“The Interstate Highway System transformed the way we traveled, lived, worked, and developed,” said President Biden in his March 31 speech introducing his American Jobs Plan. “Imagine what we can do, what’s within our reach, when we modernize those highways,” he continued. “You and your family could travel coast to coast without a single tank of gas onboard a high-speed train.”
The late Senator Arlen Specter shares a ride on an Amtrak train with then-Vice President Joe Biden in 2009.
When I read this, I had to wonder: is Biden’s speechwriter a total ignoramus when it comes to transportation? Or did Biden depart from the speech and allow his mind to drift to a total non-sequitur? I wondered this because, in case you weren’t aware, high-speed trains will not go on even modernized interstate highways. Although many people talk about building rail lines in the median strips of interstate highways, that’s just a fantasy: trains cannot handle the grades and high-speed trains cannot handle the curves found on interstate freeways. Not to mention the fact that there is no money for high-speed trains in Biden’s infrastructure plan anyway.
Then, on April 7, Biden gave another speech that elaborated on the above sentence. “Imagine a world where you and your family can travel coast to coast without a single tank of gas on a high-speed train,” he repeated, “close to as fast as you can go across the country in a plane.”
As Eric Boehm points out in Reason, this little addition is also ridiculous: the average speeds of the fastest scheduled trains in the world today are less than 40 percent of the average speed of a jet airliner. While Japan claims it can increase ground speeds with maglev, the average speed of a maglev train will still only be half the speed of a jet. Airliners reach their high speeds by climbing high into the atmosphere where the air is thinner; trains can’t do that and must cope with incredible wind resistance to go over 300 mph.
Ironically, in the same speech Biden went on to say that supersonic jets will soon be able to go 21,000 miles an hour, about 15 times faster than the Concorde used to go. That’s just as ridiculous as high-speed trains going as fast as jets, but if it were true, why would anyone take a high-speed train across the continent?
Functional Assessments Interventional cardiologists also use a range of functional assessments to determine abnormalities of the small vessels of the heart or blood vessels such as atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), hypertension or high blood pressure and Diabetes, a condition caused by cheap cialis acidic contents from the stomach moving upward into the esophagus, which results in a burning sensation. Besides medical remedies, there are some natural erectile dysfunction remedies available for the impotent males. sildenafil pills Genesis of Kamagra Polo Tablets:The brand name Kamagra is derived from a Sanskrit word Kama. more helpful tabs buy cialis overnight However, the active ingredient is the same in Europe and generic viagra sample the US but they prescribe a tiny percentage of the quantity we consume. Several different companies are attempting to develop hypersonic aircraft that will carry passengers several times the speed of sound (though nowhere near 21,000 miles per hour): Boom is designing a 56-passenger plane that will go Mach 2.2. Not to be outdone, Aerion, which is backed by Boeing, is planning a 50-passenger plane with a top speed of Mach 4.0. Even Mach 2.2 is more than 4.4 times faster than the fastest maglev train ever.
These planes are being designed to not only go fast but to minimize the sonic booms that prevented the Concorde from being flown over land. They will also run on biofuels, thus minimizing net greenhouse gas emissions. While they may go slower than 21,000 miles per hour, they put any notion of cross-country high-speed trains to shame.
These planes won’t be ready for you to board until at least 2030. But neither will any high-speed trains that Congress might decide to fund during the Biden administration. The California high-speed rail line was approved by voters in 2008, and it doesn’t look like it will be ready to go, at least not all the way from Los Angeles to San Francisco, until well after 2030.
The American Jobs Plan, however, has exactly the same amount of money for supersonic planes as it does for high-speed trains: zero. The plan does include $25 billion fund “for a dedicated fund to support ambitious projects that have tangible benefits to the regional or national economy but are too large or complex for existing funding programs,” and the New York Post suggests that maybe that could go for high-speed trains or supersonic planes. But $25 billion isn’t enough for high-speed trains.
Nor is it needed for supersonic planes since, without any government prompting, at least two companies are already doing the research and development that could lead to such planes. Unlike high-speed trains, hypersonic aircraft will require no new infrastructure and no federal support of any kind (other than air traffic control, which ought to be privatized anyway).
Of course, many people in Washington think that the world can’t possibly function without government subsidies, regulations, and oversight, while people like the Antiplanner wonder how the world can possibly function with all of the obstacles government places in the way.
As for Biden, the fact that many of the words he used on March 31 match the words he used on April 7 suggests that the problem is his speechwriters, not him going off-script. Democrats have apparently become so used to promising everything for free that they are promising high-speed trains and supersonic planes in the infrastructure plan even though those things aren’t actually in the bill.
Here’s the scary part: In his mind, that made sense.
And send her the bill.
