Travel Comments, Reviews and Blogs http://soulofamerica.com/interact Share your comments with SoulOfAmerica travelers Thu, 10 May 2012 19:41:04 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 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 Interstate High Speed Rail Part 4 http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-hsr-network-part-4-3/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-hsr-network-part-4-3/#comments Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:29:28 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=8457 Thomas Dorsey, SoulOfAmerica
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 at home. That's because oil is priced according to the world market, not our domestic market. Second, oil prices are manipulated by Wall Street speculators who pounce on small/rumored disruptions to oil flow to quickly drive up prices, make a huge profit, then watch prices sink again. Here's an example. In 2011, world oil prices quickly jumped from $90/barrel to $110/barrel following the rebel outbreak in Libya, despite Libya supplying 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 35 cents/gallon after the rebel outbreak. Again in 2012, Iran threatened to block oil flow from the Persian Gulf. America doesn't buy oil from Iran, nor has oil been blocked, but speculators spiked prices again.

Following the first outbreak, oil prices came down again because OPEC wants us to stay hooked. To paraphrase the words of our largest foreign oil supplier, "We don't want the West to find (energy) 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.
So don't be surprised when oil prices drop again, albeit slightly higher than when Iran made its threat. Despite those words, we should not become OPEC-haters. OPEC is doing what American capitalists do in the same situation -- maximize profits and maintain revenue stream. Instead, we must hold our political leaders accountable.

With that OPEC 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 for transportation. If we continue consuming foreign oil at the same pace, we'll be in significantly worst transportation and energy shape than our Global Economic Competitors in less than 15 years.


COAL CONSUMPTION, THE BACK-END DANGER FOR ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION

Even though America extracts all its own coal for consumption, coal is scarier than oil. Nothing is more environmentally damaging than mining and burning coal due to its carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide (acid rain), ozone, soot and toxic mercury emissions from 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 man-made carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide towards air pollution. If we build our wish list of electric-powered Green Transportation, but increase coal consumption for electricity to power them, we'll wipe out all the greenhouse gas 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 makes no economic sense. Natural gas is cheaper than coal per BTU of energy generated and America has a 90-100 year supply of natural gas.

America's high efficiency natural gas-fired power stations produce 70% lower greenhouse gas emissions than existing brown coal-fired generators, and less than half the greenhouse gas emissions of "Clean Coal Technology" power plants. Third, natural gas allows for smaller distributed power plants as opposed to large centralized coal-powered plants, thereby providing more electricity security in case of disruption. Though natural gas is the reason coal-powered electric plants are slowly circling the drain, we still need to quicken the pace.

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 and underground drilling, but still want domestic oil and natural gas. Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, but the earthquake-tsunami-nuclear accident in Japan reminds us that nuclear power plants should only operate in geologically safe areas. For the one or two new nuclear plants that can meet modern safety requirements to come online, three or four should be decommissioned because they don't, like San Onofre nuclear power plant sitting near an earthquake fault on a beach in Southern California.

We're neophytes developing renewable energy, but recognize that wind, solar, tidal and geothermal all have huge upside in our energy mix because they produce Zero greenhouse gases. And algae biofuel produces less greenhouse gases than natal gas. So we have to invest in these clean technologies like Germany and China are doing to build industry dominance for tomorrow.

Having weighed all the national security, economic and political realities, President Obama wants to increase domestic oil, while cutting foreign oil by a third by 2025. He also wants natural gas, renewable energy and nuclear energy to supply 80% of electricity generation by 2035. As a salve to the coal industry, Obama's 2011 Energy Plan suggests that they convert coal-power plants to the pipe dream of Clean Coal Technology power plants.

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. But the President and Congress should do what's in the best long term interests of the nation.

If oil and coal companies care about America and the world their kids and grandkids will inherit, they can do it. Oil companies have the luxury of huge profits and ownership of most natural gas drilling permits. In these high profit times, they should invest more to make the "fracking" process safer to extract natural gas and develop renewable energy such as algae biofuel for jets, big trucks and ships. Coal companies also make good profits and have huge land rights, perfect for installing windmills and developing other renewable energy sources.

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 and 80% of coal consumption by 2035.


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 renewable energy, 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 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 sector oil use from 5.1 billion barrels of oil/year to 2.7 billion barrels of oil/year.

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

New federal policy and industry cooperation 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, trucks and ships by 2030.

Freight train, truck and ship operators want to convert to cleaner burning biofuel engines. But given the long lifespan of freight train locomotives, 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, 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 carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide 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 algae-biofuel plus other technical advances to cut fuel consumption and greenhouse gases 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. With help from 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. In the next two decades, automotive innovation will extract a lot more MPG using less oil in these Electric-Hybrid Cars.

Today's electric cars have a 225-250-mile driving range and can use a regular house-plug to recharge in under 4 hours. Government incentives are helping industry work on breakthroughs to increase driving range three-fold. Batteries costing $3000 are the most expensive components of electric cars and the biggest complaint about electric cars today. As volume manufacturing increases, electric-vehicle battery prices should reduce six-fold by 2020. Those developments and $20-30K vehicle price points will spark an upsurge electric car sales.

Furthermore, residential windmill and solar panel costs are on pace to drop by 70% later this decade. Thus, more people using electric-hybrid cars will significantly cut oil consumption for transportation. 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-hsr-network-part-4-3/feed/ 0 America Must Build Interstate High Speed Rail Part 7 http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-hsr-network-part-7/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-hsr-network-part-7/#comments Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:42:24 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=8396 Thomas Dorsey, SoulOfAmerica.com
AMERICAN POLITICIANS NEED RESOLVE TO BUILD HIGH SPEED RAIL THE RIGHT WAY

If you've read Parts 1-6 of this article, you either believe in the Big Sticks and Big Carrots case for building an Interstate High Speed Rail System or you're an HSR critic in denial of overwhelming facts. If you're an HSR critic, nothing listed below will change your mind. For others, Part 7 describes the challenging process of paying for an Interstate HSR System and building faster to save costs.

