Transportation

Transportation

I do not expect energy to ever again become cheap. The main problem is population. Liberals think it is unfair for anyone to have anything someone else does not have, without regard to circumstances. The U.S. has been criticised for having only 5% of world population while using 20% of world energy. Really nothing wrong with that and it is a result of technology and a high standard of living. Instead of worrying about fairness, they should have been thankful it was only 5% of the world's population living like that. The problem came when China and India started moving up. China has fully 1/3 of the world population and when you add India, that makes about half, or 10 times the U.S. population. With 10 times the population they can and probably will have a devastating impact on world resources. To reach the same point as the U.S. they would need 200% of the world's energy. They are a good bit short of that, but clearly are the elephants in the room. They don't have to do much to drive up demand. Only some disaster could ever drive it down and that would be on the order of a bloody war, world wide plague, economic collapse, something like that. Something that could cut the population by a large chunk without tearing up energy supplies. There is now talk of $150 to $200 a barrel oil by the end of the summer, and $7 a gallon gas. The annual climb and drop in gas prices may be over, replaced with a steep climb alternating with a slow climb. This is going to affect just about everything as it always comes down to energy. I want to discus the impact on transportation.

A lot of people seem unable to grasp the problem of population growth. It means you have to keep increasing the supply. Them democrats keep saying "We can't drill our way out of the problem". Well actually, we can. Increase the supply. Some idiot of a democrat said something like "The only solution is to cut demand". That might work if it was a static situation. As it is, we are in the position of being out in front of a buffalo stampede, we don't dare stop long. We have to keep moving. If you could cut waste and conserve and maybe reduce demand by a whole 10%, then in just 5 years it is all gone. You probably can't do it again, and you better get the supply increasing before you get run over.

I really don't know what we can do in the long run, but oil will keep us going awhile and oil shale will keep us going for quite awhile, assuming we can ever talk the politicians into allowing it to be developed. Maybe hot dry rock will work out and keep us going a real long time. We need those pilot plants to see how well it actually works. We have to do something because China and India are going to be eating our lunch if we don't.

First a couple of news items of interest relative to energy. First, the number of scientists signing for dissent, that is saying there is no scientific evidence for human caused global warming, has now topped 31,000, and is going up daily. I don't know how many have signed the "consensus" that humans cause global warming, but it is much less, perhaps a few dozen. Unfortunately, politicians and many others now just accept it as fact. The cap and trade bill was defeated, but it will be back. Second, there is a recent report I have not been able to follow up on, of evidence for recent underwater vulcanic activity in the Arctic Ocean. Seems this could explain some of the loss of arctic ice prior to this year. Of course, last winter, the ice increased (unusually cold winter). The media seems to have not noticed as someone recently was talking about an even chance the ice will all melt this summer "for the first time" (ignoring previous inter-glacials). Actually, the ice is thicker now than it was at this time last year, but of course they do not want to hear that.

I don't really know nor am able to predict just what is going to happen with transportation, but here are some thoughts.

First, airlines are profoundly and permenantly changing. They use too much fuel and that is never again going to be abundant enough for all these jets and for it to be our only long distance public transportation.

Prior to World War II our long range and a lot of short range transportation was railroad. There was also bus, private car, and even a bit of airline. Since then we have gone to little other than private car and airline. Airline being the only public transportation was a bit awkward, but worked as long as energy was cheap. That is over. I have seen figures showing that even on long non-stop "bread and butter run" from New York to Los Angeles, they were using 75% of fare collection just for fuel. Short hops are even worse for fuel usage and are being dropped by most airlines, with the planes being parked and pilots being laid off.

This is going to be bad for Boeing, as they will sell few new planes, but the biggest problem is it leaves us with just about no public transportation. Soon only the wealthy will be able to afford airlines and the rest of us will just have to drive. I want to discus alternatives, but being who I am, I'll expand a few ideas a bit.

Landings and takeoffs are costly to a large plane. More wear on all sorts of things such as flaps, slats, spoilers, and landing gear. Rubber abraded off the tires on touch down. A jolt, then a lot of jiggling taxiing in. More on the way out, then the engines run full power for awhile getting off and back up to altitude, requiring extra maintenance. Lots of fuel burned during the climb. Short hops will have to go. For long hops, airlines will probably still make sense, but the fares will be much higher. They have to cover fuel costs and still have some left to pay for everything else. The rich and those going a long way will probably continue to fly, especially across the ocean. I do not see a return of passenger liners as a 3 or 4 day trip across the Atlantic does not appeal to todays hurry, hurry crowd. But ships use much less fuel per ton/mile and fares could be so much cheaper with 3rd class accommodations, who knows?

