Slashdot Mirror
Can the Auto Industry Retool Itself To Build Rails?
knapper_tech writes "The scope of the auto industry troubles continues to increase in magnitude. The call to retool and develop new vehicles has been made several times already, but with all of the challenges from labor prices and foreign competition, how exactly can the industry retool itself to be more competitive? In light of superior competition facing losses, there doesn't seem to be enough room in the industry moving forward. In the context of finding a new place in the auto industry, the future isn't bright. Calls for no disorderly collapse of the cash-strapped big three and a reluctant congress can only point to an underlying lack of direction. However, consider two other standing economic challenges. The airlines have continued to struggle due to fuel prices and heightened security. Consumers backed off of SUV's due to high fuel prices, and while those prices have eased in the face of global recession, the trend will pick up again with growth in China and India leading the fight for resources. In short, things are moving less, and the industries that support the movement are in need of developing new products while consumers are in need of a cheaper method of transportation."
Read on for the rest of knapper_tech's thoughts.
knapper_tech continues:
"Looking abroad, it's clear the US has far less invested in local and regional rail systems. With regard to high-speed rail systems, the US is conspicuously behind. France's TGV is moving people at 574km/h. China operates the world's first commercial maglev line while the famous Japanese Shinkasen goes without mentioning. In the US there is only one line in operation between DC and Boston with a few more planned as a result of the 2008 election in California.
The traditional barrier to implementation of rail systems is the initial investment costs, but in the context of economic stimulus, such investment sinks are actually desirable. The auto industry has clearly taken note with proposals from companies like Caterpillar for huge new infrastructure projects.
A friend who recently bought a house observed that real-estate prices are on the rise nearer to city centers, where the fallout of mortgage problems and expensive, time-consuming drives from the suburbs can be avoided. Recalling the huge number of urban revitalization plans and efforts to increase the viability of older city centers, it seems as though many municipal governments would also be in line to gain from the added density of rail systems and increased activity they can support in downtown areas.
Putting it all together, it seems like now would be a good time to direct the industrial capacity of the automotive and supporting industries to developing local and regional, high-speed rail systems to provide a more efficient and effective infrastructure basis for US cities while essentially creating a new market where competition from foreign car manufacturers will not be a problem. At the same time, a huge labor force would be required. The task would call for engineers for development, factory workers for manufacturing, operators, and maintenance workers. Caterpillar still gets to sell construction equipment. The inevitable stream of stores popping up around stations would provide new commercial areas. Last-mile bus and taxi services would also have a new place. The list goes on.
Besides the savings in fuel, the US could also gain international prestige and possibly help lead China and India away from our mistakes, helping to stem the rising demand for oil globally and avoiding the attendant international tension. Climate change is yet another win in this scenario.
It seems like we're not exactly headed in that direction, and I'm curious to see what Slashdot readers think of all this. What pieces need to be in place to make the investments pay off? What are additional resources that are required? Can the industries really make such a change of direction? Do we have everything we need in the US? How would such systems work out long term? Would the initial investments be able to pick up fast enough to stimulate the economy?"
"Looking abroad, it's clear the US has far less invested in local and regional rail systems. With regard to high-speed rail systems, the US is conspicuously behind. France's TGV is moving people at 574km/h. China operates the world's first commercial maglev line while the famous Japanese Shinkasen goes without mentioning. In the US there is only one line in operation between DC and Boston with a few more planned as a result of the 2008 election in California.
The traditional barrier to implementation of rail systems is the initial investment costs, but in the context of economic stimulus, such investment sinks are actually desirable. The auto industry has clearly taken note with proposals from companies like Caterpillar for huge new infrastructure projects.
A friend who recently bought a house observed that real-estate prices are on the rise nearer to city centers, where the fallout of mortgage problems and expensive, time-consuming drives from the suburbs can be avoided. Recalling the huge number of urban revitalization plans and efforts to increase the viability of older city centers, it seems as though many municipal governments would also be in line to gain from the added density of rail systems and increased activity they can support in downtown areas.
Putting it all together, it seems like now would be a good time to direct the industrial capacity of the automotive and supporting industries to developing local and regional, high-speed rail systems to provide a more efficient and effective infrastructure basis for US cities while essentially creating a new market where competition from foreign car manufacturers will not be a problem. At the same time, a huge labor force would be required. The task would call for engineers for development, factory workers for manufacturing, operators, and maintenance workers. Caterpillar still gets to sell construction equipment. The inevitable stream of stores popping up around stations would provide new commercial areas. Last-mile bus and taxi services would also have a new place. The list goes on.
Besides the savings in fuel, the US could also gain international prestige and possibly help lead China and India away from our mistakes, helping to stem the rising demand for oil globally and avoiding the attendant international tension. Climate change is yet another win in this scenario.
It seems like we're not exactly headed in that direction, and I'm curious to see what Slashdot readers think of all this. What pieces need to be in place to make the investments pay off? What are additional resources that are required? Can the industries really make such a change of direction? Do we have everything we need in the US? How would such systems work out long term? Would the initial investments be able to pick up fast enough to stimulate the economy?"
Since the auto industry in the US is run by a bunch of tools.
Hey retard, your quality argument hasn't been true for a long, long time.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Airbus doesn't make planes, they make *partially* flying death cans and sue anyone who makes noise about their dangerously inferior components
Are they "standard" as in proprietary closed source, or Standard as in the specs are licenced by the GPLv3 (or later) and have no patents? Currently, no. The rail standard is not GPL'd and so it is not a standard.
Like information, Rail wants to be Free (tm).
Do those same rednecks know how to capitalize letters that begin sentences? For someone claiming intellectual superiority over these "rednecks" your failing.
thats a really amazing story. why don't you regale us with more of your pointless stories.
In other words, STFU.
n00b.
Sheesh.
republican pundits: "unions are barnacles preventing the auto industry ship from working properly"
colbert:
"Because everyone knows: when the ship runs aground, it's the barnacles' fault"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The fact of the matter is: American made automobiles implement a wider range of technologies and vehicle types than most foreign companies.
Seriously? You seriously think that? Ok. Please go to Europe and see their cars, then go to Japan and see their cars. Now comeback and see the sorry piles of garbage they sell us here. Wider range of technologies... yeah right.
Next you're going to tell me Harley Davidson are the most technologically advanced motorcycles in the world.
Wake up! Most american cars are shit -- ugly, poorly built, made out of low grande components with 60's engine technology. C'mon, how the heck do you explain a 6 liter V8 with 300HP when in Europe they get more than that out of a 2 or 3L inline-four. I'll tell you why -- old technology! Cast iron blocks when everybody else is doing aluminum, pushrods and OHC when everybody else is doing variable timing sohcs, big old heavy iron crossplane cranks (lazy engines, don't rev much and rev slowly, c'mon this is the 21st century, that "naturally balanced" argument is bullshit, ever heard of balancer shafts?) versus flat plane cranks and what have you.
Us americans are so far behind in terms of car building and engine/transmission technology it is not even funny. And then there are the hordes of ignorant sheep like yourself that gobble down the spoonfuls of bullshit the big 3 feed you and take their word as gospel.
Do you suppose you could dial down the "pompous ass" just a bit? Thanks.
Btw, love the tagline. Let us know when the drugs wear off.