Travel Comments, Reviews and Blogs http://soulofamerica.com/interact Share your comments with SoulOfAmerica travelers Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:52:46 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 Michael Jackson The Immortal World Tour: Review http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/michael-jackson-immortal-tour/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/michael-jackson-immortal-tour/#comments Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:11:54 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=10065 Bad, Michael Jackson Immortal Tour

Bad, Michael Jackson Immortal Tour


How does a show production meet overwhelming expectations for a tribute to the greatest entertainment icon of all time? How does that show honor the artistic genius whose songs, dance routines, videos and showmanship transformed pop culture worldwide? And if a show seeks to answer those questions, it can never measure up to the tease of Michael Jackson's This Is It™ revealed to millions at the cinema, broadcast and on home video. For such a Don Quixote-like mission, Michael Jackson The Immortal World Tour™ springs forth with a bold artistic approach that lands on favorable, but mixed footing.

No director can include all the hit songs desired by domestic and international audiences in a 2-hour show. Since the show can't be 8-9 hours, like triage, tough creative choices have to be made. Yet the show picks enough of his top hits to capture the essence, humanity and inspiration of MJ's legacy that transcends generations, races and nations. A collage of visuals, dance, music, costumes and fantasy presents you a creative world partly envisioned by Michael Jackson, thrust forward in grand fashion by awarded-winning Cirque du Soleil director, Jamie King.


While honoring Michael Jackson via his music, choreography and vintage imagery, the director's approach fully engages the world-class capabilities of Cirque du Soleil artistry, acrobats, aerial strap artists, mime, pole dancing, contortion and dance for show that at its best, is riveting, surprising and bountiful. Speaking of bounty, more than 60 international dancers, musicians and acrobats give several standing ovation performances as good as any Cirque show in Las Vegas. Music director and long-time Michael Jackson collaborator, Greg Philinganes, also delivers the goods with musical gusto. Since I saw the show at Staples Center in Los Angeles in January 2012, the appearance of Quincy Jones and other celebrities were added treats.

Before I get into more of the good stuff, I have to unload my disappointment with a few scenes, beginning with the Jackson Five visits Neverland scene and the chimp. The director intended the audience to perceive the J5 fanatics as trying to sing their way into Neverland, but they come off as caricatures who evoke off-putting confusion more than joyful tribute. Bubbles the chimp was cute the first time we saw him, but why does he annoy us showing up 2 or 3 more times for no good reason. And why was a song that elevated Michael Jackson to solo superstar status, Rock With You, missing, while one of his marginal hits got major love? Somebody missed the memo.


The show had other moments to soar, but instead took us halfway to musical bliss with a 4-song mega-mix (Can You Feel It, Don't Stop Till You Get Enough, Billie Jean, Black Or White). The eye-catching Billie Jean light dance captured everyone's attention, yet lacked the closing Wow Factor demanded of Michael's signature song and dance routine. Just as I was ready to groove, Billie Jean quickly segued to a very good rendition of Black Or White.

For my taste, Beat It would have flowed better into Black Or White, amplifying the Rock vibe of both signature scenes earlier in the show. Cirque could also have substituted Rock With You for Can You Feel It to form a soulful vibe quenching mega-mix, Rock With You and Don't Stop Till You Get Enough, flowing into a more definitive Billie Jean that could have brought the house down.


Now back to the good stuff. Cirque du Soleil's maestro wizardry is evident from the first to last curtain, guiding the audience on a roller coaster from the gentle spirit of Michael Vulnerable to the iconic Michael Triumphant. On the high points of that roller coaster, Cirque's creative touch feels organic to the emotional tenor of Michael’s songs. And when that emotional tenor includes Michael's imagery, the show really soars.


That organic match is easily recognizable during eight or nine captivating scenes and one lesser known scene featuring a contortionist so good she's scary. The sequence featuring This Place Hotel, Smooth Criminal and Dangerous was magnificent. And despite not having 3D effects or sound, riggings and staging as sophisticated as those in a Las Vegas Cirque du Soleil productions, Thriller was spectacular and satisfying. Staples Center was Michael Jackson's last stage. If Michael was watching above the stage, I'd bet that his biggest eyes and widest grin found comfort with Thriller.


At the end of the day, no one can match the groundbreaking achievement that would have been Michael Jackson's This Is It™ show, had he lived. Nor should Michael Jackson The Immortal World Tour™ playing in 20,000-seat sports arenas be judged to the standard of Las Vegas Cirque du Soleil shows playing in custom-built 3,000-seat theatres with complex aerial riggings, magical staging, surround sound acoustics, perfect sight lines that reveal more detail and intensify intimacy. When fans see this show, it should simply be judged as a touring tribute whose grand reach is somewhat short of the immortal promise we imagine.

Show tickets may be purchased at:
http://www.cirquedusoleil.com/en/shows/michael-jackson-tour

]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/michael-jackson-immortal-tour/feed/ 0 Viva Elvis Review http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/las-vegas/viva-elvis-review/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/las-vegas/viva-elvis-review/#comments Thu, 05 Jan 2012 01:31:42 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=9914 Viva Elvis, King Creole

Viva Elvis, King Creole


Viva Elvis begins as a love letter to Elvis Presley fans ends with a rousing thank you. Before commenting about what happens in between this Cirque du Soleil show at Aria Resort, its important to understand Elvis' mysterious manager, Colonel Tom Parker, and a false urban legend that might affect your viewing experience for this maudlin Vegas show.

Colonel Parker by contract, severely restricted the who, where and when Elvis could perform, even for charitable causes and definitely not to show public support of the Civil Rights Movement. That limited Elvis Presley from his creative roots to produce more songs worthy of critical acclaim. But as a financial manager, Colonel Parker had no equal keeping Elvis' bank account in the deep in greenbacks via radio, 50 million people seeing him on TV, movies, and a Whitehouse visit. As a result, this 1960s heartthrob was often perceived by the media as aloof and overly focused on Hollywood movies arranged by Colonel Parker. Right or wrong, music critics proffer that at the height of his creative powers and popularity between 1960-67, he should have struck a better balance of less movies, more writing & selecting non-movie songs to perform live in concert.

As for the urban legend that Elvis made a racist comment in 1956 towards African Americans -- bury it, burn it, forget it. No one has ever proven a source or witness. In fact, overwhelming evidence from a Jet magazine reporter in 1957, black folks like B.B. King and Rufus Thomas who knew him in Memphis and other artist/celebrities who came to love and respect him like James Brown, Sammy Davis Jr. and Muhammad Ali runs 180 degrees opposite. And excluding times when Colonel Parker used contract power to prevent him, Elvis supported many shows by black artists and fundraising events. Most importantly, Elvis praised the many great black singers and songwriters as the originators of Rock n' Roll. Keep in mind that some people jealous of Elvis Presley's commercial success in Rock n' Roll, just as there were people jealous of Michael Jackson's success in Pop Music. Jealousies often lead to unsourced rumors.

Despite Elvis' socially progressive attitude, he was woefully behind the curve signing a management contract with Colonel Parker, who collected a up to a 50% management fee when the industry standard was 15-22%. Perhaps he was intimidated by Colonel Parker ruthless use of that ironclad contract to managed his career. Colonel Parker made Elvis Presley's bank account bigger than most other artists, so half of a larger pie must have been one reason Elvis was afraid to from confront him. I found no indication that Elvis mustered the courage to seriously confront Colonel Parker until their near split in 1974. Yet Colonel Parker somehow remained manager-of-record after a short bust-up. Even after Elvis' death in August 1977 and before his burial, Parker was cutting Elvis Presley merchandising deals with him receiving the majority of royalties, rather than the Elvis Presley Estate. In that context, I found it interesting that Viva Elvis uses a characterization of Colonel Parker as the muse helping audiences appreciate the multi-layered artistic life of Elvis Presley.

I don't consider myself a fan of Elvis Presley per se, but I am a fan of great entertainers. Any entertainer collecting as many accolades as Elvis certainly warrants my attention as a Vegas attraction. Approaching Viva Elvis Theater, I notice that the curtain is decorated with golden disks that recall the 151 Elvis Presley records that went gold, platinum or multi-platinum in the USA -- more than any other performing artist in history. The design of Elvis Theater stage has a wide proscenium layout to accommodate the large-scale set elements and quick-changing scenes. Some say a Circle-in-the-Round stage configuration would have been better - I agree. Typical of Cirque shows the stage is separated into many sections, 12 in this case, which can rise to a height of ten feet. Depending on the scene, platforms move in support acrobatic performers, singers, dancers or set elements. The opening set features a giant jukebox with a 50-foot tall video screen and a gigantic steel and fiberglass Blue Suede Shoe to drive home the opening song's theme and to pay homage to the larger than life persona of Elvis Presley. I also found myself gasping at some of at the huge guitar and Jailhouse Rock stage sets as Cirque skaters performed like X Gamers on steroids.