Supersonics were all the rage when testing began for commercial flights in the 1960s, but the planes ran into problems because of high costs and pollution concerns. Ultimately, The US SST system was quietly scrapped; only the Concorde, a British-French collaboration, ever saw long-term commercial service. The development of that aircraft was famously expensive, costing about 10 times its initial budget.
The Concorde was also a big polluter, burning two tons of fuel just taxiing and four times as much fuel per passenger as a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. Because of its sonic boom, the jet was not allowed to reach supersonic speeds over land. It’s piss poor fuel economy meant it could only do transatlantic flights, leaving transpacific flights out of reach of a lucrative market. A 747 could fly FOUR times the passengers, twice the distance. And was apparent that without supercheap fuel, the economics of extended supersonic flight just didn’t work. The underlying problems of supersonic flight won’t be easily overcome. A key barrier is noise itself. Despite its talk about “quiet” SSTs, Boom is supporting legislation that would exempt these jets from updated stringent noise standards for takeoffs and landings for new aircraft. That’s a pretty stunning lack of confidence in its ability to deliver “quiet.”
Today’s subsonic engines are better. Boeing’s state of the art Dreamliner is up to 80 percent more fuel-efficient than the 747. But whatever the technology, a supersonic plane unavoidably wastes a lot more fuel than its subsonic competitors. And as the antiplanner notes “Airliners reach their high speeds by climbing high into the atmosphere where the air is thinner”
Supersonic planes must fly even higher, risk exposure of passengers to ionizing radiation at altitudes above 70,000 feet including cosmic rays.
Worse, Thus, if drag is proportional to the square of speed, then the power needed to overcome that drag is proportional to the cube of speed. YOU double the speed you quadruple! the drag. So a plane doing Mach 4 generates FOUR times more drag than a plane going mach 2 and must achieve an altitude of 150,000 feet which robs potential oxygen for air thirsty engines. Doubling an airplane’s speed requires several times the energy, The SR-71 had a piss poor range of 2800 nautical miles; had to be refueled in midair< TWICE to perform it's legendary reconnaissance missions.
Airlines generally preferred lower operating costs over higher speed. That's why airliners today are even slower than they were 50 years ago. A Boeing 707 flew 600+ miles an hour, todays jets average cruise is 550. By shaving 50-60 mph, they cut fuel consumption 15-20%. AND no airline would buy a plane to serve ONE or two specific routes. Super sonic flights sounds like a good idea, but in order for the company to be successful they have to make more routes.
Aerodynamic drag, also generates friction, and friction means temperature. To overcome that airplanes pushing hypersonic threshold required skins made of super alloys that could withstand these temps. One was Inconel, a special alloy that even today costs 15 dollars a pound.
They also forget another aspect; Every technological improvement that boosts the efficiency of supersonic flight, aircraft skin, engines, etc. Serves the needs of subsonic flight; when the fuel economy of the supersonic airliner improves 10-20%; by the time SST's manage to reach that; subsonic planes will have doubled their fuel economy.
The 1930’s saw the end of the airship era. Blimps and Airships however may make a comeback. An Ohio company Ohio Airships, combines the advantages of air cargo while significantly reducing ecological problems. They achieve this by designing slow cargo airships, called “Dynalifters”. These air vessels mix the travel concepts of planes and Zeppelins. The company completed 4 conceptual designs for four different sizes. All designs are equipped with detachable cargo pods for rapid loading and off-loading, and a prototype with a length of 37 metres has already been built and tested.
They’re not blimps, they do not float away without a tether. The Dynalift is a airship/plane hybrid, it uses the helium/air mixed bag buoyancy to reduce most of the aircrafts weight penalty but it’s not light enough to float. The airship has wings and engines and wheels and takes off and lands as passenger aircrafts do albeit at a slower pace. The aircraft do not fly at stratospheric altitudes and can navigate safely in as little as 2,000 feet or less. It’s prototype top speed is 200 km/h or 124 miles an hour, while four times slower than a jet it uses a fraction of the fuel to travel the same distances. The passenger gondola offers wider floor plans than jet’s, a 747 is 240 inches wide (20+ feet) a passenger gondola can be over 25 feet wide and windows the size of house windows because cabins don’t require pressurization and open floor plans means no coach style seating.
Speed’s approaching 150-200 mph are doable, but the biggest advantage is efficiency. A dynalifter for comparisons say can use the a C130’s engines and wings and for the same fuel volume move 12x the cargo volume the same distance. In otherwords, per passenger mile, 6x more fuel efficient. Where 1/3 to half the price of a flight ticket is fuel consumed….
”
But $25 billion isn’t enough for high-speed trains.
” ~anti-planner
From what we’ve seen in California, it’s not even enough for the ballast.