800mph? How? :huh:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/07/15/elon_musk_hyperloop_plans_here_s_what_it_might_look_like.html
QuoteForget High-Speed Rail: Elon Musk Wants to Build Something Far More Awesome
By Will Oremus
Posted Monday, July 15, 2013, at 5:54 PM
High-speed rail is so 20th-century. Well, perhaps not in the United States, where we still haven't gotten around to building any true bullet trains. After 30 years of dithering, California is finally working on one that would get people from Los Angeles to San Francisco in a little under two-and-a-half hours, but it could cost on the order of $100 billion and won't be ready until at least 2028.
Enter Tesla and SpaceX visionary Elon Musk with one of the craziest-sounding ideas in transportation history. For a while now Musk has been hinting at an idea he calls the Hyperloop—a ground-based transportation technology that would get people from Los Angeles to San Francisco in under half an hour, for less than one-tenth the cost of building the high-speed rail line. Oh, and this 800-mph system would be self-powered, immune to weather, and would never crash.
What is the Hyperloop? So far Musk hasn't gotten very specific, though he once called it "a cross between a Concorde and a railgun and an air hockey table." But we'll soon find out more. On Monday, Musk tweeted that he will publish an "alpha design" for the Hyperloop by Aug. 12. Responding to questions on Twitter, he indicated that the plans would be open-source, and that he would consider a partnership with someone who shared his vision. Perhaps the best clue came when he responded to an engineer named John Gardi, who published a diagram of his best guess as to how the Hyperloop might work:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Fblogs%2Ffuture_tense%2F2013%2F07%2F15%2Felon_musk_hyperloop_plans_here_s_what_it_might_look_like%2Fhyperloop_guess.gif.CROP.article568-large.gif&hash=30a3cc96e755c8f1ab61f23247211558b6cfaab7)
Musk's reply:
Tinker @John_Gardi
@elonmusk: Can you give me some basic clues? What diameter of tube so I can start designing stations & throughways? http://twitpic.com/cw4pqb
Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
@John_Gardi your guess is the closest I've seen anyone guess so far. Pod diameter probably around 2m
1:51 AM - 16 Jul 2013
It sounds fanciful, and maybe it is. But Musk is not the only one working on ultra-fast land-based transportation systems. And if anyone can turn an idea like this into reality, it might just be the man who has spent the past decade revolutionizing electric cars and space transport. Don't be surprised if the biggest obstacles to the Hyperloop turn out to be bureaucratic rather than technological. After all, we've known how to build bullet trains for half a century, and look how far that has gotten us. Still, a nation can dream—and as long as we're dreaming, why not dream about something way cooler than what Japan and China are already working on?
I call BS.
Anything that made by humans, that moves, can crash.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 15, 2013, 05:23:22 PM
I call BS.
Anything that's made by humans can crash.
FYP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_tube
this is a really old idea. my personal version is a vaccum tube controlled by radial maglev which provides accelleration. I was just thinking trans oceanic transport so that the full effect of the fantastically high max speed of the system.
Quote from: citizen k on July 15, 2013, 05:27:50 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 15, 2013, 05:23:22 PM
I call BS.
Anything that's made by humans can crash.
FYP
I was originally going to keep it that simple, but I didn't want any Timmah loopholes.
Elon Musk... isn't this guy basically the Peter Molyneux of the transportation world?
How the fuck can a train cost $100 billion?
This is why America is doomed. Market corruption makes public works impossible.
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Elon Musk... isn't this guy basically the Peter Molyneux of the transportation world?
No. :mellow:
Musk has actually been wildly successful. Space X is the most advanced aerospace company in the world and raking in billions of dollars worth of orders.
This sound awesome.
We'll have fast ground transportation and slow air freight:
The Aeroscraft is the name of a series of cargo-carrying rigid airships planned by the Worldwide Aeros Corporation. The company is seeking funding for its ML868 model 66-ton ship and for its 250-ton ML868. A 500-ton ML86X is also on the drawing board.[1]
A scaled-down prototype called the "Pelican" was completed in January 2013 with funding from the U.S. Department of Defense.[
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popsci.com%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Farticle_image_large%2Farticles%2Fcp0206luxHotel_485.jpg&hash=a30eac170fe10bca33e68f26366f0ef489303119)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.machinedesign.com%2Fimages%2Farchive%2Fbriefs1000jpg_00000045000.jpg&hash=7b64c4661d9a3ab3315e197cba3717e1ba54412b)
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Elon Musk... isn't this guy basically the Peter Molyneux of the transportation world?
The Tesla is a pretty sweet ride.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 15, 2013, 08:01:23 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Elon Musk... isn't this guy basically the Peter Molyneux of the transportation world?
No. :mellow:
Musk has actually been wildly successful. Space X is the most advanced aerospace company in the world and raking in billions of dollars worth of orders.
What are they selling?
Musk, an ugly scent
the wet nature of fucking
that animals do
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwac.450f.edgecastcdn.net%2F80450F%2Fguyspeed.com%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F04%2FFuturama-Opening-Sequence-Credits.jpg&hash=9896187c976595dfbd7a6a23de2b72c95c26ca0e)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi8.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa20%2Frehabreject1124%2FMatt%2520Groening%2FFuturama-Fryinthetubethingy.jpg&hash=ddaa142076fbbdf0788088123409041c2ff11bc9)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 16, 2013, 03:32:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 15, 2013, 08:01:23 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Elon Musk... isn't this guy basically the Peter Molyneux of the transportation world?
No. :mellow:
Musk has actually been wildly successful. Space X is the most advanced aerospace company in the world and raking in billions of dollars worth of orders.
What are they selling?
Rockets. Launch Services. You know, the usual stuff.
Thing is that their rockets cost less and put more orbit than the competition. They have lots of orders from the military, as well as private companies, and even NASA.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 04:40:21 AM
Musk, an ugly scent
the wet nature of fucking
that animals do
What are you doing Haikus now?
I'm not sleeping well
so why not bomb Languish with
Haiku drive bys, bitch
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 05:20:42 AM
I'm not sleeping well
so why not bomb Languish with
Haiku drive bys, bitch
It's nice to see that Lettow has managed to influence somebody. Impressionable minds and all that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 16, 2013, 05:22:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 05:20:42 AM
I'm not sleeping well
so why not bomb Languish with
Haiku drive bys, bitch
It's nice to see that Lettow has managed to influence somebody. Impressionable minds and all that.
Fucking die, die, die
you fucking rickshaw riding
fucking ass fuckstick
This is news to me.
Did Lettow patent haikus?
