didn't say ours was the best use of funds ...... but our public highways and roads are much much better than anywhere on earth ..

Germany might disagree....as would several European countries. But our interstate highway system is a remarkable achievement in transportation infrastructure without a doubt. However, the sustainability of that system as presently used is questionable given the cost of maintaining it and the cost of fuel for vehicles to operate on it. I simply believe that rather than building more highways we should maintain what we have now and shift future construction funding to more efficient modes of transportation. Germany has the autobahn, but it also has HSR, regional passenger rail, and nearly every city has streetcars or other modes of local transportation.

Germany might disagree....as would several European countries. But our interstate highway system is a remarkable achievement in transportation infrastructure without a doubt. However, the sustainability of that system as presently used is questionable given the cost of maintaining it and the cost of fuel for vehicles to operate on it. I simply believe that rather than building more highways we should maintain what we have now and shift future construction funding to more efficient modes of transportation. Germany has the autobahn, but it also has HSR, regional passenger rail, and nearly every city has streetcars or other modes of local transportation.


go to the tier 2 and 3 roads in germany and the other several european countries ......... not even taken in to account that most of the europe highway system would not count under my conditions because a great portion of it is toll roads (ie not public)

I was referring to a regional passenger rail link between Tulsa and OKC, not HSR.

Unless their is a paradigm shift in the next few years at ODOT and the State Capitol, the most realistic way for regional rail transit between Oklahoma City and Tulsa to happen would be through shared development and operation between Oklahoma City's and Tulsa's regional transit authorities and regional transit systems. Of course those don't exist yet. The good news is that both regions continue to move forward with making plans to establish an RTA and develop regional rail based transit systems. Once those are both created and have a dedicated funding source, development of regional rail service to connect the two cities would be fairly easy is to accomplish. Further, the service would be much more effective, as there would exist at both ends of the line a comprehensive transit system to connect with, allowing riders to make easy connections to local commuter rail, streetcar, bus, bus rapid transit and Amtrak at a hub to effectively complete their travels.

HSR...Regional Rail...even expanded Amtrak...it makes much more sense and is far more beneficial when the cities they connect to have an effective regional transit system in operation. That's where we need to focus our efforts in the short term. I can promise you that as soon as Oklahoma City and Tulsa have their own RTA's and regional transit systems, passenger rail service between OKC and Tulsa won't be far behind.

Unless their is a paradigm shift in the next few years at ODOT and the State Capitol, the most realistic way for regional rail transit between Oklahoma City and Tulsa to happen would be through shared development and operation between Oklahoma City's and Tulsa's regional transit authorities and regional transit systems. Of course those don't exist yet. The good news is that both regions continue to move forward with making plans to establish an RTA and develop regional rail based transit systems. Once those are both created and have a dedicated funding source, development of regional rail service to connect the two cities would be fairly easy is to accomplish. Further, the service would be much more effective, as there would exist at both ends of the line a comprehensive transit system to connect with, allowing riders to make easy connections to local commuter rail, streetcar, bus, bus rapid transit and Amtrak at a hub to effectively complete their travels.

HSR...Regional Rail...even expanded Amtrak...it makes much more sense and is far more beneficial when the cities they connect to have an effective regional transit system in operation. That's where we need to focus our efforts in the short term. I can promise you that as soon as Oklahoma City and Tulsa have their own RTA's and regional transit systems, passenger rail service between OKC and Tulsa won't be far behind.

While by no means a sure thing and not sounding likely to be HSR, I thought there was some progress on still happening on developing an 'Eastern*Flyer'

While by no means a sure thing and not sounding likely to be HSR, I thought there was some progress on still happening on developing an 'Eastern*Flyer'

I hate to be the skeptic, but the Eastern Flyer is dependant on the State Legislature and ODOT agreeing to fund it. I'm not holding my breath.

Hutch, what route would Tulsa - OKC take; an existing line such as the Stillwater Central, or a new one? What is the cost of this?

Hutch, what route would Tulsa - OKC take; an existing line such as the Stillwater Central, or a new one? What is the cost of this?

