Developments in the electric power industry, as well as others, could make a near zero emission vehicle a reality long before 2050. These developments would also reduce the pollution associated with electric railway locomotives, since they too draw power from the nation's electric grid.
Around the middle of the 1880s the Head of the U.S. Patient Office recommended that it be closed. He said that all of the things that were worth inventing had been invented. He was wrong. I don't know exactly which chickens will have hatched by 2050. But I am sure that there will be a great number of them, many of which we cannot even envision at this point.
As I write this post my former colleagues are laying the groundwork for new nuclear generating units. They will be better, safer, and cheaper than existing units. And like the current ones they will be relatively pollution free. Today the U.S. gets approximately 20 per cent of its electric power from nuclear energy. By 2050 there is a good chance that it will produce a significantly higher percentage of the country's electric power. And the industry will resolve the waste issue, which is more about politics than technical issues.
I never heard an electric utility executive - I spent half a lifetime in the business - claim that the industry could give away the electricity generated by nuclear fuel. We knew from the beginning that our company would have to build a containment plant, install pricey generators and control rooms, lay in switch yards, and enhance the transmission facilities to get the power from the source to the user. There was no way that it was going to be free. What the industry did not fully grasp was the huge cost of building and licensing nuclear power plants in the United States. Our plant, which produces 2300 megawatts of power, has run without a serious blip since the first unit went on-line in 1989.
Wind power is playing a larger role in the generation of electric energy. Texas is the largest wind producing state in the country. Wind farms are being built as fast as the turbines can be manufactured, shipped, and installed. Although wind generates only one per cent of the power used in the U.S., it will probably produce a significantly higher percentage by 2050.
The U.S. is sitting on an estimated 250 years worth of coal at present use rates. It is a dirty fuel. But the engineers are experimenting with a variety of techniques to store the emissions under ground. They look promising. Construction of an experimental plant is getting underway in Illinois. And another is likely to be built in Texas.
Many power specialists believe that renewable energy will be competitive with the traditional forms of generating electric energy. The driver will be the continuing rise in the cost of natural gas and coal, our two primary boiler fuels. They tend to move with the price of petroleum, which will continue to rise as world demand for it accelerates.
Claiming that hydrogen powered vehicles would raise the humidity level of a community to a point where it would create a widespread push back is a new one on me.
If vehicles are powered by clean technology, a major source of oil drip on the roadways - the internal combustion engine - will be removed from the roads.
Constructing highways in some densely populated sections of the U.S. is becoming prohibitive. This is not the case, for the most part, in Texas or its neighboring states. In densely populated areas passenger rail makes sense.
Adding capacity to existing railway lines is a good idea if they go where the people are and where they want to go. The problem, however, is that the rail lines frequently don't go where most people live and work. This is the case in Dallas, where the light rail system and Trinity Railway Express used existing rail line or the rights-of-way of abandoned lines. To lay new rail lines would have been cost prohibitive. As it is, upgrading the existing rights-of-way is breaking the piggy bank. Because of the inflexibility of rail, at least in Dallas, only a relatively small percentage of Metroplex commuters use the systems.
The DART light rail system carries about 60,000 riders per day. The TRE carries approximately 8,000 riders per day. The HOV lanes, which can accommodate rapid bus technology and are the third leg of DART's major transport systems in the Metroplex, carry more than 115,000 people per day. Moreover, this figure will jump significantly with the opening of new HOV lanes on I-30 and U.S. 75 this month.
I understand that the PRWG was a sub-committee. But I would not have known it from reading their report. They took a silo approach to transport problems and recommended a one dimension solution. As I said in a previous post, they should have at least obliquely recognized that rail is not always the best way to solve the nation's transport problems.
As I have said, trains are a viable solution in relatively short high density corridors. They are not a viable solution for medium to lightly populated areas, and they are clearly not an economically viable long distance transport mode.
Samantha wrote: The point is that the changes in the technology of competing transport modes are likely to reduce if not wipe out the rail advantage envisioned by the PRWG. By 2050, for example, there is a good chance that most of the vehicles on the road will be powered by zero emission engines or motors, thereby taking away the argument that trains are more environmentally benign.
The point is that the changes in the technology of competing transport modes are likely to reduce if not wipe out the rail advantage envisioned by the PRWG.
