Virginia MagLev Project Back on Track 329
Raven42rac writes "After much delay, the $14 million Maglev train project is back on track at Old Dominion University in Virginia. All the petty lawsuits have been settled, and a much needed $2 million grant has been approved. Let us hope that this sets a precedent to Americans to not litigate ourselves out of the science and technology markets due to petty disagreements and greed. We do not need to be our own worst enemy. I, for one, would much rather ride a Maglev monorail with others, than drive a gas-guzzling car by myself. (And I apologise for the pun in the headline.)"
Petty Lawsuits? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hardly petty in my opinion - I'd be sueing if I wasn't paid for work I'd done.
Re:Petty Lawsuits? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Petty Lawsuits? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just why is it greed when I'm looking out for myself?
I, for one, would much rather ride a Maglev monorail with others, than drive a gas-guzzling car by myself.
And I, for one, would much rather ride in a comfortable gas-guzzling, XM radio playing SUV than an a 14 million dollar mass transit Maglev that smells like a wet band-aid. Just another petty opinion, I guess.
Seth
Re:Petty Lawsuits? (Score:3, Insightful)
That pretty much defines greed. A better way to put it would be: why is it greed when I'm only asking for what you agreed to pay me?
Re:Petty Lawsuits? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just looking out for yourself is neither selfish [reference.com] nor being greedy [reference.com]. It becomes selfish when you lose all regard for other people's interests in the process. It becomes greed when it turns into an obsessive lust for wealth.
Re:Petty Lawsuits? (Score:2)
Greed is when you want things you don't deserve, when you use deception, coercion or Congress to obtain them.
Greed is not good, but self-interest is.
Re:Petty Lawsuits? (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the rather ride a Maglev monorail vs. a Car that is issue of where it goes and how much it costs. Now if I need to shell out $1 to go 6 miles. I am still better off with my car where I can go 15 miles for the same cost. (My car averages around 30mpg). Plus how far will I need to go from the train spot to the place of location up to 1/2 miles isn't to bad of a walk but anything more can get frustrating especially if I need to carry stuff as well, and during winter 1/4 mile is my limit. People living in cities causes other problems that are less prevalent in the suburban areas, such as crime, noise, and other problems when there are to many diverse people in one area.
What americans truly need is a monorail like system where people park their cars like on a fairy then zip them long (10 miles or more) distances to the next town or city (Most cities are smaller and less congested then NYC for those who think Yonkers is upstate NY) where they can drive off and perform business. Get their stuff load up their cars and drive back to the monorail and glide back to their home town or city.
Re:Petty Lawsuits? (Score:5, Interesting)
It isn't petty to us - the contractors have been snowjobbed for almost two years by American Maglev, Old Dominion University, and the Federal Government.
The project wasn't bonded, and it is a violation of state law for a state project to proceed without a bond. It was infuriating to listen to ODU officials blow smoke telling the contractors that they would be paid, while denying it is their project.
Re:Petty Lawsuits? (Score:4, Informative)
They need to hurry (Score:5, Funny)
-h
Trains vs cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you want to be stuck on a train that goes from somewhere you're not (requiring you to get from where you are to the initial station) to somewhere you don't want to be (requiring you to get from the final station to where you want to go) via places where you don't want to go at times you can't choose, sitting across from a drunk and alongside someone who's coughing and sneezing all over you, rather than drive in your own car by yourself from where you are to where you want to go at whatever time you feel like?
Certainly there are places where the roads are so bad that trains are preferable (e.g. London), but in the vast majority of cases, trains really, really suck.
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:5, Interesting)
It's debatable . . . I'm a business traveller and here in the US I have used the "trains" of several major cities to get from the airport to, say a downtown area or to other suburbs of the metro area. MARTA in Atlanta is great. A lot of business folks there live on the north side of the Perimeter but the airport is south of the city. Trying to get to the airport during rush hour is Russian roulette down I-85, but with MARTA you WILL make it in 45 minutes . . . just pay your 1.50 and read your book.
I've had similar experiences with the "L" in Chicago going from Midway airport to downtown. No rental car to pick up, park, fuel, or pay for, and like MARTA, there's a station downtown on every corner as well as one attached directly to the airport -- very cool.
IMHO, Baltimore's light rail sucks, unfortunately. It's more like electric streetcars on rails than a real train. For some reason, it's about twice as slow as any other metro rail system I've ever been on, and a bit more confusing to use if you've got to transfer to get to the way north suburbs.
The bottom line is that as a business traveler with a tight schedule, it's usually a lot easier to use the train to get close, and then walk or cab to your final destination. BTW, the key with all of these urban trains is don't take them by yourself after dark. Most go through sketchy neighborhoods and you will be panhandled and otherwise bothered at the very least.
MARTA has an obfuscated fare level (Score:3, Interesting)
I say it would be a lot more cost effective if they really tried to get universal broadband out to everyone using these tax payers funds, rather than further insisiting on over crowding the cities, either from cars or mass transit of people. the way to eliminate congestion is to
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:2, Insightful)
But for many people, a train starts from where they are, and it goes to where they want to go.
And in that case, it beats paying $500 a year for insurance and $150 a month in car payments. And that doesn't even count on gas prices.
For the week or so that I need a car, I'll rent one for $40/day. I save a lot of money that way. And yes, the train will take me to the rental car place
But in the end, I agree... if Springfield is going to build train service, it should go somewhere!