To keep costs within reason, the service would operate on the former Frisco rail line between Tulsa and OKC. That line and right-of-way is actually owned by the State of Oklahoma...it is leased to Stillwater Central for their operations. The line would require some upgrades, as well as straightening in certain areas, to allow for trains to operate at higher, more efficient speeds...up to 70 mph or so. A 2001 ODOT study determined the costs of those upgrades would be approximately $110 million, so I would guess we're looking at closer to $150 million today.

Tracks are a lot better up through Edmond to Perry and then over to Tulsa via the Avard Sub but they'd have to deal with a lot more freight traffic.

To keep costs within reason, the service would operate on the former Frisco rail line between Tulsa and OKC. That line and right-of-way is actually owned by the State of Oklahoma...it is leased to Stillwater Central for their operations. The line would require some upgrades, as well as straightening in certain areas, to allow for trains to operate at higher, more efficient speeds...up to 70 mph or so. A 2001 ODOT study determined the costs of those upgrades would be approximately $110 million, so I would guess we're looking at closer to $150 million today.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCIUVd-97Z8


Tracks are a lot better up through Edmond to Perry and then over to Tulsa via the Avard Sub but they'd have to deal with a lot more freight traffic.

That adds almost 50 miles to the trip, the current plan is at least competitive with driving, going through Perry could easily take an hour longer than the other route without any interference from other trains.

Surely the state could afford $50 million per year for a private contractor to run the Eastern Flyer.

Surely the state could afford $50 million per year for a private contractor to run the Eastern Flyer.

I believe the states subsidy for the Heartland flyer is only about 2 million per year and that's on top of a Texas subsidy.
50 million is far too much per year when there are already too many others more pressing issues for the state to spend its limited resources on.

Raise the turnpike and rural interstate speed limits to 80 MPH in all of Oklahoma. Megabus makes far more economic sense. I wouldn’t be opposed to helping Megabus in limited ways in establish bus service between the 2 cities and even beyond if it’s feasible.

Surely the state could afford $50 million per year for a private contractor to run the Eastern Flyer.

It is not 50 million per year, that is 50 million to do all the track alterations to be ready for passenger travel, I was posting that because Hutch was saying that the cost were likely to have gone up from 110 million but some recent feedback indicates it may be less than originally expected.

$2 million is all? Well then, yeah, $50 mill would be insane! The video reported the $50 mill figure. Obviously misinterpreted by me, lol.

If they can do it 6 months for $50 million then the state needs to start cutting a check. Just think, if we had the $80 million that was sunk by the State into certain failed construction projects this could already be a reality.

who needs rails?

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/06/12/155-mph-electric-superbus-ready-for-road/

who needs rails?

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/06/12/155-mph-electric-superbus-ready-for-road/

That is just proof that because you 'can' do something, you probably shouldn't.

says the guy whose end (of time) tables are ammo crates. but hey, to each their own set of odd dreams.

says the guy whose end (of time) tables are ammo crates. but hey, to each their own set of odd dreams.

Not to get side-tracked, but that car is 100% impracticle - which probably explains why Dubai wants it. Then to build an entire 75 mile freeway just for it is even dumber. Maybe they should figure out how to get sewage from their buildings to the sewer plant first.

-pQdjwliLMA

Not to get side-tracked, but that car is 100% impracticle - which probably explains why Dubai wants it. Then to build an entire 75 mile freeway just for it is even dumber. Maybe they should figure out how to get sewage from their buildings to the sewer plant first.

-pQdjwliLMA

they should just leave all the trucks parked there and pump the poop from one truck to the next until they build a pipeline bet the turds would move faster

Ooh! Traffic Circle at the 15 second mark. Sense of place! Those Dubaiians know what their doing.

oops, "they're"

California is moving ahead with HSR.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-oks-funding-high-speed-rail-line-230224919.html

says the guy whose end (of time) tables are ammo crates. but hey, to each their own set of odd dreams.

Post-of-the-week nominee.