By 2050, for example, there is a good chance that most of the vehicles on the road will be powered by zero emission engines or motors, thereby taking away the argument that trains are more environmentally benign.
Zero emission vehicles do not automatically translate into zero emissions overall. An electric car may have zero emissions, but the power plant that produces the electricity to charge the car may not be so clean. Hydrogen fuel, if it ever becomes viable, produces water vapor as the combustion byproduct. It's clean, for sure, but if hydrogen cars ever become the standard, I predict that people will start complaining that our cities will be too humid.
Furthermore, emissions are only a part of the environmental equation. You still have to produce the energy somehow, and "renewable" forms of energy are relatively expensive to produce. The cost of energy will no doubt rise as more renewables come available, so efficiency will still be a significant concern.
And then there's the impact on the land itself. RR tracks lay much more gently on the land than pavement does. They have less problem with directing dripping lubricants into storm drains (which don't go through treatment plants) and from there into waterways. Aesthetically, tracks almost disappear into the landscape when viewed from a distance. Pavement scars the landscape and fragments wildlife habitat. Many states are turning to rail because of the high environmental cost of building more highways.
Acquiring new right of way is also a problem for highway builders. Land values are so high in California now that the cost of new right of way is often prohibitive. Adding passenger capacity to existing RR rights of way is much more economical.
In regards to technological developments in general, there are many promising developments on the horizon, but don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Fifty years ago nuclear power was expected to be "too cheap to meter."
The other point that I was making is that the PRWG focused on a single solution, whereas the solution to the nation's transport challenges lies in a multi-faceted approach.
Actually, the PRWG is one subcommittee of a larger commission called the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission analyzing transportation as a whole. Their work was the subject of a House transportation infrastructure committee hearing just a few days ago. Rail was just one of many topics covered. A 25-40 cent increase in the gasoline tax was also discussed to finance existing highway maintenence needs. They are looking at the big picture. I haven't read their full report yet, though, so I have no comment on that.
OK, the next number is 37.9 billion in rolling stock to raise passenger miles from 8.2 to 26.9 billion. I pick the 2016-2030 time frame and the 37.9 billion expenditure because in the longer time horizon, replacement of rolling stock kicks in but here it is a ramping up of the capacity of the network.
The Hiawatha service is run with two train sets doing 7 round trips per day on an 86 mile run, producing 602 train miles per day. Assuming an 80-seat corridor coach, 45 percent load factor (a reasonable assumption given the fuel consumption estimate implicit in those numbers), the added 18.7 billion passenger miles per year will need another 2400 train cars.
That comes out to about 16 million dollars per train car. In 2007 dollars. If you assume the current Amtrak average of 17 passenger miles per train car (allows for LD consists with the usual suspects of non-revenue cars), 450 miles per car per day, that comes out to 5.6 million dollars per train car (including some pro-rata share for motive power).
And the people on the PRWG have day jobs as high-ranking Amtrak or state DOT people and have an interest in making a workable case for the level of expenditure talked about. It feels good to have someone making a case for spending real money (about 8 billion/year over the next 40 years) to finally do something about passenger trains, but it really seems that the PRWG was just waving its arms.
As to cursory nature of this report, the PRWG report wouldn't have made it out of a church pariish council, or at least during the times I was on one. The difference between church council and the passenger train advocacy community is that if I spoke up that the cost estimate for tuck-pointing the steeple was way out of line, people would hem and haw and say, OK, let's get one more bid, but at a train advocacy meeting, people will take me aside and ask whether I am having a "crisis of faith."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote: The PRWG report projects diverting 3.9 billion vehicle miles or 8.2 billion auto/light truck/van passenger miles in intercity travel to trains in the 2007-2015 time frame. Assuming a 20 MPG average for cars and light trucks (it is a bit higher in intercity-highway driving), those cars and trucks would use .195 billion gallons of fuel or about .6 billion dollars of fuel at current prices. The PRWG report claims a net fuel savings of .4 billion dollars for switching to trains.We can pick at nits about whether the claimed 20 percent fuel saving of Amtrak over cars and planes is pocket change or if it is subsidy-worthy or whether one set of government figures gives Amtrak better fuel economy than a different set. But buried on p 37 of the report under section 3.2.1 Benefit estimates is an assumption that trains are a 67 percent fuel saving over cars, more than three times better than the number given earlier.Buried in the report is an assumption that trains at 45 percent load factor can achieve about 1000 BTUs per passenger mile, about comparable to intercity buses. Nowhere have I seen any data that any passenger train built to U.S. standards operates anywhere near that level.This is a sloppy report that will only provide ammunition to Amtrak critics.
