"Gay guy says what?" historically had a pretty good hit-rate, the limit is that most people probably can't recite their credit card number from memory fast enough to be got by this
Just commenting to say, from a place of empathy, that you're right and that it's hard for people to understand what mania looks like in someone if you haven't experienced it first-or-second-hand. You see it a few times and it becomes obvious. In the moment it can be disorienting and cause you to question your own reality because theirs seems so influential and motivated. I hope you're doing well these days.
I'm very much in agreement. All of the pitches for more passenger rail have a for-the-greater-good tint to them that glosses over the fact that point-to-point private vehicles are better in every other conceivable way, more so if they're autonomous. I'd be comfortable betting that any serious passenger rail projects breaking ground right now today are going to be legitimately antiquated by the time Waymo and/or Flying Waymo and their equivalents are commonplace and cheap. More desirable, more convenient, easier infrastructure build out, less disruptive maintenance, better capacity allocation. I hope I live to see the day I can summon a car to my house, hop inside, and it travels automatically to a designated VTOL zone, docks into a fixed-wing harness and takes me anywhere I'd like to go. I'd get fat as hell.
> All of the pitches for more passenger rail have a for-the-greater-good tint to them that glosses over the fact that point-to-point private vehicles are better in every other conceivable way
You must not live in a dense city. Rail doesn't have traffic and is usually faster, and much faster in heavy traffic, including rush hour, sporting events, airports, bridges/tunnels across the river, parades, marathons, etc. etc.
Also, there's no advantage to Waymo that doesn't apply to rideshare and taxi. I doubt people will care that Waymo vehicles autonomous, beyond the initial novelty (and despite SV's attempted marketing that their robots are better than people).
Finally, despite SV trying to ridicule any attitude that threatens their profits, most people like the greater good.
I do live in a dense city with rail and it's slower, especially accounting for last-mile transit. Rail does have traffic, they just sit next to you and you have to navigate around them on foot.
It's also not true that there's no advantage to Waymo; I take rideshare and taxis everywhere, and it will be a massive draw turning that into a pure transaction with a robot instead of it being a potentially social experience based on the whims and social malfunctions of the driver you get that day. As soon as Waymo or equivalent is available everywhere I will never choose to take a human-driven car again. And that's before getting into the many traffic advantages afforded to a fleet of cars that act as a collaborative swarm.
To me that does describe the greater good. For all its real benefits, passenger rail is inflexible and bulky in comparison.
> Rail does have traffic, they just sit next to you and you have to navigate around them on foot.
Obviously not what I'm talking about. It does not increase travel time in a significant way, and I'm including NYC subways. It's not like traffic jams for cars.
> it will be a massive draw turning that into a pure transaction with a robot instead of it being a potentially social experience based on the whims and social malfunctions of the driver you get that day
You're entitled to your personal preferences, of course, and I hope you find what works for you. Assuming your preferences are globalized is not factual: Most humans generally desire social interactions with other humans. We are naturally social animals that live in groups.
> To me that does describe the greater good.
Antisocial behavior is not 'good', it's just what you like. The pandemic was a major negative for society on a social level.
> Obviously not what I'm talking about. It does not increase travel time in a significant way, and I'm including NYC subways. It's not like traffic jams for cars.
It's still relevant. Waiting for the next train, finding a seat, these are still jams. Travel time is also increased when you are required to be on the transit schedule instead of leaving at any time.
> Most humans generally desire social interactions with other humans. We are naturally social animals that live in groups.
This is a silly leap. Taxi and ride-share drivers are service workers. You don't shoot the shit with the cashier at McDonalds; he is doing his job and is literally forced to politely entertain you if you decide to trap him in conversation. When you are paying somebody to do a job it is not a social interaction anymore and has no bearing on whether one enjoys real social interaction. There are Uber drivers who falsely identify themselves to the app as deaf or hard-of-hearing specifically because they'd rather focus on driving than be a performing clown for chatty riders at the same time.
> Antisocial behavior is not 'good', it's just what you like. The pandemic was a major negative for society on a social level.
It's not antisocial to want privacy; it's not antisocial to want a predictable experience during transit. A Waymo is substantially less likely than a human stranger to rob or kill or rape you; Uber added a feature where women riders can set a preference for hiring women drivers to avoid tension and danger. The human element of taxis is a downside unless you fancy yourself Miss Daisy.
> except for being like 10x more expensive, of course
Expense is largely fake when we're talking about transit. Amtrak specifically is directly federally subsidized; most bus lines run at a substantial loss. At scale there's no specific reason a fleet of cars has to be more expensive to the rider than either of these things.
> lol yes we should just replace Amtrak with 40 lane highways full of waymos. great idea
Didn't suggest replacing what's already there, there's just no justification to start building more in the US in big 2026. The time has really passed for that to be a good investment.
Buses are cars, buses can be self-driving, and they use the same infrastructure as other cars. Cars can also be made to be much smaller for the average trip, 1-2 passenger seats only, if you don't need a driver. They can go faster and stop less if you aren't subject to human reaction time. These changes are obviously future tech, but it seems nearer every day, and if we achieve genuine full self-driving at scale all assumptions and constraints about travel by car have to change.