California is moving ahead with HSR.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-oks-funding-high-speed-rail-line-230224919.html

... As they accelerate their drive to insolvency. Note that they are starting on a $68 Billion project for which they have identified $7.7 Billion of funding, every penny of which is borrowed.

From Midwest High Speed Rail Association:

"It is hard to get your head around China's high-speed rail program. You have to see it in person to understand the true scope of the network.
China has opened over 4,000 miles of new high-speed line since 2008 and continues to invest heavily in railroad development. Beijing and Shanghai (the distance from Chicago to New York) are now linked by 72 trains a day, the fastest making the trip in less than 5 hours. The new stations themselves are awe-inspiring.

The Beijing - Wuhan segment is expected to open this year. When it opens, Shenzhen and Beijing, the distance of New York to New Orleans, will be linked by high-speed train."


I suppose the United States HAS built a HSR network - in China! They have used their economic gains, created in no small part by the US, to invest heavily in infrastructure; preparing for the inevitable day when converting petroleum into fuel is too expensive. What happened to the US leadership that had a vision beyond the source of next their campaign donations?

The thing about preparing for the inevitable with a vague date means you probably do not have the political support to do it, especially till it can not be ignored anymore HSR occupies an odd place in much slower than air travel, more costly than average trains after built and not as flexible as cars. Also you are fighting a lot of established companies and some unions.

Beijing and Shanghai (the distance from Chicago to New York) are now linked by 72 trains a day, the fastest making the trip in less than 5 hours.

By comparison, Boston to DC is served by 20 Acela trains a day with a 7 hour duration.

By comparison, Boston to DC is served by 20 Acela trains a day with a 7 hour duration.

According to Amtrak's schedule, there are only 9 Acela trains per day from Boston to DC.

According to Amtrak's schedule, there are only 9 Acela trains per day from Boston to DC.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. Monday thru Friday there are 10 southbound and 10 northbound = 20 trains a day between Boston and D.C.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249243376876&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_Boston-Springfield-DC-Schedule-070212.pdf


In Capt Dave's post Shanghai and Beijing are connected by 72 trains a day which is 36 trains each way.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. Monday thru Friday there are 10 southbound and 10 northbound = 20 trains a day between Boston and D.C.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249243376876&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_Boston-Springfield-DC-Schedule-070212.pdf


In Capt Dave's post Shanghai and Beijing are connected by 72 trains a day which is 36 trains each way.

Gotcha, except the number is 9 northbound and 9 southbound = 18 Acela trains per day ;-)

You're right, the 5:20 PM out of Boston doesn't go all the way to DC and the first train into Boston doesn't originate in DC. So to sum up - 20 Acela trains a day into or out of Boston but only 18 have a stop in DC.

I think the point is is that there could be a 100 trains a day between Boston & DC and the duration is still 7 hours.

I liken the current resistance to HSR to revising history such that when President Kennedy said the US would go to the moon, the Republicans immediately began constructing obstacles. It seems that any good idea is immediately obstructed by "the side" that didn't think of it or propose it. Were the billions we spent sending people and vehicles into space wasted? Should we have waited for private industry to do it? What did we gain for all the time, effort, and money spent letting a few people hop around on the moon for a few hours? Just a random thought about why we can't seem to get moving on worthwhile infrastructure development.

I think the point is is that there could be a 100 trains a day between Boston & DC and the duration is still 7 hours.

Yep. While Acela is capable of 165 mph, and does reach a top speed of 150 mph, yet it only averages a top speed of 80 mph. This is because the Acela line was integrated into exiting rail lines that carry slower passenger trains and freight and in some areas (Rhode Island I think) it isn't allowed to use it tilting technology. The cost to build dedicated right of way in the NE is cost prohibitive. The California HSR system is the same way. They can build most miles of the system relatively cheap, but once they get into LA, the Bay Area, and Sacramento urban areas the cost per mile goes way way up.

The sad reality is that the US waited too long before getting HSR built. Instead of Kennedy saying we are going to the moon, he should have focused on getting us around efficiently here are on Earth (but you know - we had to beat those Russians).

