenger trains run on those tracks they have some sort of agreement with the companies that own the rails. Amtrak pays these companies to run trains on the tracks. Seattle's newish commuter rail service runs on Burlington Northern tracks, which limits the number of runs they can make and the times of day they can operate.
In some places, like the Northeast Corridor (Boston-NY-Philly-Baltimore-DC), the rails are used exclusively for passenger rail so they can run more trains at a higher speed, and they don't have to compete with freight.
Amtrak trains often have to wait on sidings while a freight train goes past. The owners o the rails alway give priority to their trains over the lease runs.
We could pay for all of this if we just stopped funding our military adventures around the planet. We need infrastructure not Empire.
While I disagree with the use of the word empire, you are on to something. I suspect our global role will fade on its own as we simply cannot afford it. Entitlements alone will drown us. Not to mention the infrastructure which you correctly state is needed.
Transportation costs are being compared between cost of gas for a trip versus a rail ticket, which gives an unfair cost advantage to the car in the calculation. To be a fair comparison, the cost of car travel should be calculated at IRS or some similar figure of cost per driving mile.
The 10 Billion number for a new high speed rail corridor seems outrageous, but is less than Delta and Northwest lost due to high fuel costs 1Q of this year. Tying the airline hubs into the rail system might provide the best of both worlds, allowing the airlines to concentrate their business on long-haul fuel efficient routes, while still being able to get the customer to their end destination. Regional airports wouldn't be too hard to convert into terminals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
