5 ms·

Politics aside. American people need a new dream to strive for. Without major infrastructure construction going on, people will soon find them living in the pas

Politics aside. American people need a new dream to strive for. Without major infrastructure construction going on, people will soon find them living in the past in a few year. Whether to go back to "Moon" is not important but we need to go to "Somewhere".

vkou 9y ago
Something to strive for? Perhaps eliminating poverty, or malnutrition? We don't need to go to the moon for that, we just need to go south of Market Street. If those goals are too pedestrian, we could also aim for shifting our economy to a closed-loop ecologically-sensitive system. It would be far more useful then going to the moon - it would pay farm more technological, and social dividends, and it is the best ROI step that we could take to ensure our continued survival as a civilized species. But perhaps these goals are beyond our capabilities...
bb88 9y ago
There are other ways to keep people from living in the past other than say, going to the moon. * High speed internet service everywhere in the country. * Cheap access to telemedicine to help those that can't get to a doctor. * High speed rail (etc)
- gozur88 9y ago
  I'd love to see a usable intercity passenger rail system of any kind. We could build out a low speed network for a fraction of the HSR cost and then up the speed on routes where it makes sense on a piecemeal basis.
  - mikepurvis 9y ago
    High speed rail doesn't work that way. You have to build it as high speed from the get-go, as there are dozens of non-trivial requirements which must be met around the infrastructure in order for it to work. It would be like building four lane arterial road through your city and thinking you could just "up the speed" later on and suddenly have an interchange-access highway.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      I understand you'd have to lay new track when you wanted to add HSR. The point is you have an existing network people can use to get to your HSR endpoints.
      - logfromblammo 9y ago
        Laying the track isn't the hard part. The hard parts are securing right-of-way; eliminating grades, curves, and level crossings; and keeping the track-way secure from people, livestock, wildlife, and adverse weather.
        gozur88 9y ago
        Right... which is what I meant by "laying the track". If it was just a question of putting down rails it wouldn't be very expensive.
        logfromblammo 9y ago
        Not for plain old steel-on-ties rails, no. It's far easier to upgrade the rails than the right-of-way. You might as well bury dark fiber somewhere in there, no matter what else you do. Use one strand for signaling, and lease the rest to backhauler telecoms.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    What is wrong with airplanes? High speed rail makes sense on the coasts. Making a train from New York City to Boston is a good idea (guess what, we have one, and it is the only Amtrak route that is profitable). However a high speed train from New York to LA would be a trip far too long for people to willingly take. The point is don't try to make a solution fit all needs. Rail in the US is the best in the world in large part because it doesn't deal with humans. This allows efficiency that you can't get when dealing with people. (people don't like sitting in a siding for an hour waiting for an oncoming trail so you have to build more track...)
    - gozur88 9y ago
      Frankly, airplanes suck. You spend endless time in security lines, get packed in like sardines during the flight, and have stringent restrictions on what kind of luggage you can take, how large it is, and how heavy.
      - junkscience2017 9y ago
        Why do people assume HSR will not have TSA lines? All it will take is one credible threat. Indeed, given the inevitability of a threat emerging, it seems obvious that a TSA line will be part of the model from day one. People will probably end up "packed like sardines" on HSR as well, as HSR will inevitably have to be made to be economical.
        gozur88 9y ago
        The economics are different for trains, though. The economic benefits of shrinking seat sizes are far smaller. And no, the TSA line is not inevitable. Other countries that deal with terrorism operate train systems without people groping your privates. Yet another problem with airplanes is a tiny bomb can cause explosive decompression. That's not a worry with trains - you're not going to kill 300 people with a bomb you can hide in your underwear.
        bluGill 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
maxxxxx 9y ago
It seems Americans like to compete against someone. I don't think improving infrastructure will be motivating. It needs to be something where they can win.
- adventured 9y ago
  Most people like to compete to varying degrees. You see it in: video games, sports, science, business, relationships, driving, lifestyle choices, and so on. As nations are made up of people, nations also like to compete with other nations. It's not even remotely unique to the US. You've seen it persistently across eg Europe for the last thousand years, from small to large nations.
rbanffy 9y ago
> people will soon find them living in the past Sorry, but all that MAGA stuff is pretty much this, but based on an imaginary past that never was.

