They were invented decades ago.

They have fewer moving parts than wheelbois.

They require less maintenance.

There’s obviously some bottleneck in expanding maglev technology, but what is it?

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-3 points

Then it’s good that we don’t have them, isn’t it? Kool_Newt’s post implies that it’s due to a failing of capitalism, but this sounds like a win to me. I’d rather my money go towards food and housing than a faster or more comfortable experience doing something I rarely need.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Sure, but if it lessens the impact on the climate from air travel and vehicles, then it’s a good thing. Especially if they can become reliable and convenient enough that people don’t need to have their own vehicles to drive everywhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

One of the most common flights is US west coast to east coast. Normal high speed rail can’t do this in a reasonable time frame. We need something faster if we want to get reduce those flights.

One of the features of capitalism is externalizing the costs, especially of pollution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Ah, that makes sense. So maglev is overall cheaper but still less profitable because the costs are paid where they’re incurred.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Cheaper than flights? You’d have to do the math on it. We may have to accept that some things like travel will be expensive. But right now it’s not feasible Wrt to time to take a train or even HSR coast to coast.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

That’s the dumbest take ever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Care to explain why?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It is scientifically proven that high quality public transport, and especially train services, improves the lives of people and improves the economy.

Money spent on food is a total waste. No matter how much food you buy for people, they will eat all of it and will ask for more. Simply because you need to eat every day of your life.

This is also true for housing to some extent, as populations generally tend to grow over time, thus more and more houses will always be needed no matter how much you have built already. But houses take a lot more time to run out of as you don’t need a new house every day, only once every few years when the population increases.

But you can build a good railway system in the area once and then people will use it to earn their own money, to pay for their food themselves and to buy their own homes themselves. And they will also pay for railway maintenance and bring profit to the budget as well. It’s a one time investment which lasts virtually forever.

The government should invest in long term solutions: infrastructure, education, etc. There’s really no point investing anything into short term solutions. Housing can be a long term investment if done properly though. But that’s an off topic.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 9.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 4.9K

    Posts

  • 276K

    Comments