High Speed Rail: what do other know that we don't?
#76
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
In general, whenever you reduce resource use/waste by replacing a less efficient technology with a more efficient one, you make the Earth a little more sustainable by preventing waste from spiraling out of control.
Paved infrastructure and development has that potential of spiraling out of control because we don't reforest land after developing it into automotive sprawl. We just keep expanding and developing more land.
So switching to passenger rail, away from driving and flying, would reduce the amount of land and fuel/CO2 wasted on transportation; though buses would also be better than driving and flying.
It's not quite as efficient as putting humans in space stations and totally protecting the natural biosphere from them that way, but as you said that technology is a long way off.
There, now the space station tangent has been brought back around to the topic of the thread, high speed rail.
#79
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
That's a good point I'm surprised no one has made yet.
I don't want to get too political here, but in principle people in the US are supposed to make responsible choices without costs and taxes being the motivating factor. In practice, that ideal seems to fail a lot, but it remains as the underlying justification for legitimating freedom over control.
So do you think people in the world who have good rail service available currently would want to stop paying for it if the price of gas went down there low enough to justify driving and flying instead? Or is there sense enough that people would maintain their rail systems for the sake of efficiency and sustainability in transportation?
I don't want to get too political here, but in principle people in the US are supposed to make responsible choices without costs and taxes being the motivating factor. In practice, that ideal seems to fail a lot, but it remains as the underlying justification for legitimating freedom over control.
So do you think people in the world who have good rail service available currently would want to stop paying for it if the price of gas went down there low enough to justify driving and flying instead? Or is there sense enough that people would maintain their rail systems for the sake of efficiency and sustainability in transportation?
#80
☢
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 781
Bikes: Trek 970, Bianchi Volpe,Casati
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked 120 Times
in
86 Posts
That's a good point I'm surprised no one has made yet.
I don't want to get too political here, but in principle people in the US are supposed to make responsible choices without costs and taxes being the motivating factor. In practice, that ideal seems to fail a lot, but it remains as the underlying justification for legitimating freedom over control.
So do you think people in the world who have good rail service available currently would want to stop paying for it if the price of gas went down there low enough to justify driving and flying instead? Or is there sense enough that people would maintain their rail systems for the sake of efficiency and sustainability in transportation?
I don't want to get too political here, but in principle people in the US are supposed to make responsible choices without costs and taxes being the motivating factor. In practice, that ideal seems to fail a lot, but it remains as the underlying justification for legitimating freedom over control.
So do you think people in the world who have good rail service available currently would want to stop paying for it if the price of gas went down there low enough to justify driving and flying instead? Or is there sense enough that people would maintain their rail systems for the sake of efficiency and sustainability in transportation?
#82
☢
Good question. I think it has a lot to do with the population also. Older countries are more in need if it because of space. Of course China is a huge country but has huge population. I have a personal beef with the suppression of even decent train transport. I work in Wisconsin and need to travel to Chicago. About 50miles each way. Even though we have the Metra that links Chicago and Kenosha. The schedules are just to sporadic and I wind up driving . If it ran regular I could just take my bike on the train and commute. <font size="+2"><span style="color:brown;">I just think we have to reach a critical mass before humans accept that we need to move without cars. Say >>>>>catastrophic global environmental collapse...</span></font>outside of that we love our cars....
#83
☢
Good question. I think it has a lot to do with the population also. Older countries are more in need if it because of space. Of course China is a huge country but has huge population. I have a personal beef with the suppression of even decent train transport. I work in Wisconsin and need to travel to Chicago. About 50miles each way. Even though we have the Metra that links Chicago and Kenosha. The schedules are just to sporadic and I wind up driving . If it ran regular I could just take my bike on the train and commute. I just think we have to reach a critical mass before humans accept that we need to move without cars. Say >>>>>catastrophic global environmental collapse...outside of that we love our cars....
The worst part was even after they crippled the nation's transportation network, all we did was slow everybody down via a lower national speed limit, and here we are nearly a half century later and with an even greater dependence than before.
Imagine how far along our country would be by now if we had begun building a HSR after that embargo back in the 70s? With 10 year phases would could have been crisscrossing the U.S. by now. Even the Brazilians were smart enough to learn from the embargo and develop a Plan B for it's population. Why are American leaders so inept at this?
If -- or better still, when -- there is another embargo or transportation catastrophe who do you think will be the first to suffer for it? Has anyone ever considered what would happen if gas prices were to double? They know we have no viable transportation alternative so we'd have no choice but to pay it. Suddenly the glamor of independent travel would lose much of its appeal. Particularly for commuting.
Having alternatives prevents any one mode of transportation or industry from having all that power and control. How we can fall back into the same trap so easily is unconscionable. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but am I the only one that can see this coming?
President Obama was the first president to seriously put into motion a HSR system. But even he fell short of giving it sufficient emphasis to really push it through.
This needs to be made a National Plan just like our highway system was in the '50s. Especially where there are so many people around today that were alive to witness the horrendous economic devastation of the first oil embargo.
