220-mph Solar-Powered Train Proposed In Arizona 416
Mike writes "An ambitious Arizona company has recently revealed plans for a solar powered bullet train that will streak across the desert at 220 mph, traveling from Tuscon to Phoenix in 30 minutes flat. Proposed by Solar Bullet LLC, the system comprises a series of tracks that would serve stations including Chandler, Casa Grande, Red Rock, and Marana, and may one day be extended to Flagstaff and Nogales. The train would require 110 megawatts of electricity, which would be generated by solar panels mounted above the tracks." Local coverage of the plan takes a harder look, noting that Solar Bullet LLC is two guys who are now asking local governments in the towns at which such a train would potentially stop for $35K for a legal and feasibility study. Total cost is estimated at $27B.
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not this would fly will all come down to cost. I've made the drive from Tucson to Phoenix when it is bumper to bumper the entire way and going the speed limit is physically impossible. A half hour train ride sounds very nice in light of that. But the reality is the ride and the electric car rental on the other end have to be cheaper than driving down there in one's own car. Arizona cities are textbook cases of sprawl. It is almost impossible to get around in them without a vehicle, especially in the summer. It's unlikely too many people would want to just ride the train and not need a car on the other end.
Then there is that time thing. It's not making the trip in 30 minutes if it stops 5 times between the two cities. Maybe they are thinking of express trips interspersed with trips that stop? The article doesn't say. Of course the way things are going, eventually this would run right up the middle of one big metro area.
This is what the "new green economy" is all about. (Score:4, Insightful)
How much for the 60 mph version? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really feel like paying $27B so that people in Arizona can have super-duper-fast commute. That's a lot of our cash or the riders' luxury.
Can't they just get a 60 mph version for a lot less money?
You've gotta love solar power... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, how long before bureaucracy clouds over this idea?
Scam (Score:1, Insightful)
This just smells like a scam trying to make money off of bailout money.
From the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] page:
So forget about the solar panel aspect (that's probably just there to get the tax breaks & incentives in the new budget). The train tech itself is not going to go that fast. Something tells me they also don't account for emabrkment/disembarkment of passengers & luggage in that 30 minute time estimate.
Yes it would be faster than by car. However, the complete overselling of this & that it's two guys asking for large sums of money up front for "feasability" studies just smells like a scam.
Just get Lyle Lanley to build you a monorail instead - it'll give you the same result.
How much?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
1.21 gigawatts?!?! What?!?!?
Oh. Well that makes tons more sense. In fact, let me just get out these multi-megawatt solar panels I have sitting around...
Seriously, this is a rather larger undertaking. Generating 110 megawatts (per train, I imagine?) is no small feat. Especially for solar paneling. That's usually the type of thing you need your own power plant for. It's a nice idea, but you'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of:
a) Solar Power only above the rails being effective
b) The practicality of any design that relied only on the rail footprint
c) The realistic cost benefits of this idea
d) That maintenance costs won't be overwhelming
e) That consumer demand for service won't result in the train operating during periods where it will be forced to pull from the grid. Frustratingly, very likely during the hours when demand is high for home lighting/heating/etc.
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is what the "new green economy" is all abo (Score:5, Insightful)
Lack of environmental regulation and incentives is a handout to companies that pollute; the cost is born by the general public (or, even worse, by a small segment of the public who are negatively impacted in a massive way (flooding, disease, loss of livelihood, etc).
Yes, people will take advantage of incentives -- this is true of any incentive. On the other hand, I consider people who bitch about environmental incentives and regulations to be selfish bastards who choose not to, or cannot, comprehend that there are true costs to environmental damages, and that these externalized costs must either be internalized by the parties responsible, or matched by incentives to be environmentally responsible.
Some basic economics (Score:5, Insightful)
Assume that the cost of the thing is financed like a 30 year mortgage. Just as a rule of thumb, with interest we're talking about a total of 54 billion. Just to satisfy construction costs, a need to make a payment of 150 million a month, every month. To make that payment, we need to have 5 million dollars a day, ever day. To get that, assuming a $10 a day per person spend, you'll have to have 500,000 riders a day, every day, traveling across Arizona. Is that economical? Are there THAT many people riding back and forth? I think this project is a stretch.
Re:How much?!?! (Score:1, Insightful)
Just a stab in the dark, but I'm guessing Arizona houses won't be neededing a lot of heating power.
Trains faster than the car? You're kidding right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it would be faster than by car.
It would? From where to where?
Last time I looked, trains could only travel on tracks.
Trains run to schedules, which means you have to wait for them.
Trains only stop at stations which means you have to travel to and from the station.
Trains are only faster than a car under the conditions that
1: you live near a station and
2: want to travel near to another station,
3: without having to change between lines or other modes of transport.
