Let me ask you: What’s the price difference?
And all these tens of millions of cars will all be in perfect operational condition, right?
I take it that you are unfamiliar with the bullet trains in Japan and such, then?
Hell is other people. I would pay more or take more time just to avoid sitting next to people on the train. Even flying isn’t fast enough to make up the difference until you start getting over 1,000 miles for me. Unless I could get a private room for less than the car price I’d never take the train.
Why would it be much different? You are simply taking the front seats and rotating them around to give you a nice spacious cabin. You don’t need to increase the size at all. Something the size of an SUV with no need for driver space would be gigantic inside. But even a normal sedan sized vehicle with saloon seating would be very spacious.
Because cities have what a lot of us want. Mostly, they have other people.
I like living in a city, and my job is not why (my job is half a world away, usually)
The internet isn’t giving me any of the things the city gives me. Rural places aren’t getting Uber Eats from 100 restaurants.
And kids are not being educated remotely long-term. Neither the parents nor the kids want that.
Covid is a blip, not the new normal. I would not base my futurist analyses on it.
The 70s called, they want their scaremongering back. Yes, there’s a spike in violent crime the past year. Again, see what I said about Covid…
…to you. Not me.
You’re absolutely right but as a fairly hard-core environmentalist I take it very seriously. That it aligns with libertarianism matters not to me.
I mostly agree with Sam here. Passenger rail only makes environmental sense in a few areas in the US. With rampant nimbyism the costs will be even higher in those areas. We’d be better off spending that infrastructure money on electric airplane tech and self-driving electric taxis.
I think what Sam’s not realizing is that tons of people have preferences that are different from his and that would favor trains over cars in most circumstances. Tons of people have tons of different preferences – similar to Sam’s or different than his. Autonomous luxury limos would, if cost-effective and efficient, be popular with lots of folks. But so would comfortable high speed rail.
I have no idea, since I can’t predict the tech 20 years from now. But if your own personal car is self-driving, you just take your car. Then it costs you whatever it costs to drive an electric car that distance, which isn’t much. When you get to your destination it drops you off then drives itself to a parking lot. You summon it lkke a cab when you’re done, and the next time you get out of the car it’s in your garage at home.
If you rent a car, Imassume it would be cheaper than renting a car today, because right now you rent for a full day, whereas here yiu are just renting for the duration of the trip, and unless we badly screw up the grid the cost of electricity will be lower than the cost of gas today.
It’s nothing like renting a cab, because the major cost in a cab is the salary of the driver.
For low cost options we could also see electric buses like this:
https://www.caranddriver.com/volkswagen/id-buzz-microbus
I did a LOT of business travel with a small team. usually four or five of us. We’d almost always fly, but if we had a self-driving bus that allowed us to keep working while we went in four comfortable seats with lap desks, it would have been better for the company and kore comfortable for us for any trip that we could take in less than a day.
Because a 3-hour flight also includes a half hour drive to the airport, a two hour wait at the airport, the three hour flight, another half hour to wait for luggage and catch a cab, and then another half hour to,drive to the hotel. In other words, a full day of travel.
If I could sit in a comfortable enclosed environment for six hours with a meal break, I’d much rather do that. And if the whole team travels in one of those and saves five airline tickets and allows us to get a full day’s work done on the trip, it’s a huge win for the company.
Any destintation which requires a three-hour flight is not going to be reachable with a six-hour drive, unless that car is doing 200+ mph.
Having ridden Amtrak from both Seattle and Portland to MSP, and also south from SFO, I can only say: Fix the damned existing tracks first before expanding anywhere else. The tracks on the northern tier are in horrible condition and I can only assume it’s the same everywhere else. The flooding of the Red River years ago damaged long stretches of track which were replaced with temporary track that limit train speed to about 15mph. As I recall, the pubs refused to fund permanent repairs at the time. The temporary tracks are not only slow, but very dangerous, and derailments have happened (we were delayed in departing Portland because of one), resulting in more temporary track being laid down and further slowing train travel. Combine that with the fact that passenger trains must yield to freight trains and you have a 45-50 hour transition from PDX to MSP.
As for high-speed rail, I agree that it seems impractical in a country with huge expanses of sparsely populated areas. But it would be nice if there were dedicated tracks for passenger rail alongside the freight tracks.
I’ll note that those tracks aren’t owned by Amtrak, but by a private freight railroad. Amtrak does own tracks in some areas (nearly all of them in the Northeast), but in most areas (including the ones you mention), they’re leasing track rights from the freight railroads.
The Empire Builder (the route which runs from MSP to Portland and Seattle) is running on BNSF rails, I believe.
I’m not missing that at all. Of course people have different preferences. Of course many people love living in the city.
