hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 174 of 320 FirstFirst ... 74124164171172173174175176177184224274 ... LastLast
Results 3,461 to 3,480 of 6396

Thread: US Politics Thread, 2.0

  1. #3461
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    2,926
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post

    Good luck building this Walk-able Utopia. We can't even get Americans to stop drinking High Fructose Corn Syrup.
    Shitty little health campaigns won't cut it.

    What you do is just use government power for once and ban HFCS from common foodstuffs.
    I'd agree, except the people who might do that can't even win an election against Orange Hitler.
    Well the refusal to use the government might have something to do with that.

    Everything they've tried doing for the past 10 years has had this libertarian ethos of nudging you to making better personal "choices" in the market, or spurring some kind of competition to *fingers crossed* help people

    This applies to the ACA, cap and trade, further entrenchment of loans/grants within the educational system, race to the top, their stupid health campaigns, etc

    It's almost like it's incredibly depressing when basic services become commodities and financial instruments. There's no longer an authority that directly intervenes on your behalf for the provision of these services

  2. #3462
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    14,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So can you expand on this with a bit more detail?

    What, specifically, do we need to give up in your system? What sacrifices need to be made? Give some specific examples, please, being general on this leads to too much uncertainty of what your position actually is.

    How do you see life in these newly reorganized cities in your scenario? Do suburbs still exist, or are they banned/abandoned? What else would be part of this reorganization as you see it?
    Walkable cities with functional public transit systems have been a "solved problem" for hundreds of years, the tendency towards car-centric american styled cities gotta go, and yes that means the suburb more or less has got to go long term, the massive sprawl especially American suburbs is simply not sustainable in terms of public transport infrastructure. that doesn't mean 20 story concrete towers and nothing else, but it means less Detroit, more Paris.

    beyond that, flying is out, it's not going to be practically sustainable at scope we do it today, meat is a significantly smaller part of the overall diet in order to maximize agricultural yields to ensure enough to go around as arable land areas shrink overland transit is centred around train lines between metropolitan areas with bus-style services to service areas that aren't viable to put down rail to cover. consumption patterns also have to change significantly, a new phone every 2 years is neat, the fact the damn things aren't actually recycled in any meaningful way is not and importing those from the other side of the planet when the goal is net zero carbon emissions ? are you high?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Also, that line makes it seem like we have only two options, your way, or Brownshirt Nazi's exterminating undesirables. Do you see that as the only two options or would you concede there may be other solutions less "extreme" than wholesale societal reorganization or Nazi camps?
    so what's the imagined third way ? massive camps outside fortress Western Europe/USA where "undesirable" people just get to starve to death ?

    because really, that's just the brown-shirt way while pretending you're not getting your hands dirty.
    Appreciate the reply.

    A follow up, do you not think technology can help defray, at less "give up stuff" levels, the problems it has helped create?

    A quick example is transport. If we develop more advanced electric cars to replace gas cars, and use cleaner, renewable tech for power plants, can our comfortable car-culture lifestyle be retained at a materially lower cost in terms if climate?

    Same goes for air, I don't see a real world where air travel stops being a thing and we go back to ships or just don't have long-distance travel. But I could see advanced tech developing materially cleaner airplanes to replace what we use today.

    I'm married to a vegetarian, and eat a mostly vegetarian diet, so I'm ok with less meat. But could vat-grown meat not provide (presuming additional development of whats available today) a cleaner option than factory farming?

    If people are buying phones every two years, would laws requiring say, 95% recyclable parts and mandatory recycling upon trade-in not help, and perhaps keep our nice phones?

    I'm all for expanding walk-able cities and mass transit, but that is a system easier done in the small scales of long-developed Europe, not the vast scales of mostly-not-developed North America.

    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    You (Isyel) are at the ranking top of all the other users in here that consistently just dishes out insults without any other content. You had it coming. Take it like a man and grow up.
    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    Just in case this isn't clear by now (and it really shouldn't be necessary to point out, you're all grownups) saying that people should be killed because of their political or religious convictions IS NOT FUCKING OK. Tempban handed out in the movie thread. Apply a minimum of self control ffs

  3. #3463
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    13,750
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Appreciate the reply.

    A follow up, do you not think technology can help defray, at less "give up stuff" levels, the problems it has helped create?

    A quick example is transport. If we develop more advanced electric cars to replace gas cars, and use cleaner, renewable tech for power plants, can our comfortable car-culture lifestyle be retained at a materially lower cost in terms if climate?
    where are you going to get the lithium for the batteries ? where is all the infrastructure required to ensure maximal recycling ? why should we be building electric cars when what production capacity we have is better used elsewhere ?
    everything needs to be considered in a cyclical manner with the intent of making it : A carbon neutral and B : as recyclable as possible, because of those requirements the "cost" of production goes up, there is a whole lot of things of things we need before you get to the personal car, much as i enjoy having one myself.

    we're going to be displacing something like 60% of the planet's population over the next 250 years due to sea level rises, and the production facilities we've build thus far don't come with wheels on, to say nothing of what climate change it self has in store.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Same goes for air, I don't see a real world where air travel stops being a thing and we go back to ships or just don't have long-distance travel. But I could see advanced tech developing materially cleaner airplanes to replace what we use today.
    show me a emissions neutral plane that doesn't rely on turning arable land into biomass-forest to achieve that, because the only realistic way to do air travel sustainably requires us to trade agricultural acreage for fuel to the jets, that is in turn going to be a shrinking commodity and one we need to look hard at optimizing the usage of in the first place.

    so if you really want to go down that route, who gets to starve so you can fly to Hawaii ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm married to a vegetarian, and eat a mostly vegetarian diet, so I'm ok with less meat. But could vat-grown meat not provide (presuming additional development of whats available today) a cleaner option than factory farming?
    it's like fusion, sure it would be nice if it was here, but it's still 20 years away and has massive feasibility issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    If people are buying phones every two years, would laws requiring say, 95% recyclable parts and mandatory recycling upon trade-in not help, and perhaps keep our nice phones?
    you also have to build the things, currently that is something functionally restricted to a handful of factories across three regions of china and a couple of plants in south Korea. the problem, you don't seem to to grasp, is that the globalized supply chain we depend so heavily upon today doesn't have a future and that moving production to local, but smaller scale facilities has significant efficiency costs associated with it meaning less total production volume. building simple chips is fairly easy, making 22 nm phone processors less so, and then consider the other applications of such chips.

    the argument is not that people should not have nice things, but that we're not going to be able to make many of the nice things as disposable as we're used to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm all for expanding walk-able cities and mass transit, but that is a system easier done in the small scales of long-developed Europe, not the vast scales of mostly-not-developed North America.
    and now you're just blowing smoke pretending America is a magical place where regular rules and logic do not apply.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  4. #3464
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    14,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Appreciate the reply.

    A follow up, do you not think technology can help defray, at less "give up stuff" levels, the problems it has helped create?

    A quick example is transport. If we develop more advanced electric cars to replace gas cars, and use cleaner, renewable tech for power plants, can our comfortable car-culture lifestyle be retained at a materially lower cost in terms if climate?
    where are you going to get the lithium for the batteries ? where is all the infrastructure required to ensure maximal recycling ? why should we be building electric cars when what production capacity we have is better used elsewhere ?
    everything needs to be considered in a cyclical manner with the intent of making it : A carbon neutral and B : as recyclable as possible, because of those requirements the "cost" of production goes up, there is a whole lot of things of things we need before you get to the personal car, much as i enjoy having one myself.
    I don't know where we're going to get lithium, nor do I know if lithium will be the battery of future times.

    If Recycling is required by law, infrastructure will be built to fill that need/niche. Infrastructure can be built, it's built every day as new things and services are developed (that seems an odd concern to me).

    Individual processes do not need to be Carbon Neutral, society as a whole would need to be.

    We would choose to build electric cars to maintain the lifestyle we enjoy. While I appreciate your "things we need" priorities, you don;t have either the power or authority to decide that for society. Nor will you ever.

    This kind of argument is why I see you as a head-in-clouds Utopian and a would-be Totalitarian. You feel you should be able to determine for the World what is "needed" and decide, for us all, what we need, based on your beliefs. That's an utterly dreamworld proposition.