I say give him access and make some popcorn. At my last job I watched a manager who had not written code in years start pumping out garbage PRs and reports with hallucinated stats. He would bring them to our engineering team meetings to present and we'd spend the whole time ripping into them until he got embarrassed enough to stop doing that. I can only imagine what kind of doubling down a more stubborn person could get up to.
Honestly, not even in favor of legislating any kind of increased device-side control or age gating. I understand the "this should be up to the parents" angle but I'd push it further: modern tech already allows parents too much control over their children. Freaky helicopter parents are already perfectly enabled to spy on their kids location, device usage, inspect and monitor their conversations, and it's already normalized to an insane degree. Absolutely no reason to make it an out of the box experience to tempt otherwise sane parents to go mad with that kind of abusive power.
No, but I was pointing out that profitability isn't a very useful metric for selling the benefits of either mode. Otherwise the counterargument would be that transit in the rest of the US outside the Northeast Corridor makes it the exception to the rule.
In any case, what vehicle infrastructure does the government fund today that goes away if you expand rail service? I still need to get to my house, and I don't want to live anywhere near a public transit station. Is the pitch that we get rid of the highway system entirely and make all intercity travel rail or plane?
No, the pitch isn't that. And yet in the US inevitably people will always demand to know government subsidies for everything but cars, and will pretend that alternative modes of transport are only proposed as a full replacement of cars. No one is taking your precious cars away.
I didn't bring up money except to call out that profitability of either trains or cars is irrelevant to actual utility and comfort. Obviously they both cost money and you can subsidize either one.
I'm also not concerned with or pretending that alternative modes of transport are full replacements of cars; basic comparison of the modes obviates that.
I also don't own a car, and if I did I wouldn't consider it precious, or be worried about anybody taking it away. Public mass transit advocates always go there though, it's a pretty common ad-hominem-adjacent implication. Cars are just generally a better experience. They go from A to B, and they don't have other people on them. Those factors make them obviously desirable.
If somebody comes up with a teleporter I can install at home I'll use that instead. Maybe then I'd consider that precious, or even be in love with it. It would save me a lot of time.
All of that aside my main point is to push back against the idea that more trains solve any problems with US transit, especially looking forward even a little into the future. They're complicated and time consuming to build out additional infrastructure for compared to an airport, and solve a transit gap between self-driving vehicles and air travel that will likely increasingly narrow.
> I wouldn't consider it precious, or be worried about anybody taking it away. Public mass transit advocates always go there though, it's a pretty common ad-hominem-adjacent implication.
Aka your pure fantasy that you present as fact. Of course there might be idiots who may claim to "seize the means of private transportation" or something like that, but let's not pretend it's a serious argument.
> Cars are just generally a better experience. They go from A to B, and they don't have other people on them. Those factors make them obviously desirable.
Can't see anyone arguing against that.
> All of that aside my main point is to push back against the idea that more trains solve any problems with US transit, especially looking forward even a little into the future.
Strange then that Northeastern Corridor whose validity you immediately called into question, keeps increasing ridership.
> solve a transit gap between self-driving vehicles and air travel that will likely increasingly narrow.
Of course they don't for many obvious reasons that start with words like "capacity" and "throughput".
It's also funny and ironic that you imagine the fantasy argument of "we'll take your cars away in favor of public transportation" and then literally arguing for taking away any and all alternative modes of transport except cars, and especially except cars owned by private companies (I do love the coming era of arbitrary surge pricing at any convenient time).
> Aka your pure fantasy that you present as fact. Of course there might be idiots who may claim to "seize the means of private transportation" or something like that, but let's not pretend it's a serious argument.
I realize I could have phrased it better, but I was not talking about anybody seizing the means of private transportation. I was talking about train fetishists cheekily implying that people love their precious cars, which you did.
I also haven't argued that trains don't carry more people at once, I've just said that they suck in every other way. I also haven't argued to take away anything. Trains already exist almost everywhere they make sense to exist, which is apparently to funnel people back and forth in Japan and a couple of northeast US states on entirely private rail. It's honestly hard to find anything in your reply that intentionally or otherwise is actually responding to anything I said.
I've responded, but you decided to dismiss everything.
It's a fascinating psychological and sociological question: why Americans think that the only possible state of things is the current one as it exists in the US, and why they are completely incapable of imagining any ither possible solutions.
E.g. "Trains already exist almost everywhere they make sense to exist, which is apparently to funnel people back and forth in Japan and a couple of northeast US states".
Yup, country the size of US eastern seaboard with comparable population only needs to "funnel back and forth". And Northeast Corridor just apparently appeared out of nowhere because it somehow was needed exactly there, and not anywhere else in the US, and also "just to funnel people back and forth".
Unlike cars. Americans don't need any other forms of transportation because they are physically incapable of imagining other forms despite success cases existing even in the US, and proven to work even in the shittiest third-world countries.
reply