In 1974, just after the first OPEC oil embargo, France made tough funding choices to begin building High-Speed-Only tracks with no roads crossing tracks. TGV between Paris and Lyon opened in 1981. By building HSR the right way early, France reaps huge patronage, operating profits and worldwide praise for its 2,000-mile TGV system today. Given the volatile Middle East dominates world oil prices and increasing oil demand by China and India, France is not waiting for oil to become more expensive. They are expanding TGV to 4,000 miles and expanding non-oil Transit in all major cities by 2020. All over Asia, Europe and now the Middle East, South America and two countries in Africa, Express HSR Routes have been built or are under construction to achieve massive benefits described in Part 2.

Responding to the same Big Carrots, Big Sticks and aware of America's disgraceful Infrastructure Report Card, President Obama envisions a new Interstate HSR System, more Transit, repaired Highways and dramatically higher MPG autos to help America achieve transportation-energy security.

After decades sitting on their hands, Obama's leadership triggered both parties in Congress to accept that we must upgrade the Northeast Corridor to an Express HSR route. We too must build new bridges & tunnels, eliminate road crossings, buy adjacent land for High-Speed-Only tracks, upgrade electrical wiring and install a state-of-the-art train control system. Unfortunately, it will now cost a healthy fraction of $52 billion. Despite that daunting cost, the first $14 billion will enable existing Acela trains to finally reach 160 mph over much of the route and eliminate the worst Slow Zones. How soon will it be funded?



From the $787 billion economic stimulus, President Obama allocated $8 billion to HSR and $5 billion/5 years to Amtrak, which invests most of its money in the Northeast. The 2010 Congress allocated $2 billon more to HSR projects. Obama spread the money around states using a patchwork-merit approach authorized by Ray LaHood, his Secretary of Transportation for the USDOT. States hosting Amtrak/HSR projects contributed $3-4 billion more for a total of $18-19 billion.

In 2010-11, Northeast Corridor HSR projects were awarded $920 million in Federal Railroad stimulus funds, about $1 billion in Federal Transit stimulus funds and nearly $1 billion in Amtrak funds (from the stimulus). California HSR project was awarded $3.9 billion in Federal Railroad stimulus funds and existing Amtrak California routes received $322 million. President Obama figured a new Surface Transportation Bill would be passed by Congress for his signature before 2010-end to continue ramping up Highway, HSR and Transit funding.

Thus far, only half of Congress agrees with him on a new Surface Transportation Bill. Until the whole of Congress agrees, Obama can not authorize LaHood's USDOT to fund more HSR, Transit and Highway repair funding beyond the current inadequate level.

INNOVATIVE HSR FUNDING PROGRESS IN CALIFORNIA, BUT CHALLENGES REMAIN

In April 2012, California HSR Authority announced a revised business plan for its 800-mile HSR system that will cost $68 billion. By 2018, the project will improve Caltrain commuter rail in the San Francisco Bay Area and Metrolink commuter rail in Los Angeles by upgrading "Blended Track" capacity that will ultimately be shared with California HSR for 110 mph service in urban areas. That's a safe, yet fast speed similar to how TGV operates in French urban areas. In 2020, the Initial Operating Section connecting Merced in the Central Valley to Sylmar in the San Fernando Valley will open. By 2022, California HSR Phase 1 (San Francisco-San Jose-Gilroy-Fresno-Bakersfield-Palmdale-Sylmar-Burbank-Los Angeles-Anaheim) will open 220 mph service in long, straight rural areas. Extensions to Sacramento and San Diego will complete California HSR system by 2028.

The revised business plan sounds great and California HSR System will be a showcase project for America. But where is the money to pay for it?

California is committing $10 billion from a voter-approved state HSR bond and $12-15 billion/15 years from an innovative Pollution Credit Cap & Trade fund. Commuter transit agencies in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area own the most expensive urban rail rights of way, thereby speeding up the construction timeline, lowering total costs and permitting state and local transit agencies to contribute about $5 billion of transit funds over 15 years. After the Blended Track upgrades complete, California HSR Authority has been assured that private companies will contribute $10-12 billion more. Private companies will do so because they already invest the same scale of funds elsewhere in the world for Express HSR and VHSR Routes designed to generate major profits.


Despite the fuzzy calculus of funding lengthy infrastructure projects, California voters and politicians have constructed a realistic approach to raise $37-40 billion/15 years within the state. Yet, the remaining $28-31 billion must come from federal transportation funds. If Congress and the President agree on significantly higher Transit and HSR funding, the 800-mile California HSR System can deliver these compelling benefits-to-costs compared to the alternatives:

• its cheaper than $120-170 billion (2011 dollars) for new highway and airport construction
• avoids taking 60% more land for 6 new lanes of freeway
• avoids legal battles to add runway to major California airports
• creates 150,000 jobs across the state that increase tax revenues to help repay the California HSR bond
• saves up to 12.7 million barrels of foreign oil per year
• saves 5.5 million tons of greenhouse gases from cars and airplanes/ year, reducing ozone in 7 of America's 15 worst air polluted cities including #1, Los Angeles
• prevents hundreds of additional auto accidents from occurring each year

California deserves this level of HSR funding, given it has been the biggest tax donor to the federal treasury for decades. It receives far less than it contributes in federal taxes and is forecast to add the population of today's New York state by 2050. Furthermore, in 2011, the Department of Defense spent $20 billion/year on air conditioning alone in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely Congress can commit $8 billion/year for HSR in the next Surface Transportation Bill.

Unfortunately, the 2011-12 U.S. House of Representatives is blocking progress on HSR and Transit. Fortunately, President Obama continues pushing for more HSR and Transit funding in the next Surface Transportation Bill from Congress. If he succeeds, it will signal that America is once again, a nation that builds great things for the public good.

