|
|
|
|
|
|
by ekianjo
4284 days ago
|
|
|
> You're kidding right? This is not a substitute for high speed rail. Cars are SLOW. hahaha! You forgot that trains only go to a single place, and you often have to take other transportations means after to get to where you need to be. Cars can go directly everywhere you need, and once they are automated I'm pretty sure we will see at some point motorways for automated cars where cars will go way above current speed limits AND bring you right where you have to be without moving out of the vehicle. And if you want to work during transportation, cars will be the best way to do it, really. Nobody looking over your shoulder, more space, more comfort. If you are just saving 1 or 2 hours with the train but losing much more in productivity, the calculation is quickly done. > You mean like the Concorde? http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-branson-supersonic-pl... |
|
|
>Although he wouldn’t give a timeframe to when it could be done — hopefully “within my lifetime,”
In other words "don't hold your breath" and "I wouldn't make any long term economic decisions based upon this guys' pie in the sky notions".
The fact that this technology has regressed (can't cross the atlantic in 3 hours any more!) means that your assumption that future forms of transportation will always be better, faster and cheaper is horribly shortsighted and wrong.
You'd have told us in the 80s that we'd have something better than that by now. We don't. Actually what we have now is slower, and while planes like the A380 are more fuel efficient, isn't efficient enough to mitigate the rising cost of oil.