Upon further inspection of this line while traveling Route 66 between Bristow and Sapulpa, I discovered that these tracks are not currently Continuous Welded Rail.

So how much is that going to add to the cost of rehabilitation of this line?

Say what you will - CA is willing to give HSR a go and has a lot of data to support the reasons behind the effort.

http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/07/Industries-Transportation-Engineering-A-green-future-for-California-high-speed-rail/?et_cid=2768735&et_rid=264725659&linkid=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rdmag.com%2FNews%2F2012%2F 07%2FIndustries-Transportation-Engineering-A-green-future-for-California-high-speed-rail%2F

Say what you will - CA is willing to give HSR a go and has a lot of data to support the reasons behind the effort.

http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/07/Industries-Transportation-Engineering-A-green-future-for-California-high-speed-rail/?et_cid=2768735&et_rid=264725659&linkid=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rdmag.com%2FNews%2F2012%2F 07%2FIndustries-Transportation-Engineering-A-green-future-for-California-high-speed-rail%2F

This article is so slanted it makes looses some credibility, the only part they have funded serves a population roughly than half the size that would be served in a OKC-Tulsa route and there is likely no air traffic to speak of for which to make much of a comparison unless you factor in the full route that they have no money to build.

Say what you will - CA is willing to give HSR a go and has a lot of data to support the reasons behind the effort.

http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/07/Industries-Transportation-Engineering-A-green-future-for-California-high-speed-rail/?et_cid=2768735&et_rid=264725659&linkid=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rdmag.com%2FNews%2F2012%2F 07%2FIndustries-Transportation-Engineering-A-green-future-for-California-high-speed-rail%2F

If only they had the money for the effort. That analysis is pretty hilarious. Did they also assume that the competing modes of travel are done with renewable energy?

Not HSR, but possibly helps move OKC-Tulsa slightly closer to being within reach. The Federal Railroad Administration as granted approval for efficient Diesel Multi Unit vehicles to operate on the same rail corridors as traditional rail equipment. Someone posted an Oklahoma regional rail system map a while back. These type vehicles are probably the best option for that kind of system in this state. They could also work quite well for a Edmond - Norman commuter line.

http://www.dcta.net/images/stories/pdfs/press_releases/DCTA_Alternative_Design_Approval_by_FRA.pdf

If only they had the money for the effort. That analysis is pretty hilarious. Did they also assume that the competing modes of travel are done with renewable energy?

Not surprised by that response. I highly doubt there is an aircraft with any passenger or cargo moving capacity in existence that can operate on a renewable energy source. Electric road vehicles are in the minority by a large margin. No one is suggesting that vehicles that require petroleum based fuels will completely cease to exist in the near or far future. However it makes sense to reduce the absolute reliance on those vehicles and fuel source, and in doing so there are likely some environmental benefits as well. If we are going to continue to subsidize transportation infrastructure, I maintain it makes more sense to shift a portion of those subsidies away from highways and airports. If the Tea Party types had any intellectual honesty, they would favor eliminating all federal subsidies for highway and airport construction and maintenance in addition to refusing to consider investing in other forms of transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately we have developed an "all or nothing" approach to transportation that has made us 100% dependent on petroleum based fuels and other products. I simply believe it is on our best interest to diversify our transport options and the sources from which they are powered.

Not surprised by that response. I highly doubt there is an aircraft with any passenger or cargo moving capacity in existence that can operate on a renewable energy source. Electric road vehicles are in the minority by a large margin. No one is suggesting that vehicles that require petroleum based fuels will completely cease to exist in the near or far future. However it makes sense to reduce the absolute reliance on those vehicles and fuel source, and in doing so there are likely some environmental benefits as well. If we are going to continue to subsidize transportation infrastructure, I maintain it makes more sense to shift a portion of those subsidies away from highways and airports. If the Tea Party types had any intellectual honesty, they would favor eliminating all federal subsidies for highway and airport construction and maintenance in addition to refusing to consider investing in other forms of transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately we have developed an "all or nothing" approach to transportation that has made us 100% dependent on petroleum based fuels and other products. I simply believe it is on our best interest to diversify our transport options and the sources from which they are powered.