BIG STICKS FOR MOTIVATION AND A PEACE DIVIDEND TO FUND INTERSTATE HIGH SPEED RAIL

Though America is extracting more oil now than it has in any of the last 10 years, the pace of finding new oil reserves in America and the rest of world is gradually dwindling (see Peak Oil condition described in Part 3). Simultaneously, the rapidly growing economies of China and India are buying more oil. With tightening oil supplies, increasing oil demand and a global economic recovery, many energy analysts forecast gasoline prices to reach $10/gallon by 2020. Regardless of differences many in Congress have with President Obama on other issues, on transportation and energy used for transportation they must find common ground for many reasons.

As stated in Part 3 and Part 4 of this article, transportation consumes 70% of oil used in America and coal is used to produce 48% of electricity from power plants. For the energy challenges ahead, an overwhelming number of scientists and economists not employed by the oil industry tell us that we can not drill our way out of the coming oil shortage. Scientists also confirm that coal is the world's worst air pollutant contributing to Global Warming, acid rain and smog. As explained in Part 4, expanding highways only induces more oil consumption. Though higher MPG electric-hybrid autos, natural gas-powered buses, and better highway maintenance really help, we also need non-coal clean energy sources for power plants and a new electric grid sending electricity to Rapid Transit, Interstate HSR and electric cars.

Since we have to burn less oil for transportation without crippling our economy, the smart approach is to gradually eliminate foreign oil imports over 25 years. Over the same time, we can also reduce coal consumption by half as we shift to more wind, solar, natural gas, biofuel and tidal energy for power plants. Coal companies need not suffer economically because they own a lot of real estate that can be converted for biofuel, solar and wind energy.

Transportation Secretary LaHood estimates it will cost $500 billion to complete a comprehensive Interstate HSR System by 2035. Given the political cost of delay, its more likely to cost $650 billion. If we build it the right way however, private investors will pick up 15-25% of the tab. And under any funding scenario, Interstate HSR will cost half the $1.35 trillion taxpayers invested in Interstate Highways when oil was plentiful.


By ending ground wars to create another "Peace Dividend", the President and Congress can fund Interstate HSR and more Transit without raising taxes or increasing the federal deficit. U.S. troops were withdrawn from Iraq in 2011-end. President Obama is withdrawing more troops from Afghanistan in 2012. If reelected in November 2012, Obama plans to completely withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2013-end, enabling Defense cuts of $175-200 billion/year beginning 2014. Obama wants to split that Peace Dividend between federal deficit reduction, education and infrastructure investment (transportation and sustainable energy).

Over the last two decades, more of our population has shifted to our Top 50 metro areas and we have underinvested in Surface Transportation. So the President proposes to nearly double the transportation budget and increase the percentage of Transit and Railroad funding from 23% to 36% with these amounts:

• Federal Highways $305 billion/6 years
• Federal Transit $108 billion/6 years
• Federal Railroads $47 billion/6 years (mostly HSR)

Should the President and Congress agree to a compromise on the Surface Transportation budget, our highest merit mega-regions will receive the largest chunks of HSR and Transit funds. Other mega-regions would get a larger percentage of Highway repair funds. Just like the old days, politicians representing urban and rural interests can both get more of what they want for the next 6 years without pork-barrel spending.

BIG CARROTS, IF THE TEA PARTY-LED HOUSE LEARNS THE ART OF EFFECTIVE COMPROMISE

By 2035, a comprehensive Interstate HSR System can save us the cost of 0.5 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 Interstate HSR today when crude oil costs roughly $100/barrel X 67% X 0.5 billion barrels of crude oil, an additional $33.5 billion/year would circulate in our economy, instead of transferring to foreign oil suppliers. At a projected $400/barrel of crude oil by 2035, an additional $134 billion/year would circulate domestically. Thus, investing in Interstate HSR today is like buying $5,000 solar panels to eliminate electric bills for the life of your new home.

Democratic and Republican governors who understand those macroeconomic benefits-to-costs are scaling up their applications for federal HSR funding. Now 37 governors want to to divvy up their share of Transit and HSR funds, including two governors who initially turned down HSR grants from the economic stimulus. Using Buy America requirements in contracts, every $1 invested in HSR and Transit generates $4-5 of domestic economic activity. More economic activity means more domestic jobs and ultimately, more tax dollars to pay down federal and state budget deficits.

Diametrically opposite the President, the Tea Party-led U.S. House of Representatives, many of whom are backed by oil, coal and defense industries, seem to hate Transit and HSR. In their "drill everywhere" Surface Transportation proposal, there would be even less Transit money and only scrap money for Northeast Corridor HSR. Instead of investing in infrastructure, they want to spend $200 billion more year on defense. Our nation already has far more state-of-the-art weapons, jets, submarines, aircraft carriers, battleships and communication apparatus than Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and the next 14 countries combined -- even at Obama's proposed budget to mildly reduce Defense spending.


Tea Party Republicans won the 2010 House elections, in part by pledging deficit reductions and smaller government. Yet, the Tea Party-led House is hiding the truth when they say America can't afford higher investment in Transportation, while refusing to cut Defense spending. The Tea Party-led House is scoring points with their financial backers, but ignoring our failing transportation infrastructure and energy security. That why the Transportation Secretary LaHood, a registered Republican, called them out in the video listed above.

I want to be very clear, this article is not a critique of Republicans as a whole, since the GOP has a long track record supporting new transportation infrastructure, Presidents Eisenhower (Highways) and Reagan (Transit) in particular. Eleven Republican governors applied for HSR funding from the economic stimulus and even more seek boosts to Transit funding.