#84
Banned
We have the interstate highway system because it had a Military application .. Troop Movement..
If you look at the Budget, a huge % is military , so HSR needs a Militaty appeal to get the money ..
If you look at the Budget, a huge % is military , so HSR needs a Militaty appeal to get the money ..
#85
I'm the anecdote.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: S.E. Texas
Posts: 1,823
Bikes: '12 Schwinn, '13 Norco
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1110 Post(s)
Liked 1,176 Times
in
795 Posts
That's a good point I'm surprised no one has made yet.
I don't want to get too political here, but in principle people in the US are supposed to make responsible choices without costs and taxes being the motivating factor. In practice, that ideal seems to fail a lot, but it remains as the underlying justification for legitimating freedom over control.
So do you think people in the world who have good rail service available currently would want to stop paying for it if the price of gas went down there low enough to justify driving and flying instead? Or is there sense enough that people would maintain their rail systems for the sake of efficiency and sustainability in transportation?
I don't want to get too political here, but in principle people in the US are supposed to make responsible choices without costs and taxes being the motivating factor. In practice, that ideal seems to fail a lot, but it remains as the underlying justification for legitimating freedom over control.
So do you think people in the world who have good rail service available currently would want to stop paying for it if the price of gas went down there low enough to justify driving and flying instead? Or is there sense enough that people would maintain their rail systems for the sake of efficiency and sustainability in transportation?
#86
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
<br /><br />Now you see that's just my point. But things don't have to get that bad. Our political leaders sit on their hands until we reach the point of catastrophe before they act. We knew about our growing dependence on foreign oil long before the first oil embargo in the 1970s and yet we ignored it and continue with no Plan B.<br /><br />The worst part was even after they crippled the nation's transportation network, all we did was slow everybody down via a lower national speed limit, and here we are nearly a half century later and with an even greater dependence than before.<br /><br />Imagine how far along our country would be by now if we had begun building a HSR after that embargo back in the 70s? With 10 year phases would could have been crisscrossing the U.S. by now.
Even the Brazilians were smart enough to learn from the embargo and develop a Plan B for it's population. Why are American leaders so inept at this?<br /><br />If -- or better still, when -- there is another embargo or transportation catastrophe who do you think will be the first to suffer for it? Has anyone ever considered what would happen if gas prices were to double? They know we have no viable transportation alternative so we'd have no choice but to pay it. Suddenly the glamor of independent travel would lose much of its appeal. Particularly for commuting.<br /><br />Having alternatives prevents any one mode of transportation or industry from having all that power and control. How we can fall back into the same trap so easily is unconscionable. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but am I the only one that can see this coming?<br /><br />President Obama was the first president to seriously put into motion a HSR system. But even he fell short of giving it sufficient emphasis to really push it through.<br /><br />This needs to be made a National Plan just like our highway system was in the '50s. Especially where there are so many people around today that were alive to witness the horrendous economic devastation of the first oil embargo.
#87
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Tandempower, have you forgotten post number 4, way back on page 1?
This is why I actually think some economic recession is a good thing. It's not good when people are being deprived of basic necessities, but it is good when they start thinking seriously about ways to get more out the money and resources they have to work with. The idea of unlimited abundance is very comforting but, sadly, it doesn't lead most people to the corresponding idea that the more resource-efficient technologies and lifestyles are developed and adopted, the farther the limits of abundance are moved into the future.
Permanent sustainability should be the ultimate goal that everyone is working toward. Figuring out which foods, forms of transportation, forms of architecture and development, etc. can be permanently sustained should guide people and businesses in their choices of what to buy/consume and what to invest in.
#88
Banned
Technically, yes, I did forget about older posts in this thread. But upon re-reading it, it focuses m more on gas being cheaper in the US, which would not motivate people elsewhere to invest in passenger rail. Gas prices being high there, on the other hand, would be a logical reason to develop more fuel-efficient modes.
This is why I actually think some economic recession is a good thing. It's not good when people are being deprived of basic necessities, but it is good when they start thinking seriously about ways to get more out the money and resources they have to work with. The idea of unlimited abundance is very comforting but, sadly, it doesn't lead most people to the corresponding idea that the more resource-efficient technologies and lifestyles are developed and adopted, the farther the limits of abundance are moved into the future.
Permanent sustainability should be the ultimate goal that everyone is working toward. Figuring out which foods, forms of transportation, forms of architecture and development, etc. can be permanently sustained should guide people and businesses in their choices of what to buy/consume and what to invest in.
This is why I actually think some economic recession is a good thing. It's not good when people are being deprived of basic necessities, but it is good when they start thinking seriously about ways to get more out the money and resources they have to work with. The idea of unlimited abundance is very comforting but, sadly, it doesn't lead most people to the corresponding idea that the more resource-efficient technologies and lifestyles are developed and adopted, the farther the limits of abundance are moved into the future.
Permanent sustainability should be the ultimate goal that everyone is working toward. Figuring out which foods, forms of transportation, forms of architecture and development, etc. can be permanently sustained should guide people and businesses in their choices of what to buy/consume and what to invest in.
