Is this a maglev system or some 155 mph Amtrak clunker?

Also, this will be a separate system from Amtrak, although it will have links to them.

...maglev is another level faster than "normal" high-speed rail, which generally has to be over 160 mph...normally.  The Shanghai line is about the only one in operation, I believe, built by the Germans, and last I heard a proposed line in Germany was successfully opposed by the locals in Germany...too bad.

as much as i hate taking on new debt when the state's already bankrupt... how could I turn down high speed rail?

Speaking as a northerner, here's hoping LA is ready for train commuters when this thing opens up and makes the city in the south a bit more non-car friendly.

The high-speed authority claims that they will make $1 billion in profits in perpetuity (sp?).  So conceivably I guess that would eventually be all paid back.  The other think I would say is that at some point oil is going to go through the roof, and I would argue that air travel will basically become impossible.  The market can't handle that, and it can't handle building a huge system -- although apparently about 1/3rd of the funding for the high-speed system is projected to come from private investors, so that's not totally true.  And driving from LA to SF is not fun, I can tell you.

But I think it passed because everyone wants to go 220 MPH, not because they (or the train) will end up moderate or green.

... geez think of all the solar-thermal plants we could have built for the same money.

... geez think of all the solar-thermal plants we could have built for the same money.

Yeah, and just how many average joes do ya know would be willin' to vote to spend the money for that?

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea, but chances are they'd never vote for it.

It's not "visible", and the energy tycoons would argue that it'd rack up their utility costs.

Good to have you back driving me crazy.  I don't quite get the logic of voting against one environmentally crucial project because...you'd rather see the money spent on a different environmentally crucial project?  I sorta thought maybe (also) we could do all of them at the same time?

Or, we could split up into sectarian groups, a la "life of brian" -- I could be in the "high-speed train liberation front", and you could be in the "solar thermal liberation front"?  Just a thought (and I'm sure you had other reasons that will drive me crazy).

My memory of train efficiency and "seat-miles-per-gallon" is that the British rule, because they have slow trains running at high capacity.

If I'm going to drive you crazy, I'll ask you for those seat mpg for operating bullet trains ... I tried dredging wikipedia for real-world bullet trains results without success.

(Note that California is in budget crisis, and not in a position to do the merely "good."  There are lots of "good" things in this world.  We should on the other hand be spending  where we "must."  That is more arguable say, to eliminate our current imports of coal-generated electricity.)

Slow existing track networks are good for freight, they should be converted to electric.

Fast electric trains in tubes running in the freeway median should carry passengers and the express delivery now done with planes.

A whole new system should be mass produced in sections and installed efficiently.  Do it like the original tracks and highways were built and it would be far too expensive.

With modular mass production a gravel road would accept the tube sections, then they would be backfilled in place.  Compare this process to highway construction.  It would be much faster and cheaper.

200 mph in a tube would be safe and energy efficient.  I also think that the trains ought to be more like buses, with wheels for the highway and wheels for the tube/track.

Let the public own the tubes, like we own the highways, and let private companies or individuals own the vehicles/trains, like they own planes.

Trains can be assembled in the tube from all the individual vehicles, with air filled bumper sections to prevent any sort of deadly accidental deceleration.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

There are no seats per gallon on an electric train.  The point is that you make the electric system carbon-free, and then you make the transportation system all-electric.

;-).  There are plenty of pages on MPGe, or MPG-equivalent.  It's what allows normalization and apples-to-apples comparison.

Have a good weekend though, it wouldn't be fair form me to hijack your attention.  I'll try to find something later.

(amazing ... yes, 2-way freight would be another sensible but less sexy investment)

Sudden thought ... building an electric train while we still import electricity from coal!

Jon,

Here's the problem in a nutshell:  The route over Altamont Pass would have worked just as well as the chosen, more environmentally harmful route.  The decision to choose Pacheco Pass was driven by the San Jose business community whose concern was about business interests, not about the train or the environment.  Unfortunately, there are very few if any high level political appointees who are not lackeys of the business class, and the High Speed Rail Authority is no exception.  Their purported justification for choosing Pacheco Pass -- that it would be less environmentally harmful -- is laughable at best.  The San Jose business community couldn't care less which route is more environmentally harmful, they just want more people coming to San Jose to spend money.  Remember, the route originally proposed was over Altamont Pass and was not changed until the San Jose Chamber of Commerce protested San Jose's position at the end of a spur route instead of being along the main route.

Sudden thought ... building an electric train while we still import electricity from coal!

While I agree it would be better if the electric system for the trains were run by renewables (and it is possible, though I doubt that's parta the plan right now), when comparin' the GHG emissions from the plants for the required energy output of the trains and stations, to the emissions from additional vehicular traffic should the trains not be built, I still think the trains would release less GHGs.

I can't think of any numbers right off-hand (and it would probably be weak to compare to another system anyway, due to differences in routes, lengths, and ridership numbers) but I'm pretty sure the numbers would swing that way.  

Likewise I don't know if the EIA would detail the GHGs from powerin' the trains, but it would include a predicted number of riders and the number of vehicles taken off the roads as a result, and also would probably calculate the emissions from those vehicles.

I once made the same argument of coal plants as a caution against convertin' the automobile industry to an entirely electric-based output.  Then someone on this site showed me the numbers that suggested that even with the increase in GHGs from coal plants to compensate, the reduction of GHGs from vehicles still made up for it.

To fly from San Diego to Sacramento, or New York or Paris we only need two miles of concrete at each end. Compare that to the material in a rail line. Consider all the earth moving, compacting, concrete and steel work etc, using enormous amounts of diesel fuel, natural gas and coal.

Hate to break it to ya, but it takes a little more than just a concrete runway to build and operate a modern-day major airport.

Plus air travel is among the least efficient in terms of energy efficieny and GHG emissions.  Much worse than either trains or cars.

Glad that fellow updated his page.  Equivalence is a little bit iffy, me thinks, because we really should be differentiating between electricity and oil.  It bothers me when I see data and there's that little e at the end, as in boe for barrels of oil equivalence.  Getting oil out of our industrial system is a different task than getting out coal, both of which are essential.  At least with electrified transportation, you have a hope of delivering carbon-free transportation.

what for?  the solar folks claim they can supply 90% of US electricity and the wind and geothermal folks make claim for much more than the remaining 10%

Bill wrote: airlines are private companies that pay expenses and stockholders out of ticket prices.
Oh really? Hmm what was that $12 billion subsidy, oops, I mean bailout, er I mean help, oh to hell with it, lets just call a spade a spade, I mean welfare for the airline industry in 2001? That was about 30 times the support Amtrak ever got. And you can bet Al Queda wouldn't have been able to take out 3000 people with a train. Oh, and BTW, guess which industry is going to be lining up at the trough soon as this auto bailout is done. Hint: not Rail.
To fly from San Diego to Sacramento, or New York or Paris we only need two miles of concrete at each end. Compare that to the material in a rail line. Consider all the earth moving, compacting, concrete and steel work etc, using enormous amounts of diesel fuel, natural gas and coal.
You conveniently leave out that CO2 emissions per passenger mile from aircraft dwarf anything from a train. Who cares how much concrete got built. The real issue is what is the net benefit. And trains win handily, in terms of pollution, safety, and number of communities served.