5 ms·

Personally I TOTALLY refuse. For many reasons: - if the purpose of traveling is the pleasure of traveling I need to travel slowly in nature, a short segment at

by kkfx 4y ago

Personally I TOTALLY refuse. For many reasons: - if the purpose of traveling is the pleasure of traveling I need to travel slowly in nature, a short segment at a time, appreciating differences from a place to another; - if the purpose is just going from A to B than the fastest option is the better. More in general such megaprojects means very few earning big money, more concentration of humans, that ALREADY is a big issue alone and a general waste of resources that are already scarce. Public transport is sold to be environmentally friendly, it's the opposite. Big infra are sold as progress, while since they can evolve they aren't sustainable in a rapidly changing world, for what? Well "following the money" I can say some private party profit for building and maintain such monsters, for politicians that have caged people more and more making them unable to do pretty anything on their own. As a former big-city resident sometimes I state to some wannabe environmentalist as a matter of fact polluter: "you say you are eco-friendly because you do anything with a bike/public transport in a city. Yes, you are, needing only a hyper-polluting industry around to let you live that way, a hyper-polluted set of infra around etc. The real name it's hypocrisy like the old adage "I do not oppress others, that's the business of some stakeholder, I offload all such activities to be clean".

lucb1e 4y ago
> [then] the fastest option is the better. In the short term at least, ignoring external effects of your doing so. And you're kind of ignoring costs as well, like you wouldn't hire a space shuttle if a 3-hour train ride will do, and airplanes fly so cheaply compared to other transportation because you can avoid most of the fuel taxes (what good/bad could that tax money do, for you or for others? Do you spend the difference on non-profits?). Anyway while this is a big discussion of itself, and includes philosophical/moral dilemmas and tax politics, just saying "go for pleasure or go fast" is definitely thinking too simplistically. > Public transport is sold to be environmentally friendly, it's the opposite. I'm sure you can find exceptions for some specific routes, but as a general rule that's just false. This is so backwards that I really wonder where you get your numbers or ideas from and if it might actually just be a desire to be contrarian or if you're explaining things to yourself in a way that you don't have to feel bad about e.g. a choice not to use public transport.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Honestly I see the exact opposite: the real TCO of passengers hi-speed rails is FAR above air traveling, not much in money but in environmental terms. Beside that a plane fly, so yes it need airports, but nothing on the ground so it can adapt to a changing world, rails can't. We are abandoning nearly all mega-thing of the past, mega-ship, mega-planes, ... because they are too costly and we still build mega-cruise ships and high-speed trains ONLY to made some making big money and pleasing a flock of false-environmentally friendly modern hippies... It's absurd. If you study logistic a bit you'll see that we all bet on water and air travel, considering all the rest nearly dead because too costly, yet most people, well convinced by some PR think the exact contrary.
  - lucb1e 4y ago
    > I see the exact opposite: the real TCO of passengers hi-speed rails is FAR above air traveling, not much in money but in environmental terms. I repeat > > This is so backwards that I really wonder where you get your numbers Care to share?
  - SECProto 4y ago
    > the real TCO of passengers hi-speed rails is FAR above air traveling, not much in money but in environmental terms How? Rail is consistently ranked among the lowest CO2-per-passenger-km of any travel mode. High speed rail is all electrified, flights all put out CO2 exhaust and particulate matter into the upper atmosphere.
    - adhesive_wombat 4y ago
      > High speed rail is all electrified And now that Europe is finally, 30 years too late, starting to see the light on nuclear (as an adjunct to solar and wind) this is pretty important. Trains are vulnerable to one hypothetical technology: self-driving electric coaches. If it ever happens, it would be some time away, and for the long distance high-speed routes, will probably never be as fast as a 350kph+ train. But I can see swarms of e-coaches dominating regional trains because they're far more flexible. I just hope they're comfortable, but I don't really think they will be, compared to trains.
kergonath 4y ago
> More in general such megaprojects means very few earning big money, more concentration of humans, that ALREADY is a big issue alone and a general waste of resources that are already scarce. There is no mega project, all the tracks exist already. Same for the stations and the rolling stock. Just reading the title of the article would have given you a hint: 2023 is an awfully short deadline for any serious infrastructure project.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> you say you are eco-friendly because you do anything with a bike/public transport in a city. Yes, you are, needing only a hyper-polluting industry around to let you live that way, a hyper-polluted set of infra around A bike is polluting? What do you use, a horse or a magic carpet?
- kkfx 4y ago
  Oh no, your bike does not pollute but the diesel truck that bring food nearby you everyday so that you are able to buy it daily does. Similarly ALL other services to enable you to live on a bike-only city range...
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Do you drive all the way to the farm for your groceries? That food maybe traveled 1000 km to get to the store where you buy it. How far do you drive for you food, 50km? Thats what, 5% difference? Lets suppose you drive all the way to the farm. Do you think your car is more efficient at moving goods than a truck? Have you tried dividing Fuel consumption of the truck by its cargo capacity, and then doing the same math for your car? Or is your beef with daily-ness? The store near me gets two trucks every day - would it be better if it got 4 trucks every two days? No-one is driving around half empty trucks
    - kkfx 4y ago
      I generally buy from a national "federated cooperative" (Intermarché) witch despite the claim is a corporate like any others made up by a series of mostly national producers and a network of supermarket, of course foods have traveled because our actual food system is not much local-centered BUT instead of buy small batch (with packaging and so on) everyday I buy in quantity, store at home. Bread can be freeze issueless, various kind of cheese, not all unfortunately, the same, meat and various sea products equally etc. I drive 20km once a month in mean for groceries. Back in city I've driven 5km every week, notably with equal travel time due to city traffic. A set of individual cars is not more efficient than a single truck BUT buying in quantity, with little packaging vs buy small quantity with much more packaging change the number of trucks on the road and the numbers of waste we made, packages are not produced at the supermarket backyard they also need to travel. For instance I tend to buy wines directly from some producers (not all wine I use, but a significant slice, they are between 30 and 45 km) I generally buy in four classic barrels (glass+plastic and glass+straw / wood) bottling in my garage with the same glass bottles every years. Compared to buy single bottles I made FAR LESS traveling because if I buy in bottles they are always new ones, having traveled empty, fill, stickered, traveled again full etc. Similarly for olive oil, I tend to buy it once a year in metal barrels from a relatively near local producer (75km). In the future when I expect far more expensive gasoline prices I'll probably buy an EV recharging it from my present p.v. system, nothing really "ecological" for sure but still cut the need for distributing oils at any station, witch happen with trucks in most cases. That's not much of a math anyway, the point is that in a distributed economy we tend to produce at a short range, like we have done in the past, surely not all is local, I can't buy local bananas here so to say, but many things can be. For instance why importing Brazilian meat when we have a national production? It's cheaper in the actual system but it should not. Sunflower oil? In a moderately recent past (~20 years) was produced nationally, then Ukrainian/Russians one became a cheaper option for sellers production have shifted. Again we do not need that shift and it was not resulting in lower prices for customers, only bigger margins from sellers. A State-made logistics for national enterprises might be the most efficient answer.
flohofwoe 4y ago
> More in general such megaprojects means very few earning big money "Megaprojects"? The railroad infrastructure between Paris and Berlin already exists and did so for a long time, in fact googling a bit reveals that there was already a direct Paris - Berlin - Moscow connection operated since the 19th century until 1994: https://uic.org/com/enews/nr/412/article/moscow-berlin-paris-travel-by https://uic.org/com/enews/nr/412/article/moscow-berlin-paris... So at most the existing infrastructure outside cities needs conversion to high-speed tracks (or more likely, trains will just travel at reduced speeds, which for instance is the case for most of East Germany where only few high speed sections exists - but mainly because cities are so close to each other that travelling at 300 km/h wouldn't save much time between stops).

