5 ms·

This is completely not the point. The point is: You're not getting working public transport by inventing new technology. You get it by having the political wil

by hannob 6y ago

This is completely not the point. The point is: You're not getting working public transport by inventing new technology. You get it by having the political willpower to fund it. If you don't have the latter then no amount of technology will save you. Also related: It's an obvious case of Bionic Duckweed (see https://medium.com/@stianstian/bionic-duckweed-using-the-future-to-fight-the-present-3e471b642c28 https://medium.com/@stianstian/bionic-duckweed-using-the-fut... )

j-pb 6y ago
Exactly. But you also seem to miss it. Politicians have no will to fund old technology (and lets face it, high speed rail is PREindustrial tech). However they will fund new shiny technology that they think will make them look good and future oriented towards the general public. Don't underestimate the advertisement value inherent to "new stuff". Politicians play mind games, we just have to play them better.
- masswerk 6y ago
  > high speed rail is PREindustrial tech No, that's canal barges.
  - j-pb 6y ago
    Trains are what helped spark the industrial revolution, thus by definition they are preindustrial.
    - masswerk 6y ago
      Arguably, trains came out of the industrial revolution and amplified it. (The early phase ran on canals.) The real question, however, is: will Hyperloop meet canal barges in terms of mass moved per distance at a given interval of time (and this for an equal share of investments / at comparable costs)? Edit: Assuming you'd have to divide the track into air-locked sections for safety concerns, with just a single pod in a section at a given time, which drastically limits capacity.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      "Train" is decidedly not before the industrial revolution but rather is part of it. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution > The Industrial Revolution .. the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive > Richard Trevithick built the first steam locomotive in 1802. Further, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport : > William Murdoch produced a working model of a self-propelled steam carriage in [1784]. The definition of "train" meaning "locomotive and the cars coupled to it" dates to 1816 or 1820 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/train https://www.etymonline.com/word/train .
    - himinlomax 6y ago
      Trains require (at least) steam engines. If there's something that marks the start of the industrial revolution, it's (practical, not toy) steam engines.
- hannob 6y ago
  We have a new highspeed rail line between Berlin and Munich. It's old tech. It was old tech when the decision to build it was made. (Not that I'm happy with the highspeed rail network in Germany. It could and should be much better. It could completely replace short distance flights. But it's quite obviously lightyears ahead of the situation in the US.)
  - j-pb 6y ago
    Yeah but you have to remember the population density of the us. It's main population centers are west and east coast, with nothing but farmland in between. For them any system needs to be a lot cheaper per mile. Also the only reason why we get some ICE tracks, is because of the 1% and politicians that want to have a convenient way to commute to and from work. Everything that is not a major business hub just get's left out. And remember when we tried to get a proper Transrapid track? It was the only thing Sheuble ever did right, and he got ridiculed for it.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > Politicians have no will to fund old technology Then get a nice Ralph McQuarrie or Syd Mead style artwork to sell it. It's not about the thing itself, but how it's perceived.
djrobstep 6y ago
The problem is that people excited by stuff like this, aren't excited by public transport. The idea of sitting on a train with the regular public is horrifying to them. They are excited by expensive fancy private transport for themselves. How the public transport themselves around, or their wider welfare, is not a concern.
- anticristi 6y ago
  It totally is a concern for them. Too much road congestion, and the fancy private transportation is less enjoyable. I honestly had the feeling that Munich, home to an unnamed automaker, was treating public transit pretty much like that. Too much congestion? Let's improve public transit! Congestion just right? Stop investing in public transit. I feel the incentives for the government are super wrong. Every car brings taxes and parking fees. The latter often goes directly into the municipality's pocket. No wonder public transit is as it is.
dnautics 6y ago
I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint, but also there is the example of the Great Northern Railway, so it's not impossible to get working public transport without significant public investment.

by hannob 6y ago

j-pb 6y ago

Exactly. But you also seem to miss it. Politicians have no will to fund old technology (and lets face it, high speed rail is PREindustrial tech). However they will fund new shiny technology that they think will make them look good and future oriented towards the general public. Don't underestimate the advertisement value inherent to "new stuff". Politicians play mind games, we just have to play them better.

masswerk 6y ago
> high speed rail is PREindustrial tech No, that's canal barges.
- j-pb 6y ago
  Trains are what helped spark the industrial revolution, thus by definition they are preindustrial.
  - masswerk 6y ago
    Arguably, trains came out of the industrial revolution and amplified it. (The early phase ran on canals.) The real question, however, is: will Hyperloop meet canal barges in terms of mass moved per distance at a given interval of time (and this for an equal share of investments / at comparable costs)? Edit: Assuming you'd have to divide the track into air-locked sections for safety concerns, with just a single pod in a section at a given time, which drastically limits capacity.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    "Train" is decidedly not before the industrial revolution but rather is part of it. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution > The Industrial Revolution .. the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive > Richard Trevithick built the first steam locomotive in 1802. Further, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport : > William Murdoch produced a working model of a self-propelled steam carriage in [1784]. The definition of "train" meaning "locomotive and the cars coupled to it" dates to 1816 or 1820 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/train https://www.etymonline.com/word/train .
  - himinlomax 6y ago
    Trains require (at least) steam engines. If there's something that marks the start of the industrial revolution, it's (practical, not toy) steam engines.
hannob 6y ago
We have a new highspeed rail line between Berlin and Munich. It's old tech. It was old tech when the decision to build it was made. (Not that I'm happy with the highspeed rail network in Germany. It could and should be much better. It could completely replace short distance flights. But it's quite obviously lightyears ahead of the situation in the US.)
- j-pb 6y ago
  Yeah but you have to remember the population density of the us. It's main population centers are west and east coast, with nothing but farmland in between. For them any system needs to be a lot cheaper per mile. Also the only reason why we get some ICE tracks, is because of the 1% and politicians that want to have a convenient way to commute to and from work. Everything that is not a major business hub just get's left out. And remember when we tried to get a proper Transrapid track? It was the only thing Sheuble ever did right, and he got ridiculed for it.
rbanffy 6y ago
> Politicians have no will to fund old technology Then get a nice Ralph McQuarrie or Syd Mead style artwork to sell it. It's not about the thing itself, but how it's perceived.

djrobstep 6y ago

The problem is that people excited by stuff like this, aren't excited by public transport. The idea of sitting on a train with the regular public is horrifying to them. They are excited by expensive fancy private transport for themselves. How the public transport themselves around, or their wider welfare, is not a concern.

anticristi 6y ago
It totally is a concern for them. Too much road congestion, and the fancy private transportation is less enjoyable. I honestly had the feeling that Munich, home to an unnamed automaker, was treating public transit pretty much like that. Too much congestion? Let's improve public transit! Congestion just right? Stop investing in public transit. I feel the incentives for the government are super wrong. Every car brings taxes and parking fees. The latter often goes directly into the municipality's pocket. No wonder public transit is as it is.

dnautics 6y ago

I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint, but also there is the example of the Great Northern Railway, so it's not impossible to get working public transport without significant public investment.