The PRWG report projects diverting 3.9 billion vehicle miles or 8.2 billion auto/light truck/van passenger miles in intercity travel to trains in the 2007-2015 time frame. Assuming a 20 MPG average for cars and light trucks (it is a bit higher in intercity-highway driving), those cars and trucks would use .195 billion gallons of fuel or about .6 billion dollars of fuel at current prices. The PRWG report claims a net fuel savings of .4 billion dollars for switching to trains.
We can pick at nits about whether the claimed 20 percent fuel saving of Amtrak over cars and planes is pocket change or if it is subsidy-worthy or whether one set of government figures gives Amtrak better fuel economy than a different set. But buried on p 37 of the report under section 3.2.1 Benefit estimates is an assumption that trains are a 67 percent fuel saving over cars, more than three times better than the number given earlier.
Buried in the report is an assumption that trains at 45 percent load factor can achieve about 1000 BTUs per passenger mile, about comparable to intercity buses. Nowhere have I seen any data that any passenger train built to U.S. standards operates anywhere near that level.
This is a sloppy report that will only provide ammunition to Amtrak critics.
I don't know if "sloppy" is the right word....
Since it appears to be a compilation of all the studies done over the past decade or so, I think it does a fair job of trying to put all the costs and benefit from each on the same footing in the same document. I doubt there was much money available - it was a "working group" that did the compilation, so there couldn't be too much new effort expended.
Using an "expert estimate" for fuel consumption really isn't a fatal flaw. I suspect it's a better estimate of what "might be" than using "what is". I doubt Amtrak's critics would be able to sink the report by picking on the fuel consumption. The estimate can be defended with words, and perhaps a specific example or two enough to satisfy the critics.
The critics will ALWAYS harp on the operating subsidy, regardless of any cost/benefit analysis says.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Many of the technologies that are potentially applicable to other modes of transport could be used by rail. It already uses enhanced computer technology to improve scheduling, control power, and manage signal systems, not to mention a variety of administrative processes. Also, there is the possibility of a break through with maglev technology that would make it economically feasible.
Car makers and highway engineers are studying the use of electronically guided highways, i.e. cars would be guided by electronic sensors embedded in the highway and the vehicle. In fact, GM announced just last week that it is within a couple of years of having a vehicle that can be controlled by GPS, thereby greatly reducing the probability of a crash. If this comes about - I am convinced it will, the highways could handle many more cars than they do today, thereby removing the need for a lot of the concrete that would otherwise be required to keep up with population growth.
If people can travel in their vehicle and drive hands-off along the nation's busiest corridors, they will opt to do so in a heartbeat. Many people in the rail advocacy movement miss a key point. Most people, given a viable option, would rather drive. They prefer sitting in their own vehicle, where they can listen to the radio and be bothered only by their spouse, as opposed to piling on to a train or bus, where they might wind-up sitting next to a person with a runny noise who has not bathed in a week.
Computer technology makes it possible for millions of people to work from home. We have only begun to tap this possibility. Unfortunately most organizations have not gotten outside of the nine dots when it comes to thinking about where and when people should work. If employers get smart about scheduling where and when people work, the number of people who have to go to a central work location could drop even more, thereby diminishing the need for concentrated transport systems.
The other point that I was making is that the PRWG focused on a single solution, whereas the solution to the nation's transport challenges lies in a multi-faceted approach. One size does not fit all. I understand that the PRWG was charged with laying out a vision of how passenger rail could solve the nation's transport problem. I also understand that many if not most of the members came to the table with a passenger train bias. So the outcome is to be expected. But in the long run a one dimensional approach that fails to consider all alternatives will not fly.
Other than jet engines, which of the technological breakthroughs won't also be applicable to rail?
Samantha wrote: The Vision for the Future, U.S. Intercity Passenger Rail Network through 2050 is a useful document. It contains a lot of food for thought and additional work.