    In the real World, the United States isn't giving up the freedom of movement provided by car culture. So a better solution than dreamland visions of Dictators deciding there will be no more cars, is to develop cars that are green and pass laws that cars must meet X, Y or Z requirements. While doing so, end subsidies for oil and gasoline, and shift them to green energy vehicles and infrastructure. It'll be hella painful, but it could be done. A world of no cars because "FEAR Not going to happen. Public Policy vs. idealism. Policy will win the day (if it's to be won), not dreams.

    we're going to be displacing something like 60% of the planet's population over the next 250 years due to sea level rises, and the production facilities we've build thus far don't come with wheels on, to say nothing of what climate change it self has in store.
    If you say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Same goes for air, I don't see a real world where air travel stops being a thing and we go back to ships or just don't have long-distance travel. But I could see advanced tech developing materially cleaner airplanes to replace what we use today.
    show me a emissions neutral plane that doesn't rely on turning arable land into biomass-forest to achieve that, because the only realistic way to do air travel sustainably requires us to trade agricultural acreage for fuel to the jets, that is in turn going to be a shrinking commodity and one we need to look hard at optimizing the usage of in the first place.

    so if you really want to go down that route, who gets to starve so you can fly to Hawaii ?
    If I could forsee the technology of the next 250 years, i wouldn't be wasting my time with you. Lets not pretend we all saw the tech of today 250 years ago. It would appear I have more faith in science to develop solutions to problems than you do. Which is amazing, given the massive tech shifts we've seen just in my lifetime.

    To answer, I think you're providing a false choice fallacy. No one has to starve today to have airplanes. People do starve, but not because we have air travel. I can see a future where we can work on both issues, clear travel via better tech and food production without your devil's bargain choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm married to a vegetarian, and eat a mostly vegetarian diet, so I'm ok with less meat. But could vat-grown meat not provide (presuming additional development of whats available today) a cleaner option than factory farming?
    it's like fusion, sure it would be nice if it was here, but it's still 20 years away and has massive feasibility issues.
    We'll all like all the answers now, today. What I would say is this is a question of public priorities. What we fund, and what we see as our vital interests. I'm all for materially more public investment in clean tech and research. We have more than enough money here to fund it materially more than we do today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    If people are buying phones every two years, would laws requiring say, 95% recyclable parts and mandatory recycling upon trade-in not help, and perhaps keep our nice phones?
    you also have to build the things, currently that is something functionally restricted to a handful of factories across three regions of china and a couple of plants in south Korea. the problem, you don't seem to to grasp, is that the globalized supply chain we depend so heavily upon today doesn't have a future and that moving production to local, but smaller scale facilities has significant efficiency costs associated with it meaning less total production volume. building simple chips is fairly easy, making 22 nm phone processors less so, and then consider the other applications of such chips.

    the argument is not that people should not have nice things, but that we're not going to be able to make many of the nice things as disposable as we're used to.
    I have no objection to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm all for expanding walk-able cities and mass transit, but that is a system easier done in the small scales of long-developed Europe, not the vast scales of mostly-not-developed North America.
    and now you're just blowing smoke pretending America is a magical place where regular rules and logic do not apply.
    I am not aware of the "rule" or logic you mean. Nor is there any "magic" in my observation, just an understanding that Americans will not accept a future where the only option to travel from New York to Florida or Chicago or California is to take a State provided train. And I love trains.

    As I say, I think the general level of close-in urban planning and development in Europe is far more conducive to national-level transit services and networks. The nature of the U.S. makes that much harder. Where we have a material amount of untapped potential here is in city-system as opposed to intercity system. Which is, in general, where many cities are today headed, developing new transit options within their cities and surrounding suburbs. The problem is these are exceptionally costly, and fiscal losers and must be subsidized at near 50% for the service, and 100% for capital development.

    Again, appreciate the reply.
    Last edited by Alistair; August 13 2019 at 07:01:55 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    You (Isyel) are at the ranking top of all the other users in here that consistently just dishes out insults without any other content. You had it coming. Take it like a man and grow up.
    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    Just in case this isn't clear by now (and it really shouldn't be necessary to point out, you're all grownups) saying that people should be killed because of their political or religious convictions IS NOT FUCKING OK. Tempban handed out in the movie thread. Apply a minimum of self control ffs

  5. #3465
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm all for expanding walk-able cities and mass transit, but that is a system easier done in the small scales of long-developed Europe, not the vast scales of mostly-not-developed North America.
    and now you're just blowing smoke pretending America is a magical place where regular rules and logic do not apply.
    America has overall a pretty low population density compared to Europe and Asia, and the only place in it where high speed rail is economically viable is the Northeast corridor, which is actually getting a big upgrade soon.

    In that sense, it's not a magical place where regular rules and logic don't apply. High speed trains aren't built in empty suburbia or through wildernesses.