#89
Sophomore Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,690
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1628 Post(s)
Liked 1,057 Times
in
631 Posts
The next plan is handing out free money to people ("Universal Basic Income") so that they no longer need to get up in the morning and go to work at all, easing or eliminating traffic congestion. Something tells me that this plan will also prove unsustainable.
Likes For Lemond1985:
#91
Banned
Finite planet, 2nd law of thermodynamics, and our own behavioral nature. Per seat mile or pound mile of freight rail is better than pretty much anything else over land it still requires an industrial base to produce and maintain which is based on non renewable finite resources,
#92
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Finite planet, 2nd law of thermodynamics, and our own behavioral nature. Per seat mile or pound mile of freight rail is better than pretty much anything else over land it still requires an industrial base to produce and maintain which is based on non renewable finite resources,
Have you ever taken a real critical look at a multilane highway filled with cars? If you own stock in auto companies, that might just look like money rolling in, but if you think about transportation efficiency and land/resource waste, it looks like a bag of popcorn kernels that's been opened and popped until it takes up an entire bucket.
Buses consolidate traffic on highways, so they are good for that reason; but trains don't have tires so there is less rolling resistance, plus all the cars of a train are linked head to tail, so each car doesn't have to cut through the wind on its own, the way buses do.
Now I don't see why automation technology shouldn't be used to link multiple buses in close sequence so they could get the same wind drag advantage as a train; but if some foolish human driver caused the lead bus to crash, the rest of the 'bus-train' could derail and the result would be real train wreck, so to speak.
Last edited by tandempower; 05-19-19 at 11:23 AM.
#94
I'm the anecdote.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: S.E. Texas
Posts: 1,823
Bikes: '12 Schwinn, '13 Norco
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1110 Post(s)
Liked 1,176 Times
in
795 Posts
Now I don't see why automation technology shouldn't be used to link multiple buses in close sequence so they could get the same wind drag advantage as a train; but if some foolish human driver caused the lead bus to crash, the rest of the 'bus-train' could derail and the result would be real train wreck, so to speak.
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times
in
972 Posts
I think smart (self driving and well coordinated) electric cars and buses are the way forward in the USA. It won't be as fast as HSR, but the lack of speed can be compensated for with comfort and convenience (many more endpoints than HSR).
The cost of smart electric cars will continue to come down, and (most importantly) the capacity of our existing road system will scale with intelligence (coordination), while the cost of HSR seems too unpredictable (as we've seen in California).
The cost of smart electric cars will continue to come down, and (most importantly) the capacity of our existing road system will scale with intelligence (coordination), while the cost of HSR seems too unpredictable (as we've seen in California).
#96
☢
I think smart (self driving and well coordinated) electric cars and buses are the way forward in the USA. It won't be as fast as HSR, but the lack of speed can be compensated for with comfort and convenience (many more endpoints than HSR).
The cost of smart electric cars will continue to come down, and (most importantly) the capacity of our existing road system will scale with intelligence (coordination), while the cost of HSR seems too unpredictable (as we've seen in California).
The cost of smart electric cars will continue to come down, and (most importantly) the capacity of our existing road system will scale with intelligence (coordination), while the cost of HSR seems too unpredictable (as we've seen in California).
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
We we have been told in California that the electric grid is stressed and are to to expect brown out every summer. Renewable energy isn’t up to the task yet and it may be years before it is , if ever. More nuclear is a possible solution but you run into the same NIMBY resistance to that. So electricity is generated by petrochemical power plants. Would we then be expected to build more of these plants?
Would we we need to increase taxes for both the HSR projects and build more power plants?
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
At least with EVs the customer buys the rolling stock. The customer can decide on an econobox or a luxury car. If the customer still has the option on flying would that not cut into HSR profits?
At at least in the case of the California project we saw interest die off before it could be built. Even if they finish the section between Merced and Bakersfield it will be another 20 to 26 billion dollars. Will people be willing to dig into their savings accounts to fund a train they may never ride?
I have my doubts. I wouldn’t vote for it. That may be just me.
Last edited by Mobile 155; 05-19-19 at 02:59 PM.
#98
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times
in
1,031 Posts
I think smart (self driving and well coordinated) electric cars and buses are the way forward in the USA. It won't be as fast as HSR, but the lack of speed can be compensated for with comfort and convenience (many more endpoints than HSR).
The cost of smart electric cars will continue to come down, and (most importantly) the capacity of our existing road system will scale with intelligence (coordination), while the cost of HSR seems too unpredictable (as we've seen in California).
The cost of smart electric cars will continue to come down, and (most importantly) the capacity of our existing road system will scale with intelligence (coordination), while the cost of HSR seems too unpredictable (as we've seen in California).
What is being coordinated in the "well coordinated" vehicle and/or road system in this scheme?
The costs of day dreaming about a fantasy system are already zero.
#100
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times
in
972 Posts
I question this over the long term. With regenerative braking and cooperative drafting, cars might be more efficient. And cars improve with every model year, whereas an HSR would be locked into an existing design for decades.