The Vision for the Future, U.S. Intercity Passenger Rail Network through 2050 is a useful document. It contains a lot of food for thought and additional work.
And could start to be realised if the 'Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act' which the Senate has already approved, is passed in 2008.
This will (1) Reauthorize and provide funding for Amtrak for 5 years (2)Establish an 80% federal match funding mechanism for capital projects (3) Requires the development of a long-range Federal rail policy.
The Passenger Rail Working Group's (PRWG) work product presents an intriguing vision for passenger rail in 2050. It is better than the NARP offering.
A fund similar to the Interstate Highway Trust Fund, issuing government bonds, raising the gasoline tax, etc. are mentioned as potential sources for funding the vision. Unfortunately, the details are sketchy.
The probability of getting the federal or the state governments to implement a hefty increase in the gasoline tax, especially to build rail corridors, appears to be low. Texas, for example, has not raised its gasoline tax since 1992. Resistance to raising it has been fierce. This is why proponents of public transit in Texas have looked to the sales tax to fund their projects.
The PRWG does not mention the heavy debt burden being borne by U.S. taxpayers, nor does it mention the unfunded mandatory spending liabilities that are likely to acerbate it. These are indicators of the country's ability to pay for the vision.
The PRWG estimates the cost of the vision at $357.2 billion, but it provides no way to independently verify the details. Whether they are available for public scrutiny is problematic. It claims that the cost estimates are conservative, that the actual costs will probably be less. Many rail projects in the U.S., e. g. the Dallas light rail system, the Austin rail line, etc. have exceeded their original cost estimates by tens of millions of dollars. These projects had a design to complete time of less than ten years.
The PRWG admits that it has no operating revenue and cost projections for the vision. A planning model that fails to estimate these variables would be a non-starter in the business world, or at least it would have been in the Fortune 250 company where I worked, which was a capital intensive enterprise.
The vision rightly recognizes the importance of enlisting the aid of the federal government to coordinate and help fund the efforts of state and local governments to further design and implement the vision. The roles envisioned by the PRWG appear reasonable.
Sophisticated planners use scenarios for long term planning. They know that they cannot predict the future beyond five years - sometimes ten - with a reasonable degree of probability. So they develop three or four likely scenarios. Then they identify, assess, and propose solutions for the opportunities and problems highlighted across the scenarios. The PRWG does not appear to have used scenario planning, although it does admit that its maps of the future could change, which would have an impact on most of the assumptions and estimates used by the PRWG.
The vision recognizes the potential for rapid rail in the country's burgeoning corridors. It rightly notes the benefits that could accrue from better corridor rail capabilities. Unfortunately, it still clings to the long distance train for "a select group of travelers", which means a tiny minority of the people who travel.
The assumptions and estimates used for the vision do not appear to have been audited. Independent auditors can assess objectively the plan, especially the financial and benefit estimates, and provide independent assurance that they are reasonable. Few work groups maintain an objective perspective of their product.
The PRWG emphasizes the data that support its vision; it ignores the contrary data. For example, it noted recent increases in train riders, including an observation that 2007 long distance trains revenues are up 21 per cent over 2005. However, it failed to mention that long distance trains rack up a disproportionate amount of Amtrak's red ink before interest and depreciation. It noted that driving is riskier than going by commercial carrier, but did not recognize that it is safer today per unit of measure than just ten years ago. It mentioned that airplanes create more passenger seat mile pollution than trains, while failing to note that commercial airplanes contribute less than three per cent of the emissions thought to be responsible for global warming.
The train frequently beats the plane or car in downtown to downtown trips over relatively short distances, as the PRWG states. But no train can cover 500 miles in the same time as a jet airplane. Moreover, in many areas of the country, the action is not downtown. It is in the suburbs. In the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, for example, more people live and work outside of downtown than in or near the city center. This is changing, but it is not likely to be reversed significantly for a very long time if ever. Thus, even if there was a rapid corridor train from Dallas to Houston, only travelers going from downtown to downtown, as well as areas south of Dallas and north of Houston, assuming suburban station stops were constructed there, would find it more convenient and, therefore, be potential customers.
