Recession 2020

[spdrun]

Flying taxis/buses/etc. Vehicles capable of vertical takeoff don’t tend to be safe or efficient — physics is a real pain in the ass. Keeping something in the air at slow speeds takes a shit-ton of energy. Unless it’s a dirigible, then it’s just huge and fairly unsafe. (Helium supplies are limited, good luck with hydrogen or methane as lifting gases.)

Telecommuting? Maybe if you’re a paper-pusher or code-monkey. Some people have jobs that require actual human interaction, manipulation of physical objects, or lab work.

[Myriad]

Wasting $10s of Billons on HSR between LA and SF when what we really need is reliable regional commuter transit.
SF-Sacremento/Fresno; LA to Palmdale/LV/SD.
The Chinese model would have built that, would have been done in 5 years. I do admire their efficiency, just not the rampant corruption, exploitation of rural residents, ignoring all local considerations, and not caring about economic sustainability.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=The-Shoveler]All I can say is the future is not here yet.

Self driving cars, flying taxis buses etc..
Telecommuting, these are the future.[/quote]

Time will tell whose vision is correct. It’s all being right at the right time.

All I can say is that my investments in urban neighborhoods, with some remodeling work, are doing much better than my friends’ in the suburbs.

Another example — at the bottom of the market a house in North Park, compared with the same purchase price in Temecula is doing better appreciation wise and cash flow wise. The free market gives you the answer.

Telecommuting wise, people telecommute from downtown to Sorrento Valley. They don’t telecommute from Bakersfield.

[spdrun]

Why look to the Chinese, Myriad? Look to the French — they managed to roll out HSR at 1/4 of the cost of what the US pays per mile.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]Why look to the Chinese, Myriad? Look to the French — they managed to roll out HSR at 1/4 of the cost of what the US pays per mile.[/quote]

Interesting observation. And I honestly wonder why.

Economically, the Chinese have an advantage. That’s higher purchasing power for the same dollar equivalent.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=Myriad]Wasting $10s of Billons on HSR between LA and SF when what we really need is reliable regional commuter transit.
SF-Sacremento/Fresno; LA to Palmdale/LV/SD.
The Chinese model would have built that, would have been done in 5 years. I do admire their efficiency, just not the rampant corruption, exploitation of rural residents, ignoring all local considerations, and not caring about economic sustainability.[/quote]

It’s always naysaying of some kind when there is jealousy and fear. First it was “oh the Chinese can’t build. Their engineers suck, the corruption will cause the concrete to be substituted for sand and the bridge will collapse, blah blah”. I too fell into that trap because I read too many biased Economist article. I could have bought an apartment in central Shanghai in 2002 but didn’t (it was like under $200k at the time) . Stupid mistake.

Anyway, fast forward 10 to 15 years and China’s train safety is better than ours.

It’s our system, and business model. Not the technology.

The Chinese know that cash flow from operations are not necessary. They can support public transport to build economies of scale.

In the USA, If we made telecom, electrification, post and parcel deliveries to, and federal supported airports in remote areas user fees self-sufficient, the people living out in far flung areas would be in a world of hurt.

[The-Shoveler]

Metro Rail has a future,

HSR is very likely to disappoint (underwhelm) in CA if it ever gets built, California is not Flat, most places where HSP works are flat and straight.

Anyway IMO it is a big Waste (in CA), I still think by the time you get to and from stations, From where you are coming from to where you want to go, self driving cars will be much more convenient 90% of the time.

Also where HSR works it goes though un-populated areas, not through 12 -13 major metros.

[spdrun]

France, Germany, and Japan aren’t terribly flat. Their HSR also goes through populated areas between major cities. If anything, the problem is too little population in CA, not too much.

Robo-cars can’t travel at 150+ mph and pick up power while they’re moving. Not to mention that a fixed guideway is safer at high speeds and metal/metal friction is lower than rubber on road.

The best solution would be HSR and rail with short-distance rental cars at the endpoints.

[The-Shoveler]

I doubt very much HSR in CA will ever reach that speed consistently IMO.

I don’t know, by the time you get everything you want to take with you and pack up the kids etc…

single guy with a back pack maybe.

Think like a soccer Mom.

[spdrun]

IDK, I see plenty of families on the Boston-NY-DC trains in the Northeast. I think kids even get a 50% discount on tickets.

Not all parents become overpacking bovines the moment they squirt out a kiddo.

[Myriad]

[quote=spdrun]Why look to the Chinese, Myriad? Look to the French — they managed to roll out HSR at 1/4 of the cost of what the US pays per mile.[/quote]
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/695111468024545450/pdf/892000BRI0Box3000china0transport09.pdf

“China HSR with a maximum speed of 350 km/h has a typical infrastructure unit cost of about US$ 17-21m, (RMB 100-125m) per km, with a high ratio of viaducts and tunnels. The cost of HSR construction in Europe, having design speed of 300 km/h or above is estimated to be of the order of US$25-39 m per km (see table 4 & 5). HSR construction cost (excluding land, rolling stock and interest during construction) is estimated to be as high as US$ 52m per km in California.”

I think the biggest problem of HSR in CA is not necessarily cost, distance, or speed. The biggest blocker to sustainable rail is the low population density and limited regional mass transit.
If you look at the Chinese cities connected in the article, those inland secondary cities are as big as SF or LA and probably have higher population density.
Take Nanjing (11.7M) , just NW of Shanghai (34M)
2600 people/mi2 and 9900-20k/mi2, respectively
Let’s look at SF and LA
SF 4.7M – 1341 people/mi2
LA 18.7M – 550 people/mi2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles)

So basically you have higher cost/mi of rail, with higher operating cost, over longer distances to service fewer people (total and by population density). It just doesn’t make sense. it’s only really useful to go from downtown to downtown – Anyone that’s been to LA know’s that it only services a tiny fractional of the metro area since there’s limited mass transit once you get there.

[FlyerInHi]

Myriad, I agree with you in many ways. That’s why we need to overcome nimbyism and promote density over auto traffic concerns. But it will not happen

Joseph Stieglitz, famous economist wrote about how urbanization leads to higher efficiency and wealth. That’s why China is betting on mega cities.

We run the risk of becoming a country of stupid country bumpkins while the world becomes cosmopolitan. Look at any high tech company for the percentage of scientists born abroad. There is no guarantee that the USA will keep on attracting the majority

Tiny Israel is becoming a tech center and they are highly urban. Tel Aviv is nicer with better weather than San Francisco (except for possible war, of course).

Our policies are driven by a nationalist base of country bumpkins who have not been anywhere. Sounds like Mao’s China in many ways.

[Myriad]

[quote=FlyerInHi] That’s why China is betting on mega cities. [/quote]

To be fair, I don’t think China planned megacities. The planned on urbanization because massive proportion of people lived in rural areas (basically 50-80 years behind the west). The habitable land area is much less (basically the eastern side). Megacities is what resulted – for many years they had a constantly moving migrant population of over 100M.

At the same time though, I don’t think the US transit problem will be fixed by slightly increasing overall density. Before that happens, we’ll likely have autonomous vehicles – which will likely change dramatically how suburbs and cities will interact -especially if people stop taking personal vehicles to work. It’s pretty hard to foresee what AV will do vs other types of transit.

[FlyerInHi]

Myriad, your same argument would apply to the cost effectiveness of highways also. We have many empty freeways too. And empty airports. And underused telecom networks in low population areas that urban dwellers are subsidizing. I mean why the hell is the federal government paying billions for highways in Alaska, a place with shit weather that requires lots of upkeep.

[Myriad]

I’m not saying there’s not waste (there’s plenty of that in China too), but roads are way cheaper to build and maintain than rail (and the roads are already built). In CA, it’s usually more realistic to assume incremental changes that don’t require massive infrastructure changes. If you decide to build a greenfield new city in the central valley connected by HSR, then yeah, plan for high density core with mass transit.

An updated 2016 Reason Foundation study shows California spent about $420,000 per mile in 2013 compared with the national average spending of about $160,000 per mile in the same year.
https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/nov/01/john-cox/does-california-spend-nearly-five-times-much-build/
I don’t understand why it costs $56M/mile to lay down 2 parallel pieces of metal…. it should be way cheaper.

[Author]

Posts