What will we do for domestic public transportation? Well, I think trains are the clear favorites, but first I'd like to present an idea and dispose of buses.

One idea I would like to suggest is to change scheduling to favor minimum time inroute, rather than being on time. A route should start at the same time each time, but then run as quickly as possible and arrive when you get there. Then get back to rolling as soon as possible.
I realize that would foul up the schedual, but with modern communications, I don't think that would be a problem. Earliest times would be posted and be advertised. You would know you would not have to get there earlier. Actual predicted times could be also posted, updated according to what is hapening, so passengers would know when to expect it on any given run. This could be done with computers, requiring no manual effort. A variation in arrival and departure times of maybe a quarter hour on any given day should not be a problem as long as they are available. If there are enough trains, it would not much matter. If you miss one, just catch the next, much like they do for subways.

It would be nice to avoid needless delay. Most public transportation (train or bus) tries to keep to a defined schedual. Often, wait time is built into every stop, just to stay on schedual. It pulls in about on time. A variable amount of time is used to discharge and load passengers. Then it just sits until departure time, leaving right on schedual. I have sat on a stopped city bus for about a quarter of an hour because that was built into the schedual. If no one is getting on or off at a stop, the stop is made anyway, just to stay on schedual. I would prefer to skip needless stops and to leave as quickly as possible.

Bus service could get back on the road for parts of the country where there are no rails. How, I don't know, but if so, I think it should use variable scheduling. In addition, take care of a big problem. If you have ever ridden a bus very far you know it takes about twice as long as driving by car, mainly because every town it comes to, it leaves the highway and makes its way downtown through local traffic, with stop signs and lights. Then has to get back out to the highway. I think the bus stops should always be right on the highway. For interstate highway, make a decelleration ramp and an accelleration ramp, much like a rest area. All that would be there would be the bus parking lot with the bus station next to it, and on the other side of the station, a city street. A city bus stop if the city has them, else just a parking lot. The bus could pull off, exchange passengers, and be back on the interstate in just a few minutes. It could almost keep up with a car.

There are a number of problems with buses and one is they need too much energy to use a battery, so will probably remain diesel. With cars switching to electric with maybe a 5 to one savings on fuel costs, it will actually be rather hard for a bus to compete with a car for cost of making a trip. Buses have always been more about not having a car than about saving fuel. It might be nice to have bus service all over again, but it probably will not happen.

Trains get very complicated very quickly, but I'll try to keep it simple. They will either be powered by electricity or by diesel. Electric has long been used in the U.S., for a number of reasons, mainly to get away from the smoke of coal fired steam engines. Otherwise, electric did not make much sense as the diesel was cheaper and could use cheaper track. It costs just about as much to electrify track as it does to build the track. Then you have maintenance and higher taxes. Diesel is actually preferable for freight, while electric is preferable for passenger. Diesel fuel was cheap and plentiful. With a low density population and airlines on the way up, passenger service dried up and we gravitated to freight.

In Europe there was a different situation. High population density made passenger service profitable, and short distances made airline not so attractive. Fuel shortages from the war favored electric track, which could draw off the grid from other sources. As a result, much of the track in Europe is electric and suitable for higher speeds than the freight battered track in the U.S.

Passenger service in the U.S. is basically in the Northeast Corridor. It has been undergoing a resurgance in about the last decade with the introduction of Acela trains and completion of electrification of a track from Boston to Washington D.C. This is often refered to as "High Speed Rail", but that is rather laughable as the average speed is only about 70 - 80 mph. Never the less, this is indicative of how low speed rail can re-surface in this country and serve all cities that have rail.

Without going into too much detail, the trains have a "power car" on each end, each with a rounded end for streamlining. Between is a first class car and however many lower class cars that are needed. These make a run about every hour in some cases and basically travel as fast as they can depending upon curves and crossings. In spite of a bunch of mistakes, they have been reasonably successful and for 2007, ridership was up about 9% over 2006.

This line could be extended and others added. Electrification is costly and takes time, but should be done if for no other reason than drawing from the grid, rather than using feul. Regenerative braking can also be used, and electric drive is not as hard on track as deisel, which has a lot of vibration. . This could just keep growing until it covers the country. However, the cost of electrification means it is probably only justified where there will be a lot of people to ride. Probably, what is needed is diesel power cars for trains in the rest of the country. That could get the service accross the country quickly, then electrification could proceed as justified. The speed could increase as the condition of the track is improved.

