Biden Praises Midwest High-Speed Rail Plan

Chicago Tribune:

Obama administration officials offered encouraging signs Wednesday that a proposed Midwest high-speed rail network based around a Chicago hub has an inside track on a significant piece of $8 billion to be distributed among 10 major U.S. projects.

Read the whole story: Chicago Tribune

Comments

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

09:13 PM on 06/07/2009

The fastest form of transportation would be mag lev lightweight trains in 6 foot diameter vacume pipes. It would also be the lowest energy cost form of trnsportation due to no friction. To move from New York city to Miami (about 1500 miles), the train would accelerate at 1/4th gravity using regenerative induction motors. It would take 33 minutes to reach Miami and be traveling 5,400 miles per hour at the 750 mile half way point. The 400 miles between LA and San Francisco would take 17 minutes. A 100 mile trip would take 8.6 minutes. A 200 mile trip would take 12 minutes and reach a maximum speed of 1980 mph .

Although this is technically feasable now, if higher temperature superconductors were developed, then it would be hands down the most cost effective mode of transportation between cities even if gas was 10 cents a gallon.

[mioffe]

09:52 PM on 06/07/2009

Dear watchTVgetSTUPID, please watch lessTV and be smart.

Please ask yourself simple questions:

How much energy we need to keep vacuum in "6 foot diameter vacume pipes"?
How much will cost this pipes? I hope they will not be make from paper.

"If higher temperature superconductors were developed" they will found their field of application in transportation, but not in fantasy like this.

[larry278]

07:32 PM on 06/06/2009

The idea of much faster trains in the mid-west is a good idea. The mid-west is fly over country & much of the mid-west is in the rust belt. Anything that will get you out of the mid-west faster is a good thing. WTF wants to be in or see the mid-west?
Till the mid-west gets super fast trains, put high walls between Interstates & the populated or any other land in the mid-west as they do in NJ. That will allow those going throught the mid-west avoid seeing how miserable the midwest is.

[rf-hawaii]

07:26 AM on 06/06/2009

Bullet trains are old hat. We need hyper trains. Trains as fast as planes and a hundred times cheaper!

Time to innovate and lead the world once again!

Perhaps one or two surplus GM factories could play a role.

[mioffe]

09:05 AM on 06/06/2009

Bullet train, hyper train anyway will have huge mass.
You are not alone even in this post who completely understand role of mass in movement. Even many Engineers and Scientists are looking on mass very primitive.
Law of inertia for real bullet and for bullet (hyper) trains are completely different.
1. E=1/2xmxVxV will apply to train if we are using for some reason brake in train.
2. Weight (P=mg g-acceleration due to gravity) will apply to train as Friction (F) force
F=fxP=fxmxg, where f-coefficient of friction.
3. What miss many Scientists and Engineers that any road not absolutly hard and because of that wheels of moving train produce curves under them, which are moving forwards with speed of train and depend from weight P=mg. Spring of cars, trains are only for passengers and do not play any significant role in creation of these curves (on land without concreate this curves could be few inches). Restriction in this case R=P(mxg)xVxL. For train L - width of wheels on rail.
Force of Restriction are responsible for noise in the land, which is bigger for track than car, and of course huge in any type of train. The biggest will be in hyper train.

[mioffe]

09:33 AM on 06/06/2009

Sorry in restiction forces I forget put coeficient of restriction r. R=rXP(mxg)xVxL.
In reality it is more complex force (forces) but also create huge looses of energy.

In USA we have low density of population and ten times less density of tourists than in Europe.
It is also huge factor against bullet, hyper transportation.

Our strategy for movement of people and many types of load need to be SMALL CARTS-10 KG, MOVING BY ROAD, ON ROADS WITHOUT INTERSECTION.
IN THIS CASE AS AERODYNAMIC, AS ALL THREE FORCES DEPENDING FROM WEIGHT (MASS) WILL BE THE LOWEST.

I HOPE THAT YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME. IN THIS CASE OUR TASK HOW TO INFORM OUR GOVERNMENT? MAYBE YOU KNOW?

[prosha]

09:27 PM on 06/06/2009

Well said.

