Damn it.
Why can't we do high speed rail in America ???
Japan debuts new bullet train that can run during an earthquake.
"It's also fitted with lithium-ion battery self-propulsion system -- This system allows the train to run for a short distance on its own during a power outage and will make it possible for it to move to a safer location at low speed if stranded in a high-risk area -- on a bridge or in a tunnel, for example -- during an earthquake."
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/japan-new-shinkansen-model-n700s/index.html
Let's bring that up at the next infrastructure week rally.
Seriously, I would love to see America's highway system upgraded to incorporate long-, medium, and short-haul electric rail corridors so we can start transporting our goods, services, and population more efficiently.
@northernbassist
Yes !
For travel over 3 miles, goods or people, trains could be an order of magnitude more efficient, in energy use. Total carbon footprint, and land use. It Is just plain stupid NOT to use trains.
First, have a rail network that handles 200km/h for passenger *and* goods. Remove the need for air-travel as far as possible.
Then add high-speed (350+ km/h) between "hubs". If done cleverly, it can drastically reduce emissions.
The problem? It is a *major* investment over several decades. Expensive enough that the military would have to maybe halve their budget to fund this investment.
Not sure, but I suspect there will be loud opposition to that.
Also, it will require resetting expectations of getting anywhere in the world in hours.. it is questionable if there actually is a real need for getting to the other side of the planet in hours instead of days.
If something is _that_ urgent, do it instantly using digital means. No point even travelling at that point. And as for businesses, have local presence if it is urgent getting someone onsite for repairs.
re: opposition
always amazes me how short-sighted governmental financial people are. Why don't we reduce funding for the military for a couple of years? It's not like the Army's gonna run out of bullets that they're not using anyway.
Dedicate 50% of military spending to infrastructure for ten years. Focus on transportation, IT, and urban redesign. Revisit budgeting after the decade and extend or modify as required.
The problem is that *proper* infrastructure and maintenance thereof is not sexy, doesn't allow for international threats or posturing *and* the real kicker - it's useful for regular people, not for the 1%.
This is a problem in many countries. We don't value *maintenance*, only "innovation" and "disrupt industries".
Hopefully this pandemic can help shift some of our priorities around.
That's socialist talk that is.. ;)
However, you are right. It would address many problems in society doing exactly what you said.
*I* don't see any problems with it.
Anyone voting GOP/Far Right will scream in agony though. And there you will find the real opposition to these ideas. Not just opposition, obstruction and sabotage.
@northernbassist @stark @corlin 
and πππ to this entire thread.
@corlin
Because we let Wall $treet and large corporations steal all our money and return nothing to our nation.
But you already know this. π
I've been advocating for a robust rail system in the US for decades.
And the reason we don't have it is oil. And cars. Both industries have lobbied against any public funding for railways (and other public transit).
But the benefits would be numerous--creating jobs, connecting people to where jobs are, reducing stress on roads and bridges, encouraging research and invention, and yes--reducing the number of cars on the road and the amount of gas they use and pollution they create.
The trains in Europe are generally pretty good or better. The trains in Japan are GREAT.
ProTip: If you get a second-class sleeper ticket in Europe, bring some kind of a pad, the mattresses are about a quarter-inch thick.
one more word--insurance.
the legal gambling industry would collapse--especially if universal health care is implemented at the same time.
@corlin @InvaderGzim i suspect the difficulties are more subtle than "because wall st". I don't know much about Japan, but France has had high speed for decades (not trying to compare w/JP, just stating a comparison point w/ US). And there are a few deep rooted differences there: 1. taxes (as high speed was developed as a public service), 2. research culture (which is again closer to public) less tied to direct results, 3. last but not least population density... There are pros and cons to 1&2
@corlin @InvaderGzim i meant this to be part of corlin's thread sorry
@corlin Judging by the current state of trains in this country, I wouldn't trust them to build and maintain a high speed rail lol