The PRWG benchmarks passenger rail investment in a group of selected countries. While benchmarking can be helpful to fish for ideas, the PRWG comparisons are of limited value. For example, it compares the per cent of GDP devoted to passenger rail infrastructure in the benchmarked countries. The percentage of GDP invested by a country with a much smaller GDP than the U.S. is not a good comparison. A smaller percentage of the U.S. GDP, which is the largest in the world, may translate into many more dollars than the higher percentage in a smaller country. Moreover, it does not address the issue of where the other country is in relation to the U.S. in total infrastructure development. The U.S. has a relatively mature air, highway, rail, river, and pipeline network. While it is helpful to know what others are doing, at the end of the day investing in public infrastructure, including passenger rail, has to fit the needs of the United States and its ability to pay for them.
The PRWG acknowledges that technologies are likely to change by 2050. But its vision focuses on existing rail technologies. Moreover, it does not appear to have weighed the probability that competing transport technologies are likely to change dramatically by 2050. This is probably wrong. GE and Royals Royce, for example, are developing new jet engines that will be cleaner, quieter, and more efficient. Boeing and Airbus are developing more efficient airplanes. And car companies, amongst others, are racing to build alternative fuel vehicles that which will reduce fuel consumption and air pollution. Thus, some or all of the justifications for an expanded passenger rail system could be reduced by technological changes in the alternatives.
The PRWG identified rail as the preferred solution for most of the country's large population centers and high density corridors. This was the scope of its assignment. But it should have acknowledged, at least obliquely, that while passenger rail may be the best option, albeit very expensive, in some areas, it may not be in others. They appear to have overlooked other options that might be better, e.g. HOV lanes, rapid bus systems, smart highway guidance systems, telecommuting, etc.
Yes, 20 percent saving in energy may be sneezed upon. When you are carrying .2 percent of intercity passenger trips, and doing that requires about 1.5 billion in subsidy, ramping Amtrak up 500-fold to save 20 percent on transportation energy use would require 750 billion dollars per year.
People are arguing about the increase in automobile CAFE standards from 28/22.5 (car/light truck) to 35 MPG across the board. Given the pervasiveness of auto transport, that is a big, big effect.
To get people "on board" trains, the energy savings need to be 20 percent of, not a 20 percent reduction or even a 40 percent reduction. Those rates of savings can be achieved with existing train technology and would far exceed, at least on a seat-mile basis, anything remotely achievable with better cars.
20% energy savings is nothing to sneeze at. But is it accurate? As it turns out, different government agencies have different figures.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) has a table showing Amtrak's energy consumption per passenger mile that is 46% lower than airlines in 2001, the latest year available from them.
NARP qoutes the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and when I do the math Amtrak only comes up 17% better than airlines (not 20% as NARP figures). Oak Ridge figures go up to 2005.
For 2001, Oak Ridge shows Amtrak with an energy consumption of 3,257 BTUs per passenger mile, while BTS shows Amtrak with 2,100 BTUs per passenger mile that same year.
Take your pick.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: I scanned through the report for what they had to say about energy saving with trains, and they were back to the NARP Web site figures of 10-20 percent saving over autos and planes.To quote comedian Mike Meyers, that is insufficiently Evil. It is semi-evil, quasi-evil, the margarine of evil, the one-calorie Diet Coke of Evil, and I might add, the ethanol-from-corn of Evil. How can Amtrak expect to reach world domination with that weak a record for being Evil?Without doing anything exotic, a train should be more than twice as good as a bus, which in turn is twice as good as a car or plane, either on a fill-every-seat comparison or a realistic load factor in service comparison. A train should use 20 percent of the energy of everything else, not 20 percent less energy than everything else.My guess is that Amtrak corridor trains are about comparable to intercity buses in per-seat fuel consumption, and the the buses do a little better in passenger-miles per gallon on account of how they are dispatched. The corridor train consists are overweight and badly streamlines and could do much better. The long distance trains, with their much lower average seating per car, taking into account low-density of "chair car" coaches, baggage, lounge, diner, crew dorm, low density of sleepers, are probably SUV-like in their energy consumption and pull the averages down.
I scanned through the report for what they had to say about energy saving with trains, and they were back to the NARP Web site figures of 10-20 percent saving over autos and planes.
