patrick.net

kt1652 says

Again, HS rail is not the only solution, just one of many.

And I think everyone here so far would agree. It has its place. Just doesn't make a ton of sense with our current infrastructure and the future outlook for where and how people will work in the future.

Not just China, they're the newest best tech and build super quick. Japan, S p ain, France, Germany.
You need to go ride on one.
BART, NY subways are butt fuk jokes in comparison.

kt1652 says

You need to go ride on one.
BART, NY subways are butt fuk jokes in comparison.

You need to buy a Tesla, they're fun to drive (they are).

Doesn't make it the best or right solution. We're all assholes here, but that's generally what everyone is trying to tell you. High speed is a ticket to more debt, at least in the states. Works great in Europe. China fine. That doesn't mean Shaq O'Neil having sex with a midget is going to work out well. Big peg, small hole? Or round peg, square hole? Whatever, you get it.

"At risk of sounding like a shameless flack for Chinese infrastructure, I can report that the rail station in  Chengdu was huge, attractive, well-designed, brightly lit, and full of people. I know, I know, I keep saying things like this. Well, dammit, they are true. As a self-respecting journalist, I don’t like to tell the truth too often, but here I will break with tradition.

Having gotten tickets beforehand we waited until our train was called, in Mandarin and English, as was true also in the city’s subway. Apparently Chengdu wants to be an international city and someone thought about it.

Anyway, the train pulled in and looked like a freaking rocketship. We boarded and found it to be clean and comfortable, with most of the seats filled. Off we went, almost in silence, and shortly were sailing through countryside.

At a cool 180 miles an hour. It was like stepping into a future world. I thought about buying one of these trains and entering it in Formula One, but I suspect that it would not corner well."
Fred Reeds, googLe it, friend.
I gotta work.

kt1652 says

Fred Reeds, googLe it, friend.
I gotta work.

No. You had the time to quote it, could have just posted a link. Lazy plain and simple (not personal, just fact).

kt1652 says

Anyway, the train pulled in and looked like a freaking rocketship.

Cool. Our rocket ship would cost 4x's more. It would be more reliable and kill less people overall (that we know about), but again, debt. Logic. Apples to apples. Stop bringing up China or Europe. Cortex and others here have posted why it's not logical. Yet you keep posting about the same things. Post something countering it besides "beautiful" or the "greatest" trains mankind has seen. You're sounding a bit like someone I think you dislike.

Bottom line, the train they were building in California sucked. Even if they managed to finish this thing in the next 20 years, it was still going to be a 4+ hour haul since they were going to be at reduced speeds at the metro connections. There are just too many easier, cheaper and more convenient flight options out there.

I routinely take the 6:40AM flight from San Diego to Oakland or San Jose and can make it to a 10:00AM meeting pretty much anywhere in the Bay Area and make it home for dinner.

kt1652 says

America’s most productive cities are notoriously short of housing.

The fastest growing city in US in last few years was Houston, yet there is no "shortage" of housing despite a megaflood 1.5 yrs ago which devastated ca. 8% of houses. Housing is also not particularly expensive there. I wonder what is different between extremely fast-growing Houston, San Antonio, Dallas on one hand, and Boston, New York, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle on the other hand.

Another issue with (fast) trains is that track has to be built on someone's land. In China, they will just bulldoze your house; in US, luckily, that is somewhat more difficult.

From someone who proposed building more airports...lol.
2008, This site was belly aching of outrages RE prices in SFBA. What happened? Did it self correct? Lol.
Did anyone try to do better?
The landlock geography, tremendous growth of social media tech, google...today it is not better, it us worse.
So, you have no solution.
Just yelling.
We have subsidized the oil industrial complex for a looong time, at a very high cost.
You act like there is only one way to go forward - the same way we did for the last 100 years.
Pathetic. Potus pound the table for lower oil price every few weeks. What next, occupy every oil field in the world by force?

kt1652 says

From someone who proposed building more airports...lol.

Sensible intercity and interregion passenger rail infrastructure should be part of the "basics" kit for modern Western civ.

It is highly durable, cost effective on reasonable timescales, creates permanence and sense of place for people and businesses establishing in the catchment areas. Most importantly, in my opinion, it creates transportation choices for citizens and transportation resiliency in the face of fuel price spikes, union strikes, and security state intrusion at e.g. airports.

