11 ms·

Hyperloop is such a bad idea on so many levels. Mass transportation is the future: trains, suburban trains and metros. Not cars or "mini metros for cars". Supe

by kome 9y ago

Hyperloop is such a bad idea on so many levels. Mass transportation is the future: trains, suburban trains and metros. Not cars or "mini metros for cars". Super fast trains are already there. Europe lives in the future compared to the USA.

JKCalhoun 9y ago
Agreed. The idea of the "pneumatic train" (http://nycsubway.org.s3.amazonaws.com/images/articles/beach-car.jpg http://nycsubway.org.s3.amazonaws.com/images/articles/beach-...) has been around for at least 100 years, so why does everyone with high-speed ground transportation go rail? Existing lines and infrastructure? Perhaps. But we too have existing lines and infrastructure (train stations on those lines). Or is it perhaps that building and maintaining miles and miles of rails, vs. tubes, is just way, way more cost effective?
methodin 9y ago
It definitely seems problematic to put your entire foundation of travel in the hands of government or companies, though. They especially do not represent the concerns of all people. A car on the other hand is complete freedom. I would have expected to hear that driverless cars are the future since it's not contingent on an non-existent infrastructure, rather on the roads that already exist.
- kome 9y ago
  > It definitely seems problematic to put your entire foundation of travel in the hands of government (...) They especially do not represent the concerns of all people. A car, on the other hand, is complete freedom. Well, car needs roads and roads are public goods. And, of course, they need a lot of public funding, planning and maintenance. All with public money. Governments pushed for cars as a mean of transportation because in the Keynesian era was good for the whole economy (car factories employed a lot of people), and nature was less of a concern. But pushing for cars was a deliberate public policy that involved a lot of public infrastructure, city planning, etc... Driverless cars would need a lot of infrastructure as well, but I don't think they are a good investment for the whole economy like normal cars were in the '50s. With putting a lot of public money for infrastructure to help a few companies that do not employ so many people anymore? The future is not for cars, IMHO. But who knows...
  - zaroth 9y ago
    The utility of a car is hard to overstate. Our entire modern economy rests upon it. Self-driving only magnifies the awesome utility of cars even further, and will drive even more automation throughout the system. Self-driving pickup of my groceries? Check. Self-driving pickup of my dry cleaning? Check. Self-drive me overnight to next vacation? Double check. The future is bright, and it's chock-fucking-full of (self-driving) cars.
nawitus 9y ago
You merely present an opinion without an argument. You need to actually argue why trains are better than "mini metros for cars". You might be correct, but just stating your opinion is not constructive.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
"Europe lives in the future compared to the USA." Europe is the size of a postage stamp compared to the USA (or even worse, Canada). Oregon is larger than the UK. Texas is larger than France. Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe.
- haspok 9y ago
  This is false. Europe North-South is comparable to the US East-West coast distance. Europe East-West is comparable to the US North-South. The US has more land mass (and there is Alaska, which is the jolly joker card here - we can counterbalance this with the russian-speaking regions of the European continent, it is debatable whether they are "Europe" or not), let's say the lower 48 US is maybe two times the area of "classical" Europe. Europe is also much more densely populated. So if you consider the USA to be the size of two postage stamps, then you might actually be correct :) ps. http://www.comparea.org/USA+EU http://www.comparea.org/USA+EU
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    No, it is not. Area of Oregon: 254,806 km2 Area of UK: 242,495 km2 Area of Texas: 696,241 km2 Area of France: 643,801 km2 Area of Alaska: 1,717,856 km2 Area of Western Europe: depends on which definition you use. But smaller than Alaska by most. "Europe is also much more densely populated." Yes, it is. It is smaller and more densely populated, which means that rail transportation makes sense (note that you also see rail transportation in the more densely populated regions of the United States, such as the BosWash Corridor, Chicagoland, etc.)
- epsylon 9y ago
  China has better rail infrastructure than the US, and is much bigger as well.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    The highly urbanized parts of China have a lot of advanced rail. The rural areas, not so much. I think they were still running steam engines on some routes until quite recently.