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:2)
Now out in the suburbs, the parking lots are of growing magnitude, a train in the to the store might not be a stretch.
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:2)
I can't speak for the east coast, but on the west coast trains often beat the hell out of driving long distances by car. If, for example, I want to go from Portland, Oregon to Seattle, Washington, I have a dull 4 to 6 hour drive in front of me (depending on how many drunks have cluttered the roads with bodies that day), the boredom only relieved by occassional moments of stark raving terror courtesy of the insane driving practices of those folks who should've never been issued a license in the first place (most of which seem fond of minivans).
The train takes about the same amount of time (always delayed, always late) but not only is it a hell of a lot more comfortable, I don't have to worry about the drunks or the minivan drivers, other than the possibility that they'll further delay me by stupidly crashing into the train. And at least on this count I'm somewhat mollified by the fact that Darwinism is still alive and well, and that there's one less moron on the road.
For daily commutes on the east coast the train does, undoubtedly, suck. For long-distance travel on the west coast it beats driving hands-down.
Max
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:2)
562 kph.
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Try driving into Central London. Cars really suck for mass transport. Around 10% of traffic comes into Central London by car in a typical week. Replace the residual (mainly taken up by over or underground trains) with cars and prepare for chaos. Convenient, huh?
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:3, Informative)
But, replace the cars with public transport and you get an extra million people on the already overcrowded trains and tube, the infrastructure can't cope. Throw in a tube strike and you're screwed.
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the lines going to London are electrified now, and the underground has been for a centruy or so. Of course, even for diesels, per-passenger pollution is a lot lower than a car with a single person in it. And the trains are about as smooth as other alternatives. Occasionally there's a shake and a rattle, but I seem to be able to stand perfectly well unaided.
Those aren't issues for maglev, though for a train to be anywhere near as convenient for a car it will need to run every five minutes, twenty-four hours a day, which will mean most of them running mostly empty. That hardly seems likely to be "enviromentally friendly" to me.
Maglev only makes sense for long distances. The sort of distances that will take at least several hours by car. You don't need a service running that regularly.
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:2)
Re:Trains vs cars (Score:3, Funny)
Car vs. Maglev? (Score:5, Insightful)
If maglev is what it takes to move people off the roads, I pity our civilization.
What about ordinary (cheap) trains, faster conventional trains (like Europe's TGVs) or living closer to work, or working more via Internet, or carpooling?
The best way to avoid commuting is for people to move back into the cities, to walk to work, to downsize the huge companies into smaller human-sized organizations, to live on a human scale. The best way to connect large countries is through high-speed trains that use conventional rail technology. It does not happen today for one simple reason: the artificially low cost of travelling by car and by air (thanks to subsidies on roads and on fuel).
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:3, Insightful)
If our society has sunk to the point where people think they have the right to force people off the roads, civilisation has long gone.
"The best way to avoid commuting is for people to move back into the cities,"
If people wanted to live in cities, they'd live in cities. Increasingly, people are desperate to get out of cities due to high taxes, poor services and high crime. That's almost entirely the fault of train-loving liberals, and it's not going to change any time soon.
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:3, Insightful)
That was exactly what I was thinking. To continue: socialism is the reason cities suck. Having to deal with the zero-self-responsibility scum who would rather steal from you than work for a living are the reasons why no one with any self-worth wants to live in cities. If socialism didn't drive the people, who would have to work, to be lazy and steal money from those that do work, crime rates in cities would be much lower.
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2, Interesting)
Here we have very high taxes, very high tax-evasion (of course), very-high stealing of public (haha) money, and almost ZERO returns to us as benefits... Makes you feel a clown when you pay taxes here. (Brazil)
(and don't bother replying that noone cares about what happens in third-world shitholes, we all know that noone cares... let me rant in peace, will ya?
cheers
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, I get quite a lot for that money.
(I'm neo-liberal myself, so I have issues with a lot of things in Sweden. Compared to certain other countries it's a lot better though)
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
In an ideal world, people would take advantage of these benefits, and would make a contribution once they had turned their lives around. But there are those who are capable of working, but just don't want to.
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2, Flamebait)
It is possible to be be an individual and care about your fellows. But that's gone entirely out of fashion in America, and the abuse is just picking up steam.
America had a period of sociocapitalism: a libertine market with government regulation. But hypercapitalism arose and essentially bought the government, while the people are drugged with entertainments of all kinds. They ARE going to wake up slaves in the continent their fathers conquered, as Thomas Jefferson predicted. They are slaves now
I care about my fellows, which is why it is a daily pain to watch hypercapitalism swallow more of America. More sensible socialism is needed. Which is why I'd like to move to a country like yours. (Switzerland is my first choice.)
P.S. Free trade is a scam for moving capital around the world freely from the constraints (i.e. taxation) of governments. I'm sure both sides in each transaction DO gain
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:3, Insightful)
What crap. The advocates of socialism are no different than the advocates of 'hypercapitalism', as you call it. They're the same animal, with a trivial difference in stripes. Both want to tell everyone else how to live their lives, and distribute their resources, at the point of a gun if necessary - no doubt 'for the greater good'.
Socialism is just another form of dictatorship. The fact that the majority might support this dictatorship makes it no different than any other.