Furthermore, bi-partisan vote in the Senate tried to strike a balance between the President and Tea Party-led House by approving a $109 billion transportation proposal for 18 months. The President is willing to approve the Senate's proposal, even though it does not address the scale of Highway and Transit maintenance backlog identified by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Nor is it sufficient for the next phase of his Interstate HSR vision. The President accepts the Senate proposal because in an election year, its better than the current Surface Transportation Bill.

I limit my critique to the Tea Party-Led House of Representatives who refuse to fix our transportation for political reasons. Unwilling to compromise for progress like Senate Republicans, the Tea Party-led House has only agreed to the 5th extension of the same inadequate Surface Transportation Bill out to 30 September 2012. The Tea Party-led House should be truthful and state, "We've changed our mission. Its more important to prevent President Obama from signing a jobs bill before the election, even though our transportation infrastructure is failing."

Voters will have the last say on this matter in November 2012.

PARTNERING OPPORTUNITY WILL ADD HSR MOMENTUM

If Obama succeeds, the Federal Railroad Administration can also strike a public-private-partnership that saves taxpayers big money on another HSR project.

The nation benefits from lower foreign oil consumption, less CO2 and less air traffic delay caused by the Los Angeles-San Francisco Bay Area-Las Vegas triangle. A private party claiming to have $2-3 billion from Las Vegas casinos, says they will help fund a 150 mph Desert Express train from Las Vegas to a city along the I-15 corridor, called Victorville. Given California HSR's $68.4 billion plan moves forward in 2012, by 2022, travelers from San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento would love to reach Las Vegas in 3 hours. Travelers from Los Angeles would reach Las Vegas in just over 2 hours.

By law however, California DOT must use all HSR bond money to complete the California HSR Route. Therefore, California DOT can not invest in the Palmdale-Victorville-Las Vegas route. But California DOT knows that removing cars from congested California freeways and reducing airport congestion saves money on freeway and airport expansion, so it is non-financially supportive of Desert Express HSR.


First, Desert Express initial operational plan must extend to form a Las Vegas-Victorville-Palmdale route so it connects with California HSR at Palmdale. Second, the federal funding formula should lock-in that $2-3 billion casino money in a Desert Express HSR trust. Third, Desert Express should be funded consistent with good Interstate HSR benefits-to-cost strategy and its contractor selection should be carefully scrutinized. In that manner, the federal funding formula can be a mixture of grant and loans consistent with HSR funding policy that can be fairly applied to other Interstate HSR projects of similar scope. No sweetheart deals for Vegas casinos or Nevada politicians! Lastly, since Desert Express would also run through long straight desert, the Federal Railroad Administration, should stipulate that its builders purchase the same made-in-America trains and equipment as California HSR for 220 mph speed and manufacturing volume cost savings.

Whether President Obama is reelected or Romney pulls off an upset, bi-partisan demand by the Senate and 37 governors calls for significantly more federal HSR funding. The 2013-2014 U.S. House of Representatives can not continually fail in this responsibility. If only to create more jobs on their watch, the House will have to compromise on the next 6-year Surface Transportation Bill to help these high-merit, politically viable HSR corridors move forward:

• Boston-Providence-New Haven-NYC-Newark-Philadelphia-Wilmington-Baltimore-Washington
• San Francisco-San Jose-Fresno-Bakersfield-Palmdale-Los Angeles-Anaheim
• Milwaukee-Chicago-Springfield-St Louis-Kansas City
• New Haven-Hartford-Springfield
• Philadelphia-Harrisburg
• NYC-Albany
• Las Vegas-Victorville-Palmdale
• Washington-Richmond-Raleigh-Greensboro-Charlotte-Greenville-Atlanta
• Richmond-Norfolk
• Chicago-Gary-Kalamazoo-Detroit
• Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati
• Vancouver-Seattle-Portland-Eugene


FINISHING TOUCHES ON A NEXT GENERATION, INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

When more Federal Highway funding arrives to clear the maintenance backlog on highways, bridges and tunnels, it should add live traffic condition displays above freeways to improve traffic flow and lane modifications for electric-hybrid car priority. Given the Interstate Highway System is well past complete and urban highway expansion beyond 3 regular lanes and one HOV lane per side does not reduce congestion, only 5% of Federal Highway funds should be used expand regular highway 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 our radar-based air traffic control system to a more accurate satellite-based air traffic control system. 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 by jets.

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 jets spend more time inefficiently using fuel to take-off, descend and taxi on the ground. As a result, regional flights burn more fuel and generate more greenhouse gases per passenger.

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 as more U.S. airline jet fleets turnover. Increasing demand for HSR trains will 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, enable smoother flights around bad weather, higher speeds and quicker descent patterns that result in shorter flight times. For example, New York City-Los Angeles flight time will reduce by 30 minutes.

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 less oil and coal. An explosion of Rapid Transit across Europe, VHSR supertrains like the French AGV, and the Airbus selling worldwide are demonstrating that the European Union will match Asian transportation advances.

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 the same threats, America's economic competitors are preparing more quickly than us. But if America quickly ramps up Interstate HSR and Rapid Transit funding this decade, we can meet their challenge. And if we tie Interstate HSR, Rapid Transit and Electric-Hybrid Cars on smarter highways to the Smart Electric Grid complimented with a NextGen aviation system, we too can anchor a world-class Intermodal Passenger Transportation Network that embraces the oil-depleted future, rather than be punished by it.

]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-hsr-network-part-7/feed/ 0 America Must Build Interstate High Speed Rail Part 6 http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-hsr-network-part-6/ http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-hsr-network-part-6/#comments Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:31:23 +0000 admin http://soulofamerica.com/interact/?p=8380 Thomas Dorsey, SoulOfAmerica
PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP 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. It would be a hallmark of his presidency like the Interstate Highway System was for President Eisenhower. He also kick-started biofuel, wind turbine and solar panel research project funding, which can ultimately power electric plants that power electric trains. Later in 2010, Congress obliged the President's initiative with $2 billion additional HSR funds and states added another $3 billion.

