You need to do some research, they would only need to upgrade existing rail lines to high speed elevated lines to eliminate the danger of collision with pedestrians and vehicles at crossings.
I think maglev has a good chance, especially with advances in boring technologies, that can place those conduits, underground in a potentially, vacuum environment.
You're assuming people will go along with this -------they won't. People want to go from point A to point B without having to change vehicles. We're talking people here - not cattle. Electric only cars will leave you stranded when the batteries fail. People like to drive. The driverless technology will never be full developed. All those now testing driverless vehicles have had crashes. We've all heard this "World of Tomorrow" stuff before. Seriously, the 'WOT' predictors are as bad as the Global Warming predictors.
Because we realized it was a money pit. Only two commuter rail lines in the world generate enough income to pay their own bills. All others require subsidies(losers).
We should have had bullet trains 20-30 years ago. Trolleys should have been re-introduced a long time ago as well. But the oil/gas and highway lobbies control politicians and have had tax dollars given to them by the corrupt pols. Too bad so many people refuse to refer to all this as corporate welfare.
I agree technology will continue to change the transportation landscape...but not as fast as you predict above. First, I can guarantee you I will still own cars in 20 years assuming I can live that long...and so will most other Americans. We've got something like 300 million vehicles in the US and it will take many decades to change these out in favor of whatever the technology du jour might be. Regarding your 'hyper speed bullet train' good luck with finding the consensus, the right-of-way, the funding, and building such a train during the next 50 years!
Thanks! and the "nobody will own a car" was a bit of hyperbole, but I don't think it will take long for people to see the benefits, and therefore I don't think it will take long for people to change.
Unless you're destination is the train station, a bullet train will never get you to where you want to go, no matter how fast it goes.
If it were up to people things might happen faster but the root problem is money! Most people live pay check to pay check and our nation is deep in debt...when this happens it's difficult to find money for what might be considered non-essential spending. When there's little to no money things move very slow...
There is lots of money in this country... and most people do not live paycheck to paycheck. And you are assuming that the automated car would be more expensive. That's not the case.
I tried to find out. Some sites claim 40% and some as high as 76%. Most claim over 50% are living paycheck to paycheck. Still, even if they weren't, they're probably not in a position to buy a new car - while getting nothing for their old car. Those trade-ins won't have any value. The hybrid and electric car businesses are not doing well, people don't want them. Tesla is a tax shelter for the wealthy. And the oil companies are going to idly sit along the sidelines and watch this happen?
LOL that is because paycheck to paycheck is an ambiguous term. And obviously people are buying new cars. And again, you are assuming a lot of stuff. I am too, but things are certainly going to change some how. I think automation is just a matter of time.
should we "cost shift" subsidies to help make it happen sooner rather than later? we know fossil fuels won't last forever, unlike fusion (an energy with a future).
People are buying new cars and their trade-ins have value. If everyone starts switching to electric, driverless cars, those gas engine cars won't have any value, so a large down payment may be required. The car dealer won't want them because he can't resell them. I'm not assuming anything - it's called logic. And we've all heard the 'World of Tomorrow' crap before, most of them show flying cars like George Jetson, and robot maids with mechanical dogs while people lounge around the pool. And you're also predicting automation will put us out of work. So, how can they afford a new electric car when automation has taken their jobs? We may see a few driverless cars but just a few.
Only in Paris and Kyoto. Every other commuter train line in the world must be subsidized because they don't have the ridership necessary to sustain viability. There currently aren't any lines in the States that aren't subsidized. Plus, in Japan and Europe, the cost of fuel for a car is high enough to force people to take the train. That ain't happening here. Drive to the train station - ride the train to some other train station - take a bus or a cab to your final destination - then at the end of the day repeat in reverse order. Sounds like a plan. Of course you could just drive to your destination and then drive home. Sounds like a better plan.
Alright, let's attack your assumptions one by one. First, you're assuming that gas cars will have no value. That's not a good assumption. Gas cars that are driven by people may be outlawed eventually, but that's going to be a gradual process. The second assumption you are making is that the government would never outlaw driverless cars based on the cost to the owners of none-driverless cars. That is a bad assumption because government is not always predictable. Take Donald Trump as an example. Another assumption you're making is that automation will put us out of work, and therefore there are no jobs... that one is just plain fact. It has been happening for decades. I'm not sure why you think it's a defense.
I'm not assuming automation, the futurists are. I'm not assuming that government won't outlaw driverless cars. The futurist are predicting that the cars of the future will be driverless. You assume too much on my behalf. Maybe you should go back and read the OP again. I made no assumptions on what the government may or may not outlaw, and in fact never mentioned the government. You must have real talent to be able to read what was never written. But since you're predicting no jobs due to automation, how will they pay for new electric driverless cars?
There is no industry in the USA that is more subsidized than the oil industry. Take away all the corporate welfare given to it and you will have no choice but to use trolleys and bullet trains. As for Japan, "they have carried 5.6 billion passengers" http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2014/10/01/5-things-to-know-about-japans-shinkansen-bullet-trains-2/ In Europe, "High-speed rail is emerging in Europe as an increasingly popular and efficient means of transport" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe Clearly, both are highly successful, contrary to your mythic views.
Popular and efficient doesn't mean revenue producing to the point of self sufficiency. Only two lines in the whole world are self sufficient. You have missed the point. Doesn't matter because no one in the states with the possible exception of California will build a bullet train, because it's money down the drain. The train is a drain.
what private sector firm specializing in freight, would be worse off with maglev trains capable of operating underground, in a vacuum environment.
you will need to prove your point further, you need to realize that there is virtually no industry that can succeed without government money - roads, automobiles, the military = all thrive because of government money
BS. Pure and simple. Who is this? You didn't make that Obama? The government doesn't have any money. This must be Hillary. All hail the government.
