A multi-pronged approach would be best.  I'd shy away from putting all of our collective eggs in light rail or even rail in general.  In many cases it does make sense.  But other decisions transportation and land use-related must be made:

LAND USE
1) Are we going to try and preserve everything in existence or will we selectively abandon (and salvage for scrap) certain types of settlement or whole regions?
 -why try and extend service if the area has no longterm prospects.  
2)The opposite now, are there areas near existing infrastructure that ought to be more intensively developed to better utilze those resources?
3)Are there new forms of settlement going to form that concentrate residents in a single place, putting them close to agricultural resources, education, simple goods manufacture and basic service providers.  Think to various relocalization projects underway or discussed?  
4) What are we going to do about the "marginal places" where the addition of missing land uses (eg adding commercial and agricultural activities) make the place viable

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

1. sidewalks.  duh
   
2. bike paths/lanes and improved parking.  Most close tasks can be reasonablly be accomplished via biking. Definately short distance commuting.
   
3. bikes and bike technology - Improve the bike offerings to encorage: all-weather comfort, electric assist, expanded cargo capacity, safe children transportation, better delivery applications.  Many of these already exist (I use some already) but would benefit from lower costs and higher awareness.
   

6. Urban rail extensions.  Use the appropriate rail tech.  Large cities should stick to heavy rail.  Can you believe one of the 2nd Avenue subway alternatives was light rail?  thats not appropriate.  Intermediate sized cities will benefit from light rail, the more grade seperated the better. If some small towns have legacy streetcar infrastructure in place and can put it to use, more power to them.  
   
7. Personal Rapid Transit- In certain circumstances, PRT would be ideal, mostly in large mixed use campus settings with no large peaks in travel demands.
   
8. Internet and telecommunications:  Even better, if you can accomplish something online or virtually, then you DONT have to travel somewhere.  How many trips has the internet already saved us?
   
9. Hybrid or battery trolley busses- Some places and locations it isnt practical to install rail.  In those cases run busses that can: (a) draw electricity from a wire in denser urban settings (b) run off battery power for longer stretches like up to 5-10 miles between wires and/or (c) run an internal combustion engine at an efficient setting to power a generator to keep charging the batteries.  This technology exists.  Plus if any transportation mode will benefit from fuel cells, the bus will be it.  A trolleybus-fuelcell combo may be the long term goal.  If we can only have to manufacture H2 from water via renewables, applying the fuel to municipal fleet vehicles could be probably quite manageable.  Again, use the overhead wires for urban areas, fuel cells for those areas in between
   
10. Electric Cars.  Screw the ICE engine.  Scratch the fuel cell.  Plug in hybrids (near term) and straight-up electric cars need to be the way of the future.  If we cant do that, at least mode choices 1-9 are still available.  I'd advocate a stronger future for electric cars IF we had...
    
11. Dual-Mode. -  Even better.  Imagine a network of elevated monorail-styled track network that you'd drive your electic vehicle onto and proceeding automatically, drawing current directly from the rail.  Dual mode combines the practicality of the electric car (short distance travel) and gives it long distance potential.  Now you could drive only up to 5-10 miles, enter the rail system, being guided automatically and then exiting and driving the remaining 5 or so miles to your destination.  Public transit applications would include creating bus runs that took advantage of rail locations to create numerous flexible running lines, dial a ride and so on.  A simple offline station (like for PRT) would allow totally automated PRT style use within the rail network.
    
12. Sail assisted shipping.  Maybe not going back to preindustrial transoceanic vessels but more modern sail arrays to reduce fuel usage.
    
13. Dirigibles.  If for some reason we can no longer fuel our airplanes, we could still take to the sky in airships.  Just need some hydrogen and fair weather to make this work.  Any takers?  Granted these things didnt have the best track record in the thirties but is there any reason why they wouldnt work with some more modern design elements.

Thanks for your tireless work on this, Alan.

I sat through part of one presentation (boring) but I think that there are good solutions out there.

Due to "Buy America" provisions, foreign designs are built in this country.  A factory is set up, cars for one or more cities are built, factory dismantled.  Support from foreign sources.

One purpose of the strategic rail reserve (Step 5 in below link)

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm

Is to create a larger reserve fleet and to help create a stable US industry.

Best Hopes,

Alan

As far as the reliability of the new cars goes, since every transit system has different cars, everything in them appear to be unique.  There is no savings from producing in large scale and after a few year the parts become scarace because no one wants to warehouse or product parts for vehicles with so few numbers in service.