by kkfx 4y ago

lucb1e 4y ago

> [then] the fastest option is the better. In the short term at least, ignoring external effects of your doing so. And you're kind of ignoring costs as well, like you wouldn't hire a space shuttle if a 3-hour train ride will do, and airplanes fly so cheaply compared to other transportation because you can avoid most of the fuel taxes (what good/bad could that tax money do, for you or for others? Do you spend the difference on non-profits?). Anyway while this is a big discussion of itself, and includes philosophical/moral dilemmas and tax politics, just saying "go for pleasure or go fast" is definitely thinking too simplistically. > Public transport is sold to be environmentally friendly, it's the opposite. I'm sure you can find exceptions for some specific routes, but as a general rule that's just false. This is so backwards that I really wonder where you get your numbers or ideas from and if it might actually just be a desire to be contrarian or if you're explaining things to yourself in a way that you don't have to feel bad about e.g. a choice not to use public transport.

kkfx 4y ago
Honestly I see the exact opposite: the real TCO of passengers hi-speed rails is FAR above air traveling, not much in money but in environmental terms. Beside that a plane fly, so yes it need airports, but nothing on the ground so it can adapt to a changing world, rails can't. We are abandoning nearly all mega-thing of the past, mega-ship, mega-planes, ... because they are too costly and we still build mega-cruise ships and high-speed trains ONLY to made some making big money and pleasing a flock of false-environmentally friendly modern hippies... It's absurd. If you study logistic a bit you'll see that we all bet on water and air travel, considering all the rest nearly dead because too costly, yet most people, well convinced by some PR think the exact contrary.
- lucb1e 4y ago
  > I see the exact opposite: the real TCO of passengers hi-speed rails is FAR above air traveling, not much in money but in environmental terms. I repeat > > This is so backwards that I really wonder where you get your numbers Care to share?
- SECProto 4y ago
  > the real TCO of passengers hi-speed rails is FAR above air traveling, not much in money but in environmental terms How? Rail is consistently ranked among the lowest CO2-per-passenger-km of any travel mode. High speed rail is all electrified, flights all put out CO2 exhaust and particulate matter into the upper atmosphere.
  - adhesive_wombat 4y ago
    > High speed rail is all electrified And now that Europe is finally, 30 years too late, starting to see the light on nuclear (as an adjunct to solar and wind) this is pretty important. Trains are vulnerable to one hypothetical technology: self-driving electric coaches. If it ever happens, it would be some time away, and for the long distance high-speed routes, will probably never be as fast as a 350kph+ train. But I can see swarms of e-coaches dominating regional trains because they're far more flexible. I just hope they're comfortable, but I don't really think they will be, compared to trains.