He sure is awesome.
The young Memphis man
Much preferred the sonnet form
In poetasting.
:lol:
What the fuck Seedy
When did you become a fag?
Creepy ass cracker
This thread sucks.
I didn't even realize the Hyperloop was a thing that had actual investors. I just thought it was an idea Musk floated, but this looks like something that might actually get built! He really is modern hybrid of Edison and Ford.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/elon-musk-hyperloop-closer-to-reality-test-track-nevada.html
Quote
Elon Musk's hyperloop vision takes a step closer to reality as firm reveals pictures of test track
Arjun Kharpal | @ArjunKharpal
13 Hours Ago
CNBC.com
Hyperloop One
Elon Musk's vision of hyperloop, a super-fast transport system, has taken a step closer to reality and now we know what it might look like.
Hyperloop One, one of the companies developing the system, has released pictures of a test track to begin trialing the technology.
A hyperloop system would involve propelling pods through a large tube at up to 750 mph using magnets. It is seen as a way to cut long-distance travel times as well as a way to alleviate congestion in many cities.
Hyperloop One's "DevLoop" is a 500-meter full-scale test structure that weights over a thousand tons. One tube measures 3.3 meters in diameter and the test track has been put together in the Nevada desert.
Hyperloop One is expected to perform a public trial with the new DevLoop in the first half of this year. The company has signed deals with a number of countries to explore the feasibility of setting up the transport system. One of those agreements is with the government in Dubai with the idea of connecting the city to Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 12 minutes. This journey would take over 2 hours in a car.
At the Middle East Rail trade show in Dubai this week, Hyperloop One CEO Rob Lloyd, shared his vision for connecting a number of major cities in the Gulf region.
"Tying together the Middle East region would produce greater virtual density, without congestion and pollution, spurring innovation, productivity, job growth and more powerful sharing of knowledge, labor and investment," Lloyd told an audience, according to a statement from the company.
Hyperloop One estimates that around 4,000 vehicles travel every day between Abu Dhabi and Dubai, with traffic congestion costing the economy $800 million in lost working ours, something it says a hyperloop could fix.
Last year, Hyperloop One carried out a propulsion test in the Nevada desert in which a sled accelerated to 116 miles per hour in 1.1 seconds. It was a proof of concept test of the underlying technology of a hyperloop and the company will be hoping with a full-scale build of the tubes, it can carry out further trials.
Hyperloop One is not the only company developing the vision Musk laid out in a white paper in 2013. Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT), a rival company, is also looking into the feasibility of building a track in countries from Indonesia to the Czech Republic. The firm recently announced plans to set up a research and development center in Toulouse, France, where it hopes to build its own test track.
Quote from: Caliga on July 15, 2013, 07:23:08 PM
Elon Musk... isn't this guy basically the Peter Molyneux of the transportation world?
I didnt know people thought Molyneux was that good.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 05:24:56 AM
Fucking die, die, die
you fucking rickshaw riding
fucking ass fuckstick
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2013, 05:16:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2013, 04:40:21 AM
Musk, an ugly scent
the wet nature of fucking
that animals do
What are you doing Haikus now?
Hi past Raz! You won't believe what happens in the November of '16.
Weird its getting such investment, all I've read suggests it won't work.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 15, 2013, 08:01:23 PM
Musk has actually been wildly successful. Space X is the most advanced aerospace company in the world and raking in billions of dollars worth of orders.
Have any of his companies made any profit?
Amazon does.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2017, 09:22:07 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 15, 2013, 08:01:23 PM
Musk has actually been wildly successful. Space X is the most advanced aerospace company in the world and raking in billions of dollars worth of orders.
Have any of his companies made any profit?
Ever heard of a obscure company called Paypal?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2017, 09:22:07 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 15, 2013, 08:01:23 PM
Musk has actually been wildly successful. Space X is the most advanced aerospace company in the world and raking in billions of dollars worth of orders.
Have any of his companies made any profit?
According to wiki this is Tesla's performance so far:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Tesla_Financial_Performance.svg/926px-Tesla_Financial_Performance.svg.png)
This are their numbers for 2016:
Revenue US$7.00B
Operating income US$-667.3M
Net income US$-674.9M
Total assets US$22.66B
Total equity US$4.75B
So, no profit yet and still losing money but revenue is increasing quite a lot.
No idea about SpaceX, but they've won a number of contracts from NASA, defence and commercial sources, so they must be have a significant income, although their expenses might also be astronomical (pun intended).
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2017, 10:32:00 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 10, 2017, 09:50:25 AM
Amazon does.
That's Bezos, nor Musk.
Yeah, just had a brain fart. They're the Ryan Reynolds and Ryan Gosling of boundary-pushing tech billionaires to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2017, 09:22:07 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 15, 2013, 08:01:23 PM
Musk has actually been wildly successful. Space X is the most advanced aerospace company in the world and raking in billions of dollars worth of orders.
Have any of his companies made any profit?
Profit, heh. That's so Old Economy.
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2017, 10:32:00 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 10, 2017, 09:50:25 AM
Amazon does.
That's Bezos, nor Musk.
A good example though since it took Amazon like a decade to make a profit. Investors wisely took a long term outlook with them.
Tesla looks the same.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 10, 2017, 10:57:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2017, 10:32:00 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 10, 2017, 09:50:25 AM
Amazon does.
That's Bezos, nor Musk.
A good example though since it took Amazon like a decade to make a profit. Investors wisely took a long term outlook with them.
Tesla looks the same.
This year will be interesting. They are moving downmarket, which is not where the profits have traditionally been in the automotive industry. Will be interesting to see if they can actually turn out a decent product with the Tesla 3 and earn money from it.
I am so very, very tempted to buy one....
One of the existing models or the Model 3? I wouldn't want to be an early adopter when it comes to Tesla. Better be a fast follower and get the car when it has been on the market for a couple of months to make sure they ironed out the initial quality issues that Tesla had with all their products so far. I think you would probably get better value if you get a pre-owned Model S.
Model 3. I cannot afford a Model S, pre-owned or not...
I like the sleek exterior of the Model 3, but the minimalistic interior (at least what was shown so far) is not appealing to me somehow despite having a minimalist taste normally.
My big question on it is whether I can really have a vehicle with a 200 mile range as my only car...
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2017, 02:52:42 PM
Model 3. I cannot afford a Model S, pre-owned or not...
Weren't you a bank vice president?
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2017, 05:29:33 PM
My big question on it is whether I can really have a vehicle with a 200 mile range as my only car...
How often do you drive more than 200 miles in a day?