by kome 9y ago

JKCalhoun 9y ago

Agreed. The idea of the "pneumatic train" (http://nycsubway.org.s3.amazonaws.com/images/articles/beach-car.jpg http://nycsubway.org.s3.amazonaws.com/images/articles/beach-...) has been around for at least 100 years, so why does everyone with high-speed ground transportation go rail? Existing lines and infrastructure? Perhaps. But we too have existing lines and infrastructure (train stations on those lines). Or is it perhaps that building and maintaining miles and miles of rails, vs. tubes, is just way, way more cost effective?

methodin 9y ago

It definitely seems problematic to put your entire foundation of travel in the hands of government or companies, though. They especially do not represent the concerns of all people. A car on the other hand is complete freedom. I would have expected to hear that driverless cars are the future since it's not contingent on an non-existent infrastructure, rather on the roads that already exist.

kome 9y ago
> It definitely seems problematic to put your entire foundation of travel in the hands of government (...) They especially do not represent the concerns of all people. A car, on the other hand, is complete freedom. Well, car needs roads and roads are public goods. And, of course, they need a lot of public funding, planning and maintenance. All with public money. Governments pushed for cars as a mean of transportation because in the Keynesian era was good for the whole economy (car factories employed a lot of people), and nature was less of a concern. But pushing for cars was a deliberate public policy that involved a lot of public infrastructure, city planning, etc... Driverless cars would need a lot of infrastructure as well, but I don't think they are a good investment for the whole economy like normal cars were in the '50s. With putting a lot of public money for infrastructure to help a few companies that do not employ so many people anymore? The future is not for cars, IMHO. But who knows...
- zaroth 9y ago
  The utility of a car is hard to overstate. Our entire modern economy rests upon it. Self-driving only magnifies the awesome utility of cars even further, and will drive even more automation throughout the system. Self-driving pickup of my groceries? Check. Self-driving pickup of my dry cleaning? Check. Self-drive me overnight to next vacation? Double check. The future is bright, and it's chock-fucking-full of (self-driving) cars.

nawitus 9y ago

You merely present an opinion without an argument. You need to actually argue why trains are better than "mini metros for cars". You might be correct, but just stating your opinion is not constructive.

Turing_Machine 9y ago

"Europe lives in the future compared to the USA." Europe is the size of a postage stamp compared to the USA (or even worse, Canada). Oregon is larger than the UK. Texas is larger than France. Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe.

haspok 9y ago
This is false. Europe North-South is comparable to the US East-West coast distance. Europe East-West is comparable to the US North-South. The US has more land mass (and there is Alaska, which is the jolly joker card here - we can counterbalance this with the russian-speaking regions of the European continent, it is debatable whether they are "Europe" or not), let's say the lower 48 US is maybe two times the area of "classical" Europe. Europe is also much more densely populated. So if you consider the USA to be the size of two postage stamps, then you might actually be correct :) ps. http://www.comparea.org/USA+EU http://www.comparea.org/USA+EU
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  No, it is not. Area of Oregon: 254,806 km2 Area of UK: 242,495 km2 Area of Texas: 696,241 km2 Area of France: 643,801 km2 Area of Alaska: 1,717,856 km2 Area of Western Europe: depends on which definition you use. But smaller than Alaska by most. "Europe is also much more densely populated." Yes, it is. It is smaller and more densely populated, which means that rail transportation makes sense (note that you also see rail transportation in the more densely populated regions of the United States, such as the BosWash Corridor, Chicagoland, etc.)
epsylon 9y ago
China has better rail infrastructure than the US, and is much bigger as well.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  The highly urbanized parts of China have a lot of advanced rail. The rural areas, not so much. I think they were still running steam engines on some routes until quite recently.