> I don't think there's any valid argument for protectionism without accountability
Why are you changing the subject? I replied to your idea of nationalization.
> China has built arguably the most expansive HSR network basically from scratch in 10 years
The US is not China. We cannot do what they have done. There are dozens of reasons for this.
Again, go study the California high speed rail project, stop and think.
>> and bicycles <snip>.
> Not exactly what I would call a compelling argument.
The idea is ridiculous. Even countries that are known for bike rarely get to even 10% bike utilization. Do your research and do a little analysis. In the US, the idea is just plain ridiculous. Our town and cities are not built for bikes or mass transport.
>>> This also helps with the energy consumption issue since these modes of transportation are vastly more energy efficient.
>> Given reality, this is irrelevant.
> Yikes.
Well, I am glad you learned something there. You have a lot more to understand yet. I mean, we can't even maintain our existing roads and you are talking about building entire new rail-based mass transportation systems. Again, while commendable in isolation, reality makes this either impossible or nonsensical.
I think a reasonably large fleet of self driving EV's is something that is within the realm of attainable reality in the US. If a robotic Uber-like service were to be available at a low enough cost, people might start to question owning cars or driving them all the time. That is also well within the practical reality of life in the US in most towns and cities. And that's within the realm of something that is attainable without having to rip-up and re-engineer every town and city in this country.
More importantly, this would not require a full electrification of our ground transportation system at a 1:1 scale; meaning, we will not need to replace 300+ million existing vehicles with 300+ million EV's. I have no clue what the right number might be. I could see a scenario where we end-up with 100 million EV's and 50 to 100 million IC vehicles in, say, 30 years. Most of the EV's might be robotic ride-share vehicles and the IC vehicles might serve special purposes.
That's the difference between ideas. What I am talking about is attainable and likely sensible. The energy, resource and ecological benefits are plain to see. Behavioral changes are not massive and align well with existing patterns. It might even save people money by making car ownership (and the insurance and maintenance that goes with them) less necessary. Etc. Trains and bikes will not ever work here. Nice dream. Not real.
Why are you changing the subject? I replied to your idea of nationalization.
> China has built arguably the most expansive HSR network basically from scratch in 10 years
The US is not China. We cannot do what they have done. There are dozens of reasons for this.
Again, go study the California high speed rail project, stop and think.
>> and bicycles <snip>.
> Not exactly what I would call a compelling argument.
The idea is ridiculous. Even countries that are known for bike rarely get to even 10% bike utilization. Do your research and do a little analysis. In the US, the idea is just plain ridiculous. Our town and cities are not built for bikes or mass transport.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/m1vonk/how_many_pe...
>>> This also helps with the energy consumption issue since these modes of transportation are vastly more energy efficient.
>> Given reality, this is irrelevant.
> Yikes.
Well, I am glad you learned something there. You have a lot more to understand yet. I mean, we can't even maintain our existing roads and you are talking about building entire new rail-based mass transportation systems. Again, while commendable in isolation, reality makes this either impossible or nonsensical.
I think a reasonably large fleet of self driving EV's is something that is within the realm of attainable reality in the US. If a robotic Uber-like service were to be available at a low enough cost, people might start to question owning cars or driving them all the time. That is also well within the practical reality of life in the US in most towns and cities. And that's within the realm of something that is attainable without having to rip-up and re-engineer every town and city in this country.
More importantly, this would not require a full electrification of our ground transportation system at a 1:1 scale; meaning, we will not need to replace 300+ million existing vehicles with 300+ million EV's. I have no clue what the right number might be. I could see a scenario where we end-up with 100 million EV's and 50 to 100 million IC vehicles in, say, 30 years. Most of the EV's might be robotic ride-share vehicles and the IC vehicles might serve special purposes.
That's the difference between ideas. What I am talking about is attainable and likely sensible. The energy, resource and ecological benefits are plain to see. Behavioral changes are not massive and align well with existing patterns. It might even save people money by making car ownership (and the insurance and maintenance that goes with them) less necessary. Etc. Trains and bikes will not ever work here. Nice dream. Not real.