[mioffe]

02:34 AM on 06/06/2009

How many tourists attracted in millions:

France 81.6 – 2007
Spain 55.6 – 2006
Italy 36.5 – 2006
United Kingdom 24.6 – 2006

USA 56 - 2007

[lvogt]

10:46 AM on 06/05/2009

Using old track to have mediocre-speed rail will only lock us into old technology.
We are becoming a rust-belt nation full of old technology, decaying bridges and roads and worn out ideas. We used to lead the world now we're too cheap and short-sighted to keep up. Private companies don't build infrastructure, governments do. But private companies, and everyone else, profit from infrastructure.

[mioffe]

12:01 PM on 06/05/2009

Dear lvogt: "Using old track to have mediocre-speed rail will only lock us into old technology."

We could say the same about any heavy track, moving with any speed.
This is previous century solution, or millenium, if you wish.

We need build new systems of transportation with small cart (10 kg), moving by ROAD on road without intersection. It need to be electrical transportation, completely automated.
Right time is the best time to put Engineers of big3 to solve all task in this direction.
Instead of waste our time, money and invention activities to build and buy old ideas from Europe and Japan, we need invent new direction and buid it as for USA, as to sell them to the world.

[Tom95134]

01:31 PM on 06/05/2009

The major issue here is that it is highly cost prohibitive to go out and lay new track AT THIS TIME. In fact, the rights-of-way are probably the major factor in moving to really high speed trains. We have just too many meandering curves in our existing rail system which was designed for the most part in the late 1800s. However, there are some sections that could be changed now. An example would be the Milwaukee-Chicago corridor. There is lots of auto and airplane traffic between these two cities and high-speed rail would reduce this thus relieving congestion on Chicago airspace.. Much of the right-of-way in this corridor is reasonably straight and could be cleaned up during the process of electrification. THERE IS NO REASON TO DO HIGH-SPEED RAIL WITHOUT ELECTRIFICATION!

The surrounding Chicago metro area needs modernization which can reduce the number of cars on the road. Especially if the Chicago metroplex introduces time-of-day density based tolls for driving into the city.

As to extending into Michigan, it is hard to justify it right now but when you consider a future Chicago metroplex that extends around the southern shore of Lake Michigan and up into Michigan the future demands that work be started NOW.

All in all, Amtrak Joe is right. We must start working on these advanced transportation systems now. Besides, these kinds of infrastructure projects will create large numbers of jobs now and for years into the future.

[mioffe]

01:52 PM on 06/05/2009

You know the same as me how many usual trains are derailed in Chicago area.
Why are you going in the same direction.
It is previous century or even beter millenium direction.

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

12:59 AM on 06/05/2009

I think it makes more sense to put in an extensive subway system in a metro area. That way many people could get rid of their cars. High speed intracity rail will be very expensive and not enough passengers to be cost effective.

[lvogt]

10:35 AM on 06/05/2009

If you build it, they will come. Cities will have there own transportation agendas locally.

[Tom95134]

03:18 PM on 06/05/2009

City based transportation systems just don't work well. The taxing authority isn't widespread enough to bear the burden of building and operating transit systems. At a minimum, it has to be regional and with broad based authority to overrule local municipal objections. An example of local objections standing in the way of regional transportation needs is found in the San Francisco Bay area with BART. The expansion of BART around the bay has been constantly hampered by local authority in spite fo rthe fatc that the taxpayer has voted again and again to pay for the expansion.

[Clayton139]

12:02 AM on 06/05/2009

http://horsepowersports.com/fuel-vapor-technology-3-wheels-180hp-92mpg/

[mioffe]

12:48 AM on 06/06/2009

It is good, but still not enough, weight need to be 20 Lb, moving automatically by road on roads without intersections.

[prosha]

09:29 PM on 06/06/2009

Bravo!

[Egalitare]

07:15 PM on 06/04/2009

If this gets me a train from Metro Detroit to Toledo and parts East WITHOUT having to go thru Chicago, I'm all for it.

[notwhatUwant2hear]

04:19 PM on 06/04/2009

Drill here, drill now
What, they are talking about spending more money, not Joe, not O, say goodbye country.