If you do, is it practical for you to stop and stretch your legs/eat for 30 minutes while it charges at a supercharger?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 11, 2017, 07:06:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2017, 02:52:42 PM
Model 3. I cannot afford a Model S, pre-owned or not...
Weren't you a bank vice president?
Bank jobs pay well enough to afford the cocaine habits one picks up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 11, 2017, 07:27:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 11, 2017, 07:06:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2017, 02:52:42 PM
Model 3. I cannot afford a Model S, pre-owned or not...
Weren't you a bank vice president?
:lol:
Hey, we can't all be constantly caught up like those obsessives who check Languish multiple times of day. -_-
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2017, 05:29:33 PM
My big question on it is whether I can really have a vehicle with a 200 mile range as my only car...
There is going to be a lot of great choices to compete with the model 3 when it is released. And charging stations are everywhere these days.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 11, 2017, 07:06:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2017, 02:52:42 PM
Model 3. I cannot afford a Model S, pre-owned or not...
Weren't you a bank vice president?
A) Yes, but a bank gives out VP titles to every middle management person around, so that isn't really all that impressive.
B) I am categorically unwilling to spend the amount on a car payment that it seems most people take for granted.
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2017, 05:29:33 PM
My big question on it is whether I can really have a vehicle with a 200 mile range as my only car...
I recently read that the average person that made a reservation for the Model 3 is a Toyota driver and would have the car as their only mobility option. Those customers typically expect high reliability and fast service and will have a real issue with their jobs etc. if their car breaks down. Tesla so far hasn't demonstrated that they can match that level of reliability and especially service. That may not be a big issue for the willing early adopters that drive Model S and X as they will likely often have a second car. But it would be a problem for those that have the Model 3 as their daily driver. Will be interesting to see how Tesla scales their vertically integrated service network.
Is the reliability that bad? Like Jeep bad?
Quote from: Berkut on March 12, 2017, 02:25:54 AM
Is the reliability that bad? Like Jeep bad?
I think it's the repairing a problem that's the issue, not reliability. They're scaling up so fast on all fronts that there have been parts shortages in the past as well as a lack of qualified mechanics. Here's the lastest news I saw on Tesla service
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/tesla-will-apply-brute-force-to-fight-service-delays-add-body-shops.html
Quote from: Berkut on March 12, 2017, 02:25:54 AM
Is the reliability that bad? Like Jeep bad?
From what I read, their build quality and reliability is average, but service is poor. Scaling an owned service operation like they have by a factor of ten or so to correspond with their targeted sales volume will be a big task.
Interesting. Seems like a potential business opportunity....
Quote from: Berkut on March 12, 2017, 02:25:54 AM
Is the reliability that bad? Like Jeep bad?
:lol:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/24/41/1a/24411ab508bef7b25e3b1a13c7d3809e.gif)
Quote from: Zanza on March 12, 2017, 03:06:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 12, 2017, 02:25:54 AM
Is the reliability that bad? Like Jeep bad?
From what I read, their build quality and reliability is average, but service is poor. Scaling an owned service operation like they have by a factor of ten or so to correspond with their targeted sales volume will be a big task.
Yeah, that is a big advantage the established brands have for their electric cars. But as I recently discovered - they may have good servicing infrastructure but not such a good supply of spare parts... Tesla might be better in that regard.
The world needs more crazy people like Elon Musk.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 12, 2017, 09:06:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 12, 2017, 02:25:54 AM
Is the reliability that bad? Like Jeep bad?
:lol:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/24/41/1a/24411ab508bef7b25e3b1a13c7d3809e.gif)
Do you do wheelies in your jeep too?
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2017, 05:29:33 PM
My big question on it is whether I can really have a vehicle with a 200 mile range as my only car...
Range is increasing
https://electrek.co/2017/03/15/tesla-model-s-x-100d-longest-range-vehicle-epa/
QuoteLast week, we reported on deliveries of Tesla's new Model S and X 100D being delayed by a few weeks even though some of the vehicles were sitting in Tesla's parking lots in stores and service centers. The problem was with the EPA's certification for the vehicle.
We now learn that the issue has been resolved and Tesla started deliveries of the first few Model S/X 100D units.
Electrek learned that last Friday, the very same day that we reported on the delay, the EPA issued Tesla's 'emission certification' for the new vehicles equipped with the 100 kWh battery pack and dual motor configuration.
The new option boosts the range of the Model S to a record 335 miles (EPA estimate), up from 315 miles for the Model S P100D, and to 295 miles for the Model X 100D – up from the 289 miles of the performance version.
Ok, who of you writes under the pen name "Albert Burneko"? :lol:
https://defector.com/virgin-hyperloop-has-invented-the-worlds-crappiest-high-speed-rail/
QuoteVirgin Hyperloop Has Invented The World's Crappiest High-Speed Rail
Shocking news! In an incredible breakthrough for American mass-transit engineering, the transportation technology company Virgin Hyperloop this past weekend successfully moved two people 500 meters across the barren Las Vegas desert at a top speed of just over 100 mph, setting a new world record for the absolute most pitiful thing anyone not named "Elon Musk" has ever tried to pass off as "high-speed rail."
Here's video of the shameful display:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZruVz3Ccjk&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=CNN
Virgin Hyperloop, an American company despite the Richard Branson branding, proposes to use a combination of magnetic levitation, or "maglev"—a decades-old technology that has been in commercial operation moving real trains filled with real people in, for example, Shanghai, China, at speeds up to 268 miles per hour, for 17 goddamn years—and "vactrain," a concept design for an enclosed, artificially evacuated tunnel where air resistance may be as low as in the upper parts of Earth's atmosphere, theoretically allowing for much higher top speeds at much lower levels of energy consumption. It is so goddamn embarrassing to type this. France's electric TGV system has been in regular commercial operation for nearly 40 years; in April of 2007 one of its trains hit 357 miles per hour in a test.
CNN's article about this event paraphrases a Virgin Hyperloop executive claiming that the hyperloop pods "can travel at the speed of aircraft." Which is true, in the sense that commercial aircraft with dozens if not hundreds of people aboard do sometimes travel at 100 miles per hour, on the ground, for seconds at a time, during takeoff or landing, when they are going only a fraction as fast as they're capable of going. It is also true in the sense that, strictly speaking, a paper airplane is a form of "aircraft," and you can really whip some of those suckers across a room. A more accurate but perhaps less flattering claim would be that my Honda Odyssey can travel at the fastest speed Virgin Hyperloop has yet attained, and with four times as many people riding in it.