Change happens on the margins. A fundamental principle of economics. When I say that trends do not favor cities, I mean that on the margins. New York will always be there. The question is whether the trend will be for it to get larger or smaller.
Look at Detroit. Its population grew from 500,000 in 1910 to 1.8 million in 1950. It was considered the city of the future, the hub of American manufacturing. No one expected Detroit to actually shrink. But by 1980 the population had dropped to 1.2 million.
Then it got worse. Today, Detroit’s population is just under 700,000 - right back to what it was in 1920. So in the space of the lifetime of the proposed train system, Detroit grew to three times its size and then regressed back to its original size.
And change is more rapid today.
I think you overestimate the readiness state of self driving vehicles and the infrastructure they would require to operate at the level of sophistication you prognosticate. Mass transit solutions remain not only more dependable and efficient, but also more realistic given the 20-50 year window into the future. I also don’t think it should be an either/or proposition. The same technological energy advances that make electric vehicles more practical and efficient will benefit mass transit energy efficiency. Even if per passenger cost on a train never reaches the economic level of an electric car, there are other efficiencies in moving large numbers of people at very high speeds that cars simply cannot achieve in the same amount of time. Sure one day cars will fly. But not in 20-50 years.
There’s no reason to believe that today’s change, or tomorrow’s change, disfavors cities, or disfavors high speed rail. The arguments you’ve presented are more about your personal preference than significant changes that would objectively disfavor cities and rail.
Okay, nit-picker. Call it a two hour flight.
Let’s not forget that if we are talking about HSR, there would be very limited routes, and probably longish drives from the train station for all hut the luckiest people. And if we are talking about something lkke Amtrack, it’s no faster than cars, especially when you factormin the time to get to and from the statikn and the lead time for security , ticket lines, etc.
Here’s another question: Would you still ride the train instead of driving if you had to go through the kind of security theater you have to endure when you fly?
Also, what happens if terrorists start derailing trains? Train infrastructure is much more vulnerable to being crippled by terrorism or war. Roads are webs, and damage can be routed around. Trains are brittle infrastructure. Even more than airplanes, because they can be attacked from outside with very low tech. An idiot with a welder and some steel wedges can derail a train.
The highways comprehensive enough to serve all cities fairly directly are already built. Their usage patterns may and likely will vary in the future but new interstates are not on the table. Maintaining them is a committed cost with or without new rail lines.
A new railway line though, or even upgrading existing ones to handle faster trains, is a new additional investment based on a speculative bet of future need.
Why do you insist on arguing about this as if it’s an either/or proposition? Car manufacturers will continue to build smarter cars even while an improved mass transit system infrastructure is developed. Also, fear of terrorism isn’t a reason not to have mass public transport. Who thinks like that?
Why do you think that great leaps in technology can be achieved with cars but not in mass transit security protocols? You don’t believe that more efficient screening can be implemented using the same advanced AI tech that will be used for self driving cars?
Again, Sam, you’re naively focusing here only on the personal experience of user convenience and comfort, and completely ignoring the accompanying transit logistics issues.
You can’t just assume that, say, a three-hundred-passenger train is perfectly replaceable by three hundred individual single-passenger autonomous vehicles over a several-hour trip. Your hypothesized transit infrastructure has to create and maintain all those individual vehicles, provide adequate highway structure to accommodate all of them driving back and forth with all their individual passengers every day, and enable urban and suburban streets to handle all the extra traffic that they’ll create.
For moving large numbers of people over approximately the same routes between high-population areas day after day, multi-passenger mass transit vehicles on more or less fixed schedules, collecting and dispersing passengers at fixed transit hubs, are always going to be more efficient than large numbers of unscheduled individual vehicles. No amount of libertarian daydreaming about private limos with mini fridges is ever going to change that.
Yeah, depending on how one defines “a few”, I don’t think we’re in fundamental disagreement on that. Fixed-route mass transit is intended for situations where one frequently has to move masses of people over a fixed route, kind of by definition. There are a lot of passenger journeys in the US that don’t meet those criteria.
Libertarians who are clutching at any anti-mass-public-transport argument they can come up with, because being fundamentally opposed to mass public transport is their premise rather than their conclusion.
It might make it easier to understand all of this if you realize that the arguments are coming from a place of:
“How can I convince the world to buy more diluted bitumen from Alberta?”
This is how Sam can argue against public transportation and in favor of EV’s in one thread, and argue that EV’s will never be practical in another thread.
The commonality with everything is “Buy more bitumen from Alberta please”
Back in the Before Times, I frequently flew between BWI and Tampa. It’s about a 2 hour, 20 minute flight. It’s about 900 miles by car.