They should make big planes that are like zeppelins, but only use the gas thingies to make them lighter so staying in air uses less fuel.

That sounds slow. I'm not sure there is a configuration that would apply enough lift while still being aerodynamic. Obama should probably invest in floating cities though. That Bioshock Infinite game looks cool.

Doing a cost benefit analysis on how much fuel it cost to move a person 100 km, it seems the most efficient form of transport are personal planes. So instead of rail we should spend the money on building a personalized ornotophers (bird like flapping flying machines see : ). They are the most fuel efficient people mover yet so far and much cooler than stuffing people into sardine cans on tracks and to boot they are much faster..

Unlike rail they don't need as much infrastructure, just municipal airports, national air grid, automated flight controls and ornotophers.. People wouldn't even need to be certified pilots.. It's going to cost over 100 billion to build fast rail in the US, it would probably be much less for ornotophers and much far reaching..

-ddn

Doing a cost benefit analysis on how much fuel it cost to move a person 100 km, it seems the most efficient form of transport are personal planes. So instead of rail we should spend the money on building a personalized ornotophers (bird like flapping flying machines see :

). They are the most fuel efficient people mover yet so far and much cooler than stuffing people into sardine cans on tracks and to boot they are much faster..

Unlike rail they don't need as much infrastructure, just municipal airports, national air grid, automated flight controls and ornotophers.. People wouldn't even need to be certified pilots.. It's going to cost over 100 billion to build fast rail in the US, it would probably be much less for ornotophers and much far reaching..

-ddn

And for moving a 50 tonne piece of machinery? You're going to load something like that in an ornithopter too? (I also question their status as being the 'most fuel efficient' means. They're horribly wasteful energy wise, as you're moving the whole wing to produce lift and propulsion, as opposed to moving a small engine and fan to produce the needed propulsion.)


The impact of quality mid-high speed rail is that you move nearly everything efficiently on them, not just a small fraction of what needs to be moved.

Maglevs for everyone! (I'm only half-joking).

I guess people thought I was trolling, given the posts above. But I will say that cross-country (west coast to east coast) and regional hubs (NYC to DC, for example) should get high speed trains, such as maglevs. Most regions probably wouldn't need anything that high-tech but there's no reason to get some COTS train will need to be upgraded again in 10 to 20 years. If we're gonna do it, and we should, then we should do it right.

And on a national level the country should be connected, but obviously "one size doesn't fit all".

Putting in place a mid-high speed passenger/freight system isn't going to be outdated any time soon, and is a far smaller investment cost as compared to maglev systems.

If you are going to provide rail service from NY to LA, by whatever route, then why put a second line to support local maglev lines before the existing high speed net is saturated due to local traffic?

America could really use a long distance train system that wasn't trying to sell itself on the experience of riding a train. Amtrack was more expensive than flying the last time I checked.

I guess people thought I was trolling, given the posts above. But I will say that cross-country (west coast to east coast) and regional hubs (NYC to DC, for example) should get high speed trains, such as maglevs. Most regions probably wouldn't need anything that high-tech but there's no reason to get some COTS train will need to be upgraded again in 10 to 20 years. If we're gonna do it, and we should, then we should do it right.

Assume you want to travel the roughly 2100 miles from Chicago to San Francisco. (It isn't NYC to LA, but I picked it because that's the path of I80 and also the path of a major historic train line and many direct flights.)

The train ride from Chicago to San Francisco takes about 51 hours 20 minutes, and makes 34 stops along the way. There is no direct non-stop ride. There is one train started on the path per day.

Google says it is a 2100 mile drive that takes 33 hours on Interstate 80.

The airplane flight from Chicago to San Francisco takes about 4 hours 36 minutes for a direct flight, a bit more for stops along the way. There are about 20 different daily flights to choose from.


A bit of Google shows high speed maglev could make the trip in about 13 hours. It would take $230 billion dollars to just build the route, based on the current deployment cost of roughly $110M per mile. Then take into account the environmental costs to create that much track, install it, blow up paths through mountains and install bridges over valleys, and the power system required.



So $230 billion in initial costs to install that single track, and it still takes twice as long as flying.

And that's just for a single route across a portion of the country.



How many thousands of routes do we have through existing systems? How many routes of them do we need to replace before we hit critical mass to change the habits of individuals?

The full line from NYC to LA would be closer to $330B per track. That's 10% of the entire federal budget. Where does it come from? More debt? A huge tax spike? How many lines will we need to hit critical mass and induce change? Three of them, costing $1T? Ten of them, costing $3T?


Sorry, economically it is still a very bad idea.

A bit of Google shows high speed maglev could make the trip in about 13 hours. It would take $230 billion dollars to just build the route, based on the current deployment cost of roughly $110M per mile. Then take into account the environmental costs to create that much track, install it, blow up paths through mountains and install bridges over valleys, and the power system required.

Unless it's a direct non-stop route, it would take much longer than that making it even less feasible. Coast to coast would likely be a multi-day trip.

And for moving a 50 tonne piece of machinery? You're going to load something like that in an ornithopter too? (I also question their status as being the 'most fuel efficient' means. They're horribly wasteful energy wise, as you're moving the whole wing to produce lift and propulsion, as opposed to moving a small engine and fan to produce the needed propulsion.)


The impact of quality mid-high speed rail is that you move nearly everything efficiently on them, not just a small fraction of what needs to be moved.

This is for moving people, which on average weigh 100-200 pounds. For heavy machinery stick with trains since you trade speed for higher efficiency. It could take a week to move a 50 ton piece, but people won't want to take a week to move the same distance. Airplanes are not horribly inefficient they get the best distance per gallon milage for given speed ratio from all other mechanized transport ( small prop planes not those giant passenger liners ).. We are planning these new rail systems not for out bulk transport network which is fine it's for passenger transport, unless I'm missing something. The new rail lines planed for CA are not for bulk loads, but passengers.


Ornotopers are like birds they are hybrid flying machines, they glide / fly which increases their fuel efficiency.. Kinda like real birds..

See :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

for comparison of efficiency between various forms of transport. Air isn't much worse than rail at 2.1 MJ / km for air vs 1.98 MJ / km for rail, Ornotopers in theory blows rail out of the water..

-ddn

I think everyone agrees trains are good for moving cargo, but the topic of the OP is fuel economy standards in personal vehicles. Commuter trains in the US will probably never happen. No one wants to pay $1000 to waste 4 days of vacation traveling back and forth. That might work in Europe where people get 6 weeks of vacation, but not here.

For cargo it makes sense, but honestly, the discount is small compared to trucking. In some routes, for whatever reason, it's actually cheaper to truck something long haul than to put it on rail. At this point I don't think anyone is going to invest the hundreds of billions necessary to make the rails competitive for cargo purposes. They have their niche with non-critical extremely long moves, but trucking will remain king until another technology comes along.

They should make big planes that are like zeppelins, but only use the gas thingies to make them lighter so staying in air uses less fuel.

http://www.airshipzprize.org/

Being worked on now. Probably not cost effective for US but definitely in China, Canada, and Latin America where the infrastructure isn't as defined.