6 ms·

You know the old question "Why go to the moon instead of solving world hunger?" Well, the answer is that despite going to the moon being a incredibly hard techn

You know the old question "Why go to the moon instead of solving world hunger?" Well, the answer is that despite going to the moon being a incredibly hard technological problem, it is still vastly easier than solving world hunger. Likewise, eVTOLs are a very hard technological problem, but that is nothing compared to the social problems of getting new rail lines built in North America. So yeah, I think the only unserious people are those dreaming of HSR in North America. Vast structural challenges and repeated high-profile failures don't seem to bring about any introspection or doubt, just more doubling-down. Privately built and operated eVTOLs fit smoothly into the structure of our society. Expropriating vast amounts of land to connect city centres while people live in the burbs does not fit nearly so well. Developing better batteries is vastly, vastly simpler and easier than restructuring all of society around fixed rail lines.

aeternum 5y ago
Interestingly, eVTOLs are likely the answer to solving world hunger. We are already able to easily cultivate more than enough calories to feed the world, the problem is efficient distribution. Cheap air-based transport could go a long way in solving the distribution problem.
thehappypm 5y ago
Rail is just very hard to do. I’m curious if it will end up really being worth it for China. The cost of maintenance and how centralized it is seems much worse than airports. Like Boise Idaho is booming right now, right? Well, its airport can just add some terminals for costs that the local tax base can support. Want to connect it via HSR? Okay, be prepared to spent a hundred billion dollars, for a slower ride that almost always needs a transfer.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  It just sounds like you are dedicated to underestimating the cost of airports and overestimating the costs of railroads. Boise is admittedly an extreme example because of its isolation, but it is within practical HSR distance of Salt Lake City, Portland, and Reno. Can't see why you'd need a transfer for any of the above. Anyway air service Boise-to-Reno has no non-stop option, either. This is a very common mistake people make with California's SF-LA HSR. They say it costs a lot. We should just build airports. But they don't seem to know that airport capacity sufficient to provide as many trips as CAHSR will be capable of providing is estimated to cost over $300 billion, much more than the entire rail project.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    If there isn’t even a flight to Reno, why would HSR make sense?
- dirtyid 5y ago
  >end up really being worth it for China. PRC air corridors are heavily congested - huge population concentrated on coastal regions + priority access for military aviation which also has to concentrate on coast for defense = massive delays for short hull trips that makes HSR come out ahead. Chinese military watchers occasionally joke that successfully invading TW and moving military aviation further out the 1st island chain would increase efficiency of domestic flights. Except there's probably some truth to it. Maintenance shouldn't be an issue, there's going to be low cost labour and extra infra capacity in PRC for a long time, even accounting for demographic concerns.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    Interesting, sounds like PRC benefits from HSR in a way that even Europe or Japan don’t.

aeternum 5y ago

Interestingly, eVTOLs are likely the answer to solving world hunger. We are already able to easily cultivate more than enough calories to feed the world, the problem is efficient distribution. Cheap air-based transport could go a long way in solving the distribution problem.

thehappypm 5y ago

Rail is just very hard to do. I’m curious if it will end up really being worth it for China. The cost of maintenance and how centralized it is seems much worse than airports. Like Boise Idaho is booming right now, right? Well, its airport can just add some terminals for costs that the local tax base can support. Want to connect it via HSR? Okay, be prepared to spent a hundred billion dollars, for a slower ride that almost always needs a transfer.

jeffbee 5y ago
It just sounds like you are dedicated to underestimating the cost of airports and overestimating the costs of railroads. Boise is admittedly an extreme example because of its isolation, but it is within practical HSR distance of Salt Lake City, Portland, and Reno. Can't see why you'd need a transfer for any of the above. Anyway air service Boise-to-Reno has no non-stop option, either. This is a very common mistake people make with California's SF-LA HSR. They say it costs a lot. We should just build airports. But they don't seem to know that airport capacity sufficient to provide as many trips as CAHSR will be capable of providing is estimated to cost over $300 billion, much more than the entire rail project.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  If there isn’t even a flight to Reno, why would HSR make sense?
dirtyid 5y ago
>end up really being worth it for China. PRC air corridors are heavily congested - huge population concentrated on coastal regions + priority access for military aviation which also has to concentrate on coast for defense = massive delays for short hull trips that makes HSR come out ahead. Chinese military watchers occasionally joke that successfully invading TW and moving military aviation further out the 1st island chain would increase efficiency of domestic flights. Except there's probably some truth to it. Maintenance shouldn't be an issue, there's going to be low cost labour and extra infra capacity in PRC for a long time, even accounting for demographic concerns.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Interesting, sounds like PRC benefits from HSR in a way that even Europe or Japan don’t.