kergonath 4y ago

> More in general such megaprojects means very few earning big money, more concentration of humans, that ALREADY is a big issue alone and a general waste of resources that are already scarce. There is no mega project, all the tracks exist already. Same for the stations and the rolling stock. Just reading the title of the article would have given you a hint: 2023 is an awfully short deadline for any serious infrastructure project.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> you say you are eco-friendly because you do anything with a bike/public transport in a city. Yes, you are, needing only a hyper-polluting industry around to let you live that way, a hyper-polluted set of infra around A bike is polluting? What do you use, a horse or a magic carpet?

kkfx 4y ago
Oh no, your bike does not pollute but the diesel truck that bring food nearby you everyday so that you are able to buy it daily does. Similarly ALL other services to enable you to live on a bike-only city range...
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Do you drive all the way to the farm for your groceries? That food maybe traveled 1000 km to get to the store where you buy it. How far do you drive for you food, 50km? Thats what, 5% difference? Lets suppose you drive all the way to the farm. Do you think your car is more efficient at moving goods than a truck? Have you tried dividing Fuel consumption of the truck by its cargo capacity, and then doing the same math for your car? Or is your beef with daily-ness? The store near me gets two trucks every day - would it be better if it got 4 trucks every two days? No-one is driving around half empty trucks
  - kkfx 4y ago
    I generally buy from a national "federated cooperative" (Intermarché) witch despite the claim is a corporate like any others made up by a series of mostly national producers and a network of supermarket, of course foods have traveled because our actual food system is not much local-centered BUT instead of buy small batch (with packaging and so on) everyday I buy in quantity, store at home. Bread can be freeze issueless, various kind of cheese, not all unfortunately, the same, meat and various sea products equally etc. I drive 20km once a month in mean for groceries. Back in city I've driven 5km every week, notably with equal travel time due to city traffic. A set of individual cars is not more efficient than a single truck BUT buying in quantity, with little packaging vs buy small quantity with much more packaging change the number of trucks on the road and the numbers of waste we made, packages are not produced at the supermarket backyard they also need to travel. For instance I tend to buy wines directly from some producers (not all wine I use, but a significant slice, they are between 30 and 45 km) I generally buy in four classic barrels (glass+plastic and glass+straw / wood) bottling in my garage with the same glass bottles every years. Compared to buy single bottles I made FAR LESS traveling because if I buy in bottles they are always new ones, having traveled empty, fill, stickered, traveled again full etc. Similarly for olive oil, I tend to buy it once a year in metal barrels from a relatively near local producer (75km). In the future when I expect far more expensive gasoline prices I'll probably buy an EV recharging it from my present p.v. system, nothing really "ecological" for sure but still cut the need for distributing oils at any station, witch happen with trucks in most cases. That's not much of a math anyway, the point is that in a distributed economy we tend to produce at a short range, like we have done in the past, surely not all is local, I can't buy local bananas here so to say, but many things can be. For instance why importing Brazilian meat when we have a national production? It's cheaper in the actual system but it should not. Sunflower oil? In a moderately recent past (~20 years) was produced nationally, then Ukrainian/Russians one became a cheaper option for sellers production have shifted. Again we do not need that shift and it was not resulting in lower prices for customers, only bigger margins from sellers. A State-made logistics for national enterprises might be the most efficient answer.

flohofwoe 4y ago

> More in general such megaprojects means very few earning big money "Megaprojects"? The railroad infrastructure between Paris and Berlin already exists and did so for a long time, in fact googling a bit reveals that there was already a direct Paris - Berlin - Moscow connection operated since the 19th century until 1994: https://uic.org/com/enews/nr/412/article/moscow-berlin-paris-travel-by https://uic.org/com/enews/nr/412/article/moscow-berlin-paris... So at most the existing infrastructure outside cities needs conversion to high-speed tracks (or more likely, trains will just travel at reduced speeds, which for instance is the case for most of East Germany where only few high speed sections exists - but mainly because cities are so close to each other that travelling at 300 km/h wouldn't save much time between stops).