I think I dated her :eek:

What we really need is to drill for our own oil, of which we have plenty, and give OPEC the middle finger. Unless you change the laws of physics, alternative bio fuels won't power airplanes. Not enough energy per molecule.

I'm sure I've flown with her!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Nice Bro! :D

You can only pay off political debts if you find black holes to shovel money in cities where you have political friends.

I'm sure there are more than enough Architecture firms, lawyers, consultants, designers, etc in Chicago to spend $1.8 without ever building something.

Out here in Hawaii they want to build a light rail that will bankrupt the city/county, knowing that it will do nothing for traffic, but hey, it's all about sucking money from the Fed tit. They used to claim it would improve traffic, now even proponents say it's just about the decade of construction jobs it will produce.

Hi!

For land travel, Bicycle is the most effecient for short distances, then cars/buses for up to about 100/150 miles. Trains are the most efficient from about 100-600 miles, then aircraft.

Current "normal" high speed rail is about 250 miles per hour. Maglev is not commercially viable now.

High speed rail makes sense from:
Boston-DC
San Diego-SFO
SEA-PDX
LAX-LAS
Tampa/Jacksonville-MCO-MIA, and maybe even ATL-MCO-MIA.
DFW-IAH
A Midwest hub based in ORD.

Upset about subsidizing trains?
Then, you HAVE to agree to stop subsidizing other forms of mass transportation:
You need to advocate for the ending of:
The $10+ per gallon of gov't subsidy for gasoline
The gov't subsidies for the FAA, airports, and aircraft manufacturers (each airliner produced has about 1/2 of the cost paid for by gov't, and the other 1/2 by the customer).
The gov't subsidies for ports, locks, dams, Coast Guard, Corp of Engineers, etc.

Whether you like it or not, or believe it or not, EVERY MAJOR FORM OF TRANSPORTATION IS HIGHLY SUBSIDZED by various gov't agencies.

And, the cost of gasoline? A PENTAGON study from about 5 years ago showed that the actual cost of a gallon of gas was about $12. Only about $2 of that was being covered by the customer paying for gasoline at the pump...the rest was paid for by US, the taxpayers!!!

cliff
GRB

The European high-speed trains do have some drawbacks: they're less roomy, you can't open the windows, and tickets cost more. They also have to slow down here and there, maybe due to other traffic. Similar issues with the high-speed boats on the Rhine, in addition to noise and a rough ride.
For vacation travel, I think the regular trains/boats are better.

Was she by any chance suing to be able to wear a red dress?


OHH YEAHHH!!!

Problems with high speed trains...

1. Energy Efficiency: Slow trains are very efficient. But what if you flew your jet at an altitude of 2' MSL at 300 mph? What kind of fuel burn would you see? Anything that fast creates a lot of drag at sea level, regardless of whether it has wings or not. Electricity is better than liquid fuel, but has additional rail infrastructure costs.

2. Infrastructure: The current rails won't work, they will need new ones and they will have to be straighter. The NIMBY's won't sit still for that, especially in the highly populated areas where rail might make sense.

3. Security. Trains have all the same issues that airplanes, plus one extra. If the airplane is properly secured on the ground, it is safe once airborne (no, MANPADS are not viable anti-airliner weapons, they were not designed for that). A train is vulnerable over it's ENTIRE route...bombs, mortars, rockets, etc. Hell a cinder block thrown on the tracks would destroy a 300 mph train (KE = 1/2MV^2)

It might work in some highly dense areas (NE corridor), but they will have a hell of a time building the tracks. Airplanes just work better for a nation as large as the US. We do need cost-stable, renewable, carbon-neutral fuels though (biofuel).

Yeah, you laugh like that now. But back when it happened you made fun of me as you took home the girl from the Swedish bikini team :mad: