4 ms·

I used to be all about public transportation and trains, but I cannot reconcile that anymore with advancement in technology. It simply does not make sense to me

by wahsd 12y ago

I used to be all about public transportation and trains, but I cannot reconcile that anymore with advancement in technology. It simply does not make sense to me anymore to try and build high speed rail on the ground, on fixed "rails" in order to not even get close to even slow airplane speeds. With the roll-out of more sophisticated air traffic control systems that will allow denser traffic, higher frequency landing / take-offs, I don't see the sense in fixed systems like rail. It obviously makes a lot more sense in places like Japan or even parts of Europe, but in the USA, where you need to traverse huge swaths of uninhabitable and even inhospitable and unpredictable land, it simply makes no sense. Take Texas for example. All the idiots that have been moving to Texas from self-absorbed and myopic cesspools of self-importance keep crying about public transportation and high speed rail to connect the San Antonio, Dallas, Houston triangle; but no one wants to address the question as to why. You could and already can travel those paths by air and it will only get faster and cheaper with the improved air traffic control system when fully rolled out. Do we think that high speed rail will enjoy the freedom that current AMTRAK does where you just drive up, hop on the train and off you go? No! You will have to also go through the TSA security bullshit and you will still have to go to specific locations to get on. It just makes no sense. I would much rather see some sort of automated flight between regular airports on regional hops like the Texas triangle. Edit: ... If at all. Something somewhat related that has baffled me for years now. Is why do people, especially in the tech industry need to travel so much? Of all people, why has the tech industry not solved the remote working issue? It's like we are using steam power to make electricity. Again, it makes no sense.

ceejayoz 12y ago
> It simply does not make sense to me anymore to try and build high speed rail on the ground, on fixed "rails" in order to not even get close to even slow airplane speeds. Planes have higher max speeds, but they're subject to weather delays and other issues that bring their average speeds down well into maglev territory. > With the roll-out of more sophisticated air traffic control systems that will allow denser traffic, higher frequency landing / take-offs, I don't see the sense in fixed systems like rail. Significant limits remain - planes simply can't takeoff/land too close together due to things like wake turbulence, unloading a plane through a couple doors and jetways takes much longer than a train, etc. The weather issue is a big factor here, as well - a thunderstorm in Chicago can disrupt the entire nation due to connecting flights. > Do we think that high speed rail will enjoy the freedom that current AMTRAK does where you just drive up, hop on the train and off you go? It does in Europe and Japan.
- wahsd 12y ago
  You are not thinking objectively, it's quite obvious. Not only will weather impact the operation and speed of a maglev just as much if not more considering that high winds and / or blistering heat can significantly impact the train and track. And if you think that a few storms disrupting the air transportation network is a problem because some idiots thought it was a good idea to make Chicago a hub then you are not thinking about the problem correctly. What you are describing is a process and business problem. Maybe north and north east airports should not be hub airports like any even half witted person would realize, and no matter what, I don't think you could even pay for all the rail lines that would need to be built in order to serve the same number of passengers between the same number of destinations as you can flexibly adapt to with air travel. For example, Southwest started direct flights from DC to Austin two years ago because the demand was so large. You couldn't even get the plans together in the same amount of time it took to plan, permit, coordinate, and implement DC-AUS flights, which are also a connection from some other airport on top of it.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    > Not only will weather impact the operation and speed of a maglev just as much if not more considering that high winds and / or blistering heat can significantly impact the train and track. Planes are frequently grounded/delayed by weather systems trains would have no trouble transiting, particularly thunderstorms. > I don't think you could even pay for all the rail lines that would need to be built in order to serve the same number of passengers between the same number of destinations as you can flexibly adapt to with air travel. Once again, you pretend like this doesn't already exist throughout Europe and Japan already.
userbinator 12y ago
Planes, even small ones, require a significant amount of maintenance and the fuel is not cheap either. Also, qualifying and paying someone to operate a vehicle that is essentially constrained to one dimension of movement is far cheaper than doing the same for a vehicle that can move in all 3 dimensions or even 2 (like a bus.) That's one of the reasons why fully-automated trains have been practical and in operation for many decades already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation#Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation#Recor...
littlejohnk 12y ago
"where you just drive up" So clearly an American. I walk up to train stations, not drive.

by wahsd 12y ago

ceejayoz 12y ago

> It simply does not make sense to me anymore to try and build high speed rail on the ground, on fixed "rails" in order to not even get close to even slow airplane speeds. Planes have higher max speeds, but they're subject to weather delays and other issues that bring their average speeds down well into maglev territory. > With the roll-out of more sophisticated air traffic control systems that will allow denser traffic, higher frequency landing / take-offs, I don't see the sense in fixed systems like rail. Significant limits remain - planes simply can't takeoff/land too close together due to things like wake turbulence, unloading a plane through a couple doors and jetways takes much longer than a train, etc. The weather issue is a big factor here, as well - a thunderstorm in Chicago can disrupt the entire nation due to connecting flights. > Do we think that high speed rail will enjoy the freedom that current AMTRAK does where you just drive up, hop on the train and off you go? It does in Europe and Japan.

wahsd 12y ago
You are not thinking objectively, it's quite obvious. Not only will weather impact the operation and speed of a maglev just as much if not more considering that high winds and / or blistering heat can significantly impact the train and track. And if you think that a few storms disrupting the air transportation network is a problem because some idiots thought it was a good idea to make Chicago a hub then you are not thinking about the problem correctly. What you are describing is a process and business problem. Maybe north and north east airports should not be hub airports like any even half witted person would realize, and no matter what, I don't think you could even pay for all the rail lines that would need to be built in order to serve the same number of passengers between the same number of destinations as you can flexibly adapt to with air travel. For example, Southwest started direct flights from DC to Austin two years ago because the demand was so large. You couldn't even get the plans together in the same amount of time it took to plan, permit, coordinate, and implement DC-AUS flights, which are also a connection from some other airport on top of it.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > Not only will weather impact the operation and speed of a maglev just as much if not more considering that high winds and / or blistering heat can significantly impact the train and track. Planes are frequently grounded/delayed by weather systems trains would have no trouble transiting, particularly thunderstorms. > I don't think you could even pay for all the rail lines that would need to be built in order to serve the same number of passengers between the same number of destinations as you can flexibly adapt to with air travel. Once again, you pretend like this doesn't already exist throughout Europe and Japan already.

userbinator 12y ago

Planes, even small ones, require a significant amount of maintenance and the fuel is not cheap either. Also, qualifying and paying someone to operate a vehicle that is essentially constrained to one dimension of movement is far cheaper than doing the same for a vehicle that can move in all 3 dimensions or even 2 (like a bus.) That's one of the reasons why fully-automated trains have been practical and in operation for many decades already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation#Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation#Recor...

littlejohnk 12y ago

"where you just drive up" So clearly an American. I walk up to train stations, not drive.