With $18 billion, California HSR and Amtrak kick-started a mix of high speed and conventional intercity rail projects mentioned in Part 1 of this article. President Obama upped the ante in his 2011 and 2012 State of the Union Addresses by recognizing HSR as a key transportation mode required to "Win the Future." In his address, Obama set a visionary goal -- build an Interstate HSR System by 2035 that is accessible by 80% of Americans.

As explained in Part 3, Big Sticks have removed the luxury of gradually upgrading conventional rail routes over 40 years. Part 4 illustrates top metro areas building more Rapid Transit and Multimodal Transportation Centers that will enhance HSR patronage.


Riding HSR trains in Europe and Asia, while talking with heir train experts, Transportation Secretary LaHood has acquired a solid understanding of the benefits, costs and conditions to build a world-class HSR network. LaHood learned that Big Carrot benefits identified in Part 2 of this article make a comprehensive Interstate HSR System worth the expense to build. When translating the President's vision into project milestones, LaHood knows that 22,000 miles of legacy rail routes and old train stations awaiting restoration will save us several hundred billion dollars. Yet even with those savings, LaHood estimates that an Interstate HSR System will cost $500 billion to build. A former Congressman, LaHood also has a firm grasp of national politics. When Congressional opponents hear of anything costing upwards of $5 billion, expect every political delay tactic in the book.

Yet dozens of HSR funding applications from governors since Obama's HSR Kick-start are nice signs of support for an Interstate HSR System, but LaHood suffers no illusions. Politics killed HSR projects in three states, losing valuable time and forcing him to reallocate many HSR funds. Thus, LaHood faces the added pressure of executing subsequent HSR funding with flawless precision. United support can help him pull it off.

SUPPORTING CAST INITIATES HSR CORRIDOR MERIT CRITERIA FOR RANKINGS

America 2050 HSR Study & Map, helps the public officials understand how mega-regions, corridors within mega-regions and city-pairs within corridors should be prioritized. 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.


The America 2050 Study however, suffers an inexcusable shortcoming -- its 2050 completion date. That's 15 years too late for our transportation security -- a driving factor behind the President's vision to complete an Interstate HSR System by 2035.

Another major flaw is the America 2050 HSR Study treats Transit Connectivity Population as a Secondary Factor based on 2009 data. In Part 5 of this article, I explained that our Top 35 metro areas are rapidly boosting Rapid Transit to Multimodal Transportation Centers. Furthermore, those metro areas are adding offices, retail, attractions and residences around Multimodal Transportation Centers, creating more collateral patrons for HSR.

Due to World Peak Oil conditions plus increasing oil demand by China and India by 2020, gasoline is likely to cost $8-10/gallon and continue higher. The Federal Transit Administration has plenty of historical evidence that transit usage increases in direct correlation to gasoline price hikes. We can confidently forecast that when gasoline prices double compared to 2009, Rapid Transit and HSR demand will double. Thus, 2020 Transit Connectivity Population Forecast should be a Primary Factor instead of today's Transit Connectivity Population listed as a Secondary Factor.

The America 2050 HSR Study also 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. As Robert Puentes, High Speed Rail Analyst at the Brookings Institute notes, many more city-pairs and corridors will increase to medium or high-merit. 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 the top corridors by 2030 or congestion will reduce travel and economic activity. Therefore, completing HSR between our Top 35 Metro Area pairs in our high merit corridors by 2030 should be a Secondary Factor.

To address a valid concern by HSR critics and advocates that taxpayer dollars produce sufficiently popular routes that will operate at a profit within a few years after upgrade, corridor merit criteria requires enhancement with a key metric. That metric must embed a 2030 population forecast for top metro areas per corridor, coupled with cost per mile of construction and transit connectivity for a credible "Forecast Cost Per Patron Mile" metric. Sounds nerdy, but it simply ensures that taxpayers are getting the most bang for the buck on each route.

Today however, Forecast Cost Per Patron Mile in corridors is moot because the Federal Railroad Administration has not published a corridor ranking criteria. Consequently, most HSR advocates focus on the well-intended, but inadequate America 2050 HSR Study for corridor merit rankings.

COMMUNICATING THE RIGHT HSR SPEEDS AND TIMELINE TO AMERICA

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 aggressive completion date.


The 2030 USHSRA Map is not without issues. The 2030 completion date is unrealistically aggressive by 5 years and the USHSRA did not develop a rigorous corridor merit criteria for rankings. Consequently, half a dozen corridors/city pairs can be questioned, even by HSR advocates.

Another blemish is the USHSRA Map only identifies 110 mph and 220 mph top speeds. Last century, most Asian and European countries encountering every obstacle we are likely to face, upgraded their slowest lines to 106-112 mph (170-180 kmph) and now aim higher. Achieving higher speeds requires expensive new bridges, tunnels, HSR-only track, new HSR trains, new electrical wires, advanced train control systems, level boarding platforms and fencing. Given those expenses to achieve HSR speeds, they learned that the marginal cost of upgrading to 124-142 mph (200-230 kmph) vs. 155-168-186 mph (250-270-300 kmph) is small enough to always justify higher speeds that attract more patrons and profits. So European, Asian, Middle Eastern, South American and two African nations are racing to upgrade high-merit corridors to 155-168-186 mph Express HSR Routes this decade.

France, Japan and Spain have also proven that modified-HSR trains can run at 199 mph on new VHSR Routes with commercially acceptable energy consumption, external noise and cabin vibration. French, Japanese, Spanish, German and Canadian train manufacturers have also certified lighter-weight, more aerodynamic VHSR trains as safe for commercial operation up to 217-224 mph (350-360 kmph). In 2011, Italy began replacing 186 mph HSR trains with French VHSR trains (AGV) on an Express HSR Route limited to 186 mph. Travelers in Italy love the AGVs for being smoother riding and more luxurious. The train operator loves them for being 20% more energy efficient, externally quieter, and smoother riding than the trains they replaced.

