Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Living Car Free (https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/)
-   -   High Speed Rail: what do other know that we don't? (https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/1172245-high-speed-rail-what-do-other-know-we-dont.html)

FiftySix 05-12-19 09:50 PM


Originally Posted by tandempower (Post 20926141)
You have to share roads and highways with other cars when you drive.

You have to share planes with other passengers when you fly.

The difference with trains and buses is that you can stand up and use the bathroom without pulling off the road. Flying would be fine if it didn't burn so much fuel and make so much noise and fill up the skies with traffic.

Trains would ultimately be better, but there's just no way to stop them from becoming cancelled projects that ultimately served no other purpose than to put money in people's pockets to spend on driving.

Somehow buses have to evolve as a bridge between flying and trains, but it's a huge cultural challenge for people who just can't understand the limitations of air-travel and driving because that's what they see as normal and thus accept uncritically.

I think I wrote it elsewhere, but I spent a lot of time in buses in my young adulthood for about two years straight. City buses and intercity buses. Gawd dang they take a long time to get anywhere.

I'd walk to the city bus stop to take the city bus to get me near the intercity bus station. Ride that intercity bus until my stop, which may be in some downtown or on the side of a highway. Sometimes I could share a taxi to get me close to my destination, but that was rare when the intercity bus would drop you off in the middle of nowhere after 12am.

Plus, you get to hang out with some real weird people on buses. At least on planes, most weird people keep their mouths shut. In bus stations or on buses, OMG the things people will do and say.

My oldest kid (28) and my wife have lots of experience on intercity buses, too. In all cases we took those buses because we couldn't afford anything better at those times.

Not counting charter buses or park and ride buses, city buses and intercity buses are for people that don't want to spend much money on transportation. I don't see buses in the USA becoming express buses unless they have their own roadway. Might as well have high speed trains with their own railway.

KraneXL 05-14-19 02:42 AM


Originally Posted by mtb_addict (Post 20928144)
Not true...people are compensated. But the process is much easier than US. Becuase in US, a small hand full of people can derail an effort. This is what is known as tyranny of the minority. Society does not live up to its potential because a small hand full of people refusing to accept progress.

Absolutely. And that is evident in no greater area than the medical/pharmaceutical industry. Look how many years it took before cannabis became legal because a small group stymied the system. It was even illegal for scientist and doctors to test it for any medical application. How can you declare its all bad if nobody every tested it?

There are many other remedies and possible cure that are being artificially held back because there's too much money to be made selling people alternative drugs that merely mask the symptoms. The entire medical industry works under that paradigm, with very little incentive to advance forward.

There are many others, but its petroleum that is number one on this list. Since it is unlikely a HSR system would be powered by fossil fuel (most certainly not directly), that's the industry that stands to lose the most if the system were ever implemented. Look there if you want to find where the true resistance originates.

tandempower 05-14-19 02:42 PM


Originally Posted by mtb_addict (Post 20928144)
Not true...people are compensated. But the process is much easier than US. Becuase in US, a small hand full of people can derail an effort. This is what is known as tyranny of the minority. Society does not live up to its potential because a small hand full of people refusing to accept progress.

Ah, but to some people society's fullest potential is for everyone to drive and pay car-payments, insurance, etc.; so for those people, investing in rail projects that fail or only provide very limited and/or expensive service is a great way to stimulate more people to buy/drive cars and then provide more jobs to pay for those cars.

I-Like-To-Bike 05-15-19 08:35 AM

Some people seem to be overwhelmed by their own fantasies and conspiracy theories.

Nobody will be listening if and when an actual good idea does emerge from an endless static of murky, quirky and irrational "critical thoughts".

fietsbob 05-15-19 09:50 AM

USA prefers military spending not civilian infrastructure.. as the budget demonstrates...

KraneXL 05-15-19 07:40 PM


Originally Posted by fietsbob (Post 20931149)
USA prefers military spending not civilian infrastructure.. as the budget demonstrates...

And yet you keep electing the same people? When will you learn?

FiftySix 05-16-19 07:18 AM


Originally Posted by KraneXL (Post 20932071)
And yet you keep electing the same people? When will you learn?

Are you saying you don't vote?

I tell you I think voting in America these days is just to make us think we are making a difference. It's pobably been that way a long time, though.