Show producers reviewed 914 Elvis Presley albums and countless films, concert recordings, interviews and home recordings to select a melange of Rockabilly, Delta Blues, Gospel and Rock n' Roll cuts from his days singing Mississippi folk music, listening to black choirs, hanging out on Beale Street in Memphis, and various recording sessions in Memphis, Nashville, New York and Hollywood. Sampling imagery must have been the easy part because in the 1960s, nearly every movie and TV show that included Elvis Presley was a hit. After that lengthy selection process, the show incorporates 30 songs, including: Blue Suede Shoes, Got A Lot if Livin To Do, That's All Right, Heartbreak Hotel, Love Me Tender, King Creole, Bossa Nova Baby, Burning Love, Memories, Can't Help Falling In Love, You'll Never Walk Alone, Viva Las Vegas and Suspicious Minds. In general, songs fit the narrative of the show, Presley’s boundless energy, textures in his voice and his disarming charisma. Typical of Cirque du Soleil audio engineers, they expertly removed all the pops, ticks and hisses from songs that extend back to the 1950s and 60s. Elvis Presley's voice never sounded sweeter on the digitally mastered score accompanied live by four female singers and eight musicians -- nice touch!

As expected, male dancers sported lots of leather jackets, flashy colors and a pompadour hairstyles typical of Elvis in concert and the 1950s mainstream perception of Elvis as a rebel. Female dancers donned Vegas showgirl costumes decorated with plumes of colorful feathers. Their imagery recalled his Las Vegas days in the early 1970s. Stage sets were spectacular and acrobatic performances met the best Cirque du Soleil standards, which is to say world-class. I did however, find two acrobatic sets disjointed from Elvis Presley's music and several dancers in the back row to be less than A-listers by Cirque du Soleil standards. At those moments, I found myself asking for better biography narrative, less Cirque du Soleil. Unfortunately, those two moments seem to occur 1/3rd and 2/3rds into the show, disrupting continuity of the show's Wow Factor, common to Cirque du Soleil shows.

Fortunately, the vast majority of the 90-minute show deftly integrates visual artistry, inventiveness and acrobatics with Elvis Presley photos and video. The sets integrating Elvis' image were both charming and electric. I could see, hear and feel why Elvis Presley was the Michael Jackson of his generation. You will too.

Yet I've heard rumblings about Viva Elvis not meeting the attendance expectations of Aria Resort. Looking into the reasons, I learned that some fans grumble that there's not enough Elvis visual biography. Others say not enough Cirgue du Soleil. I say maintain the balance, but tighten storytelling to preserve continuity of the Viva Elvis' Wow Factor, like The Beatles LOVE by Cirque du Soleil. I hope the Aria Resort-Cirque du Soleil-Elvis Presley Enterprises trio have the patience to enhance their roughhewn treasure, rather than let Elvis Presley, a Vegas icon and entertainment legend, fall into the dustbin of tribute sideshows now occupied by fellow Vegas icons and entertainment legends Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis, Jr. And if the show is enhanced, please juice it with a whiz-bang hologram of Elvis performing on stage - a Wow Factor sure to capture every patron's imagination.

Venue: Aria Resort
http://www.arialasvegas.com/viva-elvis]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/las-vegas/viva-elvis-review/feed/ 0 Lagniappe Creole Cajun Joynt http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/chicago/chicago-restaurants/lagniappe-creole-cajun-joynt/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/chicago/chicago-restaurants/lagniappe-creole-cajun-joynt/#comments Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:45:48 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=9023
DESCRIPTION: Restaurant with business casual dress welcome; live jazz is coming soon; after deciding to attend Xavier University in New Orleans, Louisiana, where she received her degree in Chemistry and after travel to the Caribbean and Europe, Mary Madison found her niche in cooking; she blends herbs and spices to develop distinct flavors anchored in the Creole-Cajun tradition for you to enjoy!
CUISINE: Creole-Cajun
CREDIT CARDS: no
COVER CHARGE: yes
DAYS & HOURS: Tue-Thu 11a-8p, Fri-Sat 11a-10p
ADDRESS: 1525 West 79th Street Chicago, IL
PARKING: on street
PHONE: 773-994-6375
WEBSITE: http://www.cajunjoynt.com


Lagniappe Creole Cajun Joynt Map and Driving Directions

 
From:    To: 

]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/chicago/chicago-restaurants/lagniappe-creole-cajun-joynt/feed/ 0 Lancer’s Steakhouse and Lounge http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/cleveland/cleveland-restaurants/lancers-steakhouse-lounge/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/cleveland/cleveland-restaurants/lancers-steakhouse-lounge/#comments Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:37:58 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=8938
DESCRIPTION: Restaurant and lounge; owner George F. Dixon III has been a Cleveland City school board member and Chairman of the Board of RTA transit agency; a Who's Who of notables have dined here over the years include Carl and Louis Stokes and Cleveland Browns football star Jim Brown; the original landmark restaurant since 1960 and all its memorabilia burned down; but this well-loved establishment reopened down the street in 2010; in addition to good company, friendly service and weekly entertainment, they offer free WiFi; keeping it in the family today, George F. Dixon IV runs the show
CUISINE: Steak & Soul Food; steaks and burgers are tasty and well portioned; they also have pretty good crabs and mussels
PRICES: under $25
CREDIT CARDS: yes
COVER CHARGE: no
DAYS & HOURS: Mon-Sat 11a-2:30a, Sun 1p-2:30a
ADDRESS: 7802 Carnegie Ave, Cleveland, OH
PARKING: on street
PHONE: 216-881-0080‎
WEBSITE: www.thelancersteakhouse.com


Nighttown Restaurant & Jazz Club Map and Driving Directions

 
From:    To: 

]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/cleveland/cleveland-restaurants/lancers-steakhouse-lounge/feed/ 0 America Must Build An Interstate High Speed Rail Network, FastPart 4 http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-acela-network-part-4-3/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-acela-network-part-4-3/#comments Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:29:28 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=8457 Thomas Dorsey, SoulOfAmerica.com
HOW MUCH OIL CONSUMPTION DOES AMERICA NEED TO REDUCE?

You can't solve long term transportation problems without addressing long term energy solutions, particularly oil and coal.

In the case of oil, the majority of sand in the hourglass now fills the bottom. In 2010, America consumed 7.3 billion barrels of oil from 27 billion barrels of world oil supply. Despite boosting domestic oil extraction over the last 15 years, about 3.6 billion barrels of oil were imported with a very large chunk from OPEC nations, who also have the world's largest oil reserves. Even former oil executives predict higher oil prices in the near future.

The smallest threat to oil supply flow causes price shocks. In 2011, oil prices quickly jumped from $90/barrel to $110/barrel following the rebel outbreak in Libya, despite the fact that Libya supplies less than 4% of the world's oil. Libya's name doesn't appear on our Top 15 List of Crude Oil Import Sources, yet U.S. gasoline prices quickly spiked up to 35 cents/gallon after the rebel outbreak. Following that outbreak, oil prices came down again because OPEC wants us to stay hooked. To paraphrase the words of our largest oil pusher, "We don't want the West to find alternatives, because, clearly, the higher the price of oil goes, the more they have incentives to go and find alternatives."

You might be think that equating OPEC to "oil pushers" is inflammatory. I beg to differ. Its an unpleasant wake-up call, since I'm closely paraphrasing words uttered by Saudi Prince All-Walleed bin Talal on CNN in May 2011.

With that evidence spoken in broad daylight, it is clear that until our President and Congress agree on major energy and transportation policy changes, oil prices will yo-yo just enough to keep America strung-out on foreign oil, tolerant of gradual price increases and crippled from developing sustainable energy transportation. And if we remain crippled at the same pace, we'll be in significantly worst transportation shape than our Global Economic Competitors.


COAL CONSUMPTION, THE BACK-END DANGER FOR ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION

Even though America extracts all its own coal for consumption, coal is equally scary. Nothing is more environmentally damaging than mining and burning coal due to its CO2, acid rain, ozone, soot and toxic mercury emissions and other byproducts generating electricity. In 1950, 19% of coal was consumed for electricity generation in America. Yet in 2009, 93% of coal was consumed for electricity generation. The increased coal consumption by America and China are the largest contributors to global warming and air pollution. If we build our wish list of electric cars, electric transit and electric HSR, but increase coal consumption for electricity to power them, we'll wipe out all the CO2 and air pollution reductions from burning less oil.

Some say Clean Coal Gasification Technology, though expensive and complicated, is the answer. The idea behind that technology is to create synthetic gas that burns as clean as natural gas. Sounds good, but the Devil is in the Details. Coal gasification yields synthetic gas nearly twice as expensive as natural gas. Second, America has a 90-100 year supply of natural gas, if we can safely extract it near underground water tables. Third, even if synthetic gas were as plentiful as natural gas, there aren't even enough coal gasification plants on the drawing board to replace available natural gas. Hence, I conclude that clean coal gasification is a pipe dream.

President Obama wants to open more land for coal mining that does not appear to be entirely for clean coal gasification. And if clean coal gasification is commercially viable, the oil & gas industry would be investing like gangbusters. Alas, they are not. Clean coal gasification is a talking point to neutralize a political enemy, nothing more.

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCES, DEMAND SECTORS AND POLITICAL REALITIES

In 2010, transportation constituted 72% of the 7.3 billion barrels of oil/year of consumed by America. That converts into roughly 5.1 billion barrels of oil/year for Transportation sector. Another 22% converts into 1.7 billion barrels of oil/year for the Industrial sector.


