The future of transportain
 

We were watching a TV show about 200 – 300 mph bullet trains last night and Mrs WD and I got into a discussion about the future of individual transportation.
You can have almost anything delivered right to your door these days – why not a car? Someday we may be able to subscribe to a car service that gives us the right to drive a car that we don’t own, lease, or possess in any way. We can order up a car for 8 AM and at the appointed time it will arrive at our door. We drive it to the train station and get on the bullet train, where there is another car waiting for us at the end of the train ride that we can use to get to our final destination. A lot of the parts of such a system are already in place or in development. We have self-driving cars, we can order an Uber car and it arrives in a few minutes (with driver), we already license the software that operates the cars we drive. Why not license personal transportation? You could order any size car or truck you needed at the time, you aren’t paying a driver, so you could let it sit for as long as you wanted. Put it all together with a decent rail system and 500 mile trips would be a lot more pleasant and probably faster than flying (which I have come to hate).

Like most Pelicans I like my cars, but millennials don’t share the car culture we grew up with. As a prof said in one of our business classes, “When you go to buy a drill for your business, you need to ask yourself, ‘Do I want a drill, or do I really want a bunch of holes?’” For us it’s about the drill, for a lot of people on the road, they just want transportation. This would be good people who like their cars and driving, there would be fewer of the “other” car owners on the road talking on the phone and going 50 in the passing lane.

What say you all?

Does it make more sense for a delivery van to deliver to multiple doorsteps or multiple homeowners buzzing about the city running errands?

Working out of our homes changes the landscape on top of all that.

The times they are a changing...
Kinda odd, the upcoming generation is leaning more towards mass transit and hybrid/electric cars, even delaying getting their drivers licence.

However the automobile manufactures are frantically putting out 700-800 muscle cars (maybe they see the writing on the wall?).

I retire in two years and dearly hope I can grab a gas burning stick shift dinosaur before they are all put down.

But why should CA spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a bullet train in the first place? Has Jerry Brown never heard of Southwest Airlines?

You could substitute Southwest for a bullet train in your scenario, and the public wouldn't be on the hook for a white elephant.

Because it’s more efficient than flying short distances.

Relevant. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/03/15/aaa-ford-toyota-bmw-all-see-a-future-with-fewer-cars/#c38cc92414ec

I would disagree with the "efficiency" argument on grounds of cost, and limits on potential destinations.

I swear we didn’t read that article. Sounds like we were on the right track.

Especially since you can land a 737 virtually anywhere and airports are free.

You do know that trains are terrain challenged and that land isn't free.

Let me translate that back into snark:

Especially since you can route a train to virtually anywhere and land is free.

Trains use Rails to guide the engine and cars...

We have self driving cars that use processor power to guide the car over various roadways. (no steel rails needed) and because the tech is so good, they can travel at 200mph too.

Seriously, the bullet train is nothing but a graft program for politicians.

We are helping these guys, who are funded for concept development: https://hopflyt.com/about/

Interesting stuff for cities.

Trains were a great idea for passenger transport up until the invention of the airplane.

The airplane doesn't have to maintain tracks.

The airplane isn't limited to just tracks.

One of the scary things about trains in mountainous areas is having the land underneath your tracks slide away.

I have a strong attachment to external drive steam engines, I like the big flashy orange and red diesel-electric locomotives to.

Bullet trains need to be limited by the practicality of the terrain the track is running on.

At 300MPH cresting a hill that is no problem for a 60MPH car the train can leave the tracks entirely. It is a different ball game when it comes to the acceptable radius of construction.

Some land locations will be acceptable, other not. It does not have the universal application and practicality of the air plane.

I'm not sure how this spun off into Brown's train to nowhere (and I voted for him).

Yes trains need real estate BUT the tracks and stations are already there. Okay they probably need upgrading to handle a bullet train but the real estate is already there.

And flying Southwest (or any other airline) is a huge PITA not to mention a huge offence to you and your families dignity.

Now give me a bullet train to Vegas... now your talking! (or Tijuana :D)

Jets are effn cool.

At any given moment there are over ten thousand in the sky.

Once you have a bullet train, all of the security of flying will come with it. That will make it just as much of a PITA for the train ride. And then imagine the security concerns of the high-speed corridor. Have you ever seen a train hit a semi rig at 20 mph? Yeah... at 200mph that train has 100x that energy. So, you had better secure every effn inch of that track.

Volvo allows you to "rent" an XC40. Porsche has a program in Atlanta that allows you to have a regular daily driver and access to a fleet of other cars.

That's today. Subscription-based car service.

^ I wonder if there is a good tax advantage there.

In this State (and many others) when you buy a car (new or used) you also pay 10% or more in tax.

as it is likely resold multiple times, the car is taxed multiple times.

This double and triple taxing of the car goes away with a subscription approach.

hmmm...

One of the things I have not seen mentioned in all of the flying car/air taxi scenarios is the issue of NIMBY, or Not In My Back Yard. I have read of corridors or, “freeways in the sky” that flying taxis (or UAS delivery vehicles) will join as they zip across the sky but what about the people living in the neighborhoods underneath those corridors?

People choose to live away from airports for a reason. When the sky above your house in suburbia is a corridor for taxis and commerce, the residents living below will become vocal. If it only exists in cities (people live in urban areas, too) then you’ll have to commute to catch your air taxi.

I’m curious how this will all play out...

Disagree with this statement. Plenty of millennials love cars. Plenty of boomers did not. Agree there is a push by the powers that be to steer kids away from the love, but I don't think it will be successful. Lot of younger generation drivers of new Mustangs, Camaros, Chargers, Challengers, etc.

The issues with cars is that the system breaks down in any major city.

From experience I can tell you that living in LA or the Bay Area will quickly kill any "love" for cars. Unless you like to listen to the idle of your car sitting in traffic. My latest experience is how I commuted to a new job for about 6 months. Sent in my oil out of the TDI for analysis and the wear metals were high. The blackstone guys were questioning if I was driving in harsh conditions. The average speed I clocked on my commute was 23 mph. :rolleyes:

I went to ride the train and my bike and haven't looked back. As a result, I need one car less and I am not interested in a "cool" daily driver. The only driving I enjoy anymore is a cross state road trip, a track day or a drive up a canyon in the morning, before everyone is out and about.

G