I've been voting since the mid 1980s and no matter if the person I voted for gained office or not, government proceeded with its own will, not mine.

I have the appearance of a citizen, but in reality I'm just a subject.

KraneXL 05-16-19 09:13 AM


Originally Posted by FiftySix (Post 20932493)
Are you saying you don't vote?

I tell you I think voting in America these days is just to make us think we are making a difference. It's pobably been that way a long time, though.

I've been voting since the mid 1980s and no matter if the person I voted for gained office or not, government proceeded with its own will, not mine.

I have the appearance of a citizen, but in reality I'm just a subject.

First access your database internet humor. And second, democrat vs republican? Sound familiar? Have you considered maybe its time for a new paradigm? Even if you don't know what that is, you should at least know by now which sides aren't giving you what you want.

mconlonx 05-16-19 09:42 AM

1. USA should definitely develop HSR. Long past due. Time was (a long time ago), rail opened up The West. It's still a key shipping modality.

2. However, there are forces working against. Established investments in auto/roads. Extremists on both ends -- you'll get squawking from both lefty environmentalists and righty individualists. Including cyclists -- imagine the uproar when everyone's favorite rail-trail is up for closure for conversion back to rail use. The fact that most rail rights of ways have been reverted. Ford recently said they are not a car company, but a transportation company. That's a move in the right direction -- if rail is ever going to pick up steam, it's going to need financial incentive to do so.

3. Texas is way too big, east-west. One of the first HSR routes I'd run if I were King would be Jacksonville FL to San Diego CA, along I-10. For those without a sense of scale, map the distance from Jacksonville to Houston, and then from Houston to San Diego...

4. The problem isn't roads and traffic, it's drivers. Over in P&R, there's a thread about an Exxon study from 1982 which tracks the increase in atmospheric CO2 fairly accurately. I checked, and world population went from 4.6billion in 1982 to 7.7billion today. The problem is people. If we don't rein in population and scale it back to sustainable levels, it will be done for/to us...

Mobile 155 05-16-19 12:08 PM


Originally Posted by mconlonx (Post 20932733)
1. USA should definitely develop HSR. Long past due. Time was (a long time ago), rail opened up The West. It's still a key shipping modality.

2. However, there are forces working against. Established investments in auto/roads. Extremists on both ends -- you'll get squawking from both lefty environmentalists and righty individualists. Including cyclists -- imagine the uproar when everyone's favorite rail-trail is up for closure for conversion back to rail use. The fact that most rail rights of ways have been reverted. Ford recently said they are not a car company, but a transportation company. That's a move in the right direction -- if rail is ever going to pick up steam, it's going to need financial incentive to do so.

3. Texas is way too big, east-west. One of the first HSR routes I'd run if I were King would be Jacksonville FL to San Diego CA, along I-10. For those without a sense of scale, map the distance from Jacksonville to Houston, and then from Houston to San Diego...

4. The problem isn't roads and traffic, it's drivers. Over in P&R, there's a thread about an Exxon study from 1982 which tracks the increase in atmospheric CO2 fairly accurately. I checked, and world population went from 4.6billion in 1982 to 7.7billion today. The problem is people. If we don't rein in population and scale it back to sustainable levels, it will be done for/to us...

Mostly I tend to agree. Not sure HSR can compete with air travel from Houston to San Diego but I do know the drive can be a long one. I drove from Palm Springs to Fort Hood when my son was stationed there and it took days not hours. But my son warned me that when I got to El Paso I was only halfway there. But at least you could draft a Semi truck at over 80 mph at night for miles and miles.

For those of of us on the West coast there is no bang for the buck in a HSR from Merced to Bakersfield. Not at more than 77 billion in unfunded grants. At least it doesnít impress me having been to both cities.

If it can be funded privately I wouldnít care because people should be able to spend their money however they want. I donít see building something the tax payers will not support.

The last part is spot on however. We simply lack the ability to support run away population. That makes HSR just a regional issue and not a solution for world wide sustainability. In my point of view. Much like the article I posted in market watch. We are attacking the symptoms not the cause.

FiftySix 05-16-19 12:09 PM


Originally Posted by KraneXL (Post 20932678)
First access your database internet humor. And second, democrat vs republican? Sound familiar? Have you considered maybe its time for a new paradigm? Even if you don't know what that is, you should at least know by now which sides aren't giving you what you want.