Hell, for that matter, as a Twitter user helpfully pointed out, a freaking steam locomotive hit 126 miles per hour in England, 82 years ago, in 1938.
Yeah, but, when it's done, it'll go 600 miles per hour, you're whining, and it'll have 25 to 30 people in a pod! When exactly will that be? France opened the TGV in 1981. Japan's oldest high-speed line debuted in 1964—1964!—and was better and faster then than Amtrak's Acela trains go now. Shanghai's maglev train has been operable since John Kerry was campaigning to unseat George W. Bush as president. Measure speed by the number of riders the respective services will have moved by, say, 2050. Measure it in carbon emissions. By the year 2020, the best-funded and most sophisticated high-speed rail developer in the United States moved two (2) people 500 meters.
The United States is generations behind much of the rest of the wealthy, industrialized world in this area. For all but a very narrow corridor along the East Coast serviced by the weak half-a-loaf shit that passes for high-speed rail in this country, the best an American commuter can hope for in intercity rail options are crappy and ancient diesel Amtrak trains that top out at around 80 miles per hour. Most American cities simply are not serviced by any intercity rail network at all. The U.S.'s shameful mass-transit situation—and thus its shameful dependence on personal vehicles, and all the downstream bad shit that comes from that—could be improved a zillion percent by just aiming for the level of railroad sophistication French people considered normal before the median 2020 French person was old enough to ride a bicycle. And here are these Professor Frink–ass Hyperloop dinguses, dumping resources beyond counting into inventing some shit that already exists when for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time they could just purchase or at the very least copy what is already working just fine even in backward-ass doofus countries like freaking Italy. It wouldn't need test tracks! It wouldn't need years of iteration and development! They already did all that shit, all over the rest of the world!
In a vacuum (a figurative one: an alternate universe in which the rest of the post-industrial world were not absolutely goddamn bursting with operating networks of authentic high-speed rail; where high-speed rail were not already such a well-developed form of transit that the TGV system, which routinely moves huge numbers of day-to-day commuters across large distances of France at speeds well more than twice that achieved by this sad two-person billion-dollar pod going from nowhere to nowhere across a tiny patch of worthless desert, were not both infinitely better and more sophisticated than any presently available commercial rail in the United States and fairly outmoded in comparison to newer [yet still not all that new!] systems in China and Japan and elsewhere) the Virgin Hyperloop could almost look like an impressive accomplishment. Alas, here in the world of context, its only real accomplishment is a promotional one. The business of the American technology sector and its attendant courtier press is to continually recreate and exploit something like a vacuum in the public's awareness of what the larger world is like, so that clueless observers will congratulate a bunch of boobs for "inventing" a shittier, more expensive version of something that is already regarded as boring and normal—fast, energy-efficient rail service!—pretty much everywhere outside of this stupid and embarrassing country.
Everything about the broken incentives and hollowed-out capacities of American society is crystallized in this dumb pod moseying its way along a track to nowhere in Las Vegas. The United States has a problem: It is too dependent on inefficient, dirty, and expensive forms of transportation, because the vast majority of its people have no practical access to other kinds. Its infrastructure and the health of its communities are all jacked up by the necessity of splattering asphalt all over everything in order for people to drive their big dumb cars to, and park them near, anywhere they'd decide to go. It cannot achieve efficient levels of density or make meaningful turns toward environmental responsibility for as long as this is the case. Thankfully, a solution to this problem already exists and is in operation throughout other parts of the world with comparable levels of wealth and technological capacity: Trains! Networks of fast-moving trains that do not need internal combustion engines in order to move lots of people very quickly along their tracks! Companies and agencies make and install and operate these train systems, and have been doing so for a long time, longer even than the lifetime of the graybeard crap-bag writing this blog. They know how to do it! They can probably just be hired to do it. At some level somebody can probably just buy some of those trains, and install them, and turn them on, and take people from here to there on them.
But who could make it happen? Broke-dick, systematically impoverished municipalities, lashed to budget-balancing like a cinderblock tied to their feet? Close your eyes and try to imagine how a sane and obviously good decision like Just import the TGV and run it between the big American cities instead of spending years and fortunes inventing maglev from scratch for no reason could get made in these United States. Imagine who'd make it, and what their goals would be, and where the money would come from. It simply can't get made on those terms. It can't get made at all. No level of American society even has a mechanism for that anymore. If it doesn't require a messianic assbrain with a Steve Jobs cosplay fantasy pitching some sleepy billionaire or venture capital firm on the possibility of cornering the market on a brand-new technology that will conquer the world, then it will not get done. If it merely delivers a profound benefit to the common good rather than the promise of extravagant enrichment to a shrinking class of hyper-powered parasites, then it simply cannot exist.
I'm confused. Does the writer think Americans have a hunger for trains?
I like his style :lol:
The writer is unbelievably intellectually dishonest, but his trolling is amusing to read. :lol:
There's probably a reason only a sports blog would publish this.
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2020, 02:45:02 AM
I'm confused. Does the writer think (snip)?
No, and he doesn't believe that you think, either.
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2020, 11:16:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2020, 02:45:02 AM
I'm confused. Does the writer think (snip)?
No, and he doesn't believe that you think, either.
Well that was unnecessarily dickish.
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2020, 11:20:17 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2020, 11:16:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2020, 02:45:02 AM
I'm confused. Does the writer think (snip)?
No, and he doesn't believe that you think, either.
Well that was unnecessarily dickish.
The writer of the article does not believe you, a reader of the article (not you in particular), think. If he did he would not have written that article...
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2020, 11:16:12 AM
The writer is unbelievably intellectually dishonest, but his trolling is amusing to read. :lol:
There's probably a reason only a sports blog would publish this.
There is a lot of silliness there for sure, but it is built around what looks to me like a core of truth.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2020, 01:53:13 PM
There is a lot of silliness there for sure, but it is built around what looks to me like a core of truth.
That core of truth being... ?
The idea that a prototype was first tested to see if it works, at less than full speed, means fuck all. That a new technology cannot even match existing technology in its first experiment means fuck all. The first jet and rocket engines didn't move their test stands across the ground
at all, let alone fly! Obviously, we needed to stick to piston-engine aircraft, because they were proven technology.
This crowing because the Virgin Hyperloop test didn't leapfrog existing technology in its first test is dumb, but even dumber are people who read this and believe that anything it says is technologically meaningful.