Max
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:3, Insightful)
What tripe. Capitalism isn't at all evil; it's about being able to distribute your own resources *as you please*. Capitalism is synonymous with economic freedom.
The point where capitalism becomes corrupt is when government gets involved. Government despises a free market; free markets lead to change and fluctuations in power. Government, more than anything else, is interested in maintaining it's power base, and to do that it needs a consistency which you can't get in a truly free market. Government doesn't exist to protect us from the 'evils' of capitalism, but rather to perpetuate whatever power structure exists in the current economic system. This is entirely antithetical to free market capitalism.
You can have both capitalism and social welfare programs. Despite the ravings of left wing loonies the two are not opposed. Charities operate perfectly well alongside capitalism; a government charity could do the same, and without interference in the market. This is a truth which would-be tin-point wannabe socialist dictators refuse to acknowledge because it doesn't allow them to force others to bend to their will, which is the point of their 'greater good' bullshit no matter what they claim to the contrary.
Max
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
It's not like its hard to get a higher education in the US. Everyone thinks you need money to start, but you don't. I sure didn't have any money when I started college, but I put myself through just fine. If the gangbangers downtown would focus on their education instead of drugs, the problem would go away. Instead, they shoot each other for drugs, rob me for money to buy drugs, and then want me to pay for them to eat and have a place to live (socialism at it's fucking worst.)
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
Is it a right to drive? Why?
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maglevs are extraordinarily expensive to build and run, yes, but probably less so than (or on par with) conventional high-speed trains, otherwise nobody would fund such ventures.
But they are definitely not noisy compared to a conventional train. Have you ever lived near a TGV line? no, I didn't think so.
What about ordinary (cheap) trains, faster conventional trains (like Europe's TGVs)
TGVs aren't that much cheaper. About half the price in fact, mainly due to the reuse of existing technologies and French government subsidies. What they really have for them is the ability to roll on the pre-existing infrastructure, which Maglevs can't do.
or living closer to work, or working more via Internet
Yes, let's produce cars, baked bean cans, houses and pencil cases on the great Internet.
Fact: people who can work remotely are a minority.
or carpooling?
But you say below that road travel is an artificially low-cost mode of transportation? surely you don't mean to cram more people on the road...
The best way to avoid commuting is for people to move back into the cities
But you say below that you want to scale back the size of organizations and live on a human scale. Surely you don't mean to cram more people in the same tiny spot of land...
to walk to work
Make the cities big enough and people won't be able to walk to work. You contradict your arguments over and over.
to downsize the huge companies into smaller human-sized organizations, to live on a human scale. The best way to connect large countries is through high-speed trains that use conventional rail technology.
Yes that's true For now. I suspect if nobody looks for better solutions though, we'll still be stuck with conventional trains a hundred years from now though.
It does not happen today for one simple reason: the artificially low cost of travelling by car and by air (thanks to subsidies on roads and on fuel).
This is changing fast. Do you know how much gas costs in Europe these days? and it's still rising.
NOTE: before you take me for an overweight Californian who can't walk across the street without his car, or an oil-producing Texan, let me precise that I don't own a car and go around by bike and public transportation, including trains.
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
Maglev is considerably more costly than TGV but this is justified on grounds of "speed", to compete with air travel. However, since air travel is subsidised through cheap (untaxed!) fuel, the comparison is economically flawed. Europe has demonstrated the feasibilty of large-scale TGV networks that compete favourably with air travel.
The "uses existing infrastructure" argument for TGVs is not a minor detail, it is the key to bringing new services into existing urban areas. And if you can't bring the train into Central Station, it is pretty useless.
Most commuters drive to work to make pencils? What country do you live in? Most car owners do service jobs that can be wholly or partly done remotely, either from smaller regional offices, or from home. The 'cubicle farms' of US corporations are a totally senseless way of bringing employees together.
Your comment on carpooling is unanswerable. How does the cost of something relate to its efficient/inefficient use? If I say that electricity is too cheap, is that an argument against using insulation? Carpooling saves resources, and is a _good thing_ period.
Cities... actually one of the most efficient ways of living, in terms of cost to the environment per head. Much more efficient than suburbia. Without the economic distortions of cheap roads and fuel, more people would live in cities and cities would become more compact, and nicer places. And there would be more of them, but fewer areas of endless suburbia.
More compact cities, getting around by bike, foot, and simple but efficient public transport, there is no contradiction here, rather a recipe for much happier living with less stress.
But... perhaps you enjoy spending 3-4 hours a day behind the wheel of a car. Personally I find that one of the greatest tragedies of modern life, and I'm very happy to be able to avoid it.
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:3)
It's because the executives of companies hate their workforce. Spite and loathing are the basic forces in the laws of executive motion.
Telecommuting -- as I saw it happening in Massachusetts in the 1990s -- became a method for politicially-attuned managers and engineers to avoid work. The rest of the folks had to get into cars, trains and buses to show up to a company building.
Sure, we could be transforming millions of jobs into telecommuting jobs of many shades. But the companies have jumped from letting favorites take advantage of it, to taking the next, much higher level of advantage: outsource/offshore. Instead of letting you do the job from home, they took the job away entirely and gave it to someone who makes at most 20% of the wage.
There are several reasons why executives never wanted to bother with telecommuting.
First, it required a review and perhaps upgrade of the telecomm facilities in the workers' homes. With flaky phone lines, substandard computers, and no power backup, the home-based infrastructure is on average insufficient for business needs. Compare this to a $4 million company building; just issue the specs, pay the construction company, and it's done. Well, at least it takes up less executive time.
Second, telecommuting meant the workers will be out of contact with management. This meant several things. Literally, the executive could not walk amongst his Empire and bask in the glow of his busy little hens. Also, there was always the chance that someone at home was slacking off, and that could not be tolerated -- slacking is only for the company elite. Finally, when a manager wanted to get ahold of a worker, they had to suffer the delay of calling them into the corporate HQ, or the humiliation of going to the worker's home.
Telecommuting: It's one of America's yuppie scams. I agree with your intentions, but the hypercapitalism and cronyism of modern America makes telecommuting impossible to any meaningful degree. Gasoline could climb to $5/gal, and companies will still require workers to drive to work (while they issue the executives company cars and gas charge cards).
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:3, Interesting)
This may be a bit naive on my part, but I'd say it's more fear and a lack of trust than anything else. I know managers who fear that Johnny Employee won't be productive if there's nobody looking over his shoulder or monitoring his web access. They don't understand what he does, but they feel better knowing that they can see him working busily in his cubicle or in the shop. No, they may not actually be able to tell if he's really working, but at least they aren't as worried that he's "getting away" with something.
I think the picture you paint is a little bleak and hyperbolic. Yes, there are executives that have the attitudes you describe, but I don't think it's fair to paint the majority that way. There are many who work just as hard as everybody else, and I've been fortunate enough to work with some who appreciate the fact that you can get a lot more work done if you trust people enough to let them do their job (whether it's at home or in an office).
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
In 2001, only 36.3% [bls.gov] of the nation's employment involved things that I feel *might* be able to be done from home or local offices. Of course, it depends quite a bit on what the job entails exactly since the list is kinda vauge on specifics. These include: Management, Business and financial operations, Architecture and engineering, Arts design entertainment sports and media, Office and administrative, support, Computer and mathematical, Life physical and social science, Legal, Healthcare support.
That leaves at least 63.7% of the American labor force that has to commute a reasonable distance each day. I'd think you're stretching the definition of "most" a bit...
Cities... actually one of the most efficient ways of living, in terms of cost to the environment per head.
Um. Considering how the density of pollution increases as you get closer to major cities, real life seems to disagree with that theory.
Each person produces an average amount of pollution, x. As the population density increases, so does the concentration of pollution. It stands to reason that the higher the concentration of pollution the more harmful to the environment as a whole. Each person consumes so much energy as electricity, fuel, food, and so forth, no matter where they live. If you live in a city you might, as an individual, consume less gasoline than a suburbanite, but consider the extra resources required for the city to even exist in the first place and it balances out.
=Smidge=
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting argument. Not sure if this would mean more cities, those cities smaller in population but higher in density (using simple von Thuman or Henderson medols), but it would be a really interesting (and positive IMHO) thing to see.
But I completely agree about the subsidy on fuel. People who complain about fuel tax simply don't seem to understand the cost of their using fuel is born on others (both in the present and the future). Increasing the cost of fuel makes the true cost apparant to the comsumer. Pity the government don't realise the other part of the equation that this revenue fuel should be addressed to the cost of it (improving 'green' technologies, actual quantification, perhaps international repatriation).
Road subsidies matter, not fuel subsidies (Score:3, Insightful)
The real subsidies that affect the US preference for cars as opposed to trains are socialized roadbuilding. The public wants its roads, and any time you build more roads, making commuting easier, you make more housing development possible because more people can now live where you built the roads, and once a new area is opened up for housing, it tends to build more houses than the roads can really support, so there's more pressure to make the roads bigger. Residential streets in suburban land developments are essentially funded as part of the costs of building the houses, either explicitly or indirectly, but the regional connector roads get heavily subsidized. And especially as most of the US economy moves to a white-collar services model and stops being manufacturing-oriented, this also makes it easier for offices to move out of the core cities, decreasing the reasons for people to live downtown. Sometimes they go to edge cities, sometimes to quasi-residential areas.
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2, Insightful)
Are there cheaper mass transit alternatives? Of Course.
Do many areas of the United States need better mass transit systems? Yes.
Do Americans need better, less costly and less stressfull commute options? Absolutely.
Should Americans be forced to cram themselves into crowded, polluted, crime-ridden (tho less so now) major cities just to satisfy urbanite arrogance towards the automobile? Bite me.
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I always find it entertaining when it is suggested that trains are so expensive and such a problem. In Japan, they have trains that are 50 years ahead of our best technology, and they don't seem to have much of a problem with them.
Of course, they also built the longest suspension bridge on the planet and put an airport on water. Maybe they have fewer people saying "it'll never work." Who knows?
If maglev is what it takes to move people off the roads, I pity our civilization.
What it takes to move people off the roads is to move past the 19th century workplace where managers insist on five million lunchpail-carrying peons crawling through the door on their knees to punch a timeclock at the exact same moment. That is the cause of traffic, pollution and waste from automobiles. Period.
t does not happen today for one simple reason: the artificially low cost of travelling by car and by air (thanks to subsidies on roads and on fuel).
Agreed.
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:5, Interesting)
I do, and so do many others. They have an economy driven by needless construction, a government driven by bribery based on fixing construction projects, and a civil service who can retire into lucrative jobs provided by ... construction companies.
Japan spends about 9% of GDP on public works, compared with about 1% in the US. This is why nearly every single river and stream has been straightened and concreted. With about 99% of natural waterways now artificial, a lucrative business is emerging based around returning them to a pre-concreted state.
Japan Rail is an astonishingly impressive company, especially for those who know rail services in countries like Britain, where the infrastructure is breaking, warping, rotting and crumbling, and the trains don't run on time, or often at all. But we shouldn't forget the trillions of yen poured into the service before privatisation, and the fact that the government wrote off the debt several times
In fact, I think this is probably the right course for a government to take, but you shouldn't ascribe it to a can do attitude in Japan. There is no such thing, except when it comes to politicians and public servants conspiring with construction companies to gouge the public and line their own pockets.
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a longer look at the human environment in which those trains operate. Japan has incredibly high population densities compared to the overwhelming majority of the United States. Without those incredibly high densities, mass transit, of any kind, doesn't work. (About the only exception is Manhattan Island. No, thanks.)
Japan put that airport on the water because there wasn't ANY land available for a new airport. This is part of their population density problem.
Maybe just higher population density? (Score:3, Insightful)
In Japan, trains make sense. They run in areas that can support them. In the US, they mostly do not. Most of us do not live in areas that can support them.
Trains are subsidized too. The government often pays for the track (particularly for commuter trains).
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to avoid commuting has nothing to do with moving back to cities. There is a reason why urban sprawl exists: people have discovered that giant cities are not the best places to live and work. Cities only exist because, in the eras predating modern transportation systems they were the only way to effectively concentrate and use resources and manpower. That's just not the case any longer: cities are conceptually obsolete, and are just running on inertia. Urban sprawl is just the first symptom of the end of the road for cities. Besides, the best way to avoid commuting is to decentralize businesses: encourage them to spread out more so people won't have to drive forty miles each way to work.
Fuel costs aren't "artificially low", exactly
As a matter of fact, because of that investment energy costs in the U.S. haven't even remotely paced inflation, and they'd be lower still if state Environmental Protection Agencies hadn't been allowed to mandate specific fuel mixes for different regions. The overhead involved for that is incredible for little real benefit.
"cities are conceptually obsolete"? (Score:2)
Cities are efficient and will only become obsolete when a plague or disaster reduces human population to 0.01% of its current levels.
Re:"cities are conceptually obsolete"? (Score:2)
Re:"cities are conceptually obsolete"? (Score:2)
People went into the cities for money, to survive in an increasingly money-based economy. And once you're in the city, try growing your own food. Try owning and practicing with weapons.
The rural model of America was not a bad one. But from the standpoint of hypercapitalism, it was just awful. People who can grow their own food and hoist their own wind turbines are not dependents. When they are spread out into communities, they can make their own property laws. And of course, piping services to them is expensive and threatens profits.
If corporations have their druthers, we'd all be hooked up together like people in the Matrix, where the costs of service are minimized and the profit-taking per person is maximized. And you'd exist in a gel-filled tank, essentially a serial-numbered piece of corporate property.
That's what a city apartment essentially is: a Matrix life-support tank.
Re:"cities are conceptually obsolete"? (Score:2)
Re:"cities are conceptually obsolete"? (Score:2, Interesting)
(well, of course there are some rundown popular areas downtown, and a couple upper middle class suburbs, but you get the picture).
Yes, real estate is more expensive downtown than in suburbia, BUT living next to every theater / museum / school / park / night-club you'll ever need, or going to work without having to get into the damn car every time definitely is worth the premium.
Granted, it is an expensive luxury to live in the city, and many lower middle class families were forced out by rising real estate prices. Yet the reason the upper middle class is still there is that it's so much more convenient to live in the city. I for one cannot even imagine not living there.
And you know what? Maybe the fact that you're never more than 5 minutes away from the underground is the key. Right now I'm living in Stuttgart, Germany, a city of 700,000, and they've got over 20 underground / light rail lines. Even in this relatively small city I know I can be in any other city area within 20 minutes, only through public transportation. In a much larger city such as Paris, one is never more than 30 minutes away from any other city area (unless you're living in a galaxy far, far away).
Because city planners did their job right, a car is not needed. (ok I've still got to rent a van whenever I've got to move bulky stuff around but other than that...)
Higher taxes? Maybe. But I'm actually saving money since I don't need a car.
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:2)
Spoken like a true fanatic. "The best way is my way - bow down to my wisdom!" Just because it's *your* way doesn't make it the 'best' way.
You aren't a genius or a visionary. You're just a Joe, like any other. Get over yourself.
Max
Re:Car vs. Maglev? (Score:3, Insightful)
The best way to avoid commuting is for people to move back into the cities
Hell yeah. People are going out of their way to live 50+ miles from work, so they can live the American dream and have their own little piece of urban sprawl. Then we build 8-lane superhighways so these lemmings can migrate to and from the city every day.
I suppose the desire to have more personal space is a natural instinct, and it's fueled by the relativly large amount of open space and the relativly inexpensive personal vehicles in this country. But, I wonder how long this trend can continue until we /run out of space/run out of oil/cars get too expensive/ and the benefits of living near work become greater than the benefits of commuting. Perhaps it has begun already..
Isn't this a bit much for a university? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this a bit much for a university? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Isn't this a bit much for a university? (Score:2)
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a rickshaw business. Nice little earner for needy students.
BTW, I would have that asthma seen to and treated. Just because it's not affecting you if you're not exercising, doesn't mean damage isn't being done. Also, having asthma does not automatically exclude you from exercise [www.lung.ca].
FWIW, I ride a bike to work most days, but I know that bikes are not the answer to all modern transport problems.
Too late! (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, yet another lawsuit [indymedia.org] against the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant (what is this the tenth, twentieth, thirtieth?). The truth of the matter is that this is exactly the reason that the nuclear industry has shut down. Insurance costs are too high because people are sucessful at suing a plant so that it will never make any profits (Diablo Canyon) or voting it closed (Racho Seco Nuclear Power Plant).
Re:Too late! (Score:2, Interesting)
Quote of the day:
"On Monday [when this was written], an earthquake shook the foundations of Diablo Canyon nuclear power station in California. This plant, if it had been built as originally planned, would likely have failed on Monday, likely contaminating hundreds of miles of pacific coastline with deadly radiation.
Thank God the environmentallist wackos were there, in the 1970's, to halt construction on this plant, and force PG&E to redesign the plant so that it could withstand a 7.0 direct on it's location."
Uh Oh (Score:2, Insightful)
"Morris has insisted that breakthrough will happen once the $2 million federal grant money flows."
That's a pretty big assumption.
Cars and the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cars and the US (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to use public transportation (VIA) about a year ago. That same route I now take with my car, took 3 hours by bus.
Re:Cars and the US (Score:2)
Its not hard to understand why we like cars. (Score:2)
2. Combine that with a very large UNIFIED country. We ARE free to travel where we want within the United States and even into Canada. It is not uncommon for relatives to live in very different parts of the countries yet still see each other on a yearly basis.
3. The US Highway systems is very large and connects all major cities. Many have multiple connections. These are subsidized by the GAS tax.
4. Low gasoline taxes. We still maintain one of the lowest per capita tax loads across the world. Still it is too high and only serves to be wasted on government pork and vote buying schemes.
5.
I don't think health/obesity can be tied to our fascination with cars. It has more to do with this "Information Age" where you no longer have to go anywhere to converse with people or find things out. Yet at the same time this lack of need to travel was not in conjunction with a change in diets.
Re:Its not hard to understand why we like cars. (Score:3, Interesting)
Surely all citizens of democracies can go where they want? What relevance has this got?
I don't understand the relevance of the size of the country. Wouldn't people fly if they were travelling a very long distance?
I'm from the UK and this is also true in the UK. I'm pretty certain it's true in Germany and France, and I suspect most EU countries too. I don't understand how that addresses why Americans are so keen on cars.
This is clearly relevant, but doesn't address the cause-and-effect question.
I don't understand that at all.
I'm not posting this to be awkward, I really am interested in how the situation in the USA got to be how it is.
Re:Its not hard to understand why we like cars. (Score:2)
*evil grin*
Re:Cars and the US (Score:2)
Distance to grocery store: 3 miles
Distance to work: 27 miles
Therefore, a person must have a car, or they will be broke and hungry. There is also the fact that there's really no place to go walking in most neighborhoods any more. In fact, seldom do people go outside at all unless they are getting in the car to go somewhere. Bicycles are no better. Suburban blocks are sometimes one mile long, and the distance between shopping centers can be up to 10 miles. Makes a "nice bike ride" into one leg of the iron man.
But, in this society, change, ideas and vision are discouraged by threats of unemployment, starvation and ruin, which is why things like mass transit and maglev trains are never taken seriously. It's unpleasant and depressing, but it's a fact.
Re:Cars and the US (Score:2)
Well, of course, if you work in the boondocks.
What money you save on lower taxes and cheaper house, you more than pay double on gas and car.
And why does the city sucks? Because cowards like you run out in the boondocks instead of making the city livable, leaving only the scum that lives there.
Re:Cars and the US (Score:2)
Perhaps the reason is that many US and Australian cities are more recent, and were expanded after the automobile became commonly available, making low density living practical. Or perhaps it's because car ownerships is not regarded as a crime that has to be punished with high taxes, unlike on certain other continents
Re:Cars and the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in Austria many people own cars, but many people ride bicycles. I think it is toss up between time & pride. It takes me two times longer to to drive into the city center (and park) than bike (and park for free). It takes me about the same time to ride to work as it does to drive. So I ride in the summer; the younger more virile guys ride all year rain, shine or snow. But here in Graz it's a reasonable thing, all the stores I want to shop at have a small branch nearby (5~10 min ride) the video store is a 3 minute walk and the Kino is 20 minute away.
I lived in the US for a time and didn't think it was so reasonable. The cities are designed to be car friendly to the expense of all other forms of traffic. The roads and parking are designed to accommodate huge vehicles (A fact many of my co-workers attribute to the poor driving the Americans exhibit, I wonder which came first). The city layout (zoning) is segmented; most people that work in town live in the suburbs, so every morning & afternoon a horrible mass migration occurs. It's outright dangerous to be in this without some sort of armored vehicle!
Whatever the US fascination is about it is NOT about freedom! I think it's more about using the cars they have! Or maybe it's a vicious cycle they can not escape from.
I wonder what will happen when the true price of energy comes to the US? I picture roving bands of Chicanos car jacking Ford gargantuan in order to pump the fuel tank out leaving their hapless owners on the side of the road calling the US version of a motoring club.
Re:Cars and the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe it's a vicious cycle they can not escape from.
Public transportation sucks. Getting a car is easy. I like to walk to work, and take public transportation when I can, but GOOD LORD the BUS is TERRIBLE! It's filled with low-lifes (especially dependent upon the time of day) that sometimes make me feel like my life is in danger. It's never on time, it stops running at 7pm, and worse of all it's perpetually overcrowded at the times I really need to ride it.
So I frequently don't take the bus. But then, how will they ever improve the situation if not enough people ride?
Catch-22 indeed.
Bryan
Re:Cars and the US - wild west (Score:2)
Joke Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Noise pollution? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Noise pollution? (Score:2)
This project (Score:3, Insightful)
$14,000,000 is peanuts for any kind of real transit system. raven42rac says
I strongly suspect that this particular project is not a substitute for driving a gas-guzzling car. On any campus I have ever been on almost no-one drives a car to get from one spot on campus to another. I strongly suspect this monorail system is substitute for riding one's bike, or going by foot.
my maglev dream (Score:2)
I think there isn't nearly enough... (Score:5, Funny)
Where's the demand for the 'heads of the nonbelievers of the maglev'? or the crimes against humanity committed by evil 'automobilists'.
I thought... (Score:2)
While I certainly think the technology is mucho-cool and the geek in me wants to ride on one, the pragmatist in me doesn't understand how they make sense in the least.
Slugging it out in Washington DC. (Score:5, Interesting)
The I-95 corridor from Quantico to DC has two HOV-3 lanes. Very few people actually use these lanes (a waste IMO) because it is hard to find friends that are willing to carpool with you.
Then, a long while back, people started parking their cars at the commuter lots and literally hitching a ride with total strangers up HOV lanes to DC.
By the time I started Slugging, it had evolved into it's own little system without any government influence. I would go to Potomac Mills mall in Woodbridge, VA and park at their commuter lot. I had a choice of getting a ride to 14th street in DC (next to a train station) or I could go directly to the Pentagon (which also has a train station). Everyone would patiently stand in line and wait for the next car to give them a ride.
Slugging lines became a community. People that broke in line (whether they be in cars or on foot) were scorned by the group. Everyone pretty much got along great. From my time there, I never heard of any crimes committed when slugging. I also got to know a lot of the people who were riding. Some of us became fast friends. It was also a good opportunity to network with others.
There were some basic rules for slugging that everyone stood by. For one, the driver couldn't charge you. That was against the law anyways. Secondly, any driver could refuse to pick you up, though I never saw this happen. Riders could also refuse to ride with any driver. That made sense because some of those cars were crap.
There were many funny stories I could tell during my two years of slugging. I can honestly say that I'd do it again. It really was a fine example of simply living and getting along with your fellow human being.
If you live in the DC area, you can find out more by visiting http://www.slug-lines.com/ They even have a lost and found if you leave something in your drivers car. I actually had the chance to return a guys laptop that he left in my car. We are still friends today.
IMO, this is just one more fine example of how good man CAN be.
cheers
Why a maglev? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? For speed?
Conventional trains routinely hit 320 km/h FOR LONG STRETCHES AND DURATIONS [bbc.co.uk] (not just for 10km portion [trainweb.org] out of a 700 km journey), and have gone as fast as 515 km/h in tests [unipi.it].
The sheer complexity of the switches [slashdot.org] (* [maglev2000.com]) guarantees that the resulting network will be much less flexible than an ordinary conventional high-speed rail whose switches [wanadoo.fr] are of the ultra-simple time-tested conventional design.
What does speed gives you? Since the energy expenditure squares each time the speed is doubled, you soon hit a wall where the energy efficiency drops well below an aircraft.
For example, a 1200 km trip (New-York_Chicago) Speed time saved* Energy How much more than
100 12 10000 at 100 km/h
200 6 6 40000 4 times
300 4 2 90000 9 times
400 3 1 160000 16 times
500 2.4 0.6 250000 25 times
600 2 0.4 360000 36 times
700 1.71 0.29 490000 49 times
* from previous time Fucking slashcode that won't let PRE pass. Fuck it (and cowboy neal too, at the same time).
So, each time you increase speed by 100 km/h, your energy use soars so much that for saving a paltry quarter-hour, you spend 13 times more energy than needed to go at 100 km/h!!!
This is the reason french TGVs only run at 300 km/h. They are designed for 400 km/h and routinely hit 450 km/h for demos but running them at 400 km/h would be too expensive for the tiny amount if time gained.
A high-speed maglev runs at the surface, where the air resistance is waaaaay much higher than for an aircraft at 35,000 feet. So the energy expenditure per seat IS GOING TO BE HIGHER than an airplane!
Even though the speed of sound is much higher on the ground than at 60,000 feet (where Concorde used to fly), 1000 km/h maglev trains will need very long viaducts and tunnels to avoid becoming high-speed stomach wrenching roller-coaster rides.
The only way a maglev could be useful is running within an evacuated tunnel in a long journey.
In theory, the trains could run at the orbital speed of the altitude they are; energy expenditure would then be zero (all you'd need is to accelerate the train to speed, and you'd recover most of that energy by decellerating it at destination). But the costs of digging tunnels that would be so perfectly aligned, immune to geological havoc (crossing from one tectonic plate to another isn't really a walk in the park) and to keep the thing perfectly evacuated would likely be prohibitive (and maintenance guys would need to work in spacesuits...). Such money should be spent instead for a space elevator.
Re:Why a maglev? (Score:2)
I think you meant to say, the energy expenditure is proportional to the square of the speed, which is not at all the same thing. But regardless, airplanes are subject to the same rule, they just have a lower constant because of the lower air density. And considering that airplanes have to use inefficient reaction engines whereas trains can use the entire mass of the Earth as reaction mass, it's a big win.
Title? (Score:2, Funny)
Explain to me again? (Score:2)
Yamanishi Maglev Overview [rtri.or.jp]
Fuck public transportation (Score:5, Interesting)
As an outer New York City resident , I've been riding the bus, subway, and railroads for ten years now. First to get to school, then to my job. Recently I got a car, and I've reached an epiphany.
There is no toll bridge or road that I won't cross, no traffic jam that I won't bear, no gas tax that I won't accept, and no garaging fee that I will not pay so that I never have to take public transportation ever again.
In my car I control the comfort level, the climate, the music or radio that is played (or not played), the passengers that are picked up, the route that is chosen, the speed that is used, the stops along the way.
Gone are the class-loads of students who get on, headphones on full blast, who still try to have a conversation so they need to shout to hear each other. Gone are the old people who could do an entire day of shopping at a department store and carry their bags onto the train, but still demand that you give up your seat because they're too weak to stand. Gone are the pan-handlers who run a gimmick hoping for some spare change.
Hello liberating highways, drive-throughs, beautiful bridges, awe-inspiring tunnels, sprawling landscapes, incredible cityscapes, and the world flying by on fast-forward.
Hello, great America. I want to drive you just thinking about you. And I'll pick up a caramel Macchiato along the way.
Fuck public transportation.
Re:Fuck public transportation (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey feller, your post reminds me of this song from the Fatima Mansions...'Only Losers Take the Bus.' I appreciate the luxuries of the car, too, but people need alternatives for any number of reasons. Your comment reflects the bold ignorance of the person in the song:
Re:Fuck public transportation (Score:3, Insightful)
Say goodbye to reading the newspaper on the way to work. Goodbye to the half-hour nap you took on the train each morning. Goodbye to your stress-free commute.
Re:Fuck public transportation (Score:3, Informative)
Post much on usenet? You've got the syndrome. Try going back and reading the second paragraph of the post you responded to:
There is no toll bridge or road that I won't cross, no traffic jam that I won't bear, no gas tax that I won't accept, and no garaging fee that I will not pay so that I never have to take public transportation ever again.
Duh?
It's a really stupid pork program (Score:4, Interesting)
Similar maglevs have been built. Birmingham Airport [o-keating.com] had one from the mid 1980s to 1995. It was too hard to maintain, and was replaced with a cable-driven system. [bhx.co.uk]
Even as a pork program, the Old Dominion University system sucks. Better taxpayer-supported overpriced transit systems have been built at Southern universities. The Morgantown, West Virginia Group Rapid Transit System [washington.edu] is a futuristic system started during the Nixon administration and opened in 1975. It's automated, with 3.6 miles of line, five stations, and little eight-person cars. It's an advanced system; all stations are "offline", and cars pull off the main line to stop at stations, rather than blocking the main tracks. It actually works, but it's way overbuilt for the usage it gets.
Many details, I'm local and follow this (Score:4, Informative)
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, the maglev system worked when it was in Flordia on the test track, because the rails were on the ground. There are videos on the American Maglev site of it moving before the ODU system was put together. Once the ODU setup was constructed, they hit a snag. The rail flexes from the weight, and the system tries to adjust for it by adjusting power to magnets, which causes the rail to react, which starts an oscillation loop or something. Ooops.
The system here is opposite from the German Transrapid system (which is totally bad ass, btw). The guideway in the German system is more intelligent / has electromagnets / something, where as the one at ODU most of the guts are in the actual cars. This means the guideway is much cheaper to deploy. If you have ever seen it, the guideway is pretty frigging narrow, it would be easier to handle right of ways for such a thing.
It is a shame the contractors haven't been paid, and it is a shame it hasn't gotten further. From what I understand they are finally getting their hands on the money. It would be interesting to see a cost break down.
If you think about it, 14 million in what could be a better transportation solution for cities is chump change. Companies spend $3 million on blanket Windows software licenses. The theory is if/when it works it could spawn a new industry and our region could gain new businesses that support it.
People complain about the money going to the monorail, yet they don't complain about their tax money going to schools where many of the students are from out of country and leave when they are done with their education. Granted there are private interests working here, but I fail to understand the hatred for the creation of something new and something better.
Lastly, they are started to talk about this stupid light rail stuff here, that is little trollys that run on conventional rails. Lame, gradings obstruct traffic, they are slow. Elevated maglev is the answer! HOORAY!
Re:Efficient? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Efficient? (Score:2)
So does Microsoft.
Re:Yay! (Score:3, Informative)
Or at least punish the people who mod them up.
Go right ahead - it's called metamoderation [slashdot.org].