    You're definitely right that suburbs need to go though. The whole culture of "everyone has to have a house with a driveway, yard and a pool" is one of my biggest problems with life in the USA.
    Last edited by Approaching Walrus; August 13 2019 at 07:10:23 PM.

  6. #3466
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm all for expanding walk-able cities and mass transit, but that is a system easier done in the small scales of long-developed Europe, not the vast scales of mostly-not-developed North America.
    and now you're just blowing smoke pretending America is a magical place where regular rules and logic do not apply.
    America is mostly empty land compared to Europe and Asia, and the only place in it where high speed rail is economically viable is the Northeast corridor, which is actually getting a big upgrade soon.
    I mean, SF to LA is like Copenhagen to Amsterdam, and trying to build high speed rail between them quickly turned into 3x cost project that's already 11 years behind schedule. That's in California, where Republicans don't get to cockblock any idea developed after 1965..
    meh

  7. #3467
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,047
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm all for expanding walk-able cities and mass transit, but that is a system easier done in the small scales of long-developed Europe, not the vast scales of mostly-not-developed North America.
    and now you're just blowing smoke pretending America is a magical place where regular rules and logic do not apply.
    America is mostly empty land compared to Europe and Asia, and the only place in it where high speed rail is economically viable is the Northeast corridor, which is actually getting a big upgrade soon.
    I mean, SF to LA is like Copenhagen to Amsterdam, and trying to build high speed rail between them quickly turned into 3x cost project that's already 11 years behind schedule. That's in California, where Republicans don't get to cockblock any idea developed after 1965..
    There's also nothing between LA and SF

    Ironically, there is actually no high speed rail between Amsterdam and Germany/Denmark because of different voltages used in German railways so the Thalys can't operate efficiently in Germany. Which makes flying easier and sometimes cheaper too...
    Last edited by Approaching Walrus; August 13 2019 at 07:26:11 PM.

  8. #3468
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm all for expanding walk-able cities and mass transit, but that is a system easier done in the small scales of long-developed Europe, not the vast scales of mostly-not-developed North America.
    and now you're just blowing smoke pretending America is a magical place where regular rules and logic do not apply.
    America is mostly empty land compared to Europe and Asia, and the only place in it where high speed rail is economically viable is the Northeast corridor, which is actually getting a big upgrade soon.
    I mean, SF to LA is like Copenhagen to Amsterdam, and trying to build high speed rail between them quickly turned into 3x cost project that's already 11 years behind schedule. That's in California, where Republicans don't get to cockblock any idea developed after 1965..
    There's also nothing between LA and SF

    Ironically, there is actually no high speed rail between Amsterdam and Germany/Denmark because of different voltages used in German railways so the Thalys can't operate in Germany. Which makes flying easier and sometimes cheaper too...
    The ticket cost projections for the high speed rail are like 1.5-2x the cost of air travel. The journey, because of the part where you actually have to get from the bit that’s empty where you can go fast into the business district that makes the travel relevant, takes hours longer than air, as well.
    meh

  9. #3469
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    19,775
    I'm not quite sure how making the supply side pay for their economic externalities is totalitarian. A huge amount of the cost of western living is offloaded into the third world, we live a subsided way of life. Balancing the scales isn't totalitarian.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  10. #3470
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    I'm not quite sure how making the supply side pay for their economic externalities is totalitarian. A huge amount of the cost of western living is offloaded into the third world, we live a subsided way of life. Balancing the scales isn't totalitarian.
    You can't balance the scales without an actual world government, and I can't basically see anyone going for that.
    meh

  11. #3471
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,047
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm all for expanding walk-able cities and mass transit, but that is a system easier done in the small scales of long-developed Europe, not the vast scales of mostly-not-developed North America.
    and now you're just blowing smoke pretending America is a magical place where regular rules and logic do not apply.
    America is mostly empty land compared to Europe and Asia, and the only place in it where high speed rail is economically viable is the Northeast corridor, which is actually getting a big upgrade soon.
    I mean, SF to LA is like Copenhagen to Amsterdam, and trying to build high speed rail between them quickly turned into 3x cost project that's already 11 years behind schedule. That's in California, where Republicans don't get to cockblock any idea developed after 1965..
    There's also nothing between LA and SF

    Ironically, there is actually no high speed rail between Amsterdam and Germany/Denmark because of different voltages used in German railways so the Thalys can't operate in Germany. Which makes flying easier and sometimes cheaper too...
    The ticket cost projections for the high speed rail are like 1.5-2x the cost of air travel. The journey, because of the part where you actually have to get from the bit that’s empty where you can go fast into the business district that makes the travel relevant, takes hours longer than air, as well.
    Is that factoring in things like getting to the airport, passing through security, and boarding though? I've taken the Thalys from Amsterdam to Paris and you basically just walk up to the station, board the train, then get off 3 hours later in the center of the city.