In a lot of places it would be hard to run frequent trains until the ridership builds up, and unfortunately, that wont happen until the service is there. We had Amtrak across Missouri, originally once a day in each direction. They didn't get enough riders and now are down to about twice a week. That makes it useless as transportation. If I want to get to St Louis I am not going to wait 3 days for a train.

The lack of airline service can help encourgae trains, but I think for service out in the boondocs, something that would probably help a whole lot is keeping it simple. Those Acela trains may work rather well now in the heavy corridor, but where there are fewer riders, all that is needed is something more like a bus. Just a self propelled car with a crew of one: the driver. Keep it low and sleek to keep down wind resistance, and provide a sort of small bin on the back of each seat to hold luggage for the seat behind. Passengers can handle their own luggage as this service will be mainly for short distances anyway and they will usually have little if any. Someone wanting to go a long way may have more and will just have to handle it while riding to a city that has a high speed train station.

True high speed trains will have to be built from the ground up. New right of way and electrified track. New because the track must have only gentle curves and grades and absolutely no grade crossings. They must all be separated grades. The first fatal accident for Acela was when a car drove over the tracks and got hit by a train going only 70. The high speed trains will go at 180 - 200 mph. Yes it can be done, France is running trains at 300 km/hr (187 mph). How they keep them on the track I don't know, but these are new tracks, do not carry freight, and the trains are light, which allows for track in good condition. The track must also be protected with good fences. You cannot have anybody wandering onto the tracks as at 200 mph the time between a train being noticable and it arriving will be small. These will also be much quieter than diesels, so they can kinda sneak up on you.

Now it does not make much sense to speed up to 200 only to hit the brakes to stop at the next station. These should be widely spaced as this service is for long distance, high speed. Maybe something like Indianapolis, St Louis, Denver... Intermediate points can be served by the low speed trains on the old track.

It also makes little sense traveling at 200 for an hour, then sitting for a half hour at a station. They need to work on quick change techniques. For example, have an aisle down the center of the baggage car with shelves or bins on each side. Use baggage carts like at airports that steer from both ends so a string of them will follow the same path. Have a string of them in the aisle ready to go as soon as the train stops. A door opens at both ends of the baggage car. A tug backs in at the front, hooks up the string and pulls it out. Another tug pulls the string with new luggage in the back door, then drops them and goes out the front door. Both doors close and the car is ready to roll. Enroute to the next station, baggage handlers unload the carts and reload them with the luggage to get off at the next stop.

Passanger cars should have a door at each end and as soon as they stop the passengers getting off get up, walk down the aisle and out the front door while the passengers boarding enter from the rear, and as soon as they are aboard the doors close. As soon as they take their seats, the driver, seeing that with closed circuit TV, gets underway. The whole process of slowing down exchanging passengers, and getting back up to speed may only cost 5 minutes. At 200 mph you could go coast to coast in about 15 hours, maybe 16 with stops. Up to about 1000 - 1500 miles you would beat airplanes because you would not waste so much time on each end.

American railroads have a unique problem, from the very first they were taken over by the unions, which, with the co-operation of the government, have managed them ever since. Management has generally been helpless to do anything about it or to be efficient. For example, in the 1950's diesel - electric locomotives took over from steam locomotives and there was no longer anything for firemen to do. The unions did not allow them to be dropped. For the next half century, every locomotive carried a fireman who rode along doing nothing other than draw pay. As far as I know, they still do. In the days of steam a locomotive could go about 100 miles before it needed more water, and the unions demanded and got a full day's pay for traveling the 100 miles. That actually got codefied into law. Management tried for years and finally got it changed: to 108 miles. Brakemen were part of the crew long after air brakes made them unneeded, and crews had to be changed each time a train crossed into another block.

The new rail transportation must be a new world with new, reasonable rules or it is not going to work. A 50 passenger self propelled car that carries a crew of 5 will be hard to justify the operating expenses. A 200 ton locomotive pulling a 50 ton passenger car, like Amtrak, is ridiculous. American rail cars are a lot heavier than common practice in Europe, not because of dense management, but because of rules for crash safety. The cars need to be light, probably using higher tech materials than steel. They need to be aerodynamic, energy efficient. Steel wheel on steel rail and slight grades make them use a lot less per ton/mile than airplanes, but with high energy costs, they need to get as much as they can.

I don't know just what will happen, when and if we will get rail, but it makes a lot of sense in this new world. Anyway, there are some ideas.