Whether or not California is an incubator for porkbarrel contractor handouts, representative graft, and opportunistic letigiousness is certainly relevant. However, the value of these basic amenities should not be understated.

kt1652 says

You act like there is only one way to go forward - the same way we did for the last 100 years.

This seems more like progress and the way forward to me.

www.youtube.com/embed/2W80V54i8no

Shot down by patnetters, are you outta your f×÷ken mind?
An flying EV! Where would I mount my confederate flag post?
It will cost a million bucks, on l y Zuckerberg can afford one.

socal2 says

This seems more like progress and the way forward to me.

Didn't watch the whole video, but this is it. You can have single lane traffic at different altitudes and have them merge over into the air (space) that likely already exists and descent to their destination. Like front door type shit. And it could all be automated. What was a congested city street would be non-existent. Existing roads are opened up to bikes for 90% of the usage. Yet people want to spend billions on traveling to the next city over, in a longer time than air travel?

We have planes to travel distances. Trying to recreate that wheel is just stupid. Obviously make that industry better, but unless you're allowed to break the sound barrier with air travel, I'm not sure what beats it. Not trains. In America at least. The shipping industry would love high speed trains, but it make no sense for people moving with the size of America.

I seriously hope you joking.

kt1652 says

I seriously hope you joking.

Why and about what? If you're talking to me. If you think trains are the future, you've got to be joking, not me.

kt1652 says

It will cost a million bucks, on l y Zuckerberg can afford one.

They are saying the Blackfly will sell for about the same price as a high end SUV.

WookieMan says

kt1652 says

I seriously hope you joking.

Why and about what? If you're talking to me. If you think trains are the future, you've got to be joking, not me.

You are ignorant of energy utilization efficiency Each of us flying on our personal aircraft to work!!
You are also clueless of vehicle cost for pie-in-the sky tech.
You extrapolate small numbers to large, without understanding the economics. E.g. a $20 million 777 is way more cost efficient than passengers flying solo, if that is even feasible. It is pointless. You also think "a solution" must be the best in every possible scenario, region or it's no good. A train is a train, right? A maglev train network is more advanced than a 767 in many ways but you still need other transportation progress, e.g. EV, autonomous buses, uber style car share...
We don't start building HS rail to every town on the map, you start where it is needed the most.
In 2008 I joked, the median price SFBA home may reach ludicrous $800k. So funny, looking back. There were no HS rail in China in 2008. Today, it is the envy of the world, outside patnet, anyway.

WookieMan says

Didn't watch the whole video, but this is it. You can have single lane traffic at different altitudes and have them merge over into the air (space) that likely already exists and descent to their destination. Like front door type shit. And it could all be automated.

Air traffic control can totally be managed with software. Its a HUGE sky up there. We already have self-driving cars that can deal with way more complex traffic and physical obstacles that wouldn't be present in the sky.

kt1652 says

You are ignorant of energy utilization efficiency Each of us flying on our personal aircraft to work!!
You are also clueless of vehicle cost for pie-in-the sky tech.

All you got to do is get about 10-20% of the daily commuters to take the flying drone option and you fix traffic gridlock in alot of major cities overnight.

I envision the flying drones to be computer operated Uber type service that is locked into a unified air traffic control grid. The drone will only need to do about 100 mph under 1,000 feet dropping people off at various mini-landing sites throughout the busy metro areas. .

We pretty much already have the technology available now and just need to get the government regulations, software and battery tech in sync. Hopefully in the next 10 years,

This approach seems far better, faster, more environmentally friendly and less daunting than building thousands of miles of new freeway lanes, railroad tracks, bridges, tunnels and everything that goes with it.

kt1652 says

You are ignorant of energy utilization efficiency Each of us flying on our personal aircraft to work!!

You do understand that it's a matter of years, not decades before we have drones that can fly you around with the same batteries that are in Teslas, right? I dislike the guy and thought he was an idiot for trying what he was doing, but Musk has made MASSIVE waves in a short amount of time in what, a top 5 global industry? Creating a EV out of thin air and doing it better or as good compared to the grandfathers of the industry. Pie-in-the sky I suppose. Tell that to D-bag Musk.

kt1652 says

There were no HS rail in China in 2008. Today, it is the envy of the world, outside patnet, anyway.