If the nation standardized around just two or three vehicle types for each of the different types of rail (heavy, light, streetcar), it could both reduce cost and increase reliability.  Obviously if this happened then the more rail lines in service would just make the savings and reliability go up even further.

[Step] Two and a half - Promote electric trolley buses. Public Policy: FTA funding at 92% for electric trolley buses, 75% for fossil fuel buses.

I did not emphasis it (in part because buses do not generate TOD, and the indirect energy savings of TOD).  Yet, post-Peak Oil, transit agencies will be hard pressed to outbid others for diesel and this is an oil & energy savings.

Hope this helps

Alan

BTW, San Angelo Texas built a 3 mile streetcar line in 1908.  In the 1910 census they had a population of 17,8xx.

My bookmarks have:

http://www.caltrain.com/electrification.html

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29910

http://www.eccj.or.jp/databook/1998e/p94.html

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pub.html

http://www.irfca.org/faq/faq-elec2.html#sys
(The Indian Rail site has a wealth of very detailed infromation and articles about old vs. new electrification but nothing on converting diesel to electric, despite ongoing conversion in India).

I have some more on my other computer.

I have had discussions with Ed Tennyson who supervised the electrification of track from Philadelphia to Harrisburg (he also testified against GM in the trolley case where they were fined $1,000).  In his 80s but still QUITE sharp.

Also Bob Reuter who worked on Amtraks' electrification from New Haven to Boston.

From both I got the "rule of thumb" that energy requirements for drop by x3 in the mountains or congested urbanized areas (lots of regenerative braking) and by x2.5 on the plains.

Larry Conrad, VP Engineering of Brookville Equipment (last US small locomotive manufacturer) said that all electrics were "more than twice as energy efficient".  They make small electric locos for coal mines, tunneling, etc. and are familar with all types.

This rule of thumb predates the new GE diesel-electric locomotive P-42 with about 8% fuel savings.

Another way of looking at this is both loco types have electric final drives.  One uses a small diesel ICE generator with zero transmission losses, the other uses grid power with some transmission & transforming losses.  Only small islands & emergency generators use diesel generators due their poor economics, a result of their relatively low efficiency and expensive fuel.

The relative thermodynamic efficiencies of grid generation vary (wind lowest, nuke next, coal slightly better (low 40% at best), NG CCGT at close to 60%, hydro at over 95% but this analysis is nonsense given the different fuel types).  So I just did an electrical BTU vs. diesel BTU delivered at the loco (as do most other people).  All of the well known losses in the diesel ICE in order to generate electricity fall on the diesel mode vs. the electric mode since both end up supplying electricity to an electric motor.  Electric locos lose perhaps 1% in an on board transformer vs losses in an ICE motor.

Add to this the recovery of regenerative braking.

My "20 diesel BTUs exchanged for 1 electric BTU" claim came from a x8.1 gain to rubber tired heavy trucks to diesel-electric rail with an additional savings of 2.5 to 3 by going all electric, with a potential 6% to 10% T&T loss in electricity.  Using a more exact number than "20" would give a misleading sense of accuracy which is not supported by the variations in reality.

Hope this helps.  If not please contact me after Boston ASPO meeting (time limited till then).

Best Hopes,

Alan

The most striking thing is the advantage of rail over road and air, but electrification clearly has its advantages as well.  Even a 300 km/h train (TGV Duplex) can manage over 500 passenger-mpg (gasoline equivalent) in actual service (they manage 80% occupancy, apparently).  A "standard" large North American commuter train (F59PH pulling 10 bilevel coaches) with 80% of seats filled, and operating at much lower speeds, obviously, manages "only" 330 pax-mpg.

"According to Hirsch&Co, oil shale and coal will fill the gap. God help up us."

Amen to that!

One of the few good things I can say about Bush's bankrupting of the government is that it will lack the funds to destroy the American West and turbocharge global warming, by subsidizing oil shales, etc.

But besides that, there are enormous gains to be made through conservation. For instance, as we have frequently noted here, autos are less than 2% efficient (20% engine efficiency to move a 10% payload -- both rounding up.)

Similarly, most households could get by on the electric or NG energy they use on clothes dryers. These atrociously wasteful appliances can be replaced by a $2 clothes line and $3 worth of clothes pins.

The only thing that will move consumers is price. If the market is politicised, people will "demand" that their wasteful habits be subsidized.

Therefore, I say "bring on the shortages, bring on the high prices." Only then will this monumental waste get squeezed out of the system.

