America will suffer because of the budget compromise

[TraneWreck]

deleted.

All unnecessarily dickish posts from me have been deleted except the first one. Locked out. Most of them are saved for posterity in quotes, though.

Carry on.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Leaving aside the issue of high speed rail for a moment, this budget compromise will surely hurt us. Public sector employment has been the anchor dragging down the employment rate, and these cuts will certainly cost us jobs, just when the recovery is still pretty tentative.

 

[Dymanic]

We can either build more car-centric infrastructure that is less efficient when all variables are factored in and the true cost is measured, and that's before dealing with the environmental impact (which is impossible to fully comprehend at this point).

Yes. (And the rest of that sentence, something like "or we can build infrastructure that is less car-centric").

Obviously, this is not a simple either-or choice. Even if, in the light of increasing concerns over the price and availibility of petroleum fuels and awareness of their deleterious environmental effects, we decided to commit to a massive expansion of our rail infrastructure, maintaining existing roads still makes sense from an energy efficiency standpoint. We don't have the option to just suddenly quit driving cars anyway, even if we did decide that rail is a better way to travel. Investing public resources in rail infrastructure may end up paying off, but it isn't going to start out paying off, and the economy that will have to support that investment depends on a smooth flow of traffic over those roads. Filling in a few potholes is a modest cost compared to the enormous investments in both fossil energy and human energy that system of roadways represents. We need to keep doing that no matter what. Unless you relish the prospect of walking, you don't save up for a new car by scrimping on maintainence costs for the old beater you're presently stuck with, doomed to the scrapyard though it may be. But maintaining existing car-centric infrastructure is not the same thing as continuing to build more car-centric infrastructure. That would be applying the same assumptions that inspired the building of that system of roadways in the first place.

 

[WildCat]

I thought tyr_13 addressed that rather nicely above:

Except people actually use the highways.

The passenger railroads, not so much.

And as I've said many times, if this actually does create wealth California could do it themselves. Why do they need tax dollars from the rest of the country for their railroad? Build it and wealth will follow, right?

 

[WildCat]

Step 1: Borrow money at historically low rates that are below the nation's growth rate.
Step 2: invest that money in jobs programs (building infrastructure, schools, renewable energy plants...etc.) and support for the impoverished to deal with the crash in aggregate demand that's causing the slow recovery.
Step 3: When we've recovered (2015 according to the CBO based on current law--proper stimulus could make this happen much more quickly), then we deal with the long term economic issues, which are 90% health care costs.
Step 4: Profit from a stable, thriving economy.

Or we can pretend like the economy is an inscrutable volcano god, adopt policies that sound good to idiots who haven't thought about the issue, struggle through a prolonged recovery because we adopt austerity measures, then never deal with the actual long term budgetary issues.

Hey, that's great but what about HSR in California?

 

[WildCat]

We don't require a return on our investment for roads from those that use it.

Sure we do, that's why we have roads. If we just had mule trails we'd live a 3rd world lifestyle. Roads create prosperity, the Romans understood this over 2,000 years ago.

Passenger rail is a luxury, one we can ill afford in these times. We can't even maintain the existing passenger rail we have now, why build more? You live in Chicago, have you ridden the CTA trains lately? The tracks are crumbling, slow zones abound. And yet you want to build new passenger rail that will draw even more resources away from existing light rail? As I've said before, this is like borrowing money for a room addition when your roof is rotting away and leaking.

 

[tyr_13]

Except people actually use the highways.

The passenger railroads, not so much.

And as I've said many times, if this actually does create wealth California could do it themselves. Why do they need tax dollars from the rest of the country for their railroad? Build it and wealth will follow, right?

People didn't use the Erie canal before it was built either. Complaining that there is little demand, when the supply is currently limitingly small, is kind of backward. People do have transportation needs, the demand for that is there, but we need to look at the options for meeting that demand.

I hope California does start it themselves, but when the scale is more useful at a larger network level, the investment gets less peachy looking.

High speed rail is by no means a slam dunk, mostly because Americans are stubborn, but it isn't an obvious no-go either. It seems like something that deserves a serious effort and consistency.

On the larger budget cuts for infrastructure, that's just a completely loosing proposition.

 

[tyr_13]

Sure we do, that's why we have roads. If we just had mule trails we'd live a 3rd world lifestyle. Roads create prosperity, the Romans understood this over 2,000 years ago.