And what does their (China) HS rail do? Essentially moves slaves to their jobs. If you got into the books, I can promise you China is losing money on their HS rail. They can cook the books with the best of them though and it's getting the slaves to work, so yeah, it's a good system we should mimic it. Just because a train is fast (not as fast as flight) doesn't mean it's economical. Not even close.

socal2 says

We pretty much already have the technology available now and just need to get the government regulations, software and battery tech in sync. Hopefully in the next 10 years,

This approach seems far better, faster, more environmentally friendly and less daunting than building thousands of miles of new freeway lanes, railroad tracks, bridges, tunnels and everything that goes with it.

YES. I think some people need to find a buddy with a decent drone or something. At the consumer level, I think you'd be astonished what a $1k drone can do with ZERO skill or knowledge in operating the damn thing.

Yes, it's not picking up heavy weight (yet), but it's a matter of time. Outside of prepping the thing before takeoff, I've had a completely preprogramed flight ready to go and it flies it without issue, flawlessly. As socal is saying, the tech is probably actually there now. FAA and ATC are the one's lagging.

Collision avoidance is already built into drones. So local or physical avoidance is there already. Throw in a better ATC grid and you have a pretty solid system in place. The problem is train lobbyist sucking up valuable time/money from what will be the future.

Freight trains are and will always be here to stay. Trains moving people, in a hundred years will be looked at like horse transportation. It will be around still, but it will be a novelty. Praise Chinese trains all you want, at the end of the day we'll be laughing at them in 50 years for those of us that can.

WookieMan says

kt1652 says

You are ignorant of energy utilization efficiency Each of us flying on our personal aircraft to work!!

You do understand that it's a matter of years, not decades before we have drones that can fly you around with the same batteries that are in Teslas, right? I dislike the guy and thought he was an idiot for trying what he was doing, but Musk has made MASSIVE waves in a short amount of time in what, a top 5 global industry? Creating a EV out of thin air and doing it better or as good compared to the grandfathers of the industry. Pie-in-the sky I suppose. Tell that to D-bag Musk.

kt1652 says

There were no HS rail in China in 2008. Today, it is the envy of the world, outside patnet, anyway.

And what does their (China) HS rail do? Essentially moves slaves to their jobs. If you got into...

Again, example of patnet talking out of both cheeks. When EV/renewable enervy is bad - Musk is a scammer, Tesla is a accounting pyramid heading to bkcy. When EV drones are "good", (hey we found a story n I'm sticking to it.) Elon is a visionary, ahead of his time.
"Chinese trains are going to crash, fail, it'll never work. They also said that in 2012.
Why don't you try "highest effective utilization of a unit of energy per unit of dustance", at a scale of billions of people context.
This is almost surreal to me.

Trains do have the advantage that they generally stop in the centers of cities, unlike airports, which are almost always on the peripheries.

I lived in Germany for two years and was very impressed with the train system there. Of course it is a much denser country than the US overall.

And trains are actually quite energy efficient, even passenger trains (as long as they are full of passengers).

kt1652 says

When EV/renewable enervy is bad - Musk is a scammer, Tesla is a accounting pyramid heading to bkcy

I dislike Musk, don't think he's an honest person. Never said he was a scammer. Never said what he's done was bad, kind of thought it was praise. Ultimately like what he's done so far to the auto industry. Surreal, I know, I guess...

kt1652 says

Why don't you try "highest effective utilization of a unit of energy per unit of dustance", at a scale of billions of people context.

Not ultimately sure what you've said here. You've kind of proven the population density point though if I'm understanding the few words spelled correctly. TRAINS WORK AND MAKE SENSE IN CHINA!!!! No one here has disputed that. Move on from China. We're talking about the states and I think for many here, specifically, California.

A single train line, from point A to B (who cares what city) is a nothing burger in the USA. It IS going to cost residents that DON'T use it money. It WON'T be profitable or break even. I don't understand the disconnect at this point. If it worked here it would be working ALREADY!!! Money is money at the end of the day and people will find ways to make it. People moving trains, over distances (even 100 miles) is stupid here. Do an Amtrak search, check the prices and get back. Then add speed and all that shit and quadruple the price and you'll understand why trains won't solve shit. Then stop in a city every 8-12 miles and you're essentially going 50 mph when you could be doing 480mph in a jet.

Look I was typing on a phone, on a slow work hour. If you don't think proposing everyone to fly on electric drones as a mass transport solution is absurd, I guess we agree to disagree. In the real world, solutions have to be proven, technically and the economics of the solution simulated extensively. I saw one on YouTube is nonsense.
It us a failure of the state of Calif to not address something so important. Having made no progress for 20 years. We are living the consequences. SFBA RE prices. Can't go back in time.

Europe is set up differently: Dense Satellite Cities surrounding the Major City.

The US is endless suburbs outward.

In a European Satellite City, their suburbs, the train station is 10-15 blocks from your Dense Residential Apartment Complex, so you walk or bike.
In a US Suburb, the Suburban Train Station is 5 miles from your SFH, you must take a car.

Patrick says

Trains do have the advantage that they generally stop in the centers of cities, unlike airports, which are almost always on the peripheries.

1. Problem is that I do not live in a center of a city.

2. "They" are talking now of a high-speed train line connecting Houston and Dallas. One reason for why it can't get much out of planning stage is that landowners are dead set against giving up their land. TX landowners already killed Trans-American highway, supported by Rick Perry and nearly every politician/Big Business entity. I am 100% sure they will be able to kill also the train...and Big and Beautiful Border Wall...and anything else that will be encroaching on their land. They are not afraid to stand up for what has been theirs for many generations.

kt1652 says

If you don't think proposing everyone to fly on electric drones as a mass transport solution is absurd, I guess we agree to disagree.

Who is saying "everyone"?

As I pointed out yesterday, you only need to get about 10-20% of the daily commuters to get off the freeways (either through air drones, carpooling, telecommuting and light rail) and gridlock in big major cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle and the Bay Area are solved instantly without having to build thousands of miles of new concrete freeway lanes, bridges and tunnels that takes decades to build.

I totally agree with you that we need to find better ways to get people living way out in the suburbs to commute into the city for their jobs to help with the high cost of housing. But how would you do that with high-speed rail in a city like Los Angeles? Would you build 10-20 different train lines going out in every direction in a spoke and wheel pattern to cover the commuters coming from Riverside, Orange County and San Bernardino? That is a pretty difficult thing to build in an already built out city, let alone California. It is alot easier for China to build a train line out into the country and then build a community around it.

I really believe we can get a safe fleet of drone taxis out to market quicker than building thousands of miles of new train lines or extra freeway lanes.

d6rB says

They are not afraid to stand up for what has been theirs for many generations.

Yep.

But they don't control the big open sky. That's the future.......at least the future I want to live in.

www.youtube.com/embed/JuWOUEFB_IQ

socal2 says

But they don't control the big open sky. That's the future.......at least the future I want to live in.

I recall that there was litigation in 1920's when landowners refused to allow airplanes to fly above their land claiming that the sky above their land is private property. They lost.

socal2 is spot on. There's really no disputing it. Fact is the drone market is much more scalable. I can't buy my own train. I can buy a car and use the road, but that's the most common means of transportation and congested. Anyone can buy a drone or would be able to like a car. Transportation services, government, individuals. Fixing transportation with trains is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Making trains 100% freight would also save LOADS of money too.

Fly a decent drone. Your opinion will change pretty quick. The tech is coming and coming fast. Just have to get the FAA on board and coordinated with ATC (tech and verbally if needed). Fact is drones work pretty much everywhere with almost ZERO infrastructure changes. Most the changes would be put on the back of private corps, everyone's favorite thing to do. They can build out the roof or ground areas where customers or employees would land. The gov. wouldn't have to touch it, but just let it happen (with some regulation of course).

This is the future. Honestly not even sure what the argument is at this point anymore. Build a train that goes 300mph and stops every 8 miles to average 60mph with 400 greasy ass people on it? Or grab a drone and fly at 40-50mph as the crow flies directly to your destination.

WookieMan says

Fixing transportation with trains is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

The cynic in me thinks Progressives love trains because it gives them greater control over people and how we choose to live our lives. They want top down central planned cities like they had in the Communist era where people will be forced to live near the government mandated transportation systems. They hate it that people have fled their failing cities and have moved out to the suburbs to escape the crime, dysfunction, crappy schools, shit on the streets and high taxation.

Drones will give people too much freedom in how we organize our lives and work...........and some people on the Left see that as a bad thing.

The tech is coming and coming fast. Just have to get the FAA on board and coordinated with ATC (tech and verbally if needed).

You left out costs. These would be million dollar vehicles with very high insurance costs. Total costs of operating one of these would be at least $500/hr.

Energy efficiency matrices is a bit (very) complex. One of the major factors is the number of occupants of any type (avg. maintenance cost + base_cost/commute + cost/passenger/commute)
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/cars-weigh-too-much -gives a basic comparison.