vkou 9y ago

Something to strive for? Perhaps eliminating poverty, or malnutrition? We don't need to go to the moon for that, we just need to go south of Market Street. If those goals are too pedestrian, we could also aim for shifting our economy to a closed-loop ecologically-sensitive system. It would be far more useful then going to the moon - it would pay farm more technological, and social dividends, and it is the best ROI step that we could take to ensure our continued survival as a civilized species. But perhaps these goals are beyond our capabilities...

bb88 9y ago

There are other ways to keep people from living in the past other than say, going to the moon. * High speed internet service everywhere in the country. * Cheap access to telemedicine to help those that can't get to a doctor. * High speed rail (etc)

gozur88 9y ago
I'd love to see a usable intercity passenger rail system of any kind. We could build out a low speed network for a fraction of the HSR cost and then up the speed on routes where it makes sense on a piecemeal basis.
- mikepurvis 9y ago
  High speed rail doesn't work that way. You have to build it as high speed from the get-go, as there are dozens of non-trivial requirements which must be met around the infrastructure in order for it to work. It would be like building four lane arterial road through your city and thinking you could just "up the speed" later on and suddenly have an interchange-access highway.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    I understand you'd have to lay new track when you wanted to add HSR. The point is you have an existing network people can use to get to your HSR endpoints.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      Laying the track isn't the hard part. The hard parts are securing right-of-way; eliminating grades, curves, and level crossings; and keeping the track-way secure from people, livestock, wildlife, and adverse weather.
      - gozur88 9y ago
        Right... which is what I meant by "laying the track". If it was just a question of putting down rails it wouldn't be very expensive.
        logfromblammo 9y ago
        Not for plain old steel-on-ties rails, no. It's far easier to upgrade the rails than the right-of-way. You might as well bury dark fiber somewhere in there, no matter what else you do. Use one strand for signaling, and lease the rest to backhauler telecoms.
- bluGill 9y ago
  What is wrong with airplanes? High speed rail makes sense on the coasts. Making a train from New York City to Boston is a good idea (guess what, we have one, and it is the only Amtrak route that is profitable). However a high speed train from New York to LA would be a trip far too long for people to willingly take. The point is don't try to make a solution fit all needs. Rail in the US is the best in the world in large part because it doesn't deal with humans. This allows efficiency that you can't get when dealing with people. (people don't like sitting in a siding for an hour waiting for an oncoming trail so you have to build more track...)
  - gozur88 9y ago
    Frankly, airplanes suck. You spend endless time in security lines, get packed in like sardines during the flight, and have stringent restrictions on what kind of luggage you can take, how large it is, and how heavy.
    - junkscience2017 9y ago
      Why do people assume HSR will not have TSA lines? All it will take is one credible threat. Indeed, given the inevitability of a threat emerging, it seems obvious that a TSA line will be part of the model from day one. People will probably end up "packed like sardines" on HSR as well, as HSR will inevitably have to be made to be economical.
      - gozur88 9y ago
        The economics are different for trains, though. The economic benefits of shrinking seat sizes are far smaller. And no, the TSA line is not inevitable. Other countries that deal with terrorism operate train systems without people groping your privates. Yet another problem with airplanes is a tiny bomb can cause explosive decompression. That's not a worry with trains - you're not going to kill 300 people with a bomb you can hide in your underwear.
        bluGill 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

maxxxxx 9y ago

It seems Americans like to compete against someone. I don't think improving infrastructure will be motivating. It needs to be something where they can win.

adventured 9y ago
Most people like to compete to varying degrees. You see it in: video games, sports, science, business, relationships, driving, lifestyle choices, and so on. As nations are made up of people, nations also like to compete with other nations. It's not even remotely unique to the US. You've seen it persistently across eg Europe for the last thousand years, from small to large nations.

rbanffy 9y ago

> people will soon find them living in the past Sorry, but all that MAGA stuff is pretty much this, but based on an imaginary past that never was.