There's a very good reason people have embraced the car with open arms.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the snake oil salesmen, is they make the honest people with similar appearing ideas look bad when they finally show up.
Re:Some basic economics (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that simple, because your analysis ignores the public cost of people driving.
Already now, I-10 is apparently gridlocked much of the time. This is a high-growth area. Assume that the number of people wanting to make this trip doubles over the next 30 years.
Without rail or some kind of public transit, taxpayers will need to more than double the carrying capacity of I-10 (presumably the goal isn't to have twice as many people in the same gridlock as today.)
What's the PUBLIC cost of doubling the size of I-10, compared to the PUBLIC cost of the train?
The cost-benefit analysis is much different when you stop assuming that the I-10 you need in 30 years will be free, just because a smaller-than-needed version already exists.
doctorcisco
Unfortunately... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want the train to take you past Topeka, you have to beat it in a riddle contest. One sure-fire winning riddle:
How did the dead baby cross the road?
Answer: It was stapled to the chicken!!
Now who wants to ride on Blaine, the insane train? I know I do!
~AA
Re:How much?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for a train company, and not only are most of your concerns accurate there are quite a few *more* even.
f) Infrastructure. To get to those speeds you need to replace the entire rail system. Concrete railroad ties, carefully planned/banked track, etc.
g) HVAC on the trains themselves. Cooling is massive.
h-z) If I wanted to go on.
Maintenence costs would be prohibitive. Guaranteed. But if they can manage federal funding (they won't) they will soak up a never-ending stream of cash for upkeep.
This is one of the dumber ideas I have seen make this much press this quickly. People are so blindly interested in anything billed as "eco" or "green or "solar" that common sense goes right out the window. Trains are about as efficient a means of transportation as possible *right now*, how about going after the real areas of waste and inefficiency?
Re:Let us do the math. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they build it using bond money you will have to pay the interest as well. It would take 270,000,000 riders and that is without interest. So if you had a million riders a year it would only take 270 years to pay it off.
Does that count the cost of the real estate? They could put the stations near a major attraction, downtown center, etc, but that would be inconveniently noisy for the non-riders and the land would be really expensive. So, lets put the track and stations in the middle of nowhere. Weirdly, many mass transit projects are designed this way.
Re:Well $27B buys you a lot of panels... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're magically converting from MW to kWh. Your 48 panels generated 45 kWh in about 12 hours, which is a lot closer to 3kW than it is to 60 kW. 110,000 / 3 = ~36000 times as many panels, or 1,728,000 of the things.
Note also that you need to be able to handle generating that power in winter also, when you have rather fewer than 12 hours of sunlight per day, even ignoring weather.
It's not infeasible. Not even close. But it's not a trivial investment, and unless there are going to be enough customers to pay for the thing, it'll never be built.
Re:How much for the 60 mph version? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't really feel like paying $27B so that people in Arizona can have super-duper-fast commute. That's a lot of our cash or the riders' luxury.
Can't they just get a 60 mph version for a lot less money?
I'm sure Americans* thought the same when the national highway system was conjured up.
*Citizens of the United States who think they are the only ones who live in the hemisphere.
It will never happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
People keep talking about urban sprawl like it's an insurmountable issue. As I've said recently, Japanese cities have massive sprawl and they manage just fine.
As cool as high speed rail lines are the big problem is that they're a huge waste of money if there isn't some sort of infrastructure for getting people around each city without cars. What American cities and suburbs need are extensive rail systems which service outlying areas in addition to the city core.
And this doesn't just mean a spoke and hub layout, this means that those outlying areas should be directly connected as well. Take a look at this map [johomaps.com] of the rail lines owned by a single company around Tokyo.
Want to be really impressed? Check out this PDF [google.com]. In that map, Shibukawa, tucked away in the upper left corner of that map is 120km from Tokyo. That should give you a sense of how extensive their rail system is.
If you want people to take rail seriously this is the sort of extensive service you need to provide. I'd take the train to work if it provided me this level of accessibility. Hell, I wouldn't even need a car.
This is the embarrassment [mta.info] that passes for a rail system in the New York area. Just imagine trying to get from somewhere like Poughkeepsie to New Haven.
Of course, there's another issue. The rail system in Japan runs like clockwork. With far fewer lines Metronorth is incapable of ever being punctual. Every year they send out press releases stating, with pride, that their trains are on average only 5 or 10 minutes late. I rode the New Haven line for years and I can't recall it ever being on time. Hell, it was even late departing the very first station.
Every so often the train manages to pull down power lines or at least damage them sufficiently to cause significant delays as has been happening the past week or so. The bathrooms are a cesspool and unfortunately a lot of riders are slobs who leave their crap on the train when they get off. And then there's the vandalism.