Sure, there are existing technologies that could prove better than the new technology, but the author's assumption that no one is interested in them because VH is testing something new is moronic. No one is arguing, as the author assumes, that the delay in US high-speed rail is because VH is testing a new technology.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2020, 01:53:13 PM
There is a lot of silliness there for sure, but it is built around what looks to me like a core of truth.
I would put it the other way around: there are some valid points mixed in there about US failures to develop or adopt modern rail technology, but the core premise - that the hyperloop is "the world's crappiest high-speed rail" is plainly wrong because it is isn't a form of rail transport at all. And not just for the obvious reason that it doesn't involve a literal "rail" but because it it is supposed to compete against shorthaul business air travel, not rail travel. Which basically blows up the entire premise of the article.
Which high speed ground transport system doesn't compete against shorthaul air travel?
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2020, 11:20:17 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2020, 11:16:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2020, 02:45:02 AM
I'm confused. Does the writer think (snip)?
No, and he doesn't believe that you think, either.
Well that was unnecessarily dickish.
Apologies, I retract this. I now know what you meant. -_-
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2020, 03:58:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2020, 01:53:13 PM
There is a lot of silliness there for sure, but it is built around what looks to me like a core of truth.
I would put it the other way around: there are some valid points mixed in there about US failures to develop or adopt modern rail technology, but the core premise - that the hyperloop is "the world's crappiest high-speed rail" is plainly wrong because it is isn't a form of rail transport at all. And not just for the obvious reason that it doesn't involve a literal "rail" but because it it is supposed to compete against shorthaul business air travel, not rail travel. Which basically blows up the entire premise of the article.
OK, I am fine with calling the "core of truth" valid points instead.
I took away the basic "core" message that it is silly for the US to be looking at technology to solve a problem that has not been solved in the past 5 or 6 decades with existing technology for reason that have little to do with the technical merits of the solution.
And I think he is right. The problem has not been solved, or even made better, for reasons that even more expensive, new technology won't address either.
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2020, 04:25:45 PM
Which high speed ground transport system doesn't compete against shorthaul air travel?
Musk's proposal was for a SF-LA route. That's a bit over an hour by air but nearly 3 theoretical hours by theoretical high speed rail.
But that's academic because high speed rail isn't being built in California because of massive cost increases and overruns.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2020, 05:00:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2020, 04:25:45 PM
Which high speed ground transport system doesn't compete against shorthaul air travel?
Musk's proposal was for a SF-LA route. That's a bit over an hour by air but nearly 3 hours by high speed rail.
But that's academic because high speed rail isn't being built in California because of massive cost increases and overruns.
I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?
QuoteClose your eyes and try to imagine how a sane and obviously good decision like Just import the TGV and run it between the big American cities instead of spending years and fortunes inventing maglev from scratch for no reason could get made in these United States
What a great idea! It's such a great idea it is basically what California decided to do. Except the project is mired in delays and ballooning cost estimates because it turns out it is really, really expensive to build high speed rail lines through densely populated SoCal and then re-engineer the unruly and mountainous terrain of California for the nice level straight track needed to generate high speeds. In fact, it became clear that that the project would involve lots of tunneling - at which point one might well wonder whether a fully underground solution might be a viable alternative.
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2020, 05:05:14 PM
I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?
Sure it competes- kind of like regular US mail competes against Fedex overnight or DSL competes with cable broadband.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2020, 04:59:28 PM
OK, I am fine with calling the "core of truth" valid points instead.
I took away the basic "core" message that it is silly for the US to be looking at technology to solve a problem that has not been solved in the past 5 or 6 decades with existing technology for reason that have little to do with the technical merits of the solution.
And I think he is right. The problem has not been solved, or even made better, for reasons that even more expensive, new technology won't address either.
"The US" isn't looking at this technology. It is a private venture. Sure, it's gotten some tax breaks, like any corporation gets to build in a given site, but the US taxpayer isn't funding this and the US government isn't running it.
I'm not convinced that this is the answer, but it is a potential answer that gets around a lot of the problems that existing high-speed rail doesn't address (like obtaining land for the right-of-way and operating high-speed rail at a profit). The Japanese system is the only one that consistently operates in the black, and it serves just 17 stations. TGV has been profitable on average (excluding new construction) and is probably closest to what the US would need, but it has political backing that a similar US government-wholly-owned system might find hard to muster.
"Better is the enemy of good enough" might apply, but sneering articles in sports blogs aren't likely to persuade me that this is true in this case.
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2020, 05:05:14 PM
I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?
Journey times have to include getting to and from the airport/station. High-speed rail is city center to city center, by and large. Air is not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2020, 05:20:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2020, 05:05:14 PM
I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?
Sure it competes- kind of like regular US mail competes against Fedex overnight or DSL competes with cable broadband.
A very common business trip in Sweden is Stockholm-Gothenburg. It's 1h by air or 3h by rail (I would describe Swedish rail as medium speed, they do 125 mph). If you go by air you have to get to and from the airport, go through security, etc. If you go by rail you go city center to city center and have 3h of continuous sit-down time when you can work. Most people I know take the train.
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2020, 05:22:20 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2020, 05:05:14 PM
I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?
Journey times have to include getting to and from the airport/station. High-speed rail is city center to city center, by and large. Air is not.
I was going to argue...sure, 1 hour in the air, but the logistics of air travel (security, etc) easily make 1-hour in the air over 3 hours.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 13, 2020, 07:15:52 PM
I was going to argue...sure, 1 hour in the air, but the logistics of air travel (security, etc) easily make 1-hour in the air over 3 hours.
My understanding is that anything over three hours by rail defeats the purpose of travelling by rail, which is why the US high-speed rail systems are all looking at that time window.
The Japanese high-speed rail system works because it is easier than air travel. The French system, though, tends to belie that. It is doing well (where it is doing well) because the trip is so pleasant. Having taken it I tend to agree.
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2020, 05:22:20 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2020, 05:05:14 PM
I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?
Journey times have to include getting to and from the airport/station. High-speed rail is city center to city center, by and large. Air is not.
Yeah, back in the 1990s Barcelona-Madrid was one of the most congested air routes in Europe, and the high-speed train absolutely killed it despite being nominally slower. It's just far more convenient for trips under 3 hours than the air equivalent.
Of course, Spain's approach to building high speed rail everywhere makes it impossible to operate at a profit (IIRC only the BCN-MAD line operates profitably, and the Andalusia corridor pre-pandemic was close to it), even though by and large the construction itself has been cheap compared to other countries (geography helped here).
It's sad that in the US there is this whole idea that railways should be profitable. There's no such pressure on roads
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2020, 03:55:48 AM
It's sad that in the US there is this whole idea that railways should be profitable. There's no such pressure on roads
What do you think highway tolls, gas taxes, and car registration fees are for?