Miami is a good example of what "could be".  With population as it is today, 90% will live within 3 miles (4.8 km) of an elevated Rapid Rail "Metro" and half will live within 2 miles (3.2 km).  Many within bicycling range in their climate.  Add new TOD around most stations and Miami can become quite livable for many without a car.  All towers will be within 3 blocks of a station (happening already, in 2004 15 of 23 cranes were within 3 blocks of a station).

South Denver and Salt Lake City also have plans that will impact a good % of their people.

As posr-Peak Oil hits people, they will be driven closer to these oasis of non-oil transportation.  I want to provide the carrot, Peak Oil will a big enough stick !

Best Hopes,

Alan

A list of these closed shops, from Pittsburg CA to Pittsburg PA would be a good place to start.

New Orleans has built 32 streetcars "in house" in the transit agencies 1884 Carrolton barn to our own design (improved 1923 Perley Thomas).  Not simple but possible !  Also rebuilt one 1897 workcar and 35 1923/24 Perley Thomas's in house.

If we slow domestic automobile manufacturing up, there will be plenty of steel.  The New Orleans streetcars had 95% or 96% US content (FTA requires only 80% US content and gets 80% to 81%).  Corten is a favorite steel alloy and that may get tighter (often used for bridges).  But a slowing of new highways should free up capacity there as well.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Curves are often built with alloy steel.

BTW, the 1824 streetcar line near where I live (St. Charles) was transitioning from wood ties to recycled plastic ties that have no expected maximum life in streetcar service.

One can mix plastic & wood ties (both are resilent) but not with concrete ties (rigid).

The Swiss rail tunnels under construction now are designed to last at least 100 years with HEAVY traffic (several hundred trains/day) going at high speed (up to 250 kph).  I would like to get the details on their construction.

So you are quite right.  Higher initial construction  with costs lower later maintenance costs significantly.

Best Hopes,

Alan Drake

New improved bus service projects (and that it all it is) are still awarded 80% FTA funding despite mostly dismal results.

The FTA has made it known that new rail projects that ask for more than 50% will not be approved (despite uniformly good results).  Seattle found out that they could not make the cut at 50% matching, but if they cut their request to 20% (or 22% ?) that they could get some FTA $, so they did.  They wanted their first light rail line so badly, AND they were rich enough, so they paid for 80% (78%) of it themselves.

New Orleans got the last 80% FTA funding before the rules changed for the Canal Streetcar Line.  Pittsburgh also got more than half under provisions I do not understand (perhaps they paid 100% for earlier project and used that as matching or good politics or ... ?)

The Interstate Highway System was built with 90% federal funding.   The same level would get a LOT of Urban Rail built.

Best Hopes.

Alan Drake

New improved bus service projects (and that it all it is) are still awarded 80% FTA funding despite mostly dismal results.

The FTA has made it known that new rail projects that ask for more than 50% will not be approved (despite uniformly good results).  Seattle found out that they could not make the cut at 50% matching, but if they cut their request to 20% (or 22% ?) that they could get some FTA $, so they did.  They wanted their first light rail line so badly, AND they were rich enough, so they paid for 80% (78%) of it themselves.

New Orleans got the last 80% FTA funding before the rules changed for the Canal Streetcar Line.  Pittsburgh also got more than half under provisions I do not understand (perhaps they paid 100% for earlier project and used that as matching or good politics or ... ?)

The Interstate Highway System was built with 90% federal funding.   The same level of funding for Urban Rail would get a LOT of Urban Rail built.

Best Hopes.

Alan Drake

Remember that they voted in 1998 for a program to be finished in 2020.

Would the US spend $1 trillion on getting rid of 18 wheelers (with a 22 year wait from vote to completion) ?

Two Swiss I worked with definitely included long term energy security (linked to Global Warming in their minds, hydroelectric power is a "warm fuzzy" security blamket for many Swiss, they remember WW II when that (and wood) were the only energy sources for 6 years).

Some of the reasons for voting 31 billion Swiss francs for a LONG term solution are:

Getting rid of heavy truck congestion for the next generation (congestion could affect future Swiss exports).

Reducing pollution for the next generation

Long term reduction in Global Warming

Long term energy security for Switzerland (see WW II energy, the Swiss take national survival VERY seriously.  See their impressive military today.  Who is going to invade them ?  See also their gold reserves)

High speed passenger rail to several major cities (some in just a decade).

Quieter rail cars

Rural rail access improvements

Getting more economic benefit from Germany & Italy trans-shipments.

That said, energy security by replacing imported oil with domestic hydroelectric power was a major driver in the "yes" vote.  It was for the two Swiss I worked with and seemed to be in the newspaper editorials, etc. at the time.

Best Hopes,

Alan Drake