Electric vehicles still have to prove themselves to me before I would invest the high cost of owning one. right now CNG is the way to go. Clean burning and plentiful fuel source. Not to mention that is is good for Oklahoma. GM has rushed to put the Chevy Volt out there only to have recalls and problems associated with it. I think that hydrogen vehicles have a better chance of making it than electric vehicles. Hydrogen is made from electricity and water. The technology is prpbably as far along as the electric concept just not being pushed.

I agree about electric cars, but I think the new Tesla S sedan may be a game changer. I know BMW (and Mercedes?) had operational hydrogen fuel cell cars not very long ago. I think the BMW was a 7 series sedan. I do not know what amount of energy is required to separate the hydrogen from oxygen in water but would be interested in learning.

I think we should fully investigate any fuel source that reduces our dependency on oil. CNG, H2, electric, nuclear, wind, solar, etc are all possibilities and need only a few forward thinking energy companies to make these more viable. I do not want oil companies to disappear but I would like to see some of them become more proactive in looking past oil as their sole source of income. What is the difference in investment required to refine crude oil into usable products and a hydrogen production facility? I don't know honestly but I think an energy company probably has a better background for that type of process than most. I also think they are more likely than anyone else to find ways of making "alternative" energy sustainable and profitable.

Not surprised by that response. I highly doubt there is an aircraft with any passenger or cargo moving capacity in existence that can operate on a renewable energy source. Electric road vehicles are in the minority by a large margin. No one is suggesting that vehicles that require petroleum based fuels will completely cease to exist in the near or far future. However it makes sense to reduce the absolute reliance on those vehicles and fuel source, and in doing so there are likely some environmental benefits as well. If we are going to continue to subsidize transportation infrastructure, I maintain it makes more sense to shift a portion of those subsidies away from highways and airports. If the Tea Party types had any intellectual honesty, they would favor eliminating all federal subsidies for highway and airport construction and maintenance in addition to refusing to consider investing in other forms of transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately we have developed an "all or nothing" approach to transportation that has made us 100% dependent on petroleum based fuels and other products. I simply believe it is on our best interest to diversify our transport options and the sources from which they are powered.

And there is no existing technology that will allow us to generate sufficient electricity for our country with renewable energy. Yes, one can pay more and make oneself feel good about oneself by specifying renewable energy. But in the case of California's HSR, that makes the economics even worse than they already are, and the possible generation mix is still pretty much what it is, because of the costs and technology limitations of renewable fuels. It's really fun to be "environmentally responsible" when you can do it with other peoples' money.

Airlines have been working on the use of biofuels for some time. United has already flown successful test flights. So, yes, aircraft with passenger and cargo moving capacity can operate on renewable energy sources. They too could engage in the moral exhibitionism of running on all renewable fuels if money was no object. So in doing their environmental comparison, they could have assumed renewable energy for all vehicles, because that is surely what California intends as well...

I agree about electric cars, but I think the new Tesla S sedan may be a game changer. I know BMW (and Mercedes?) had operational hydrogen fuel cell cars not very long ago. I think the BMW was a 7 series sedan. I do not know what amount of energy is required to separate the hydrogen from oxygen in water but would be interested in learning.

I think we should fully investigate any fuel source that reduces our dependency on oil. CNG, H2, electric, nuclear, wind, solar, etc are all possibilities and need only a few forward thinking energy companies to make these more viable. I do not want oil companies to disappear but I would like to see some of them become more proactive in looking past oil as their sole source of income. What is the difference in investment required to refine crude oil into usable products and a hydrogen production facility? I don't know honestly but I think an energy company probably has a better background for that type of process than most. I also think they are more likely than anyone else to find ways of making "alternative" energy sustainable and profitable.

Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips, for starters all have very large alternative energy programs. They have already been quite proactive in the area of renewables.

Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips, for starters all have very large alternative energy programs. They have already been quite proactive in the area of renewables.