As new VHSR routes are constructed or upgraded in 2013-2018, next generation trains like AGV and Zefiro will enable train operators to determine the optimum combination of energy consumption, acceptable external noise and cabin vibration comfort for commercial operation in a given country. Given the many stretches of straight, sparcely-populated terrain in France, Spain and China, those countries plan to run up to 224 mph. Japan, Italy, Germany, UK, South Korea and several other nations with more-populated, hilly terrain plan to run at 211-217 mph.

Here's how America should apply lessons from Europe and Asia. Once High-Speed-Only tracks and bridges are built in the Washington-NYC-Boston Corridor, Acela trains will reach 160 mph top speed. After Amtrak purchases new VHSR trains, speed can reach 190-200 mph, depending on how long High-Speed-Only track extends over a straight rural segments. Thus, Vision for High Speed Rail in America should include 160-200 mph Express HSR Routes. Given America has many plenty of sparcely-populated desert, we can also be confident quoting 220 mph VHSR Routes in the next version of Vision for High Speed Rail in America.

IMPORTANCE OF SUB-3-HOUR TRIP TIMES, TRAIN FREQUENCY AND ON-TIME PERFORMANCE

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. When the HSR option exists, business travelers compare:

• time to airport or train station
• ticketing, security & boarding time
• runway taxi, flight, de-boarding time
• taxi ride to city center time
• frequency of flights or trains
• on-time performance of flights or trains
• total travel costs

Before 1975, many business travelers could go airport to center city in 2 to 2.5 hours. Today, traffic congestion and added security make total travel time flying at least is 3 hours. So when HSR city center-to-city center trip times are 3 hours or less, business travelers headed to city centers prefer HSR. When HSR trip times hit 2 hours or less, patronage soars because HSR enables a more productive day and more day trips.


Driving home the enabling power of higher speeds for shorter trip times, consider these trip time examples from a 2011 Siemens Study for 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

Business patrons also care about train frequency and on-time performance that exceeds airplanes. So the Siemens Study also plans for trains to run every 30-60 minutes before 5 hours of nightly maintenance and on-time performance at 97-98%, like Europe and Asia. With average speed reaching 75-80% of 220 mph top speed, 3-hour trip times could extend to 495-525 miles.

Even 110 mph routes that average 80 mph play a critical role expanding the reach of our Interstate HSR System to medium-merit corridors that don't have population to justify more expensive 160-220 mph routes. In 3 hours, such 110 mph routes can still cover 240 miles -- justifying upgrades to connect our Top 100 Metro Areas.

These speed-trip-time sets with higher train frequencies and dependability outperform planes and autos for business travel up to 3 hours and remain attractive for leisure travel up to 4 hours. That is why Asian and European countries first built 106-112 mph Routes.

AMTRAK NEEDS A BETTER DEFINED BRAND IMAGE

Today, even HSR-critics accept that if Acela in Boston-NYC-Washington corridor is upgraded to 190-200 mph, more train frequency and 95% on-time performance, it can triple patronage. That is an important development, but if America's Interstate Highway System was limited to the Northeast Corridor, that system never would have transformed our lifestyles with nationwide benefits.

Unfortunately, the notion of an Interstate HSR System isn't on the radar screen of most voters and their politicians. At best, Amtrak/HSR projects in the Northeast, California, Midwest, Pacific Northwest and Mid-Atlantic states are viewed as standalone projects.

Indifference towards Interstate HSR is understandable. To survive many de-funding threats over the years, Amtrak had to appease many congresspersons with service in low-merit corridors in order to receive sustenance funding. As a result, too many low-merit Amtrak corridors can not be well patronized, even if we invested in them. This state of affairs has created brand confusion for consumers. Does Amtrak stand for improving service like Acela in the Northeast Corridor? Does it stand for "slower than driving", seldom on-time, infrequent trains like Amtrak Piedmont? Or something in between?

To place Vision for High Speed Rail in America on the average person's radar screen, the USDOT and Amtrak have more work to do. Once Congress and the President commit to properly fund Interstate HSR, based on corridor merit, USDOT should add some high & medium merit corridors and delete low merit corridors from the Vision 1.0. Then, USDOT must demand that Amtrak represent excellence handling its part of the Interstate HSR vision. Amtrak should only manage lines that it can commit to these standards of excellence:

• 110 mph, 80% on-time performance, 8-14 daily trains each way
• 160-200 mph, 95% on-time performance, 36+ daily trains each way
• 220 mph, 98% on-time performance, 36+ daily trains each way


Defining a strong brand often requires tough medicine, but is necessary in the long run. In this case, the USDOT should be given authority to make Amtrak sell or close routes in low-merit corridors that make no sense. Greyhound, Megabus and Boltbus have better business models for such corridors. Furthermore, after all high-merit corridors are funded, if Amtrak can not meet standards of excellence, then USDOT should invite passenger train competitors on the Interstate HSR System.

A FEDERAL HSR AGENCY NEEDED TO UNIFY AND STRENGTHEN THE VISION

Within the USDOT, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) does a great job representing the interests of freight companies, who own most of America's rails. They maintain low regulation and help preserve freight right of ways. In contrast, Interstate HSR requires high regulation. It requires new perspectives and program management skills to maximize Forecast Cost Per Patron Mile. For example, a Federal HSR Agency never would have approved a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati "49 mph average speed HSR" project -- a made to order patronage disaster. That example and many others amplifies the need for HSR perspective and skill sets to scrutinize routes choices, route speeds, Forecast Cost Per Patron Mile, and safety regulation.