[lvogt]

10:40 AM on 06/05/2009

Spending money is the point. If you hadn't noticed, unemployment is 10% because private enterprise is NOT spending enough money. The amount of oil the US can drill can be completely countered in Saudia Arabia by a small turn of the spigot. What we don't need is more rapid burning of fossil fuels. A modern infrastructure is a major stimulus to all forms of economic growth.

[Tom95134]

03:24 PM on 06/05/2009

You better look again. Real unemployment which includes under-employment is someplace in the area of 15+%.

[mioffe]

12:25 PM on 06/05/2009

Dear notwhatUwant2hear, even if we will drill we need use oil for chemical industries. Oil deserve more respect, than as source of fuel.
If person with 200 Lb is moving in car, weighting 4,000 Lb by engine with efficiency 25-50%, we are spending 1 gallon of gas to move person and 99 gallon to move car.
In huge power plant we are loosing 80% of energy-heat in vain.
If we will build small power plant, where we could use not only electricity but also heat, we need at least 3-4 times less energy. In this case wood will provide more useful energy, than coal or even oil in current power plant.
In nature old trees anyway will be rotten. It is nothing wrong to burn old trees for energy production and grow forest around plant as source of fuel.
It is the best way to fight GW especially if we could solve all GHG from the oven in water to watering these trees.
We need new directions for transportation-small cart(20Lb) moving by road on road without intersection.
These direction will save our money and create 100% of employment in USA.

[prosha]

09:30 PM on 06/06/2009

Yep.

[sc300nc]

12:49 PM on 06/04/2009

They are fooling themselves if they think they can get a big chunk done for $3.4B. These projects are always estimated low, but once they get underway the costs keep rising and rising. $9.6B to construct a 3,000 mile system? Do they think we are that stupid?

[Cyberoptic]

02:44 PM on 06/04/2009

Yes.

[KillTheMessenger]

03:59 PM on 06/04/2009

From what I have heard, depending on location, it costs from close to $100 million to $1 billion to construct a mile of track in the US these days (the $1 billion/mile is needed to drill the last few miles of tunnels to get to the inner cities in most locations). So 3000 miles would be closer to $300 billion.

But if we believe the cost estimates for the TGV, see e.g.

http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr40/f22_ard.html

they could build track for as little as $4-10 million per km, or $7-16 million per mile. I would think it's close to impossible to get that low in the US. So let's estimate a lower end of $25 million per mile. That would make the project come in around $75 billion.

[mioffe]

02:39 PM on 06/05/2009

"So let's estimate a lower end of $25 million per mile. That would make the project come in around $75 billion."
We pay for flight on 3,000 miles around $400.
We need, let calculate- $75,000,000,000 : $400/passenger = 187,500,000 passengers-only to return busyness expences.
ARE YOU KIDDING, OR YOU HAVE PRINTING MONEY MACHINE?

DEAR MR. BIDEN, PLEASE STOP ASAP WRONG DIRECTIONS.

[edwinm]

11:31 AM on 06/06/2009

The article you mention is a bit outdated I think. The most recent figures I could find are the new TGV between Le Mans and Rennes in France, which construction begins end of this year. Length 182 km, estimated cost 2,4 billion Euro. That is 13.2 million per kilometer. On the one hand the terrain there is relatively easy, but on the other hand the rule of thumb for this kind of projects is that the final costs are twice the initial estimate.

As is illustrated by the High Speed Line from Schiphol Airport to the Belgian Border in The Netherlands. Estimated in 2000 for 3.4 billion Euro, the final costs end 2009 is 7.15 billion Euro. Total length: 100 km. Here the terrain is not so easy, a densely populated area and environmental concerns required a lot of extra construction (bridges, fly-overs, tunnels, you name it). But is still 71.5 million Euro per kilometer.

Having said that the French TGV system is a huge commercial succes, as is the German ICE. The article you provided point that rightly out.

And why shouldn't it be: from closing my front door to ordering lunch in Paris in 4 hours: beats an airplane anytime.

