In the days of the 55 mph speed limit, it was said that the best fuel efficiency occurs at about 40 mph. So, a fuel efficiency standard suited to 30 mph would also work for a speed higher than 40, probably about 50 mph or so.

Unless there is new data, 40 would do more of all the good things that 30 does, and less of the uncomfortable things (like an even deeper depression of suburban real estate.)

But it is a proposal that will never get off the ground. And could be used to discredit (or put people off) MMT.

Energy is a contentious issue that might be best avoided on a site like this. It’s an area where reason and common sense has flown out the window. This will eventually settle down but until it does it might be best to avoid this topic completely.

There are many sites addressing these issues and a lot of heated discussion. People from both sides might be attracted to MMT though.

Here is a paper about it – Renewable Energy Use Advantages of Maglev-Based Personal Rapid Transit

Abstract: Maglev personal rapid transit (MPRT) is a personal rapid transit (PRT) system that uses renewable energy in usage, distribution, and generation. A PRT system provides on-demand service in a manner similar to the automobile. Different types of PRT have different impacts on the electrical grid load. Recent advances in power electronics and maglev technology allow for the design of a novel MPRT system characterized not only by exceptionally low power requirements but also by a unique capacity to incorporate energy distribution and storage infrastructure into the greater transportation architecture. A hypothetical hybrid MPRT design incorporating energy storage and transmission capabilities is described. In addition, thorough carbon dioxide and cost analyses are undertaken to more fully understand the spectrum of benefits of an MPRT solution, in comparison to conventional vehicle and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle approaches. An MPRT system not only offers significant advantages over other technologies in efficiently using renewable energy but also represents the unique potential to address urgent energy challenges by incorporating power transmission, storage, and generation infrastructure.

There was this very interesting idea that also cropped up – Off the rails: mag-lev personal rapid transit

This is in context for Australia, but will work for the US as well

I am a Norwegian control systems lecturer recently back from a ten-month sabbatical in Newcastle. I have had one-year stays in Australia on two earlier occasions. My first stint was in Sydney 1997-98. I then experienced the city’s grave congestion and environmental problems due to car traffic. Thirteen years later it is even worse.

I have also tried the very slow railway service between Newcastle and Sydney. It hasn’t improved either. From 1997 I remember the debates about intercity high-speed rail and magnetic levitation trains. But this didn’t lead to anything.

Today however, there exists a new and proven – but largely unknown – technology that in one go can solve both the in-city and intercity transportation problems, and it is much cheaper than high-speed rail. That technology is maglev-based personal rapid transit (M-PRT). Computer-controlled small two-person streamlined pods run on a guideway six meters above gound. The guideway is carried by utility poles. The structure is very slender and much less intrusive than the Sydney monorail, because each pod weighs maximum 300 kg. It may be quickly erected along some main thoroughfares, and gradually extended to create a dense city network. One will not anymore depend on a few large stations, but can instead access the system at any of the many hundreds of network nodes (resembling elevated bus stops) you will have in a city like Sydney. A pod hangs under the guideway, and slides along it without wheels and no contact; an extension of the pod inside the guideway levitates it by magnetic repulsion. This is a new, simpler and cheaper type of maglev technology than that used in the very expensive German Transrapid, which was part of the Australian debate in 1997.

I take it this is not a serious proposal?

The above report was created for my brother who is in the process of getting his chemical / molecular engineering p.h.d.

It proposes a net economic gain (globally) by utilizing natural gas in transportation specifically shipping instead of gasoline (which is responsible for 1/3 of gasoline used every year in the US)

I never liked how he treated Tina anyway…