I was unaware of these initiatives. This is good to know and I will learn more about it. Thanks.

How many cars a day used the Turner Turnpike the first year it was opened?

I was unaware of these initiatives. This is good to know and I will learn more about it. Thanks.

Most alternative liquid fuels fail at economical feasibility when compared to most conventional fuels.




http://seekingalpha.com/article/510011-is-exxon-mobil-about-to-waste-600-million-on-algae-research

Most alternative liquid fuels fail at economical feasibility when compared to most conventional fuels.


That is true when you only look at the cost of the fuel itself. There are no windfarm superfund sites and solar pannel usage does not result in ozone alert days.

So all the "traditional" fuels are the only economically viable ones? If so, we are in BIG trouble. I do not accept that we cannot develop the technologies to make these sources of energy profitable for the companies that will produce the means to use them. As a nation we once took on technological challenges without the sole determining factor being the almighty bottom line. If we did that, Neil Armstrong's footprints would never have been left on the moon. This is getting slightly off topic, but I think it is related to our hesitancy to actually to find a way to use technologies such as HSR to our advantage - instead we accept the hand wringing of the naysayers and NIMBY's while we continue to gorge ourselves on petroleum based fuels nearly exclusively. I think the United States has the ability to completely overhaul our energy production infrastructures, but I am not so sure we have the political will to lead in the face of the protestations by powerful interests.

Upon further inspection of this line while traveling Route 66 between Bristow and Sapulpa, I discovered that these tracks are not currently Continuous Welded Rail.

So how much is that going to add to the cost of rehabilitation of this line?

According to the video earlier it can all be done for $50 million.

Can you imagine what a boring, repetative, time-consuming and tedious job it would be to weld and grind every joint in that track (like, twice)? They'd have to pay me way more than $50 million . . . But that doesn't mean I don't think it's a good idea. I like trains.

I think this is possible but I honestly haven't heard anyone lay out a comprehensive plan to establish passenger rail service between Tulsa and OKC. I have heard and read some generalities but nothing that states specific options. The ones I can think of are:

1) State maintains ownership of rail corridor, refurbishes it with welded rail and modern CTC. Contracts a private entity (Herzog, Keolis, etc come to mind) to run the operations and maintenance using conventional (not HSR) systems.

2) State ownership and refurbishment. State rail transit authority established (NOT in ODOT) with the eventual goal of a state network such as the one in the map in earlier posts in this thread. State leases vehicles such as older Rail Diesel Cars or conventional locomotives and cars to establish service quickly. Analyze capacity needs and operational costs, then purchase modern technologies such as Diesel Multi Unit vehicles to best achieve service and operational/maintenance cost parameters.

3) Sell the entire corridor to a private entity with the caveat being they much establish rail service meeting certain parameters of service frequency and reliability.

4) Do nothing until high speed rail becomes "affordable" or more of a priority.

5) Forget the whole thing and accept the status quo until we reach a crisis point with fuel costs and road maintenance costs - a favorite of the Tea Party and energy company crowd. This one baffles me (esp the energy company part) because there is an opportunity to benefit financially for a company that will modify current long standing business plans and probably forgo some profit now for future benefit. (All I need are billions of my own dollars to give it a go!!)

And there is no existing technology that will allow us to generate sufficient electricity for our country with renewable energy. Yes, one can pay more and make oneself feel good about oneself by specifying renewable energy. But in the case of California's HSR, that makes the economics even worse than they already are, and the possible generation mix is still pretty much what it is, because of the costs and technology limitations of renewable fuels. It's really fun to be "environmentally responsible" when you can do it with other peoples' money.

Airlines have been working on the use of biofuels for some time. United has already flown successful test flights. So, yes, aircraft with passenger and cargo moving capacity can operate on renewable energy sources. They too could engage in the moral exhibitionism of running on all renewable fuels if money was no object. So in doing their environmental comparison, they could have assumed renewable energy for all vehicles, because that is surely what California intends as well...