Didn't turn on my internet humor due to lack of emoticons or fake html tags declaring [/sarcasm], etc. :)

tandempower 05-16-19 05:39 PM


Originally Posted by Mobile 155 (Post 20926263)
You might have a better point than you imagine. A space station or Biosphere is something they can and do have. And what is the catch to how sustainable those two examples are? The number of people in them. Increase the number by 25 percent and is a biosphere still sustainable? Notice it isnít a transportation issue that endangers sustainability? It is the number that live there. Why? Because it is a closed system. The earth is a closed system. Google maximum sustainable human population. See if building an HSR changes that?

Making a point for HSR against planes is one thing. Trying to add sustainability to the argument is not going to prove we need HSR. Once again my opinion based on population studies.

You're missing my point about the space station. If humans can live sustainably on a space station, then there is no limit to population growth on Earth. A space station is a self-contained system that doesn't affect anything outside of it.

What you don't like about population growth is density. You have a preference for less people to share more space, but it's not a natural limit to population growth and sustainability; just a subjective preference to have less people in an area instead of more.

You want to have less people because you want the freedom to drive.

So basically you're whole population limits argument comes down to you not wanting to give up driving.

That explains why you come on a car-free forum to argue with people who are for reducing driving, pavement, and sprawl and the unsustainability that comes with them.

Mobile 155 05-16-19 06:44 PM


Originally Posted by tandempower (Post 20933595)
You're missing my point about the space station. If humans can live sustainably on a space station, then there is no limit to population growth on Earth. A space station is a self-contained system that doesn't affect anything outside of it.

What you don't like about population growth is density. You have a preference for less people to share more space, but it's not a natural limit to population growth and sustainability; just a subjective preference to have less people in an area instead of more.

You want to have less people because you want the freedom to drive.

So basically you're whole population limits argument comes down to you not wanting to give up driving.

That explains why you come on a car-free forum to argue with people who are for reducing driving, pavement, and sprawl and the unsustainability that comes with them.

No I came here to learn how people deal with being car free only to find most are car free like people that give up smoking only to bum cigarettes from others.

I say again, what happens when you add 25 percent more people to a space station already supporting 100 people? They are no longer sustainable. You have to increase supply to feed and water that many people. Maybe if you would have experienced being on a long cruise on a ship with enough water and food for the journey a
only to pick up extra people in the doldrums. I know you donít know but take a guess.

Rollfast 05-16-19 11:22 PM

I've waited for many a train in this town, it's normal when Heinz Ore-Ida Foods is nearby.

KraneXL 05-16-19 11:34 PM


Originally Posted by Rollfast (Post 20933900)
I've waited for many a train in this town, it's normal when Heinz Ore-Ida Foods is nearby.

Good news. With HSR you barely have to wait at all.

Rollfast 05-17-19 12:28 AM

Union Pacific is picking up your tater tots and onions, the wait is worth it.

tandempower 05-18-19 07:22 AM


Originally Posted by Mobile 155 (Post 20933676)
No I came here to learn how people deal with being car free only to find most are car free like people that give up smoking only to bum cigarettes from others.

This is your main tactic for discouraging LCF, i.e. convince people that 'car-free' is a status and that they can only achieve it if they remain completely pure. It's like a guy who tries to talk a woman out of staying faithful to her husband by convincing her that everybody cheats, at least in their thoughts.


I say again, what happens when you add 25 percent more people to a space station already supporting 100 people? They are no longer sustainable. You have to increase supply to feed and water that many people. Maybe if you would have experienced being on a long cruise on a ship with enough water and food for the journey a
only to pick up extra people in the doldrums. I know you donít know but take a guess.
Yes, and what happens when you take a functioning planet covered in whatever living organisms grow naturally and start systematically clearing away forested land and other natural ecology to pave sprawling networks of corridors and buildings that dry up the air and land, decimate animal populations, and convert all the sedimented carbon into atmospheric CO2?

You don't think that impairs the ability of the system to sustain life permanently? You don't think it reduces the number of humans and other organisms that can live sustainably?

Think of it in terms of two space-stations. In one station, tons of machines and robots are employed and take up much of the space and use much of the energy and other resources. In the other, there are less machines and robots because humans use their own manual labor more diligently to manage their resources and avoid wasting space. Which space station is more human-friendly?