    You're right on the price though, it's way more expensive than flying even in glorious walkable EUland with better public transit systems.

  12. #3472
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    14,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm all for expanding walk-able cities and mass transit, but that is a system easier done in the small scales of long-developed Europe, not the vast scales of mostly-not-developed North America.
    and now you're just blowing smoke pretending America is a magical place where regular rules and logic do not apply.
    America has overall a pretty low population density compared to Europe and Asia, and the only place in it where high speed rail is economically viable is the Northeast corridor, which is actually getting a big upgrade soon.

    In that sense, it's not a magical place where regular rules and logic don't apply. High speed trains aren't built in empty suburbia or through wildernesses.

    You're definitely right that suburbs need to go though. The whole culture of "everyone has to have a house with a driveway, yard and a pool" is one of my biggest problems with life in the USA.
    You will take my hard-earned suburban house, with it's driveway, and well...no pool, but a nice serene backyard and tomato garden......from my cold dead hands.

    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    You (Isyel) are at the ranking top of all the other users in here that consistently just dishes out insults without any other content. You had it coming. Take it like a man and grow up.
    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    Just in case this isn't clear by now (and it really shouldn't be necessary to point out, you're all grownups) saying that people should be killed because of their political or religious convictions IS NOT FUCKING OK. Tempban handed out in the movie thread. Apply a minimum of self control ffs

  13. #3473
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm all for expanding walk-able cities and mass transit, but that is a system easier done in the small scales of long-developed Europe, not the vast scales of mostly-not-developed North America.
    and now you're just blowing smoke pretending America is a magical place where regular rules and logic do not apply.
    America is mostly empty land compared to Europe and Asia, and the only place in it where high speed rail is economically viable is the Northeast corridor, which is actually getting a big upgrade soon.
    I mean, SF to LA is like Copenhagen to Amsterdam, and trying to build high speed rail between them quickly turned into 3x cost project that's already 11 years behind schedule. That's in California, where Republicans don't get to cockblock any idea developed after 1965..
    There's also nothing between LA and SF

    Ironically, there is actually no high speed rail between Amsterdam and Germany/Denmark because of different voltages used in German railways so the Thalys can't operate in Germany. Which makes flying easier and sometimes cheaper too...
    The ticket cost projections for the high speed rail are like 1.5-2x the cost of air travel. The journey, because of the part where you actually have to get from the bit that’s empty where you can go fast into the business district that makes the travel relevant, takes hours longer than air, as well.
    Is that factoring in things like getting to the airport, passing through security, and boarding though? I've taken the Thalys from Amsterdam to Paris and you basically just walk up to the station, board the train, then get off 3 hours later in the center of the city.

    You're right on the price though, it's way more expensive than flying even in glorious walkable EUland with better public transit systems.
    I can get on a flight to most places in the western US within an hour, really 30 minutes, but I'm super privileged to live that close to the silicon valley airport, which is actually designed (as much as it can be) to be friction-less and pleasant. SFO is a bit of a zoo, as is LAX, but San Jose to Burbank, I can go from my door to meeting in LA downtown inside of 2:30.

    On the train, they want 2:40 from SF to LA, but they've already basically said that requirement is blown and they can't achieve it with the current plan, so idk. The train tracks they want to use through the Santa Clara Valley are above ground regular tracks with like road crossings. There is no way in hell a 300+km train will work in those built up areas without a massive amount of construction. Same once you hit the mountains north of LA. Suddenly you have to worry about Cletus trying to beat the train in his RAM without massive safety engineering that re-routes roads. Until all of that is done, I think closer to 3-3:30 is going to be achievable.

    Overall, I'm in favor of it, but it just shows the challenges any large scale adoption faces in the US. The product is not competitive.