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2020, 03:55:48 AM
It's sad that in the US there is this whole idea that railways should be profitable. There's no such pressure on roads
Well, you have to take into account wether the societal benefits of a high speed railway outweigh the burden of operating it at a loss. European mass transit systems are money pits, but the benefits are clear. There's still a debate on high-speed rail. As I said, Spain has built a massive high speed rail system, and the debate has always been there on wether it wouldn't have been preferable to just upgrade and expand the existing rail lines.
Roads are very "profitable" on that regard.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2020, 04:04:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2020, 03:55:48 AM
It's sad that in the US there is this whole idea that railways should be profitable. There's no such pressure on roads
What do you think highway tolls, gas taxes, and car registration fees are for?
Marginally scraping back a few dollars to help cover government spending. Kind of like train tickets.
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2020, 04:21:55 AM
Marginally scraping back a few dollars to help cover government spending. Kind of like train tickets.
You marginally scrape a billion here and you marginally scrape a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2020, 04:34:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2020, 04:21:55 AM
Marginally scraping back a few dollars to help cover government spending. Kind of like train tickets.
You marginally scrape a billion here and you marginally scrape a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.
OK?
Not getting the point there. The amount paid in tolls, petrol tax, etc... In no way covers the cost of road building and maintenance for the country
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2020, 04:48:51 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2020, 04:34:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2020, 04:21:55 AM
Marginally scraping back a few dollars to help cover government spending. Kind of like train tickets.
You marginally scrape a billion here and you marginally scrape a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.
OK?
Not getting the point there. The amount paid in tolls, petrol tax, etc... In no way covers the cost of road building and maintenance for the country
Do you know this, or do you think this?
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2020, 04:48:51 AM
OK?
Not getting the point there. The amount paid in tolls, petrol tax, etc... In no way covers the cost of road building and maintenance for the country
Well, one point is that given the magnitude of the amounts involved, calling it marginally scraping a few dollars is just ridiculous.
The second point is the same as Brain's. I don't know if all those taxes and fees cover the cost of construction or maintenance or not, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. I think I have read of years when the highway fund (financed by gas taxes) has run a surplus and I can't recall ever reading of a time when the public corporations like the New Jersey Turnpike Authority needed a bailout.
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2020, 04:57:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2020, 04:48:51 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2020, 04:34:18 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2020, 04:21:55 AM
Marginally scraping back a few dollars to help cover government spending. Kind of like train tickets.
You marginally scrape a billion here and you marginally scrape a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.
OK?
Not getting the point there. The amount paid in tolls, petrol tax, etc... In no way covers the cost of road building and maintenance for the country
Do you know this, or do you think this?
:rolleyes:
I'm amazed people are trying to argue on this.
https://www.planetizen.com/node/81913/report-price-driving-doesnt-match-cost-driving
https://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/do-roads-pay-themselves
(https://i1.wp.com/cityobservatory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Screen-Shot-2015-05-12-at-3.32.45-PM.png?zoom=3&resize=330%2C276)
Argue? I know almost nothing about the US system and its numbers, hence the question.
FWIW the Frontier Group report looks a bit weird to me.
I may be remembering wrong, but aren't there some severe restrictions on tolling for federal highways that weren't grandfathered? My understanding is that one of the reasons New Jersey gets the least money out of federal government is because toll roads meant to support Tony Soprano's untalented family members don't get federal highway funds.
The point though is that the roads are funded by and large by taxes. Some of those taxes might be targetted at car owners and gas consumers, sure, but nobody says that roads are profitable. They are a cost, and the state collects taxes of various kinds to cover those costs.
Rail is somehow expected to be "profitable" without that kind of support - it is expected that it fund itself, mostly. At least in theory.
There is a road that leads from my house to the next road. I don't get charged when I use it. It is paid for by my property taxes, gas taxes, and other municipal funding, just like the local school or police department. Nobody ever argues that it should not have been built because it is not, in and of itself, profitable. Well, nobody but silly Libertarians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2020, 04:04:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2020, 03:55:48 AM
It's sad that in the US there is this whole idea that railways should be profitable. There's no such pressure on roads
What do you think highway tolls, gas taxes, and car registration fees are for?
It isn't to make it profitable.
edit: I see that Berkut just made the point with an explanation.
I think a consideration is that the road benefits more than just the passengers. Others benefit from the goods delivered. A high speed rail line is rarely going to be used for cargo.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 14, 2020, 10:50:50 AM
I think a consideration is that the road benefits more than just the passengers. Others benefit from the goods delivered. A high speed rail line is rarely going to be used for cargo.
remove congestion from roads with alternative means of passenger transport = more efficient cargo transport. It does not make sense to think of transportation systems as independent bits.
Generally traffic between cities moves pretty well already.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 14, 2020, 10:57:55 AM
Generally traffic between cities moves pretty well already.
I can't speak for California, but that's certainly not true for the Midwest, the Mid-Atlantic, or (in my limited experience) the PNW.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 14, 2020, 10:57:55 AM
Generally traffic between cities moves pretty well already.
You are basing that conclusion on what?
My travels on interstate highways.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 14, 2020, 10:50:50 AM
I think a consideration is that the road benefits more than just the passengers. Others benefit from the goods delivered. A high speed rail line is rarely going to be used for cargo.
The big reason for the UK's current high speed project is not for the passengers that would travel on that line itself but for taking away that traffic from the existing railway lines (and cars), freeing them up for freight and local passenger services.
Roads certainly benefit more than just the people actively driving on them. But the same is undoubtedly true of railway lines.
There's even a decent case to be made that in a lot of cases investing in rail is more beneficial to drivers than merely adding extra lanes to roads.
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2020, 05:38:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2020, 05:20:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2020, 05:05:14 PM
I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?
Sure it competes- kind of like regular US mail competes against Fedex overnight or DSL competes with cable broadband.
A very common business trip in Sweden is Stockholm-Gothenburg. It's 1h by air or 3h by rail (I would describe Swedish rail as medium speed, they do 125 mph). If you go by air you have to get to and from the airport, go through security, etc. If you go by rail you go city center to city center and have 3h of continuous sit-down time when you can work. Most people I know take the train.
Well I can't speak for Sweden.
I often travel to Boston for work or at least I did before COVID. These are day trips where I go in for a court hearing and go back same day. It's a very common route - those trips were usually pretty packed.
