A High-Speed Rail Pessimist
Michael Schrage examines the various roles of models, prototypes, and simulations as collaborative media for innovation risk management. He has served as an advisor on innovation issues and investments to major firms, including Mars, Procter & Gamble, Google, Intel, BT, Siemens, NASDAQ, IBM, and Alcoa. In addition, Schrage has advised segments of the national security community on cyber conflict and cybersecurity issues. He has presented workshops on design experimentation and innovation risk for businesses, organizations, and executive education programs worldwide. Along with running summer workshops on future technologies for the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, he has served on the technical advisory committee of MIT's Lincoln Laboratory. In collaboration with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Schrage helped launch a series of workshops sponsored by the Department of Defense on federal complex systems procurement. In 2007, he served as a judge for the Industrial Designers Society of America's global International Design Excellence Awards.
Question: How viable are high-speed trains?
Michael Schrage: Speaking as somebody who will probably be taking the Acela some time this week, it would be nice if we had higher speed trains, let alone high-speed trains. I think that when you do back of the envelope, capital internal rate of return calculations and the number of people moved and the value of these things, it really doesn't work out very well. I am not an optimist on light rail or high-speed rail. I think I would rather invest in a counterpart of Ryanair, than in fixed track locations. I think it may work for Asia and Europe, but people are closer together, the city densities are different, the lifestyles are different, the cultures are different. And I'm one of these old fashioned people who take culture and lifestyle differences very seriously.
I believe that regions and states and cities should be doing experimentation. But it's been my unfortunate observation that a lot of what people call experiments are really ways of throwing money at a problem. One would think that California would have all manner of dedicated, faster rail. But you look at the economic success that Bart is not in the Bay area, despite the fact that there are good population densities, despite the fact that there's a variety of different ways to create complements between the rail and the car, and they haven't managed to pull it off. And I don't think people in California are stupid, so there must be other reasons.
Question: How viable is shared mobility?
Michael Schrage: Yeah, people are doing the Zip car thing, they're doing the bike thing. I know that they've tried this in Paris and have discovered that sometimes people aren't as well behaved or as altruistic or as nice as they should be.
Let me say something politically incorrect and I'm going to argue that some communities will do the shared thing very, very well. If you held a gun to my head, I think that many of these things will go over well in Denmark and parts of Sweden, rather than in parts of Paris.
I think shared mobility is a perfect example of something that technologically we could do with a snap of our fingers. The problem ain't the technology, it's--altogether now--the value and the politics, it's the differences in lifestyles. Do I think shared mobility will do gangbusters in Tokyo and Kyoto and large parts of Shanghai and Beijing? You betcha!
By the way, the reason why it's going to do really well in Beijing and Shanghai? Is if you don't share nicely, they're going to put you in jail. That's just not going to happen in America. No matter how much certain people want it.
Recorded on January 22, 2010
Michael Schrage would rather invest in a counterpart of Ryanair, than in fixed track locations: "It may work for Asia and Europe, but people are closer together, the city densities are different, the lifestyles are different, the cultures are different."
Sharon Salzberg, world-renowned mindfulness leader, teaches meditation at Big Think Edge.
- Sharon Salzberg teaches mindfulness meditation for Big Think Edge.
They didn't know it, but the rituals of Iron Age Scandinavians turned their iron into steel.
- Iron Age Scandinavians only had access to poor quality iron, which put them at a tactical disadvantage against their neighbors.
- To strengthen their swords, smiths used the bones of their dead ancestors and animals, hoping to transfer the spirit into their blades.
- They couldn't have known that in so doing, they actually were forging a rudimentary form of steel.
The 21st century is experiencing an Asianization of politics, business, and culture.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.