President Obama understands that his voter base expects him to begin changing the energy mix to our demand sectors. Americans loathe OPEC and want better regulation of deep sea oil & gas oil drilling, but still want domestic oil and natural gas. Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases and is not hostage to OPEC, but the earthquake-tsunami-nuclear accident in Japan reminds us that nuclear power plants should only operate in geologically safe areas and we should not risk building too many of them. We're neophytes developing renewable energy, but recognize that wind, solar, geothermal and sustainable biofuel energy have huge upside.

Having weighed all the geopolitical and economic realities, President Obama wants to increase Natural Gas and Sustainable Renewable Energy, and maintain Nuclear Power to supply 80% of Electricity Generation by 2035. He wants to cut foreign oil by a third by 2025. Obama's 2011 Energy Plan does not reduce coal consumption. As a salve to Green voters, he offers the Clean Coal Technology pipe dream.

His policy effects on the energy mix chart above would switch the size of bubbles for Petroleum vs. Natural Gas. The Renewable Energy bubble would reach the size of Natural Gas bubble today. With much smaller bubbles represented on the energy mix chart, oil and coal lobbies hate President Obama's proposed policy. They have the luxury of only pursuing short term profits in their industry sector. But the President should do what's in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

CUTTING EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRICITY GENERATION, INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL SECTORS

By viewing the global warming chart in Part 3 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chart of 2006 CO2 Emissions measured in TeraGrams, its clear that America is in a race against time changing the energy mix for electric power, transportation, industrial, residential and commercial demand. Reducing imported oil is one of the few soundbites with bi-partisan appeal. So the President wants policies to modestly increase domestic oil to about 4 billion barrels of oil/year, while reducing imported oil to roughly 2.5 billion barrels of oil/year by 2025.

That pace of total oil reduction is simply not fast enough. A better solution is policies that lead us from 7.3 billion barrels of oil/year down to 3.5 billion barrels of oil/year to wipe out foreign oil consumption by 2030.

Nuclear power produces zero CO2, but has major restrictions limiting its deployment. Sustainable renewable energy is the only supply source that safely reduces CO2 and smog, but we need to quadruple current production to eliminate foreign oil from our energy demand sectors. Burning natural gas produces half as much CO2 and smog as oil and one third those of coal.


The Industrial sector tends to amortize heavy equipment and manufacturing lines over 20-30 years. If government tax policy helps them speed conversion to more Biofuel, Industrial oil use can cut from today's 1.7 billion barrels oil/year to 1.0 billion barrels/year by 2030.

Sparked by the high price of oil and peer pressure, we can count on America's Residential and Commercial sectors converting to a lot more renewable energy of their own. Major advances and cost reductions are also coming for solar and windmill devices to be placed on homes and offices. Thus, we can bet on Residential and Commercial sectors reducing from 0.5 billion barrels today down to 0.3 billion barrels of oil/year by 2030. That leaves 1.3 billion barrels of oil/year used by Industrial, Residential and Commercial sectors.

To reach a reasonably secure 3.5 billion barrels of oil/year, our biggest challenge is to reduce Transportation oil use from 5.1 billion barrels of oil/year to 2.7 billion barrels of oil/year. Will our President and Congress summon the courage and cohesion to do it?

REDUCING 2.4 BILLION BARRELS OIL/YEAR FROM U.S. TRANSPORTATION CONSUMPTION

New federal policy must help us cut 2.4 billion barrels of oil/year from the Transportation sector consisting of passenger automobiles, airplanes, transit, intercity passenger trains, freight trains, freight trucks and ships by 2030.

Freight train, freight truck and ship operators have reduced "engine idling" practices to cut greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption. Now freight train, freight truck and ship builders are converting to cleaner-burning Biofuel-Hybrid engines. But given the long lifespan of freight train locomotives, freight trucks and ships, most fleets won't turn-over until 2020-2030. I'll summarize a lot of research by stating, we can only get a combined 0.4 billion barrels of oil/year savings from Biofuel advances for freight trains, freight trucks and ships. So we need 2.0 billion barrels of oil/year savings from airplanes and autos.

Jet fuel consumes 12% of all oil used by transportation or 0.6 billion barrels of oil/year, with over 99% of it used by airline fleets. America's airline fleets are heavily populated with the worst polluting and least oil-efficient segment of all transportation -- older regional jets traveling under 500 miles between large cities. A Brookings Institute study finds that over 50% of American flights are regional flights under 500 miles and 99% of them travel between our Top 100 Metro Areas. Regional flights under 500 miles attain only 7-20 minutes of fuel-efficient cruising time per flight. Otherwise they spend 15-20 inefficient minutes reaching cruising altitude and 15-20 minutes of inefficient descent. Their oil-wasting, CO2 and NOx pollution generation levels were compounded by a lot of engine-idling to taxi on runways.


To the relief of many residential and commercial districts near large airports, the aviation industry has cut engine-idling on airport runways. They are introducing more oil-efficient jets that emit less air & noise pollutants with less turbulence, like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a long distance jet. Next generation Boeing 737 and Airbus A-320s regional jets arriving 2015-16 will mix oil and sustainable biofuel plus other technical advances to cut fuel consumption and CO2 by 25%. That welcome news, coupled with the next generation air traffic control system to reduce takeoff and landing delays, should save 0.2 billion barrels of oil/year by 2030. Even with those notable aviation advancements, America must still cut 1.8 billion barrels of oil/year from autos.

GREENER CARS HELPING, BUT NOT ENOUGH

According to the latest available USDOT data, in 2007 all passenger cars averaged 22.5 MPG and light trucks averaged 18 MPG. To give ourselves the chance to eliminate non-North American oil imports by 2030, we have to ramp up auto MPG quickly and significantly increase the percentage of biofuel used in each gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel.

With help from Congress and Detroit automakers, President Obama escalated CAFE standards 30 MPG passenger car and 24 MPG light trucks/SUVs in 2011 to 39 MPG passenger cars and 30 MPG light trucks/SUVs by 2016. There's also a free-market push for Electric Hybrid Cars that surpass 100 MPG. Advanced biofuel mixed with gasoline, may cut oil and CO2 use by 50-75% per gallon. In the next two decades, automotive innovation will extract a lot more MPG using less oil in these Electric-Hybrid Cars.


Electric cars like the Tesla Roadster can also match the acceleration of a Porsche, reach 245-mile driving range and use a regular house-plug to recharge in under 4 hours. And that's just the opening act. Government incentives are helping industry work on breakthroughs to increase driving range three-fold and lower the price of electric-vehicle batteries six-fold by 2020. Batteries are the most expensive components of electric cars. Coupled with high-volume manufacturing, electric car prices should drop significantly. Furthermore, electricity-generating windmills are ramping up in America and solar panel costs are on pace to drop by 70% later this decade.

So why can't greener autos wipe out 1.8 billion barrels of oil/year from transportation? The answer: old cars, more drivers and highway traffic congestion.

SURPRISE: MORE HIGHWAY LANES DO NOT REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Its true that cutting traffic congestion can reduce oil consumption and CO2 emissions. But it is false to believe that more highway lanes will reduce congestion. About 62 million Americans will be added to our population by 2030. So if we continue adding super-highway lanes under the guise of congestion relief, the average interstate will have 10-12 lanes running hundreds of miles, creating even more more congestion and more accidents by 2030.

Furthermore, the mathematics of queuing theory proves that average speed decreases because more autos traveling at different speeds and changing lanes more often introduces more traffic delay. The Mathematics of Queuing Theory applied to highway lanes proves that since drivers need at least one extra lane to pass, the most efficient super-highways have only 2-lanes-per-side. That means a 4-lane-per-side super-highway only carries about 65% more traffic than a 2-lane-per-side super-highway. Traffic lane efficiency gets worse for each lane added and population growth multiplies the congestion effect. So if we add more super-highway lanes, electric, hybrid and oil cars will be stuck in traffic longer, with the latter two vehicle types consuming more oil.

An astute traffic engineer summarized the situation perfectly, "widening highways to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity."


Lastly, America has more than tripled the number of carpool lane miles in the last 20 years, but that has only invited more single-passenger drivers to increase congestion on super-highways. This is firm proof that adding more carpool lanes to super-highways does NOT lower traffic congestion or oil consumption. So I forecast that cuts from autos will only take us from 1.8 billion barrels of oil/year down to 1.3 billion barrels of oil/year remaining to be cut from the Transportation sector.

Due to so many sprawling metro areas, the realities of distant work locations and the enduring need for face-to-face activities, increases in biking and telecommuting can only reduce oil consumption another 0.1 billion barrels of oil/year. Thus, we would still need to cut 1.2 billion barrels of oil/year from transportation.

Fortunately, electric-powered Rapid Transit and HSR are proven alternatives to conserve energy while preventing traffic congestion from getting worse. See Part 5 about the scale, where to build, and types of Rapid Transit that best compliment HSR.

]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-acela-network-part-4-3/feed/ 0 America Must Build An Interstate High Speed Rail Network, FastPart 7 http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-acela-network-part-7/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-acela-network-part-7/#comments Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:42:24 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=8396 Thomas Dorsey, SoulOfAmerica.com
CRITICALLY EVALUATE HSR SOURCES, BOTH PRO AND CON

Since I criticize soundbite journalism and back-channel funding of anti-HSR forces such as the Reason Foundation, Heritage Foundation, and Cato Institute, its only fair to encourage you to search their websites for arguments against HSR and to disclose my background. I am not a HSR lobbyist. I equally welcome airline and Amtrak ads on this website. I support commercial aviation advances and I like driving on open freeways.