The Acela travels that route so its about as high speed as you get in the US. Its 3.5 hours as opposed to 1 hr by air
I much prefer the train but almost always take the plane because there is a big difference between 7 hours of travels time vs 2 even taking into account TSA annoyances. It wouldnt really change the math to make it 6 vs 2.
It also happens that Logan Airport is about a 10 minute ride from the federal courthouse - about the same travel time as taking a T (subway) from South Station or Back Bay.
If I had a "rail" option that took 1 hour one-way I'd definitely switch.
There are clearly lots to consider when it comes to rail, and perhaps the answer is actually "no, rail won't help enough for the cost".
But the complaint is that the argument seems to mostly revolve around "Will some proposed rail line pay for itself with fairs collected or not?"
Quote from: Berkut on November 14, 2020, 09:15:52 AM
The point though is that the roads are funded by and large by taxes. Some of those taxes might be targetted at car owners and gas consumers, sure, but nobody says that roads are profitable. They are a cost, and the state collects taxes of various kinds to cover those costs.
Rail is somehow expected to be "profitable" without that kind of support - it is expected that it fund itself, mostly. At least in theory.
Everyone uses roads.
Only fancy pants east coast types use trains.
This is where we are in US politics now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 14, 2020, 11:17:27 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2020, 05:38:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2020, 05:20:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2020, 05:05:14 PM
I don't follow exactly. Are you saying that 1h air vs 3h high speed rail does or does not mean that high speed rail is competing against air?
Sure it competes- kind of like regular US mail competes against Fedex overnight or DSL competes with cable broadband.
A very common business trip in Sweden is Stockholm-Gothenburg. It's 1h by air or 3h by rail (I would describe Swedish rail as medium speed, they do 125 mph). If you go by air you have to get to and from the airport, go through security, etc. If you go by rail you go city center to city center and have 3h of continuous sit-down time when you can work. Most people I know take the train.
Well I can't speak for Sweden.
I often travel to Boston for work or at least I did before COVID. These are day trips where I go in for a court hearing and go back same day. It's a very common route - those trips were usually pretty packed.
The Acela travels that route so its about as high speed as you get in the US. Its 3.5 hours as opposed to 1 hr by air
I much prefer the train but almost always take the plane because there is a big difference between 7 hours of travels time vs 2 even taking into account TSA annoyances. It wouldnt really change the math to make it 6 vs 2.
It also happens that Logan Airport is about a 10 minute ride from the federal courthouse - about the same travel time as taking a T (subway) from South Station or Back Bay.
If I had a "rail" option that took 1 hour one-way I'd definitely switch.
And there's certainly still people in Sweden flying between Stockholm and Gothenburg. My only point is that A often competes against B, and may even do it successfully, without completely replacing B (because B still has some advantages over A), and that a "1vs3" situation empirically can make trains competitive in a Western country.
On top of all this, of course, is the climate question, which makes taking a train that runs on largely hydro/nuclear electricity (the Swedish mix) much more preferable than air travel. In Sweden this is a consideration that matters to many people.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 14, 2020, 11:08:43 AM
My travels on interstate highways.
Do your travels take you near densely populated urban environments that encompass much of the space between cities.
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2020, 08:38:07 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 13, 2020, 07:15:52 PM
I was going to argue...sure, 1 hour in the air, but the logistics of air travel (security, etc) easily make 1-hour in the air over 3 hours.
My understanding is that anything over three hours by rail defeats the purpose of travelling by rail, which is why the US high-speed rail systems are all looking at that time window.
The Japanese high-speed rail system works because it is easier than air travel. The French system, though, tends to belie that. It is doing well (where it is doing well) because the trip is so pleasant. Having taken it I tend to agree.
:hmm:
The only place where air travel in mainland France still makes in France is between Paris and Toulouse (634 km SW by road). Busy line, mostly used by people who can pay up air tickets so it's mostly Airbus executives and engineers (Airbus HQ in Toulouse).
Train between those cities is even slower than in the '70s since the existing line has been left to decay, in part due resources being used to build new high-speed lines elsewhere.
Back in the '70s, 200 kph was a cruise speed on portions of the line, while other portions crossed through rugged terrain but useful as in servicing interior France such as Limoges. I took that train to visit friends in Toulouse sometimes.
7 hours nowadays, unless one takes the TGV through Bordeaux then it's 4h30. Much better, but not enough as per the 3-hour rule of thumb/consensual understanding. Logically pricier than the classic line as well. The night train option is no longer available as well.
Paris-Bordeaux (575 km), the best classic line with 220 kph cruise speeds for the most part, was recently complemented by a new high-speed line so now it's only two hours instead of three, though the threshold was already reached with standard trains. Very expensive line, I don't expect to be paid back in full before some time. Plans were made for an extension to both Toulouse and Spain (a international gauge crossing is sorely needed) but budget constraints postponed it to 2030, at best.
Now that I think of it, Paris-Nice (1000/1100 km) takes 6 hours since the line between Marseille and Nice is in dire need of an upgrade or of a new one so the plane is still popular. Mayor was even pushing for a new high-speed link to Italy (!) since Italian tourists are quite important for the local economy.
PS: inter-provincial travel is mostly done by car or buses (recently) so expensive with gas and tolls with the French rail and plane network centered on Paris.
Sqeeze, I stand corrected on the statement that you don't know if highways cost money on top of dedicated fees.
I don't stand corrected on marginal scrapings.
And something you might not be aware of is that during the US's westward expansion, railroad companies were given large tracts of land adjacent to their tracks as a subsidy for railroad construction.
Neither do we expect railroads to make a profit. We expect Amtrack to break even.
I don't have evidence but I've speculated that when a subsidized rail network reaches a critical mass of coverage it drains business and population to the nexus of the system e.g. London and Tokyo draining the rest of the country. That's speculation, I don't know nearly enough about economics to say that as fact.
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2020, 11:41:25 AM
On top of all this, of course, is the climate question, which makes taking a train that runs on largely hydro/nuclear electricity (the Swedish mix) much more preferable than air travel. In Sweden this is a consideration that matters to many people.
In parts of the US, there are race truck shows where the goal is to modify your big truck so that the anti-pollution system is rendered nil and you make as much smoke as you can by rejecting all kind of pollutants in the atmosphere.
Do these people, who seem to love this nearly as much as NASCAR, look like people using train to commute between large cities? :)
Ah the Nirvana fallacy.
You're never going to get this extreme group using a train thus there's no point trying with trains at all.