To prevent more slip-ups by the FRA, Secretary LaHood should splinter off a Federal HSR Agency. More competent in HSR planning, it can better solicit and congeal input from pro-HSR congresspersons, governors, mayors, America 2050, U.S. High Speed Rail Association, Brooking Institution and transportation-related industries. Having access to project engineering & cost studies from its funding applicants, Federal HSR can more accurately assign merit scores to each corridor. Thus, Federal HSR Agency should publish a 2010 baseline map and 2020, 2030 and 2040 forecast maps of super-highway traffic congestion, foreign oil consumption, CO2 emissions and smog in U.S. corridors WITH and WITHOUT the Interstate HSR System. Even without embellishment, the 2030 and 2040 WITHOUT scenarios would look nightmarish.

Obama and LaHood should unveil the updated and unified version of 2035 Vision for High Speed Rail in America in summer 2012. Ask celebrities, mayors, governors and businesses to back the vision in a compilation video embedded in the website, plus a downloadable Acrobat PDF summary. One page should summarize HSR corridor merit criteria followed by corridor rankings. Another page should summarize which speeds best match corridor rankings and construction cost per patron. The webpage of an Interstate HSR Construction Forecast Map should contain 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030 and 2035 animated milestone completion dates. The Interstate HSR Speeds Map should illustrate different colors for 110 and 160-220 mph routes. Additional pages should estimate jobs created, foreign oil reductions and greenhouse gas reductions. For bonus points, include pages showing similar maps for China and Europe to spark Americans' competitive DNA.

The unified 2035 Vision for High Speed Rail in America PDF document should be circulated across the Internet, TV and Print media. The Interstate HSR Construction Forecast Map will spark more interest by news media and politicians looking for ways to generate jobs, boost productivity and relieve traffic congestion using Green Transportation.

Even with a better planned, communicated and managed vision, getting more funds for HSR is a difficult political journey for the President to navigate. Can he garner enough political bargaining chips to fund the next phase of an Interstate HSR System that will cut 0.5 billion barrels of oil/year by 2035? Read the next part for insights and possible answers.

]]> http://soulofamerica.com/interact/soulofamerica-travel-blog/interstate-hsr-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 by Thomas Dorsey, SoulOfAmerica
This Passenger Rail 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, they average 35-45 mph, just fast enough to convey the world's most comprehensive freight train network. Tracks 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. Routes feature a 3rd passing track in some sections to minimize delay by slower trains. Most stations have low platforms, so boarding and un-boarding still take as long as Freight Rail Routes. Even commuter and Amtrak trains slow to 60 mph when crossing roadways in these routes. Stations are often 5-10 miles apart so these routes tend to average 55 mph.


Improved Conventional Rail Routes reach 90 mph. These legacy routes host diesel-powered commuter trains, Amtrak trains and occasionally freight trains via 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. Since these routes have safer crossing arms trains may still run at 79 mph when crossing roadways. 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.

Emerging HSR Routes reach 110 mph in America, 106-112 mph elsewhere via diesel- or electric-powered trains over routes that have fewer Slow Zones. Passenger trains dominate these tracks, but freight trains may occasionally share them. There are more roadway overpasses & underpasses, more stretches where a 3rd or 4th track permit faster trains to bypass slower trains. An automated train control system enables more trains per hour. Unlike loud diesel locomotives whose moving parts breakdown more frequently, electric locomotives run 15 decibels quieter at the same speed and up to 300,000 miles before an overall is required. In pursuit of higher average speeds, quieter external noise, and no greenhouse emissions on the route, some popular Emerging HSR routes are converting from deisel-powered to electric-powered trains. Such routes require poles to suspend electrical wires overhead ("catenaries") that transmit electricity by pantographs extended from the top of trains to the train's electric motor. To supply enough electric power, catenaries must maintain constant tension with pantographs over the entire route.



Depending on how an electric-powered Emerging HSR Route is built, its percentage of railroad crossings and number of stops, it averages 75-80 mph. Routes may feature 6-12 daily intercity trains and many more commuter trains. But since freight train companies own most tracks in America, they are reluctant to reduce good paying freight capacity for frequent, but lower paying passenger trains. Automated train control systems for passenger trains also smell like unwanted regulation to freight train companies.

There is only one long term solution to this conflict of business models in America. Over time, federal and state Departments of Transportation should purchase adjacent space in high-merit passenger rail routes, then add tracks so those routes have 2 freight tracks and 2 Commuter/Emerging HSR tracks. As more overpasses and underpasses are built in such routes, Emerging HSR Routes support 8-14 daily intercity trains and reach 80% on-time performance. Commuter trains can also reach 90 mph. Freight train companies don't mind this solution because other people's money helps their trains achieve shorter trip times without reducing freight capacity or adding regulation.

Regional HSR Routes reach 124-150 mph (200-241 kmph). Japan, the HSR pioneer, established 200 kmph as the international minimum speed for "High Speed Rail." They have overpasses & underpasses, automatic train control, high platforms enabling patrons to quickly board/un-board and catenaries over their distance. Slow freight trains run on adjacent tracks, but 90 mph commuter trains often share these tracks. In urban areas, routes are fenced to prevent people and animals from wandering onto tracks. Regional HSR Routes have fewer slow zones and better automated train control systems enable 83-105 mph average speed, 15-30 daily intercity trains and 85% on-time performance, like Acela Express between NYC-Washington averages 83 mph. Business travelers prefer these trains over flights up to 3 hours for distances of 240-285 miles. When priced less than flying, leisure travelers prefer these trains up to 4 hours for distances of 320-380 miles.


1st Generation Express HSR Routes reach 155-168 mph (250-270 kmph) top speed. Slow zones are minimized via tracks that feature good bedding, high speed switches, concrete ties, continuous welding and more stringent leveling for a smoother ride. The entire route is fenced and has many relatively straight segments. Intercity passenger trains running 124-155 mph are permitted on these high-speed-only tracks. The fastest routes average 110-125 mph for sub-3 hour trip times over 330-375 miles and 90-92% on-time performance. Excluding nightly maintenance hours, they operate 25-50 intercity trains daily. These routes introduce Business Class service that features leather seating, electrical outlets, WiFi and in-seat dining service.