This completely excludes modern nuclear power generation. While the initial costs are very high, the long term cost is reasonable - unfortunately the nuclear industry is still trying to overcome a couple very large black eyes in the United States and a lot of NIMBYism.

The biofuel projects and demonstrations are good ideas with promise, but the costs associated with many of those fuels are merely shifted to the agriculture/food segment of the economy. I think the Department of Defense's biofuel demo with the Navy did more to set back that technology than move it forward - all most people will remember is the extreme difference in cost of the biofuels used and conventional fuel. I think our collective inability to look past present day costs and ignore future realities could be our next national crisis on the scale of the Great Depression.

Let there be a Rail Authority like our Turnpike Authority, we'll have rail lines all over this state.

What about solar-powered Zepplins with gondolas resembling Pullman Cars?
It might not be "high speed"--nor are rails involved--but the train connection is there.
Especially if they are equipped with state-of-the-art locomotive horns to warn whomever about something or other.

This completely excludes modern nuclear power generation. While the initial costs are very high, the long term cost is reasonable - unfortunately the nuclear industry is still trying to overcome a couple very large black eyes in the United States and a lot of NIMBYism.

The biofuel projects and demonstrations are good ideas with promise, but the costs associated with many of those fuels are merely shifted to the agriculture/food segment of the economy. I think the Department of Defense's biofuel demo with the Navy did more to set back that technology than move it forward - all most people will remember is the extreme difference in cost of the biofuels used and conventional fuel. I think our collective inability to look past present day costs and ignore future realities could be our next national crisis on the scale of the Great Depression.

Do you think that will come before or after congress bankrupts the country in the next couple decades.

Who knows? The issues are inter-related and the solutions are not simple cable news friendly sound bite material. I am concerned that no one who has the influence and means to start pressing for policy changes are doing next to nothing or are overwhelmed by political infighting.

5) Forget the whole thing and accept the status quo until we reach a crisis point with fuel costs and road maintenance costs - a favorite of the Tea Party and energy company crowd.

I am a registered member of the Tea Party and I also created the regional rail map you referenced earlier. However, I know what you mean. There has been soooooo much government waste and evil perpetrated by the federal government that the whole concept of a federal government has become poison to a large number of people.

Many of my fellow Tea Party cohorts don't understand the tax liability their own lifestyle is creating. They sit around and complain about welfare but don't give a second thought to the trillions spent every year so they can live on 1/3 acre in a low density subdivision, and they sure as hell don’t understand that their subdivision is a part of the Great Society that they claim to despise. That is why I favor a state-run regional rail system with integration to other state-run rail systems.

mmonroe is correct, if the state has a Regional Rail Authority (like the Turnpike Authority) there would be tracks all over the state.

Agree 100%. I was once a mainstream Republican but feel increasingly isolated by the loudest voices in that party now. I do not like either extreme and think many Americans are in the middle but have grown so tired of the rancor they have shut down mentally and emotionally in caring about what their government does.

If not for all the past and present waste, the federal government could be involved in facilitating economic growth by investing in large infrastructure projects like we once did - Interstate Highway system anyone? Unfortunately, that achievement has become a curse by evolving into the black hole for the majority of transportation infrastructure spending. I would like to see someone in Congress or the Executive branch begin pushing for a moratorium on future highway and airport construction spending - while funding maintenance - and shifting the billions (trilllions?) in subsidies to more sustainable transportation systems.

The economics of it are going to make it a reality.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/29/car-loans-are-now-americans-no-1-bill-paying-priority/


But TransUnion, a credit information company, studied the payment patterns of 4 million Americans with at least one car loan, one credit card and a mortgage and found a clear priority for staying current on the car loan.

...

"Today, most people need a car to get to a job or to look for a job, and that has made cars a priority," he says.

...

Saxton says he dares not be late on his car payment and risk having his car repossessed. Instead, he's decided to be late on his credit cards and student loans.

"I can work with the credit card companies. They won't shut off or take away anything," says Saxton, who made a $474 payment this week. "I won't have the ability to get to work or even get another car if they repossess this one."