Passenger rail is a luxury, one we can ill afford in these times. We can't even maintain the existing passenger rail we have now, why build more? You live in Chicago, have you ridden the CTA trains lately? The tracks are crumbling, slow zones abound. And yet you want to build new passenger rail that will draw even more resources away from existing light rail? As I've said before, this is like borrowing money for a room addition when your roof is rotting away and leaking.

Have you drive the roads in Chicago? The bridges are crumbling, traffic jams from rush hour(s) is bad, slow zones abound, and the bridges are falling apart.

Of course we can maintain the roads, or the rail lines. Right now we aren't though.

 

[leftysergeant]

Passenger rail is a luxury, one we can ill afford in these times. We can't even maintain the existing passenger rail we have now, why build more? You live in Chicago, have you ridden the CTA trains lately? The tracks are crumbling, slow zones abound.

That's because people haven't the common sense to spend the money on them, preferring, instead, to force people to sell their homes and move on so that more roads can be built to service the over-priced homes that the real estate speculators want to sell them.

And yet you want to build new passenger rail that will draw even more resources away from existing light rail?

It need not be an either-or affair.

 

[Dymanic]

Except people actually use the highways.

The passenger railroads, not so much.

At one time, it was exactly the other way around. Passenger railroad was the only practical means of travelling long distances, because no interstate highway system existed. Would the inverse of the observation you've just made have been a valid argument at that time against the construction of an interstate highway system? Can we safely assume that the cost of fuel will remain low enough that people will be able to afford to continue to "actually use the highways"?

 

[Dorian Gray]

People didn't use the Erie canal before it was built either. Complaining that there is little demand, when the supply is currently limitingly small, is kind of backward. People do have transportation needs, the demand for that is there, but we need to look at the options for meeting that demand.

I hope California does start it themselves, but when the scale is more useful at a larger network level, the investment gets less peachy looking.

High speed rail is by no means a slam dunk, mostly because Americans are stubborn, but it isn't an obvious no-go either. It seems like something that deserves a serious effort and consistency.

On the larger budget cuts for infrastructure, that's just a completely loosing proposition.

Analogy fail. The Erie Canal was to connect things that weren't previously connected. We've already got highways.

And it's not backwards. Rail is in places where it works and has disappeared from places it won't. The only places where rail works are where it's too difficult to have a car, which are in and around highly populated areas. That's why there is rail in those places! And because it's in highly populated areas, it never gets to 'high speed'.

 

[tyr_13]

Analogy fail. The Erie Canal was to connect things that weren't previously connected. We've already got highways.

And it's not backwards. Rail is in places where it works and has disappeared from places it won't. The only places where rail works are where it's too difficult to have a car, which are in and around highly populated areas. That's why there is rail in those places! And because it's in highly populated areas, it never gets to 'high speed'.

And it will reappear, in the newer forms, where that will work. Owning, maintaining, and fueling a car is a HUGE investment. As that becomes less and less attractive, rail becomes more. The analogy is that you can't claim that there is no demand for something that currently isn't really an option.

There are many places that would obviously benefit, many that wouldn't, and some where it isn't so sure.

EDIT: Obviously the analogy falls apart in other, more obvious ways. The Erie canal paid back the investment cost in three years with fees alone.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Allow me to suggest an alternative to high speed rail, using the infrastructure we already have.

Terrafugia.

 

[Dorian Gray]

And it will reappear, in the newer forms, where that will work. Owning, maintaining, and fueling a car is a HUGE investment. As that becomes less and less attractive, rail becomes more. The analogy is that you can't claim that there is no demand for something that currently isn't really an option.

There are many places that would obviously benefit, many that wouldn't, and some where it isn't so sure.

Building a high speed rail infrastructure is a huge investment. There are 300 million cars, so obviously the cost of cars is not that huge. Rail was an option, but then people rejected that option. This is serious money. You can't build this for billions of dollars just to give people an option, and HOPE they choose it. Hope is not a plan. You have to KNOW people would choose rail. And for the foreseeable future, it's safe to say you not only don't know that, you know the opposite.

 

[tyr_13]

Allow me to suggest an alternative to high speed rail, using the infrastructure we already have.

Terrafugia.

From an engineering nerd standpoint, I love those crazy car/aircraft designs.