Equally important, I don't believe America should build HSR in every corridor. Nor should we build simply to keep up with the latest train technology worldwide. I believe that private HSR companies should also compete with Amtrak, even in HSR routes where the public pays for 75% or more of construction costs. But since private HSR companies are not absorbing the route and station construction costs, they must accept some regulation like a public utility to keep ticket prices affordable and train frequency high for more patrons. If private HSR companies don't want regulation, let them pay over 75% of construction costs.

After reading this multi-part article, consider reading a series of pro-HSR articles like these by the Brookings Institution and America 2050.

In fairness to both sides, lets hope that PBS or Discovery Channel create a 1 hour investigative story about the building of Interstate HSR Network in the near future. Note that I said, "Interstate HSR Network", because the discussion should yield insights about a national transportation solution, not just HSR lines in a couple corridors. Nor should we fall for the red herring pitting highway maintenance funding vs. HSR funding. The Institute of Civil Engineers acknowledges that both transportation modes must be funded higher than today. Above all, weigh the breadth of arguments about HSR without falling for single sources or soundbite conclusions on either side.

Having done that homework, I fall into the pro-HSR camp currently supported by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).

CHANGING FEDERAL PRIORITIES TO RAMP UP INTERSTATE HIGH SPEED RAIL CONSTRUCTION

Some politicians claim HSR may be good for that other state, but it has no benefit for my state. If such provincial thinking prevailed, we couldn't cost-justify half the rural freeways around the country. Other shortsighted politicians claim America is too broke to fund interstate HSR, but should continue funding interstate highway construction because "it pays for itself with gas taxes." Nonsense!

Congress has spent $42-44 billion/year on highways each of the last 6 years, yet federal gasoline taxes amount to less than $20 billion/year. Thus, we transfer more money from general taxes to pay for Highways than for Transit ($9 billion/year) and Railroads ($3 billion/year) combined -- an ugly fact the "America is too broke for HSR" politicians can not rebut.

Critics are right however, to echo that funding a comprehensive national system will not be cheap. Transportation Secretary LaHood acknowledges it will cost taxpayers $500 billion over 25 years for an Interstate HSR Network by 2035. That is still less than the $1.35 trillion taxpayers invested in interstate freeways when oil was plentiful. The 21st century however, features a new energy landscape with oil supplies gradually dwindling. Hence, we must simultaneously boost investment in HSR and Rapid Transit, while repairing roads and bridges for a larger percentage of Electric& Hybrid cars, and increase renewable energy to power our transportation.

U.S. troops are being withdrawn from Iraq in 2011. President Obama is also withdrawing the troop surge from Afghanistan in 2012. Depending on outcomes from the November 2012 election and total troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, Obama may have a stronger opportunity to further cut unneeded defense expenses by more than $150 billion/year by 2014 compared to 2011.

With the option to build a HSR network without raising taxes AND cut the deficit, plus all the Big Carrots and Big Sticks, Congress has formed a High Speed Rail Caucus to better educate the public and media. They can draw strength from a recent Harris Poll that indicates overwhelming support for a national HSR system by people who vote for both political parties.

By 2035, an electric and biodeisel-powered Interstate HSR Network alone can save us the cost of 0.5-0.7 billion barrels of crude oil/year from foreign sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration states the price of crude oil accounts for about 67% of the per-gallon gasoline price. If we had an interstate HSR network today when crude oil costs roughly $100/barrel, an additional $50-$70 billion/year would circulate in our economy, instead of transferring to foreign nations. At a projected $400/barrel of crude oil by 2035, an additional $200-280 billion/year would circulate domestically. So investing in HSR is like spending $5,000 in home solar panels to save $35-40,000 in utility bills over 25 years. Short term pain, long term gain.

Democratic and Republican governors who understand those macroeconomic cost-benefits, are ready to scale up HSR funding. For the 3 governors who turned down $3.6 billion in HSR funding, 35 other governors quickly applied to divvy up their share. That kind of response in 2011, led President Obama to announce that his Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal include $53 billion/6 years for 1900 miles of HSR. There's also a ridiculous number of Rapid Transit projects in our Top 100 Metro Areas that will cut even more foreign oil and compliment HSR. So Obama's FY2012 transportation budget also proposes $119 billion/6 years for Transit.

Every dollar invested in HSR and Transit generates about $6 dollars of domestic economic activity. More domestic economic activity means more tax dollars to pay down budget deficits. Wait, there's more! Lets say $25 billion/year from defense cuts gets invested in HSR and Transit. By 2015, that could still leave $125 billion/year from defense cuts to reduce the federal deficit.

TIMING IS RIGHT FOR SPECIFIC HSR CORRIDORS TO BUILD MOMENTUM

President Obama's FY2012 budget proposal attracted naysaying from shortsighted Congresspersons backed by rural voters who only want transportation funds spent on Highways and Aviation. Conversely, it sparked greater support from Congresspersons backed by urban voters who want more HSR and Rapid Transit funding. None more so than California, which is leading the nation with its $9.9 billion HSR bond to leverage federal and private funds building a world-class 220 mph HSR system.

The HSR Agency must also strike more public-private HSR partnerships. For example, a private party claiming to have funding from Las Vegas casinos vouches they will put up $3-4 billion to fund a 140 mph "Desert Express" train from Las Vegas to a small city along the Interstate 15 Freeway corridor, just north of the San Gabriel Mountains. They seek completion funding from California DOT for the train to reach downtown Los Angeles and connect to California HSR. Since California government has no incentive to build wider freeways that promote more revenue exodus to Nevada casinos, that will not happen.

But the nation as a whole benefits from lower foreign oil consumption, less CO2 and fewer air traffic delays caused by the Los Angeles-San Francisco Bay Area-Las Vegas transportation triangle. Therefore, the Federal HSR Agency should quickly coordinate a Desert Express Los Angeles-Las Vegas alignment to begin shortly after the California HSR Kickstart. And it should run up to 220 mph like California HSR system.


Beginning FY2012, our President and Congress will have the option to redirect a small chunk of the first defense cuts to HSR without raising taxes. Despite the budget deficit battle, both urban and rural interests need a transportation bill approved, if only to show more jobs created on their resumes for reelection. So there will eventually be horse-trading between rural and urban-interest Congresspersons and the President. We don't know how much of the President's $53 billion/6 year HSR funding proposal will be approved after negotiation. But we do know that 35 governors in both parties want a lot more HSR funds from the federal pot. That's a strong clue that another significant funding chunk will make its way to these high-merit HSR corridors:

• Boston-Providence-New Haven-NYC-Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington
• San Francisco-San Jose-Fresno-Bakersfield-Palmdale-Los Angeles-Anaheim
• Springfield-Hartford-New Haven
• Philadelphia-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh
• Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse-Albany-NYC
• Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Greensboro-Charlotte
• Richmond-Norfolk
• Milwaukee-Chicago-Springfield-St. Louis-Kansas City
• Chicago-Gary-Kalamazoo-Detroit
• Vancouver-Seattle-Portland-Eugene
• Los Angeles-Palmdale-Barstow-Las Vegas (with Desert Express $ backing)

Most are relatively easy projects to upgrade existing track for 110 mph speed. San Francisco-Los Angeles-Anaheim corridor is a complex 220 mph project that will start construction early 2012 and should open by late 2019. Boston-NYC-Washington corridor is an equally complex project. High speed-only tracks, new electrical wiring, new bridges, new tunnels and a replacement for NYC Penn Station must be built for current trains to reach 160 mph later this decade. Faster speeds in the Northeast Corridor will come later.

COMMUNICATING THE RIGHT CRITERIA, SPEEDS & TIMELINE TO AMERICANS

With Amtrak patronage already hitting record levels, Americans are warming to train travel. Even Tea Party governors in Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio recently changed their tune in limited support of faster trains. Hence the Obama-Biden-LaHood trio, Congressional HSR Caucus, pro-HSR governors & mayors, America 2050, U.S. High Speed Rail Association and Brooking Institution should take this moment to unify plans and messaging that will overcome Americans' fear of the unknown with a sharper, more compelling vision.

They should be more forward-looking than the current Vision for High Speed Rail in America Plan, which identifies HSR/Intercity Passenger Rail by three speed categories:

• 125-250 mph Core Express HSR
• 110-125 mph Regional HSR
• 90 mph Emerging HSR

The democratic market economies of the Japanese, French, Italians, Spaniards and South Korea upgrading high-merit HSR corridors today that are proof points adaptable to our democratic market economy without promising speeds higher than 220 mph. We need more operating test results. From experience in France, Spain and Japan, we know that 199 mph (320 kmph) service has energy costs, noise and comfort levels viable for commercial operation. Manufacturers have also certified that the latest generation upgrades to those trains are safe for passenger operation up to 236 mph (380 kmph), but with more energy consumption, noise and slightly more vibration.

In fall 2011, Italy will run those new trains at 217 mph (350 kmph), testing the latest advances to keep energy costs, noise and passenger comfort at acceptable levels for commercial operation. If those tests go well, Italy plans to increase to 224 mph (360 kmph) in 2012. Also in 2012, France, Japan and Spain will introduce similar new trains operating at 217 mph, with speed up plans later.