    I do think maybe driving from San Jose, parking, getting on the train in the I5 corridor, anmd then renting a car ont he other end after a 1:30 train ride, rather than a 4 hour drive, becomes an interesting option, but that's probably still more expensive than a plane flight.
    meh

  14. #3474

  15. #3475
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,047
    ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ BERNIE TAKE MY ENERGY ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

  16. #3476
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    31,480
    Last edited by RazoR; August 14 2019 at 05:15:52 AM.

  17. #3477
    Ruri's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Exclamation, USA
    Posts
    2,163
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    shit's only got worse lmao
    we know comrade. (can we add this to the thread title please)

    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot
    Do you even lift? Do you even post.

    Ass ass ass.

  18. #3478
    Donor Pattern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,022
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'm all for expanding walk-able cities and mass transit, but that is a system easier done in the small scales of long-developed Europe, not the vast scales of mostly-not-developed North America.
    and now you're just blowing smoke pretending America is a magical place where regular rules and logic do not apply.
    America is mostly empty land compared to Europe and Asia, and the only place in it where high speed rail is economically viable is the Northeast corridor, which is actually getting a big upgrade soon.
    I mean, SF to LA is like Copenhagen to Amsterdam, and trying to build high speed rail between them quickly turned into 3x cost project that's already 11 years behind schedule. That's in California, where Republicans don't get to cockblock any idea developed after 1965..
    There's also nothing between LA and SF

    Ironically, there is actually no high speed rail between Amsterdam and Germany/Denmark because of different voltages used in German railways so the Thalys can't operate in Germany. Which makes flying easier and sometimes cheaper too...
    The ticket cost projections for the high speed rail are like 1.5-2x the cost of air travel. The journey, because of the part where you actually have to get from the bit that’s empty where you can go fast into the business district that makes the travel relevant, takes hours longer than air, as well.
    Is that factoring in things like getting to the airport, passing through security, and boarding though? I've taken the Thalys from Amsterdam to Paris and you basically just walk up to the station, board the train, then get off 3 hours later in the center of the city.

    You're right on the price though, it's way more expensive than flying even in glorious walkable EUland with better public transit systems.
    I can get on a flight to most places in the western US within an hour, really 30 minutes, but I'm super privileged to live that close to the silicon valley airport, which is actually designed (as much as it can be) to be friction-less and pleasant. SFO is a bit of a zoo, as is LAX, but San Jose to Burbank, I can go from my door to meeting in LA downtown inside of 2:30.

    On the train, they want 2:40 from SF to LA, but they've already basically said that requirement is blown and they can't achieve it with the current plan, so idk. The train tracks they want to use through the Santa Clara Valley are above ground regular tracks with like road crossings. There is no way in hell a 300+km train will work in those built up areas without a massive amount of construction. Same once you hit the mountains north of LA. Suddenly you have to worry about Cletus trying to beat the train in his RAM without massive safety engineering that re-routes roads. Until all of that is done, I think closer to 3-3:30 is going to be achievable.

    Overall, I'm in favor of it, but it just shows the challenges any large scale adoption faces in the US. The product is not competitive.

    I do think maybe driving from San Jose, parking, getting on the train in the I5 corridor, anmd then renting a car ont he other end after a 1:30 train ride, rather than a 4 hour drive, becomes an interesting option, but that's probably still more expensive than a plane flight.
    A bit of research I've seen on the topic suggests electric airtravel is more likely than high speed rail to cover the high speed cross country gap.

  19. #3479
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    19,775
    How environmentally friendly is flinging people across the country with trebuchet?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  20. #3480
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    <big post, snipped>
    Alistair, the main issue with your view of the future is that we cannot keep on using as much energy as we currently do. As of now, less than 10% of the world's energy consumption is provided by renewables, nuclear is less than 5% as well. We absolutely, totally, have cut down energy consumption unless you can feasibly think how to increase nuclear and renewable energy sources by a tenfold in a short time span we have left. We really need to become carbon neutral fast (we don't have 250 years, we probably are already too late) and to achieve that, reducing energy consumption is a must - once we hit that and can start producing energy only using renewables, then car culture using electric vehicles can become possible (assuming they can be fully recycled etc.)

    But I'm a nihilist, I assume this will never happen and we'll hit 5-6 degree temperature increase and 20-50 feet sea level raise, with included ecosystem collapse. I'll try to do my part (no car, limit my consumption to services, no flying unless work mandates it), but I understand that personal choices will never make an effect on anything unless drastic policy changes are made.

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •