431–440 of 490 posts
It served its purpose of diverting attention (and so funding) from high speed rail, which is a threat to his business of selling cars. https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1571628269555826688?lan...
The biggest threat to CA high speed trail is CA high speed rail
This isn't unique to rail, either - if a Hyperloop was built, it'd be NIMBYed just as badly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mag lev works just fine in Japan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev A partial vacuum would be trivial to achieve and you could by all means use mag lev + partial vacuum in a tube.
Nobody doubts maglev works (there is also a maglev in China and Germany also had a test track since the 80s). There are a lot of things that technically work, but are not economical. The math just doesn't add up to build this in any way that is economically reasonable.
Meanwhile China has built 42,000km (26,100 miles) of high speed rail. https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/high-speed/rai... US is now cursed by their own success. Eisenhower jump started the highway to connect all of US as the largest transport infrastructure project. We have been riding the success of that for a massive economy. We are on the plateauing side of that S curve. cursed because we spent a ton o…
Meanwhile China has built 42,000km (26,100 miles) of high speed rail. https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/high-speed/rai... US is now cursed by their own success. Eisenhower jump started the highway to connect all of US as the largest transport infrastructure project. We have been riding the success of that for a massive economy. We are on the plateauing side of that S curve. cursed because we spent a ton o…
Planes are better than high speed rail: faster, flexible routing, flexible capacity, proven technology, doesn't require billions in upfront infrastructure, less habitat disruption, lower carbon footprint.
planes are faster, have flexible routing, and cheaper upfront cost sure
the rest is simply not true. how do planes have "flexible capacity"? how do trains not have flexible capacity? wtf?
Meanwhile China has built 42,000km (26,100 miles) of high speed rail. https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/high-speed/rai... US is now cursed by their own success. Eisenhower jump started the highway to connect all of US as the largest transport infrastructure project. We have been riding the success of that for a massive economy. We are on the plateauing side of that S curve. cursed because we spent a ton o…
Planes are better than high speed rail: faster, flexible routing, flexible capacity, proven technology, doesn't require billions in upfront infrastructure, less habitat disruption, lower carbon footprint.
Also, boarding a train is so much more comfortable and convenient than boarding a plane (no security check, at least in Europe, wide seats, no emergency tutorial, ...). Also the train drops me right in the city center.
I would argue that up to 500 km of distance, high speed train is the best option, then it becomes debatable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most expensive parts of tunnels are where you come to the surface. The Channel Tunnel is cheap in that regards because there is countryside on either end and no exits in the middle. Designing a high capacity train station or highway exit in the middle of a city is quite expensive.
What? The chunnel cost £26 billion in (2023 equivalent), and is 31 miles long. That's nearly a billion a mile. This is by no means cheap (yes yes cheap is a comparative term), tunnelling is absurdly expensive and not realistic. It's impossible to make the case for thousands of miles of underground tunnels that will add no benefit (what happens when something goes wrong? you can't simply overtake when something inevit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Planes are better than high speed rail: faster, flexible routing, flexible capacity, proven technology, doesn't require billions in upfront infrastructure, less habitat disruption, lower carbon footprint.
how are trains not a proven technology??? planes are faster, have flexible routing, and cheaper upfront cost sure the rest is simply not true. how do planes have "flexible capacity"? how do trains not have flexible capacity? wtf?
> how are trains not a proven technology???
The US currently has nothing that would be considered high speed rail by the rest of the world. It could be built here, but it would cost billions and take decades. Hofstadter's law strongly applies to major infrastructure projects in the US. "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law."
> how do planes have "flexible capacity"? how do trains not have flexible capacity?
Planes can be put in service or redistributed to serve a certain route in hours. Extra train engines and train cars cannot be moved nearly as easily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Planes are better than high speed rail: faster, flexible routing, flexible capacity, proven technology, doesn't require billions in upfront infrastructure, less habitat disruption, lower carbon footprint.
I'm sorry, but rail is the lowest form carbon footprint you can find, if you exclude biking and walking. Also, boarding a train is so much more comfortable and convenient than boarding a plane (no security check, at least in Europe, wide seats, no emergency tutorial, ...). Also the train drops me right in the city center. I would argue that up to 500 km of distance, high speed train is the best option, then it become…
When the tracks don't exist (i.e. in the US) there are billions of dollars of carbon cost (moving earth, concrete, steel) to building new track.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Convenience always wins. Reusable containers are not more convenient than disposable paper, therefore it's unlikely to be successful. That and "slow moving, very conservative in terms of traffic" sound like a miserable thing to unleash on the streets, even at night.
Oh, I don't mean reusable containers for individual items, sorry if it wasn't clear. This autonomous vehicle would drop off smaller (than itself) locked reusable metal containers, with all small packages inside. Instead of this vehicle having to deal with unloading dozens of small packages at each destination. Just a way to optimize delivery further. > sound like a miserable thing to unleash on the streets, even at n…
If you are going to do smaller containers, what makes sense is one that fits a standard pallet. Then it can used for deliveries between businesses. Probably don't need a box but smart dolly. Then can use existing trucks and vans.
Finally, why automate it? The delivery services could send a van with a large box containing packages. Most packages are small so a tote would work. I'm sort of surprised they don't do this already,