HeadSet says

You left out costs. These would be million dollar vehicles with very high insurance costs. Total costs of operating one of these would be at least $500/hr.

Maybe the bigger multi-passenger drones will cost a bit more.

But there are smaller single passenger drones that will cost less than a Tesla X and like most electric vehicles, will have very little maintenance or operations costs. Put a ballistic parachute on each unit with tons of external and internal airbags, and this mode of travel would be safer than what I do every day on my 50 mile round trip commute driving buy thousands of terrible drivers on 5 lanes of concrete while they are texting and putting their makeup on.

But there are smaller single passenger drones that will cost less than a Tesla X and like most electric vehicles,

Not so. Price a very simple in comparison Cessna 172. The Cessna has no self fly computers, basic flight controls, and a single air cooled piston engine. Yet a new one will cost about $300k. If you really want a shock, price the cheapest piston powered helicopter.

Even a small 2 seater drone will need the auto fly computers, multiple engines, sensors, instrumentation, communications, and transponders of some sort. You are looking at a million dollar machine. Now add insurance.

Think about it, why does a low end aircraft like the Cessna cost more than a Rolls Royce?

HeadSet says

Think about it, why does a low end aircraft like the Cessna cost more than a Rolls Royce?

I think comparing a Cessna to a commuter drone is an apples to oranges comparison. I believe a Cessna is expected to have 30+ years of useful life and designed to fly much longer distances at higher altitudes. My co-worker has a Cessna Cardinal that is nearly 50 years old with a rebuilt engine and brand new avionics. I think commuter drones will be much smaller, lighter and less complex designed only to do short 25 mile trips getting commuters in and out of the big cities.

The makers of the Blackfly flying vehicle are aiming for a price of an American SUV. It will hopefully get even cheaper as they bring the costs of batteries down.
https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/blackfly-flying-car-price?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4

In comparison, a single light-rail trolley car can cost over $3 million.........not including the millions it costs to build and maintain the tracks, bridges and tunnels.

Blue says

Energy efficiency matrices is a bit (very) complex. One of the major factors is the number of occupants of any type (avg. maintenance cost + base_cost/commute + cost/passenger/commute)
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/cars-weigh-too-much -gives a basic comparison.

Energy balance and physics.
Man, for a while I was sadden that an entire forum is lacking the understanding of energy expenditure metrics.
Energy/weight density of batteries is abysmally low, extremely unsuitable for aircraft power.
Folks, flying drones will now need to be 4 or 5 seaters or else they are toys.
But their rate of utilization is still a couple hours a day and the cost and watts/mile will go off-chart compare to EV, buses, rail, uber…

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/electric-airplanes-2/

The age of Electric Aviation is just 30 Years Away. Let that sink it.

“The problem is, batteries simply do not offer the power-to-weight ratio or cost needed to be feasible, and will not for some time. The technological advancements that allowed Tesla to squeeze 335 miles from the Model S and Chevrolet to get 200 out of the Bolt are not enough to power anything more than the smallest aircraft for the shortest distance.”
Wishful thinking.

kt1652 says

The age of Electric Aviation is just 30 Years Away. Let that sink it.

And the age of high speed trains in America?

California has just spent 10 years and billions of dollars trying to build a section of track on the easiest and flattest part of the State with tons of political support including Federal funding - and what do we have to show for it in 2019? Latest estimates would put completion out until 2033 and billions over budget.........which is still probably 10-20 years too optimistic. So realistically, we are looking at 30+ years to build it in California.

kt1652 says

he technological advancements that allowed Tesla to squeeze 335 miles from the Model S and Chevrolet to get 200 out of the Bolt are not enough to power anything more than the smallest aircraft for the shortest distance.”

All you need is something that can fly about 20 miles and that covers the majority of the big city commuters causing the majority of traffic congestion.

There are so many big cities that are hampered with choke points like bridges and tunnels which would cost TRILLIONS to upgrade to add extra lanes. Commuter drones could solve that problem overnight at a fraction of the cost and be way more convenient and quicker for the passengers. Win win win.....

So I was right, only Zuckerberg and his friends, can afford it.
For work commute, wouldn't it be easier to get an ap to link people together and carpool in a Tesla model x?
If that model x is autonomous, the rate of utilization goes up 5 - 10x, which will drop the $/mile to 1/3.
Uh, that is the reason Uber is worth $100 billion without making any money yet.

If personal EV drone is not a solution for today, why are we talking about it.