2nd Generation Express HSR Routes reach 174-186 mph (280-300 kmph) top speed. They feature curve straightening and premium track bedding, leveling, switches, catenaries, bridges, tunnels, engines, and advanced train control systems. High-Speed-Only tracks with trains running at similar speeds are required to enable 130-140 mph average speed for sub-3 hour trip times over 390-420 miles and 95-98% on-time performance. Outside urban areas, they have wider spacing between tracks to reduce the air pressure vibration of trains passing in opposite directions or air pressure exerted on adjacent freight rail tracks in the same corridor. More impressively, France and Japan have transported billions of HSR passengers on them without a single fatality and both run at 98-99% on-time performance, respectively. France and Japan also use nuclear energy to power trains and carry up to 700-800 passengers per train set. That's equivalent to two Boeing 747s carrying passengers at a carbon dioxide footprint barely larger than a Toyota Prius.


Once France safely tested the world's fastest speed at 357 mph (575 kmph), it opened the door to pursue higher commercial speeds via technology advancement.

VHSR Routes reach 199 mph (320 kmph) today in France, Japan and Spain, while featuring 50-90 intercity trains daily. VHSR Routes have state-of-the-art track profiles (premium track bedding, leveling & switches, VHSR train control systems, long straightaways, mildly banked curves) for a smooth ride and higher average speeds. VHSR requires High-Speed-Only tracks with trains running at similar speeds to maximize speed, frequency, on-time performance and safety. Completely elevated, submerged or fenced-off, routes are monitored to detect objects that fall onto tracks well before a train arrives. Outside urban areas, they have wider spacing between tracks to reduce air pressure vibration of trains passing in opposite directions. Like freeway interchanges, many routes use flyovers to eliminate crossing other tracks at same the level. The newest catenaries are more durable and can operate as cold as –58 degrees Fahrenheit. Given their strict operational tolerances, an optimum VHSR Route features only light-weight VHSR trains of the same speed to prevent bottlenecks and maintain track alignment. Exceptions are the modified HSR trains running on VHSR routes until France, Japan and Spain upgrade their inventory to VHSR trains in a could years.

At speeds of 199 mph and above, even minute bulges on the train exterior or gaps between trains increase wind-drag for external noise, cabin vibration and energy consumption. So aerodynamically-sculpted VHSR trains (like French AGV or Canadian Zefiro) have smaller inter-train gaps and less height. VHSR trains have the most advanced wheels and regenerative braking that creates electricity for on-board services. Combined with 20% lower materials weight, they increase energy efficiency per mph by 20%. VHSR trains are designed to reach top speed in 5 minutes, tilt on curves to cruise at higher speeds longer, and brake quicker for safety. Depending on the length of strait miles in each route, top speeds will reach 211-217-224 mph (340-350-360 kmph). With stops spaced 60-100 miles apart, VHSR routes are capable of averaging 165-180 mph to enable 495-540 miles of travel in 3 hours.

In 2011, a French company introduced the AGV train to Italy, its first customer. Under robust test operation, the AGV at 224 mph has the energy consumption, external noise, cabin vibration and braking distance signature of a HSR train running 186-190 mph. But due to constraints of a 2nd Generation Express HSR Route in Italy, the AGV is limited to 186 mph. Over this decade, Italy plans further speed upgrades to reach 211-217 mph. As several new French VHSR routes open in 2014-15, the TGV plans to run AGV at 224 mph on them.


Some train analysts forecast VHSR routes and trains to reach 248 mph (400 kmph). In China, its VHSR trains were built under technology transfer agreements with Siemens (Germany), Bombardier (Canada) and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (Japan). Chinese engineers then re-designed train components to build indigenous trains capable of 236 mph (380 kmph). Such speed noticeably accelerates friction wear of catenary wires, boosts energy consumption and passenger cabin vibration. No train operator wants to constantly replace catenaries and pay an excessively high energy bill so they started operation on its new VHSR route at 217 mph (350 kmph). Nor do they want public complaints of excessive noise and passenger complaints about cabin vibration.

Unfortunately, the Chinese had a scandal where one Ministry of Railway official took bribes leading to quality of HSR construction concerns. When Chinese passengers felt uncomfortable cabin vibration at 217 mph, HSR officials were barraged with complaints. The also had a fatal train accident on an older HSR route. So China dialed down to 186 mph as its top speed for now. Trustworthy resolution of those safety and comfort concerns is required before speeds gradually increase in China.

In contrast, a commercial-grade French AGV was rigorously tested on a French VHSR Route up to 224 mph without cabin vibration or external noise complaints. Until its running at 224 mph in commercial operation with random passenger loading, no one can officially specify its energy efficiency profile. But AGV is designed to have a lower energy efficiency profile than any modified-HSR train currently running at 199 mph. In terms of safety, travelers are comfortable on the TGV because France has robust & trustworthy safety testing. Even after 30 years of commercial operation since 1981, TGV has never had a fatal HSR train accident on its LGVs. France would like to maintain that record, so it will cautiously increase AGV speeds to 211 mph, 217 mph, then 224 mph. Using those cautionary notes as guideposts, until a lengthy safety record is established at 224 mph, VHSR in commercial operation is unlikely to surpass that speed.

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 trains 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.

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 between Hamburg and Berlin.



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 for more patrons.


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 20 years like a mortgage. The growing business centers of Tokyo and Osaka already have 25 million and 18 million residents, respectively. 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 Intercity HSR network, it has the luxury to patiently advance NextGen MagLev technology before planned commercial operation in 2027.

]]> 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