What if the Europeans and Japanese find that energy costs, noise and comfort levels dictate that top speed should remain at 217 mph? That's close enough to 220 mph, changes how Americans think of train travel and achieves operating profit. Since 220 mph, is good enough to motivate Americans, let's drop the 250 mph future speed crap.

The Vision for High Speed Rail in America Map has more issues. It inexplicably glues 48 states together in High Speed Rail Corridors and Other Passenger Rail Routes without summarizing merit criteria for routes, speeds or completion dates. As a result, it fails to spark both imagination and confidence from solid critical analysis.


To make HSR "Cool", our political leaders and HSR proponents should quickly blend the best ideas. Some routes should be deleted, added and speeded up. As project leader, USDOT's HSR Agency should diligently execute this task. Then, Obama-Biden-LaHood should jointly unveil the 2035 Interstate HSR Network Vision Maps by late 2011. Presented in a 3-page Acrobat PDF summary for mass consumption, the first page should summarize HSR merit criteria, so the average American understands why cities and corridors do or don't merit inclusion, HSR speeds and foreign oil & greenhouse gas reductions by 2035. The second page, an HSR Speeds Map, should illustrate 3 colors for 200-220 mph Express HSR, 110 mph Emerging HSR and 90 mph Conventional Rail routes. Those 90 mph top speed routes should only be for rural low-population corridors longer than 400 miles like Seattle-Minneapolis, San Antonio-Tucson, Chicago-New Orleans and Washington-Cincinnati. The third page, an animated HSR Construction Forecast Map, should contain 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030 and 2035 milestone completion dates.

High-merit 200-220 mph HSR corridors can take 15-20 years to complete, so they should be identified to receive initial construction funding no later 2015. If a future governor turns down money, they must answer to their constituency for omitting their state from jobs and a prominent role in the Interstate HSR System.

The 2035 Interstate HSR Network Vision Maps must be widely circulated across the Internet, TV and Print media. Ask celebrities, mayors, governors and businesspersons to back it in a compilation Youtube video embedded in the first page. The animated HSR Construction Forecast Map will also intensify competition for HSR funds, like the first map did for the Interstate Highway System. Then we'll see public demand for HSR funding rapidly increase. For bonus points, the Federal HSR Agency should include a 4th and 5th page showing similar maps for China and Europe to spark Americans' competitive DNA.

FINISHING TOUCHES ON A NEXT GENERATION, INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

More Federal Highway funding is needed to clear the deferred maintenance backlog on roadways, bridges and tunnels. It should replace many old freeway interchanges, add more landscaping & sound walls, and increase safety for fewer accidents. We also need more live traffic displays above freeways for better traffic flow. Equally important, the USDOT should fund modifications for electric & hybrid car priority on freeways. After closely scrutinizing their application, no more than 1% of Federal Highway funds should be used for new freeway lanes.

Federal Aviation funding should remain at the current level, but with greater emphasis on the NextGen Air Traffic Control System to reduce gridlock in the air and on the ground. NextGen, is the transformation of the radar-based air traffic control system since the 1950s to a satellite-based system of the future. This transformation is essential to safely accommodate more passengers per flight, smarter flight routes and runway efficiency, while complimenting procedures and technologies that reduce fuel burn, CO2, smog and noise.

For decades, airlines in America have used a "Hub & Spoke" routing approach where flights route from regional airports to large hub airports in strings of 150-750 mile flights per crew shift. With that approach, Boeing 737 and Airbus A-320 regional jets spend more time inefficiently using fuel to take-off and descend. The short mileage between cities also means they waste fuel with more taxi-time on the ground per day. As a result, regional flights generate significantly more fuel burn per passenger, as well as more CO2, smog and noise pollution surrounding airports.

Next generation 737 and A-320 jets will fly higher and cruise faster delivering 25% better fuel efficiency, 25% less CO2 & smog and less turbulence will populate airline fleets that turnover in 2015-25. Increasing demand for HSR trains will also cut demand for sub-500 mile flights. To rebalance their operating economics for better profits, the big airlines can't wait to use NextGen jets and air traffic control system that will string together more 500-1500 mile flights per crew shift.

From a traveler's perspective, NextGen Air Traffic Control System and NextGen 737 and A-320 jets will reduce ground taxi-time, take-off delays, and weather delays. They will enable better flight spacing, higher average airspeeds, and quicker descent patterns for shorter flight times per mile. For example, total travel time for San Francisco-NYC flights could reduce by 30 minutes or more. Lastly, more large airports will have convenient Rapid Transit stations. Even more impressive for regional travelers, Chicago, Milwaukee, San Francisco, Baltimore, Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale and Miami airports will feature a combo Rapid Transit-HSR station like Newark Liberty International Airport does today.


Though America is the world's last superpower, we have fast growing economic competitors giving chase in the 21st century. They are closing ground with smarter balanced transportation infrastructure that requires far less oil. To meet our competitors challenge, we too must re-balance transportation infrastructure to feature Rapid Transit, HSR, Smart Highways, Electric Cars, Hybrid Cars, longer flights by NextGen Jets and more bike lanes.

The Big Sticks of Global Economic Competition, Population Growth, Air Pollution, Peak Oil and Climate Change are threatening our way of life in 25 years. Responding to these threats, America's economic competitors are preparing for those threats more quickly than us. But we're not too far behind, yet. Smartly investing $100 billion/year in transportation will get us back in the ballgame. And if we tie the Smart Electric Grid to Electric Cars, HSR and Rapid Transit, we can anchor a world-class Intermodal Passenger Transportation Network that embraces the oil-depleting future, rather than be punished by it.

]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-acela-network-part-7/feed/ 0 America Must Build An Interstate High Speed Rail Network, FastPart 6 http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-acela-network-part-6/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-acela-network-part-6/#comments Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:31:23 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=8380 Thomas Dorsey, SoulOfAmerica.com
FEDERAL LEADERSHIP TRIO SHAPING A BOLD NEW HIGH SPEED RAIL PLAN

When President Obama kick-started HSR projects with $13 billion of recovery act funds. He called it a down payment towards a national HSR system that would be a hallmark of his presidency like the Interstate Highway System was for President Eisenhower. He also kick-started biofuel, wind turbine, solar panel research project funding, which can power electric trains and electric cars. Later in 2010, Congress obliged the President's initiative with $2 billion additional HSR funds.

The genesis of the President's goal is easily understood because he rode Amtrak from Chicago to Springfield during his stint as an Illinois state senator. President Obama relates well on this subject with America's #1 rail fan, Vice President Joe Biden, who rode Amtrak between Wilmington, DE and Washington, DC for over 30 years as a U.S. Senator. President Obama also chose Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, a traditional Republican with a penchant for riding high speed trains. Now the trio is building public and media support -- the first step to persuade a congressional majority and more governors to fund HSR projects.



The $15 billion HSR/Amtrak Kick-start funded a mix of conventional and high speed intercity rail projects mentioned in Part 1 of this article. President Obama upped the ante in his 2011 State of the Union Address by recognizing HSR as a key new transportation mode required to "Win the Future." In his address, Obama set a visionary goal -- build an interstate HSR network by 2035 that is accessible by 80% of Americans.

Biden supports that vision by touting a Northeast HSR story he knows like the back of his hand. In the 227-mile Washington-NYC corridor, the majority of regional flyers switched to Amtrak Acela, even though the HSR route needs additional upgrade. Every chance with old senatorial colleagues, he reminds them that Amtrak and HSR in general, have many potential benefits for America, including rural areas. Even those who disagree with Biden respect him for speaking from deep knowledge on this subject, not from a lobbyist cheat sheet. Tapping his respect factor among old colleagues, Biden is working behind the scenes to convince a couple Republican Senators to provide a measure of bi-partisan support for HSR.

Transportation Secretary LaHood, though lesser known to national audiences, must translate the president's vision into construction milestones. He has a firm grasp of America's rail legacy, Congressional and state-by-state politics delaying our journey towards an interstate HSR network. He knows that 22,000 miles of legacy rail routes and old train stations awaiting restoration will save us several hundred billion dollars.

Secretary LaHood has also been riding HSR trains in Europe and Asia while talking with train experts to better understand the benefits, costs and suitable conditions to build a world-class HSR network. From abroad, he learned that Amtrak's best performing trains in the Northeast Corridor rank near the bottom compared to the rest of the developed world. To triple or quadruple patronage of the Northeast and other high traffic corridors, LaHood learned that we should anchor an Interstate HSR Network with Express HSR corridors that reach 185-220 mph top speed, 135-170 mph average speed and 19-110 trains per day. In other words, trains that run every 10 to 60 minutes from 5 am to Midnight.

Even with 22,000 miles of legacy rail routes, old train stations and technology advances, Secretary LaHood estimates that an Interstate HSR Network will cost $500 billion to build. LaHood also knows that Big Carrots identified in Part 2 of this article make 185-220 mph top speed routes worth that significant expense and longer time to build over 25 years. By comparison, the nearly 9-year Iraq War had a direct cost of $800 billion and thousands of lives, without ongoing benefits to America.