Lemond1985 05-18-19 07:43 AM


Originally Posted by tandempower (Post 20933595)
You're missing my point about the space station. If humans can live sustainably on a space station, then there is no limit to population growth on Earth. A space station is a self-contained system that doesn't affect anything outside of it.

What you don't like about population growth is density. You have a preference for less people to share more space, but it's not a natural limit to population growth and sustainability; just a subjective preference to have less people in an area instead of more.

You want to have less people because you want the freedom to drive.

So basically you're whole population limits argument comes down to you not wanting to give up driving.

That explains why you come on a car-free forum to argue with people who are for reducing driving, pavement, and sprawl and the unsustainability that comes with them.

Mods, I request this discussion be moved to the "Car-Free Life Aboard Yet-To-Be-Built Space Stations" subfora. :D

tandempower 05-18-19 08:06 AM


Originally Posted by Lemond1985 (Post 20935679)
Mods, I request this discussion be moved to the "Car-Free Life Aboard Yet-To-Be-Built Space Stations" subfora. :D

To the extent people LCF within sprawling autocentric (sub)urban cities, they basically already live aboard space stations, only the space stations have been built on Earth because it's easier than moving all the pavement, steel, and other materials up into orbit.

tyrion 05-18-19 09:39 AM


Originally Posted by tandempower (Post 20933595)
If humans can live sustainably on a space station, then there is no limit to population growth on Earth. A space station is a self-contained system that doesn't affect anything outside of it.

We're many decades (maybe centuries) from living sustainably on a space station.

tandempower 05-18-19 10:59 AM


Originally Posted by tyrion (Post 20935823)
We're many decades (maybe centuries) from living sustainably on a space station.

It's funny how it's possible to speak to a tangent in a way that further diverts a discussion from the relevant sequence of thoughts that led up to the tangent.

Maybe you should start a thread on sustainable space stations and whether they would be more or less sustainable with everyone driving or getting around by other means.

tyrion 05-18-19 11:03 AM


Originally Posted by tandempower (Post 20935930)
It's funny how it's possible to speak to a tangent in a way that further diverts a discussion from the relevant sequence of thoughts that led up to the tangent.

Maybe you should start a thread on sustainable space stations and whether they would be more or less sustainable with everyone driving or getting around by other means.

You posed a hypothetical and I pointed out how far from reality it was. If that triggers you, you're on the wrong internet.

pedex 05-18-19 11:04 AM


Originally Posted by tandempower (Post 20935930)
It's funny how it's possible to speak to a tangent in a way that further diverts a discussion from the relevant sequence of thoughts that led up to the tangent.

Maybe you should start a thread on sustainable space stations and whether they would be more or less sustainable with everyone driving or getting around by other means.

temporarily self contained but not sustainable on its own.......it requires frequent and constant resupply and maintenance provided by the industrial economy that put it into orbit to begin with

tandempower 05-18-19 12:03 PM


Originally Posted by tyrion (Post 20935933)
You posed a hypothetical and I pointed out how far from reality it was. If that triggers you, you're on the wrong internet.

It didn't trigger me. I just found it funny that I used the space station example to make a point about how M155 thinks, and you took it as a launch point for a tangent about space stations. The really funny thing is that I would not mind discussing space stations and sustainability, but if I engaged in that conversation with you here, it would not only take the thread in a tangential direction, but the mods would end up moving it to P&R or foo and we wouldn't be able to discuss HSR except by starting a new thread.

Idk if you are just wanting to cause the thread to get flushed away for some reason, or if you are just innocently wanting to discuss space stations.




Originally Posted by pedex (Post 20935936)
temporarily self contained but not sustainable on its own.......it requires frequent and constant resupply and maintenance provided by the industrial economy that put it into orbit to begin with

I would start a new thread about space stations and post a link here, but I don't think the mods would accept it as an appropriate topic for LCF. I could be wrong, of course.

tyrion 05-18-19 12:13 PM


Originally Posted by tandempower (Post 20936009)
...
Idk if you are just wanting to cause the thread to get flushed away for some reason, or if you are just innocently wanting to discuss space stations.

Neither. I'm pointing out the problems with this statement:


If humans can live sustainably on a space station, then there is no limit to population growth on Earth.
Humans can't live sustainably on a space station, and there is a practical limit to population growth on Earth.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:52 AM.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.