Quote
Posts: 514
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Forget High-Speed Rail: Elon Musk Wants to Build Something Far More Awesome
« Reply #111 on: November 14, 2020, 04:51:29 pm »
Quote
I don't have evidence but I've speculated that when a subsidized rail network reaches a critical mass of coverage it drains business and population to the nexus of the system e.g. London and Tokyo draining the rest of the country. That's speculation, I don't know nearly enough about economics to say that as fact.
In Japan you're right. This is a well observed phenomena known as the straw effect
https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/15070029.html#:~:text=The%20straw%20effect%20specifically%20in,foundation%20of%20the%20local%20areas.
Though I'd take it with a huge pinch of salt. Cities that have the shinkansen are today far more populace and lively than those without. Comparing kofu and shizuoka for instance, the former was historically a fairly significant city whilst the latter.. Wasn't. Its quite inversed with the shinkansen however.
Also this effect has been talked about in Korea but not elsewhere. In Germany for instance no way has it happened.
I strongly suspect its mostly untrue and a big case of correlation doesn't equal causation due to the east Asian culture of going up to the city and much later urbanisation also being at play in the same period.
Quote from: Tyr on November 15, 2020, 04:20:00 AM
Ah the Nirvana fallacy.
You're never going to get this extreme group using a train thus there's no point trying with trains at all.
No, but you need to consider that there is a group who will never use public rail transit or bus and adjust for that. Even if it's there, even it's efficient and reliable, some people don't want it. It's useless to think of them when planning deployment.
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2020, 09:01:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2020, 11:41:25 AM
On top of all this, of course, is the climate question, which makes taking a train that runs on largely hydro/nuclear electricity (the Swedish mix) much more preferable than air travel. In Sweden this is a consideration that matters to many people.
In parts of the US, there are race truck shows where the goal is to modify your big truck so that the anti-pollution system is rendered nil and you make as much smoke as you can by rejecting all kind of pollutants in the atmosphere.
Do these people, who seem to love this nearly as much as NASCAR, look like people using train to commute between large cities? :)
Those people will never travel between two major cities on any seaboard.
No, no. Viper is the author so his characters travel wherever he wants them to.
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2020, 06:30:26 PM
Those people will never travel between two major cities on any seaboard.
they don't need to. they elect people who will travel in their stead and block any kind of improvement that does not directly benefit them.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2020, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2020, 06:30:26 PM
Those people will never travel between two major cities on any seaboard.
they don't need to. they elect people who will travel in their stead and block any kind of improvement that does not directly benefit them.
AFAIK Flyover, Missouri isn't a heavy decision-maker regarding California's infrastructure.
Quote from: chipwich on November 14, 2020, 05:51:29 PM
I don't have evidence but I've speculated that when a subsidized rail network reaches a critical mass of coverage it drains business and population to the nexus of the system e.g. London and Tokyo draining the rest of the country. That's speculation, I don't know nearly enough about economics to say that as fact.
UK rail is privatised. The bits that turn a big profit are in the South-East and London - other rail companies make some profit and some need to be subsidise or even nationalised because they can't turn a profit. My understanding is it's more or less a wash in terms of overall cost between the money the government makes auctioning the franchise for the profitable bits of the network v the subsidies and cost of maintaining the network.
You might be right, I'm not sure. The big issue with rail in the UK - as Tyr says - is that it's running out of capacity on a lot of key lines. Unfortunately the emphasis of the "pitch" for expanding the network was that it's "high-speed", when it should have been "high capacity".
I think rail is definitely part of the solution for short-haul flights. Certainly in London the big issue with air travel is that most of the airports are quite significantly out of the city - which is an issue if you're traveling from or to work. The exception is London City Airport which specialises in short-haul business flights, it's also a very small airport so it's quite quick to get through security etc. If you're going for the day I think my limit would probably be about a 3-3.5 hour train journey, which is about Manchester/Liverpool/Leeds, but would also include Glasgow after HS2.
Quote from: The Brain on November 20, 2020, 04:43:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2020, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2020, 06:30:26 PM
Those people will never travel between two major cities on any seaboard.
they don't need to. they elect people who will travel in their stead and block any kind of improvement that does not directly benefit them.
AFAIK Flyover, Missouri isn't a heavy decision-maker regarding California's infrastructure.
These infrastructures more often than not require Federal fundings.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2020, 09:57:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 20, 2020, 04:43:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2020, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 16, 2020, 06:30:26 PM
Those people will never travel between two major cities on any seaboard.
they don't need to. they elect people who will travel in their stead and block any kind of improvement that does not directly benefit them.
AFAIK Flyover, Missouri isn't a heavy decision-maker regarding California's infrastructure.
These infrastructures more often than not require Federal fundings.
I didn't say it wasn't a decision maker. Though if California (4 times the size of Sweden) can't build rail without help from Daddy then maybe it's for the best if they don't.
I'd agree with that, the Feds should only really be dipping into transportation infrastructure when there is a federal interest (crossing state lines, etc.).
However, unlike Sweden, a factor that US states (and Sweden doesn't) have to take into their calculus is that the reason they would ask Daddy for money is that Daddy is taking a fair chunk of the income of the state's residents in Federal taxes...which theoretically (assuming one doesn't want to tax citizens too much) reduces the reasonable tax exposure that the state government can inflict for transportation projects.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 21, 2020, 04:26:25 AM
I'd agree with that, the Feds should only really be dipping into transportation infrastructure when there is a federal interest (crossing state lines, etc.).
However, unlike Sweden, a factor that US states (and Sweden doesn't) have to take into their calculus is that the reason they would ask Daddy for money is that Daddy is taking a fair chunk of the income of the state's residents in Federal taxes...which theoretically (assuming one doesn't want to tax citizens too much) reduces the reasonable tax exposure that the state government can inflict for transportation projects.
It's a factor if intrastate rail is a Federal responsibility, sure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2020, 04:52:07 PM
You might be right, I'm not sure. The big issue with rail in the UK - as Tyr says - is that it's running out of capacity on a lot of key lines. Unfortunately the emphasis of the "pitch" for expanding the network was that it's "high-speed", when it should have been "high capacity".
You do realize than building high-speed lines frees up a lot capacity by removing a lot of traffic from the classic railway line, don't you? It may not be the case when just upgrading or renewing classic lines.
I think he meant they should have been pushing the then higher capacity of the network rather than the speed itself which led to complaints like do they need to get there 20 minutes faster.
So basically I think you both are agreed.
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2020, 06:44:21 AM
I think he meant they should have been pushing the then higher capacity of the network rather than the speed itself which led to complaints like do they need to get there 20 minutes faster.
So basically I think you both are agreed.
Exactly.
Alles klar. :)