Dozens more HSR funding applications from governors since Obama's HSR Kick-start (Phase 1) are nice signs of support, but LaHood suffers no illusions. Politics killed/deferred HSR projects in three states, forcing him to reallocate $3.6 billion of HSR funds to fewer states. The political will of eight other states remain question marks and the current House of Representatives is blocking additional HSR funding in 2011. In short, anti-HSR forces are searching for any reason to block future HSR funding. So LaHood faces the added pressure of executing the HSR Kickstart Phase with near-flawless precision. Within his U.S. Department of Transportation, is the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) up to the task of HSR project management?

The FRA is accustomed to receiving about $3 billion funding per year and doling out $1 billion to Amtrak. Even in the HSR Kickstart Phase, $15 billion is much larger than the freight-centric FRA is accustomed to managing, even with a $5 billion pass-thru to Amtrak. And the amounts will get larger in route to $500 billion estimated by Secretary LaHood. HSR requires an order of magnitude greater planning and regulation than freight rail to succeed. To prevent more HSR further slip-ups by the FRA, I hope that LaHood splinters off a new agency whose core competence is HSR -- call it the "Federal HSR Agency."

As explained in Part 3 of this article, Big Sticks have removed the luxury of gradually upgrading conventional rail routes over 40 years. Part 4 of this article illustrates Rapid Transit momentum in top metro areas that will enhance HSR patronage. Considering the Big Sticks and Big Carrots, I advocate completing the Interstate HSR Network by 2030. The Obama-Biden-LaHood trio are well aware of the Big Sticks and Big Carrots, but political realities make a 2035 completion date more credible.

SUPPORTING CAST HELPING TO DEVELOP RANKING CRITERIA FOR HSR CONSTRUCTION

America 2050 HSR Study & Map, helps the media and public officials understand how mega-regions, corridors within mega-regions and city-pairs within corridors should be prioritized for construction phases. The study ranks the merit of mega-regions, corridors and city-pairs based on the collective weight of primary, secondary and tertiary factors. Northeast, Midwest, California, Texas, Florida, Piedmont, Arizona and Cascadia mega-regions have the highest merit scores.


Picking corridors for Phase 2 funding can be tricky. The freight-centric FRA has not published a credible corridor ranking criteria, so many HSR advocates focus on the America 2050 HSR Study. The biggest shortcoming of the America 2050 Study however, is their 2050 completion date. That's 15 years too late for our transportation security -- the driving factor behind the President's 2035 HSR Network goal.

A second major flaw is the America 2050 HSR Study treats Transit Connectivity Population as a Secondary Factor based on 2009 data. In Part 4 of this article, I explained that America is building a lot more Rapid Transit and oil prices will likely double. By 2020, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, St. Louis, Baltimore, Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Cleveland, Denver, Miami, Richmond, Raleigh and Charlotte will double transit patrons to downtown train stations. Furthermore, those cities are adding downtown offices, retail, attractions and residences. These factors are significant because like Europe and Asia, downtown train stations in big cities function as large intermodal transportation centers connecting as many public transit options, taxis, shuttles and car rental options as large airports.

Due to World Peak Oil conditions plus increasing oil demand by China and India by 2020, gasoline is likely to cost $9-10/gallon. The Federal Transit Administration has plenty of historical evidence that transit usage increases in direct correlation to gasoline prices. That means we can confidently forecast that when gasoline prices double compared to 2009, transit demand will double and HSR stations will be a far more important destination. Thus, I argue that 2020 Transit Connectivity Population Forecast should be a Primary Factor instead of today's Transit Connectivity Population listed as a Secondary Factor.

Third, the America 2050 HSR Study under-weighs population growth in our Top Metro Areas that form city-pairs. By 2030, there will be 75 million more Americans settling in our Top 100 Metro Areas and our Top 35 Metro Areas will have at least 2 million population. Many more city-pairs and corridors in mega-regions will increase to medium or high-merit scores. Hence, they will represent an even larger chunk of our travel, economic activity and experience more highway traffic congestion. The Big Sticks dictate that we either complete more HSR and Rapid Transit projects inside these top city-pairs by 2030 or congestion will reduce travel and economic activity. Therefore, completing Top 35 Metro Area City-Pairs in our most populous corridors by 2030 should be a Secondary Factor in merit scores.

The America 2050 HSR Study also implies that 90 mph conventional rail connections are sufficient to interconnect mega-regions. Successful HSR networks around the world prove that implication to be false. Here's a 400-mile corridor between two European countries analogous to mega-region within America whose endpoints less than 400 miles apart. The Mediterranean region cities of Barcelona, Spain and Avignon, France have shared a conventional rail line for decades. Once 300 km/h (186 mph) HSR lines opened between Lyon and Avignon, France and between Madrid and Barcelona, Spain, rail agencies for both countries received so much demand for an Avignon-Barcelona HSR line, they tunneled through the Pyrenees Mountains and will have the line operational in 2013. The same dynamic is happening all over Europe, not to mention Asia and South America. To meet the goal of HSR access for 80% of Americans by 2035, lets use foresight to benefit from European experience. Planning and purchasing rights-of-way in advance will save taxpayer money and construction time in the long run.

Lastly, unlike California HSR Authority, America 2050 does not document the amount of highway traffic congestion, foreign oil, CO2 emissions and smog each HSR project will save. Federal HSR has access to corridor engineering studies and proposals of private funding contributions to more accurately assign merit scores for each corridor. To better enlighten taxpayers of the value they're getting, Federal HSR should publish 2010, 2020, 2030 and 2035 forecast maps of highway traffic congestion, foreign oil consumption, CO2 emissions and smog in U.S. corridors WITH and WITHOUT the Interstate HSR Network.

CHOOSING THE RIGHT SPEEDS AND PHASING FOR AN INTERSTATE HIGH SPEED RAIL NETWORK

The U.S. High Speed Rail Association (USHSRA) is attracting worldwide HSR industry experts to their conferences to discuss best practices on how to build a world-class HSR network in America. The current USHSRA map comprehensively sews together the HSR viewpoints of international experts, many politicians and regional consortiums. It is the only Interstate HSR Network Map to date that sparks national imagination with the right top speed, mega-region connectivity and phased completion by 2030.


The 2030 USHSRA Map is not without issues. Federal transportation funding is typically decided in 6-year cycles. For FY2012, there will be a Congressional battle for the next 6-year HSR funding phase with funding battles repeating in 2018, 2024 and 2030. Hence, 2035 Interstate HSR Network completion date is more realistic than 2030.

Second, the USHSRA did not develop a rigorous ranking criteria for corridors and city-pairs. Consequently, half a dozen corridors or city pairs can be questioned in terms of phasing and speed requirement by 2035.

Another blemish is the USHSRA Map only identifies 110 mph and 220 mph top speeds. Americans should not be mislead to think 220 mph is the only practical HSR speed to target after 110 mph Emerging HSR. Last decade, France and Japan proved that substantially more patrons are attracted to 2nd generation Express HSR Routes that reach 168 mph top speed. With recent technology advances, 155-168 mph routes are being boosted to 186-199 mph top speed for more sub-3-hour trip times in Asia and Europe. We also know that some long corridors through straight flat terrain will safely support 220 mph VHSR Routes. So the top speed range possible for America's hi-priority corridors is 185-220 mph. Since the USDOT lumps Express HSR and VHSR routes together under the name "Core Express HSR", an enhancement to the USHSRA Map would be to illustrate Express HSR range as 185-220 mph coupled with 110 mph Emerging HSR on the 2035 Interstate HSR Network Map.

3 HOUR OR LESS TRIP TIMES -- A PERFORMANCE STANDARD FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS

Like air travel, HSR lines yield the highest benefits when they attract enough business travelers, so that coach seating costs less and still turns a profit. Business travelers flying from an airport, then driving to suburban destinations see little value in HSR. But interest is quite different when they travel by HSR to a city center in the same or less time. When the HSR option exists, business travelers compare:

• time to airport or train station
• ticketing & security time
• boarding time
• runway taxi, flight & de-boarding time
• baggage claim time
• taxi ride to city center time
• total travel costs

Before the 1980, many business travelers could go airport to center city in 2 hours. Today, it takes 3 or more hours. Since time is money, when HSR to city center trip times are 3 hours or less, business travelers prefer HSR. And when HSR trip times hit 2 hours or less, HSR business patronage soars because it enables more time per day at business meetings and more day trips. When more people move, more money circulates. As a result, nations worldwide are upgrading HSR speeds for more sub-3 hour trip times.


To drive home the importance of higher speeds, consider their time savings. Here are examples from a 2011 Siemens study for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association:

Chicago-Milwaukee
110 mph 1:08 minutes 150 mph 0:50 minutes 220 mph 0:40 minutes
Chicago-St. Louis
110 mph 4:10 minutes 150 mph 2:40 minutes 220 mph 1:55 minutes
Chicago-Cincinnati
110 mph 4:27 minutes 150 mph 2:30 minutes 220 mph 1:55 minutes
Chicago-Detroit
110 mph 4:24 minutes 150 mph 2:25 minutes 220 mph 1:55 minutes
Chicago-Cleveland
110 mph 4:48 minutes 150 mph 2:50 minutes 220 mph 2:15 minutes
Chicago-Minneapolis
110 mph not applicable 150 mph 3:45 minutes 220 mph 2:45 minutes

It plans for trains to run every half-hour during commute times and hourly other times. So if you miss your intended train, no big deal.

