AOC: Pros and Cons

To be fair, she is certifiably insane…

1 Like

I mean, here’s a jumping off point.

No domestic air travel is absurd. High speed rail can reach a peak speed of about 200 mph, and the average speed, including stops at intermediate points, is much much slower. That’s fine for NYC to Boston (215 miles) or even LA to San Francisco (425 miles) where the difference in time between high speed rail vs airplane is maybe an hour or two.

But what if you’re going 3,300 miles (as the crow flies) from Seattle to Miami? Even if we imagine a hypothetical high speed train with ZERO stops along the way taking an extremely direct route and no slowing down for any mountains (completely ludicrous) we’re talking about something in the vicinity of 17 hours. Given that stops, and less-than-perfectly-straight-routes, and mountains are all actual things that exist and will slow such a train down, realistically I doubt you could actually make such a trip in 24 hours (see a better calculation in the next post). You can fly from SEA to MIA in under 6 hours. That’s a pretty massive difference.

So yeah, that’s beyond stupid. AOC herself flies when she’s only going as far as Texas. I guess it’s a case of “do as I say, not as I do”. (To be fair, the non-high-speed train takes 54 hours. Maybe the high-speed one would only take 18 hours and possibly AOC would be happy to spend that kind of time traveling one-way instead of a 3.5 hour flight.)

Also, worth noting is that she flew first class despite that having a larger carbon footprint than coach.

Forcing everyone into electric vehicles is considerably worse given the currently unworkable-for-most-road-trips charging time. That’s just going to result in more air travel which is a bigger polluter per seat mile than a single-occupant ICE vehicle.

Especially if I can’t fly non-stop between two US destinations and thus have to do something crazy like fly from home to London to my domestic destination because non-stop is no longer available thanks to her Green New Deal. (Still faster than her high speed rail.)

1 Like

Digging deeper, the Acela train has a top speed of 150 mph and it takes 3.75 hours to make the 215 trek from NYC to Boston for an average speed of about 57 mph or 38.2% of the top speed.

If the Seattle to Miami train went 38.2% of 200 mph that would be an average speed of 76.4 mph and it would take over 43 hours to make that trip by high speed rail. Not even accounting for non-straight routes. Add in something for that and it’s probably at least 48 hours.

48 hours … instead of 6. Yeah, I’m sure there will be a lot of takers. :roll_eyes:

38.2% of maximum speed might be too fast given the fact that there are much bigger mountains in the way. And the stops will presumably be just as long too. So really even my 48 hour estimate is probably too low. Probably the average distance between stops will be longer so that would potentially offset.

Suffice it to say that high speed rail is a crap-ton slower than flying for cross-country trips.

1 Like

A summary of California’s foray into high speed rail.

If you don’t care to click links, the TLDR version is:

And that one seemed like a good idea. Replacing 100% of air travel within the 48 contiguous states with high speed rail does not.

She’s too close to communism. It doesn’t work, never will. Let it go.

1 Like

I could be wrong but i don’t think AOC had any expectation that GND would pass. Proposals like that i think are intended to generate discussions, to take what is realistic or low hanging fruit from the list and make it law.

2 Likes

Perhaps, but AcademicActuary didn’t “see anything so terrible” about GND and that’s who I was responding to. Well him and Triweasel who asked me what I didn’t like about GND.

a quote from a conservative.

1 Like

I didn’t see “eliminate domestic flights” in what AA posted. I did find “flight shaming” in a google search back to an article from 2019.

CA has to be one of the worst states for an initial proof of value on high speed rail. A serious proposal would link multiple cities across the Midwest and make them as accessible between cities as those that are much closer in the NE.

This is overused. It’s hard to take a high speed train that doesn’t exist.

3 Likes

This post has a lot of opportunity for improvement.

1 Like

i see her (and many of the progressives) as more idealistic than realistic. and unwilling to compromise, even on things moving in the right direction

1 Like

In general: we are getting pretty screwed by climate change right now, and it is only going to get worse. We aren’t going to save the world unless some new technology comes along since getting global cooperation with developing nations is not going to happen, and we realistically can only do so much.

So now what?

What can we do, will it matter, and will we benefit from something even if the Earth eventually burns up anyway? Is it worth the cost? There are plenty of opportunities in the list that AA posted that would make the US better.

1 Like

Yeah, a lot of Republicans do it too. Especially in the last five years, but it’s been getting progressively worse for a while.

Overton window. In the American corporatocracy anything less than indentured servitude/slavery for the people is considered too idealistic.

2 Likes

Do you truly believe that AOC would take a ~20 hour high speed train from NYC to Austin if it existed, rather than a 3.5 hour flight?

As in they won’t be our bitch and whore for us so we just keep raping them.

My objections to GND go beyond what AA posted. From the link I posted:

If i can ignore your assumptions that are doom and gloom on the idea and say if it took <10 hours i think yes, she would take the train.

I don’t think using the acela train as a starting point is what she is talking about.

1 Like

Not really. She’s idealistic and her ideas would include significant disruption to the status quo. We don’t do government forced status quo changes in America. They can happen from innovations in the economy, but by and large we have never accepted the type of government intervention into our lives and choices that she proposes. If AOC is the future of the Democratic party than this political board is going to be in for many years of hand wringing and wondering why Democrats just can’t win elections because Republicans in nationwide and statewide elections will slaughter candidates like her at the polls.