3 ms·

> [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, l

by 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.
    - danhor 4y ago
      Even self-driving coaches will have congestion issues. Even if there are dedicated travel lanes and all vehicles are connected, capacity will (probably) at most double (going down much further as speeds increase, since a safe braking distance is still needed). In that mode, the new techniques that are getting developed in rail signalling (ETCS level 3 moving block) might be transferred in some way, but capacity is still very much limited. If E-Coaches are shared, you'll have difficulties getting them to you at the point & time you want to travel (probably requiring at least ~15-30 min prior information in non-urban environments, where congestion doesn't limit adoption). They'll also have to drive in-and-out of multiple residential areas (if shared), which will increase travel time. I think self-driving cars (personal use)[1], autonomous electric busses (with many of the limitations as current busses, but lower cost & higher comfort as well as more flexible (smaller) capacity options) and rail transit will cover most demands, with on-demand transportation covering the night hours and uncommon travel routes. Some transit agencies are experimenting with services like ViaVan (providing most of the features of self-driving electric coaches, excluding the self-driving part) and adoption seems to be low, mostly working as a complement if no other attractive transit options exist, not as a displacement. [1]: I fear that this will be primary form of transportation, since costs aren't going to be much higher than current cars (or perhaps even lower). The possibility of doing something other than driving will make congestion more palatable and searching for a parking spot will probably not require a human on-board. There will still be a personal space owned by someone and stuff can be (permanently) left inside the car.

by lucb1e 4y ago

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.
  - danhor 4y ago
    Even self-driving coaches will have congestion issues. Even if there are dedicated travel lanes and all vehicles are connected, capacity will (probably) at most double (going down much further as speeds increase, since a safe braking distance is still needed). In that mode, the new techniques that are getting developed in rail signalling (ETCS level 3 moving block) might be transferred in some way, but capacity is still very much limited. If E-Coaches are shared, you'll have difficulties getting them to you at the point & time you want to travel (probably requiring at least ~15-30 min prior information in non-urban environments, where congestion doesn't limit adoption). They'll also have to drive in-and-out of multiple residential areas (if shared), which will increase travel time. I think self-driving cars (personal use)[1], autonomous electric busses (with many of the limitations as current busses, but lower cost & higher comfort as well as more flexible (smaller) capacity options) and rail transit will cover most demands, with on-demand transportation covering the night hours and uncommon travel routes. Some transit agencies are experimenting with services like ViaVan (providing most of the features of self-driving electric coaches, excluding the self-driving part) and adoption seems to be low, mostly working as a complement if no other attractive transit options exist, not as a displacement. [1]: I fear that this will be primary form of transportation, since costs aren't going to be much higher than current cars (or perhaps even lower). The possibility of doing something other than driving will make congestion more palatable and searching for a parking spot will probably not require a human on-board. There will still be a personal space owned by someone and stuff can be (permanently) left inside the car.