DESPITE PROOF POINTS IN AMERICA, HIGH SPEED RAIL FACES HEADWINDS

For decades, many politicians believed America was so unlike Europe that we would never support HSR. Ten years ago, many critics complained that no Amtrak line operated at a profit and and had lousy service. That criticism made it easier to hamper funding to Amtrak as a whole, so Amtrak and Northeastern states focused most funding improvements in the nation's densest corridor Boston-NYC-Washington.

Today, critics begrudgingly accept two modest success stories in the Northeast mega-region. Despite underfunding and sharing tracks with slow freight and commuter trains, Amtrak in Boston-Washington corridor runs faster, more frequent, on-time performance has improved from 75% to 87% and it operates at profit. Furthermore, the Philadelphia-Harrisburg corridor was improved to 80 mph average speed and more frequent service. Patronage jumped nearly 50%, pushing it closer to operating profits. Today, even the staunchest critics acknowledge that upgrading the Northeast Corridor to 220 mph will generate huge patronage, even if they don't yet agree on the cost to build it.


But anti-HSR forces won't acknowledge other successes attributable to Amtrak and relatively small amounts of state funding. In California, Seattle-Portland, Milwaukee-Chicago-St. Louis, and Washington-Richmond-Hampton Roads, Amtrak routes where improved to roughly 65 mph average speed and higher frequencies, triggering patronage jumps of 25-33%. By ignoring other modest success stories, anti-HSR forces want the media to quarantine success to the Northeast mega-region as long as possible.

Instead of examining the larger package of benefits, called "Big Carrots" in Part 2 of this article, then giving constructive criticism to help build more successful lines around the country, Cato Institute and Reason Foundation publish narrowly-focused critiques based on distortions and half-truths such as these:

• Excluding the Northeast, America doesn't have enough population density for HSR
• New HSR routes are too expensive to build
• HSR lines outside the Northeast won't operate at a profit
• Excluding the Northeast, America is too auto-centric to support HSR
• HSR lines don't reduce enough air pollution as compared to freeway expansion
• HSR can't run at 220 mph to meet patronage forecast by the California HSR Authority
• The Midwest doesn't have enough population to justify 220 mph HSR routes
• HSR should never be built until lots of rapid transit can feed it patrons
• Route upgrades to 79 and 90 mph top speed are being misrepresented as Emerging HSR Corridors

Today, HSR critics lipstick-on-a-pig arguments ignore the Big Sticks, Big Carrots and train technology advances. By de fault, they promote super-highway and airport expansion that does not relieve congestion and reduce oil consumption, while conveniently ignoring that super-highway and airport expansion have higher total costs to taxpayers. To follow their misguided reasoning, we have a limitless supply of cheap oil, can rip out as many homes and businesses as we need to add freeway lanes. Let future generations worry about climate change and lung diseases from smog. Only one point listed above merits their criticism: Route upgrades to 79 and 90 mph top speed being misrepresented as Emerging HSR Corridors.

Make no mistake, this is a particularly difficult political climate for the President and HSR advocates to navigate. So, how do we fund a bold Interstate HSR System to cut 0.5-0.6 billion barrels of oil/year? Read the next part for answers and insights.

]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-acela-network-part-6/feed/ 0 Interstate/Intercity Passenger Rail Taxonomy http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-high-speed-rail-taxonomy/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-high-speed-rail-taxonomy/#comments Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:08:03 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=8339 Thomas Dorsey, SoulOfAmerica.com
This expanded passenger train taxonomy fleshes out the categories summarized in Part 1 of the this article. Around the world, it would be called an Intercity High Speed Rail Taxonomy. In America, states play a larger role planning passenger rail between cities. So in America, it is more appropriate to think of as an Interstate High Speed Rail Taxonomy.

Freight Rail Routes reaching 49-60 mph top speed compose the majority of America's 22,000 miles of legacy rail shared between freight trains and commuter trains. In America, freight trains can legally run up to 79 mph, but for safety and fuel economy, they are typically limited to 60 mph. Furthermore, these routes have a torture test of speed limiting "Slow Zone" factors named in Part 1. Consequently, in America they average 35-45 mph, just fast enough to convey the world's most comprehensive freight train network. When the tracks are shared with commuter trains, most stations have low platforms. So passengers step up and down from trains. That means boarding and un-boarding take longer than stations having raised platforms.

Conventional Rail Routes reach 79 mph. These legacy routes host diesel-powered freight trains, commuter trains and Amtrak trains. Some routes feature a 3rd passing track in some sections, enabling 1-4 Amtrak trains daily. Most stations have low platforms, so boarding and un-boarding still take as long as Freight Rail Routes. All trains slow to 60-79 mph when crossing roadways. Stations are often 5-10 miles apart so these routes tend to average 55 mph. Top speed is suitable for commuter rail like Long Island Railroad and San Diego Coaster.


Improved Conventional Rail Routes reach 90 mph. These legacy routes host diesel-powered freight trains, commuter trains and Amtrak trains. Increasingly more Amtrak routes feature a 3rd passing track in some sections. Most stations have low platforms, so boarding and un-boarding still take as long as Freight Rail and Conventional Rail routes. All trains slow to 60-79 mph when crossing roadways, but these routes have safer crossing arms than Freight Rail Routes. Stations are often 10-15 miles apart so these routes tend to average 65-70 mph. Low-density 400 to 1500-mile routes like Amtrak Empire Builder and Amtrak City of New Orleans would give better, cost-effective service if upgraded to 90 mph service running 3-4 trains daily in each direction.

Emerging HSR Routes reach 110 mph via diesel- or electric-powered trains over routes that have fewer Slow Zones. Passenger trains and freight trains usually share track. In pursuit of higher average speeds, these routes are converting from deisel-powered to electric-powered trains that accelerate faster. They require poles suspending overhead electrical wires, called "catenaries", that transmit electricity to the train motor when touched by pantographs extended from the top of trains. To supply enough electric power, poles must tautly suspend catenaries over the entire route to maintain constant tension with train pantographs. There are more roadway overpasses/underpasses, more stretches where a 3rd track permits faster trains to bypass slower trains and high platforms are being added that enable patrons to quickly board/un-board trains for less time spent in stations. An automated train control system also enables more trains per hour.



Depending on how an electric-powered Emerging HSR Route is built and number of stops, it averages 70-80 mph and more frequent daily trains. But since freight train companies own most tracks, those private companies are reluctant to reduce good paying freight capacity for frequent lower paying passenger trains. The automated train control systems for passenger trains also smell like unwanted regulation to freight train companies.

There are only two long term solutions to this conflict of business models. Federal and state governments should purchase adjacent track space in rail corridors sharing Emerging HSR trains, commuter trains and freight trains. Then add tracks so each route has 2 freight tracks and 2 passenger-only tracks. As more overpasses, underpasses and high station platforms are built in such routes, Emerging HSR stations can be further apart to support 80 mph average speed, 8-14 daily intercity trains and 80% on-time performance. Freight train companies don't mind the 4-track plus more overpass/underpass approach because it also lets their trains achieve shorter delivery times without reducing freight capacity or excessive regulation.

Regional HSR Routes reach 124-149 mph (200-240 kmph). Japan, the HSR pioneer, established 200 kmph as the international minimum speed for "High Speed Rail." They have automatic train control, high platforms, overpasses/underpasses, and electric catenaries over their complete distance. In urban areas, routes are fenced to prevent people and animals from wandering onto tracks. Regional HSR Routes have fewer slow zones and their automated train control system enables 83-105 mph average speed, 15-25 daily intercity trains each way, plus 20-25 commuter trains on the same tracks. When stops average 40-50 miles apart, 80-95 mph average speeds and 85% on-time performance result, like the Amtrak Acela Express trains between NYC-Washington. Business travelers prefer these trains over flights up to 3 hours for distances of 200-250 miles. When priced less than flying, leisure travelers prefer these trains up to 4 hours for distances of 300-350 miles.


1st Generation Express HSR Routes reach 155 mph (250 kmph) top speed. The routes about 115 mph average speed with 95% on-time performance. Excluding nightly maintenance hours, they operate 25-50 intercity trains daily. Slow zones are minimized via 2 tracks that feature state-of-the-art bedding, high speed switches, concrete ties, continuous welding and more stringent leveling for a smoother ride. The entire route is fenced and substantially curve straightened. For higher top speeds, poles are spaced closer together for tauter suspension of catenaries to transmit more electricity to the engine. Only Germany shares freight trains on the same track as some of it Express HSR trains. Otherwise, passenger trains running 124 mph and faster are permitting on these tracks. Business class features leather seating, electrical outlets, WiFi and in-seat dining service.

2nd Generation Express HSR Routes feature upgraded catenaries, bridges, tunnels, engines, and better train control systems cut Slow Zones to reach 168-186 mph (270-300 kmph) top speed. Equally important only trains running at the same high speeds are permitted on the tracks to enable 135 mph average speed that attracts more business travelers seeking trip times under 3 hours up to 465 miles and 97% on-time performance. More impressively, Japan and France have transported billions of HSR passengers without a single fatality and run at 98-99% schedule dependability. Even Germany has begun upgrading from 1st to 2nd generation routes.