From a aerospace engineering, road standpoint, they are ****** cars and even shittyer sports aircraft.

The Icon, now there is a light sports aircraft.

 

[tyr_13]

It was an option, but then people rejected that option. This is serious money. You can't build this for billions of dollars just to give people an option, and HOPE they choose it. Hope is not a plan.

Right, but it should at least be given very serious consideration and study, the type of real study planning entails. I'm getting tired of half measures for infrastructure, but honestly am more concerned with power and water than transport.

 

[TraneWreck]

Sure we do, that's why we have roads. If we just had mule trails we'd live a 3rd world lifestyle. Roads create prosperity, the Romans understood this over 2,000 years ago.

The costs are almost entirely covered by the government, the economic benefit only indirectly goes back into our coffers through tax dollars.

Opponents of HSR, by contrast, demand that the cost of the rail be covered by the tickets it sells. We do not impose this same limitation on automobile travel, otherwise we would never build a single road.

Passenger rail is a luxury, one we can ill afford in these times. We can't even maintain the existing passenger rail we have now, why build more? You live in Chicago, have you ridden the CTA trains lately? The tracks are crumbling, slow zones abound. And yet you want to build new passenger rail that will draw even more resources away from existing light rail? As I've said before, this is like borrowing money for a room addition when your roof is rotting away and leaking.

False dilemma. Why does building new rail depend on allowing existing infrastructure to crumble?

You are, of course, completely wrong about what can "ill afford." When international investors are anxious to invest money in the United States, offering rates substantially below our rate of growth, we can ill afford NOT to invest in our nation's infrastructure. Light rail in metropolitan ares would be an awesome allocation of investment (Chicago also could use a few jobs, you may have seen), and light rail is another great investment.

 

[Dymanic]

Building a high speed rail infrastructure is a huge investment.

Personally, I'm not in love with high speed rail per se, but I do see expanding our rail infrastructure generally as a useful measure toward mitigating some of the problems we are facing.

There are 300 million cars, so obviously the cost of cars is not that huge. Rail was an option, but then people rejected that option.

It's not necessarily quite that simple. I hope you will take the time to look at this Wiki article (I linked it above) discussing the Great American Streetcar Scandal.

You have to KNOW people would choose rail. And for the foreseeable future, it's safe to say you not only don't know that, you know the opposite.

It's essentially the same as saying, "It's safe to say that for the foreseeable future, gasoline prices will not rise sharply" -- because when gasoline prices do rise sharply, so does rail ridership:

Amtrak had more riders in March than it has had in any March in its 40 years of existence, the company said Thursday.

This 2008 article indicates that it happened the last time gas prices spiked, too:

DENVER — With the price of gas approaching $4 a gallon, more commuters are abandoning their cars and taking the train or bus instead.

A bit of a no-brainer, really.

 

[WildCat]

Have you drive the roads in Chicago? The bridges are crumbling, traffic jams from rush hour(s) is bad, slow zones abound, and the bridges are falling apart.

So why nor fix what we have rather than building new infrastructuire few people will use and which will be expensive to maintain?

Of course we can maintain the roads, or the rail lines. Right now we aren't though.

So why not take the billions they're trying to throw at HSR and maintain the existing infrastructure instead?

 

[WildCat]

People didn't use the Erie canal before it was built either. Complaining that there is little demand, when the supply is currently limitingly small, is kind of backward. People do have transportation needs, the demand for that is there, but we need to look at the options for meeting that demand.

There was an obvious use for the Erie canal, HSR not so much. Canals were and are a relatively cheap way to transport lots of goods, HSR is a not so cheap way to transport people. Trains are great at moving freight, expensive to move people. Apparently you can't stack people like cordwood on a train...

I hope California does start it themselves, but when the scale is more useful at a larger network level, the investment gets less peachy looking.

High speed rail is by no means a slam dunk, mostly because Americans are stubborn, but it isn't an obvious no-go either. It seems like something that deserves a serious effort and consistency.

On the larger budget cuts for infrastructure, that's just a completely loosing proposition.

The reasons Americans don;t use passenger rail has little to do with stubborness and everything to do with geography. At the end of the day, most of the interior US is sparsely populated and there simply is not the population density to support HSR projects. Airlines are much more efficient, you don't need thousands of miles of expensive infrastructure between airports, and airplanes are several times faster than even the fastest trains.