To quote comedian Mike Meyers, that is insufficiently Evil. It is semi-evil, quasi-evil, the margarine of evil, the one-calorie Diet Coke of Evil, and I might add, the ethanol-from-corn of Evil. How can Amtrak expect to reach world domination with that weak a record for being Evil?
Without doing anything exotic, a train should be more than twice as good as a bus, which in turn is twice as good as a car or plane, either on a fill-every-seat comparison or a realistic load factor in service comparison. A train should use 20 percent of the energy of everything else, not 20 percent less energy than everything else.
My guess is that Amtrak corridor trains are about comparable to intercity buses in per-seat fuel consumption, and the the buses do a little better in passenger-miles per gallon on account of how they are dispatched. The corridor train consists are overweight and badly streamlines and could do much better. The long distance trains, with their much lower average seating per car, taking into account low-density of "chair car" coaches, baggage, lounge, diner, crew dorm, low density of sleepers, are probably SUV-like in their energy consumption and pull the averages down.
You're right. 20%. Big deal.
Part of what happened was the rest of the world got better while Amtrak stayed put. In the mid-1970s, the typical family station wagon might sneak up over 15 mpg, at 55 mph, on a good day. Now, a family sedan will do about twice the mileage at 70 mph. Heck, even a Suburban will sneak up toward 20 mpg on the highway. Even airline service is more fuel efficient than the mid-70s. Amtrak's P42s are more efficient than the F40s, but they yield higher HP/ton for the trains, so the two offset and I'd bet the fuel consumption is probably flat.
Since the report seems to be just a compilation of exisiting studies, I'd bet it was outside the scope to do a more comprehensive energy consumption study.
Mr. Toy wrote: It's 43 years, not 50, but I agree the timeline is awfully long. Heck, the interstate highway system was mostly complete in 15-20 years. This could easily be done in the same time frame, if the political will was there. Unfortunately, the will isn't there yet. Thus I think this proposal reflects the current political realities. A lot of skeptics will be asking why annual rail spending should suddenly jump from $1.3 billion $5-8 billion. That alone is going to be a hard sell to the current "can't do" congress. Still, if its a serious proposal and gets off to a solid start, it could build momentum and get going faster.
It's 43 years, not 50, but I agree the timeline is awfully long. Heck, the interstate highway system was mostly complete in 15-20 years. This could easily be done in the same time frame, if the political will was there. Unfortunately, the will isn't there yet. Thus I think this proposal reflects the current political realities. A lot of skeptics will be asking why annual rail spending should suddenly jump from $1.3 billion $5-8 billion. That alone is going to be a hard sell to the current "can't do" congress.
Still, if its a serious proposal and gets off to a solid start, it could build momentum and get going faster.
Interesting report. Looks like they took all of the individual proposals and reports that have been done and consolidated and prioritized to form an integrated plan. Even if it is a patchwork quilt of a plan rather than a zero-based plan, it's a good starting point.
Lots of good info about environmental impact, population growth and highway congestion all in one place. Interesting that high altitude CO2 is 3X worse GHG than at ground level.
WHY does it have to take 50 years? There are babies that haven't even been born yet that will live and die and never see this come to pass. 50 years? Our country is ripe for this now, and, believe it or not funding is AS available right now (or not) as will be over this extraordinary length of time.
This ought to be on a 15 year development "maximum," except for the high-speed element. Communities need to be reconnected today. This isn't only about transportation between mega-centers, communities that have lost their connection and sit 80 miles from airports should be respected and get the track upgrades an station renovations that will help the decay and hemorraging in their locale. Again, America isn't only about the major metro mega-centers.
Get a larger system operating now; work on the bullet concept should follow only as long range future development.
Check out the links at the top of this page: http://www.bytrain.org/
This is the vision of a government commission for passenger rail up to the year 2050. Unlike previous Amtrak "reform" proposals, this one was produced by professional transportation planners, not political appointees or activist groups. Their vision map and cost estimates can be found in the 4 page executive summary. A more detailed 80 page report and a 2 page press release are also available. It appears to be the first step in what I have long advocated: a coordinated planning process.
Note to Samantha: this may be more to your liking than what NARP has offered.
Though less extensive than NARP's proposed route map, this proposal contains a number of similarities. NARP's map is here for comparison: http://www.narprail.org/cms/images/uploads/NARP_Vision_Map.pdf .
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.