VHSR Routes reach 199 mph (320 km/h) today in China, Japan, France and Spain, while featuring 50-90 intercity trains daily. Once France safely achieved the world's fastest speed test at 357 mph (575 km/h), it opened the door to pursue commercial speeds above 199 mph via technology advancement producing less noise and electricity consumption per mph.

At speeds over 199 mph, even minute bulges on the exterior or gaps between trains increase wind-drag noise and vibration. So next generation VHSR trains (like French AGV or Canadian Zefiro) have premium aerodynamic sculpting to lower wind drag and increase energy efficiency by as much as 12%. VHSR trains have the most advanced wheels and regenerative braking that creates electricity for on-board services. The best of these tilt-trains are designed to reach top speed in 5 minutes, brake quicker, and have the most advanced train control systems for safety. Both France and Japan use nuclear energy to power trains and carry up to 700-800 passengers per train set. That's equivalent to two full Boeing 747s carrying passengers at a carbon dioxide footprint barely larger than a Toyota Prius.

VHSR Routes have state-of-the-art track profiles (premium track bedding, high speed track switches, long straightaways and mildly banked curves) for a smooth ride and higher average speeds. Completely fenced-off, routes are monitored to detect objects that fall onto tracks well before a train arrives. Like freeway interchanges, many routes use flyovers to eliminate crossing other tracks at same the level. More precise tension between catenaries and pantographs transmit even more electric power to engines and the newest catenary operate as cold as –58 degrees Fahrenheit. Given the strict operational tolerances of VHSR Routes, only similar speed, light weight trains run on them to prevent bottlenecks, maintain track alignment and lower friction noise. Outside urban areas, they have wider spacing between tracks to reduce air pressure vibration of trains passing in opposite directions or air pressure exerted on separate freight rail tracks in the same corridor.

Over this decade, China, Italy, Spain, France and Japan are introducing next-generation trains on more miles of VHSR Route. In other words, trains running 211-224 mph later this decade will have the noise and energy signature of older trains running 186-199 mph today. And since stops are spaced 60-120 miles apart, VHSR routes will then average 165-190 mph enabling 495-570 miles of travel in 3 hours.



So what's the top speed envisioned for VHSR Routes? The newest generation trains & tracks are safety rated for 236 mph (380 km/h) and its easy to forecast a train & track safety rating to 248 mph (400 km/h) in 10-15 years. But higher speed accelerates friction wear of pantographs and catenary wires. It also boosts wheel-on-rail friction noise and energy consumption. No country wants to operate VHSR so fast they must constantly replace catenary wires. Nor do they want public complaints of excessive friction noise or a high energy bill. So until technological advances bring significantly higher catenary durability, quieter wheels and greater energy-efficiency, VHSR's top commercial speed is unlikely to surpass 224 mph in the near future -- even in China.

MagLev, short for Magnetically Levitated Trains, requires powerful electro-magnets to both levitate and pull a large passenger train very fast above concrete tracks. Once a MagLev leaves the station and levitates up-forward, its wheels retract upwards so there is no longer contact with tracks. Their small wheels gently touch the concrete tracks when slowing to a stop. Unlike the friction of steel wheels spinning at high-speed on rail, MagLev is quieter running through urban areas and requires less track maintenance than VHSR. MagLev accelerates faster than VHSR and climbs steeper gradients, so trip times are shorter and tunneling is less expensive than VHSR. MagLev trains are ~20% more aerodynamic than the best VHSR trains because they don't require pantographs extending on top or side openings for wheel wells. If a MagLev and VHSR train set weighed the same, MagLev would require ~20% less energy than VHSR at 224 mph. But there are huge cons to MagLev.

MagLev can not use existing rail tracks, so its construction expense is typically twice that of new VHSR routes. That fact alone means MagLev must transport twice as many people per hour or charge twice the price of VHSR or some combination of the two. People rarely pay twice the price without twice the benefit, so MagLev promises significantly faster acceleration/deceleration, higher speed and fewer stops for half the trip time of VHSR.

Not so fast on the higher speed than VHSR. A law of Physics is that wind drag scales as the cube of vehicle speed. Thus, a given train that requires 1X electricity to overcome wind drag at 150 mph, requires 4X electricity at 225 mph and 8X electricity at 300 mph. Hence, even with 20% more energy efficiency than VHSR, MagLev barely dents the extra electricity required to surpass 300 mph. So to justify construction and energy costs double that of VHSR, MagLev needs a huge number of patrons willing to pay a fat premium for shorter trip time.

In operation to date, financial comparisons favor VHSR, which transports twice as many passengers per trainset and runs twice as many trainsets per hour as MagLev. With those factors in mind, even Germany, a pioneer in MagLev development, couldn't make the numbers work. So they cancelled a planned MagLev between Hamburg and Berlin, then sought an external party to license MagLev as a turn-key solution. Instead, Germany is building a VHSR Route.



Fortunately for Germany, plenty of state-owned coal reserves power China's electricity generation plants, so energy supply is not an issue for that country. The Chinese government saw opportunity to marry a distant international airport with its largest business center (Shanghai, 19 million pop.) while garnering tons of global PR showcasing its emerging technological prowess. Today, the MagLev China purchased from Germany operates between Shanghai Pudong International Airport and a Shanghai suburban station. Spending only $6/person for the government-subsidized ride, patrons are thrilled to smoothly accelerate to 267 mph (430 kmph) in less than 3 minutes. Even airplane pilots are impressed that It takes only 8 minutes to cover 19 miles. Since China has much lower labor & land costs, greater imminent domain rights, and benefited from a motivated seller in Germany, the bill was only $1.3 billion and construction completed in under 3 years.

The next chapter of China MagLev unfolds in 2014 when it extends into downtown Shanghai, then reaches 280 mph (450 kmph) in route to the city of Hangzhou -- an extension of 104 miles. At a projected construction cost of only $5 billion more, China will soon have the world's first Intercity MagLev.

Next Generation MagLev planned for Japan is a more interesting application for several reasons. Their test MagLev has already set a world speed record of 361 mph (581 kmph) through mountainous terrain, proving its feasible to operate MagLev through 60% tunnels in the 272 miles between Tokyo and Osaka. MagLev has lower tunneling costs that VHSR because it can climb a 10% gradient vs. a 4% gradient by VHSR. Coupled with those benefits, Japan is designing NextGen MagLev for acceleration to 311 mph (500 kmph) in 2 minutes, advanced superconducting magnets and better aerodynamics that will further lower wind drag, vibration and electricity consumption per mph. They will also increase cabin capacity.


Japan has labor costs, land costs and imminent domain rights more similar to America and Europe. Hence, Tokyo-Osaka MagLev construction is forecast to cost upwards of $70 billion. Despite daunting construction costs, the operating profits may pencil out over 25 years like a mortgage. The growing business centers of Tokyo and Osaka already have 25 million and 18 million residents, respectively. Jet fuel prices will make flying short distances a lot more expensive in the decades ahead. Thus, NextGen MagLev proponents are betting that it will attract enough business travelers willing to pay a premium for 67-minute trip time vs. 124-minute VHSR trip time between Tokyo and Osaka. Given Japan's outstanding VHSR network, it has the luxury to patiently advance NextGen MagLev technology before commercial operation.

If it enters commercial operation as planned by 2027, Japan's NextGen MagLev may become the model for very selective application by other nations desiring the benefit-cost ratio of 311 mph MagLev. Or will it? Maybe a technological leapfrog to 621 mph (1000 kmph) MagLev VacTrain will be a better choice, such as China is reportedly developing.
]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-high-speed-rail-taxonomy/feed/ 0 Blue Nile Ethiopian Restaurant http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/detroit/detroit-restaurants/blue-nile-ethiopian-restaurant/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/detroit/detroit-restaurants/blue-nile-ethiopian-restaurant/#comments Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:22:50 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=6556
DESCRIPTION: diner; diners can feast on a wide assortment of delicious Ethiopian cuisine family-style from one platter; in keeping with tradition, entrees are eaten with Injera—a special bread used to scoop up the food instead of utensils
CUISINE: Ethiopian; For some of the best Ethiopian fare in the area
CREDIT CARD: yes
COVER CHARGE: no
DAYS & HOURS: Mon-Fri 5p-10p; Sat 4p-11p, Sun 3p-9p
ADDRESS: 545 West Nine Mile Ferndale, MI
PARKING: on street
PHONE: 248-547-6699
WEBSITE: www.bluenilemi.com


Blue Nile Ethiopian Restaurant Map and Driving Directions

 
From:    To: 

]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/detroit/detroit-restaurants/blue-nile-ethiopian-restaurant/feed/ 0 Club Yesterday’s http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/detroit/detroit-restaurants/club-yesterdays/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/detroit/detroit-restaurants/club-yesterdays/#comments Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:18:27 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=6554
DESCRIPTION: Club Paradise merged with this club to form a better club featuring ballroom, steooing, hustle, and electric slide dancing; dress code strictly enforced
CUISINE: Light fare
CREDIT CARD: yes
COVER CHARGE: $7-$10 depending on the night
DAYS & HOURS: Tue-Thu, Fri 5p-2a, Sat 8p-2a
ADDRESS: 14060 Telegraph Road; Southfield, MI
PARKING: on street
PHONE: 313-255-8007


Club Yesterday's Map and Driving Directions

 
From:    To: 

]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/us-cities/detroit/detroit-restaurants/club-yesterdays/feed/ 0