[mioffe]

12:47 PM on 06/04/2009

IN OUR GOVERNMENT WE HAVE MORE LAWERS, BANKERS THAN SCIENTISTS.
Maybe it is reason why we are have in senate Senators as Democrat, as Republican which have not knowledge of Basic Physics.
Kinetic energy (E), mass of moving subject (m) and speed (V) depend from each other by simple formula:
E=1/2xmxVxV.
In all cases with speed less than 250 miles/hour (it is correct-250, not 25) loose of energy depends more from mas than from speed.
MASS TRANSPORTATION, THE SAME AS HEAVY CARS, ARE RELICTS OF PREVIOUS CENTURY OR TO MORE INSULT OUR SENATORS PREVIOUS MILLENIUM.

INVITE INVENTORS IN GOVERNMENT, GIVE THEM THAT MONEY AND DURING FIVE YEARS THEY WILL SOLVE PROBLEMS WITH TRANSPORTATION, GW, 100% OF EMPLOYMENT.

STOP WASTE OUR INVENTIONS SPIRIT IN DIRECTIONS OF OLD SOLUTIONS!

[KillTheMessenger]

03:51 PM on 06/04/2009

See... mioffe... that's why we have more lawyers etc. than scientists. They failed science class just as badly as you did.

"Loss of energy" is not mass dependent. If it were, all planets would fall into the sun... and according to your interpretation of Newtonian mechanics... almost instantaneously.

:-)

[mioffe]

02:43 AM on 06/05/2009

To move train we need increase speed. or decrease. On this process we loose fuel energy, which depend from mass. Mass of train (m) in the best case will be 100,000kg
Speed (V) 350 mi/h=350x0.4470m/s=156.45
E=1/2xmxVxV=1/2x100000x156.45x156.45=1/2x100000x24476.6
As you see mass play role 4.085 times bigger than speed.
Wight (P) , depend from mass and acceleration of gravity will also influent on restriction from friction.
Movement of planets and stars in this case are irrelevant.

[mioffe]

04:57 AM on 06/05/2009

Trains are moving not in sky, where airplane could move straight from city to city.
They must use brake before every bridge, or curve of road, before intersections with others road, on every turn around hills, lakes, etc.
It is better to organize movement of one person on cart with weight 10 kg as in cities as in interstate roads.
In this case we no need to worried about loosing energy on movement very heavy cars, or bus, or trains.
It is always cheaper to build roads without intersection, for small carts, than for heavy train, cars or trucks.
We could use second and third floor of new houses or businesses to build these roads.
Engineers of big3 will solve these problems durind five years, giving jobs for builders after first half year.
IF WE NEED CHANGES, WE MUST LOOK FORVARD TO REAL INNOVATIONS, NOT REPEATING YESTERDAY ACHIEVEMENTS BY OTHERS NATIONS

[mioffe]

10:40 PM on 06/04/2009

Dear KillTheMessenger:
As I know mass of train will be no less than 100,000 kg
Speed 350mi/h=350x0.4470m/s=156.45m/s
Kinetic energy-E of every moving subject with mass-m and speed V:
E=1/2mxVxV
In our case E=1/2x100000x156,45x156.45=1/2x 100000x24477
As you can see kinetic energy depend from mass 4.08 times more than from speed.
Senators "failed science class just as badly as you did."
The same you are wrong about role of GHG in nature.
Learn more, please, about properties of water, ice, water droplets and water vapor.
Please do not forget, that molecular weight of H2O=18, N2=28, O2=32, CO2=44.
Water vapor as lighter gas has tendency to go up to cloud level. Clouds are mixture of air, almost 100% of water vapor, and mostly-water droplet.
Water vapor is invisible gas, we can see only water droplets in clouds, in fog. Droplets are main reason responsible for visibilities.
I am not against lawyers, but they need to do their job.

[KillTheMessenger]

12:57 PM on 06/05/2009

You are not even making sense today. Maybe you weren't making sense, yesterday, either, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I think I will stop that today and say it the way it is: you are simply talking gibberish.

[rwext]

10:59 AM on 06/04/2009

Yeah , but Joe is still afraid of trains for his family