Despite increased ridership the MTA, which runs the rail system around New York, can barely stay afloat without drastically raising fees or getting bailouts from the government. Years ago they began ordering new trains. I've yet to see one. But the bigger joke is that some of these new cars are being pulled by diesel locomotives. On an electric line! It's crap from the bottom up.
These are all important issues that need to be taken seriously if anyone expects a rail line to be successful. But an extensive rail system does make far more sense than any high speed rail line.
Unfortunately, in the US there are far too many obstacles for any such system to ever see fruition. First, are all the environmentalists who piss and moan about everything even if it were to provide real long-term advantages. Just as bad are all the residents who have this irrational fear of any perceived threat to their idyllic communities. They're all wrapped up in their selfish desire to preserve their little communities even if these projects would ultimately benefit everyone. In the Northeast there are a number of extremely helpful projects which have been blocked by just these sort of people.
I'm quite pessimistic about the whole thing. American's have lost that can-do attitude a long time ago and I think have grown quite self-centered. I mean self-centered from the standpoint of wanting to be sheltered by the government from all the little challenges of life. Although, I don't doubt that the government will spend untold billions on some boondoggle.
Re:Some basic economics (Score:4, Insightful)
Just some supporting evidence...
CalTrain links San Jose and San Francisco, both of which are metropolitan areas somewhat larger than Tucson and Phoenix. And the points between them are just a bit more densely populated than places like Chandler.
CalTrain's 2008 average weekday ridership was about 37,000.
Amtrak already services these areas (Score:2, Insightful)
The trip costs $19 and takes a little over an hour.
I don't think halving the trip time is a compelling reason to spend $27B, apparently people are willing to spend far more than an hour in traffic to avoid the existing train route.
Re:It will never happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought I'd add to my rant... I rode this metro system [wired.com] for several years. That article is correct. The trains were always pristine and always punctual. The announcements were clear, even if not necessary because the trains were frequent and on time.
I think the first line opened a bit over 12 years ago. And it's already reasonably extensive, and they're working aggressively to expand service. I know of two or three lines currently under construction and pretty far along. And looking at the map of what they have planned it's very ambitious. And this is in addition to conventional rail lines and a high speed rail line which service the rest of the country.
One thing I admired was how clean everything was and how good passengers were about keeping things clean. I never saw some slob munching on some sloppy sandwich, dripping juices everywhere and then dropping the empty bag on the floor under his seat, putting down a coffee cup so that it inevitably falls over when the train lurches spilling it's contents all over the train. But in the US that's routine.
Just try telling Americans that they shouldn't be eating on the train. They'd get all indignant. How dare anyone tell them what to do. God forbid they wait half an hour to eat.
And those are the people who make a mess of public transportation unintentionally. Then there are the mental defectives who have this obsession with writing gibberish all over every flat surface they see. Or otherwise they have this compulsion to tear at seat cushions and pull on trim. All because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them to respect public property.
It goes back to what I see as fundamental cultural problems in the US. All this stuff is inter-related. This is yet another thing that has turned me off from public transportation. Why should I have to wait for trains that can't arrive on time and then have to be wary about where I sit when I can just drive anywhere I want where ever I want.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
> The problem with the snake oil salesmen,...
You see it as a negative, I see it as a positive. We need con men like these guys to remind folks to not believe every smooth talking hustler who comes along selling something that sounds too good to be true... if you will only make a token investment today. Two guys asking for $35K a pop expecting sane people to believe they are going to pull off a 27B project that pushes every politically correct button one can imagine.
And if they DO collect any money, that is also great because as the wise man said, "It is immoral to let a sucker keep his money."
Has anyone sat down and run the numbers on just the 110 megawatts worth of photovoltaics? Then add in the infrastructure to store and transport that kind of power up and down the track. Now consider this would be among the fastest trains ever put into service and it is going to be solar powered electric? I guess it will have super size batteries to run at night? No, either the train is a good idea regardless of power source or it isn't. And the solar power station is a good idea on it's own or it isn't. The attempt to sell them as a package is just an appeal to emotion amongst the greens who these guys (rightly) figure will be the key decision makers on giving them the cash they are asking for.
Con job.
Re:Regardless of expense, I'm excited (Score:3, Insightful)
I think in the long run, we're much better off because we said "no thanks" to supersonic transport. The Concorde was nothing but a huge a waste of money and time to make a toy for the already-wealthy. Give me American Airlines' hundreds of Super-80s that everybody in the country can afford to ride in any day.
(Well, ok, maybe not Super-80s specifically-- those things suck-- but you get the point.)
No. (Score:2, Insightful)