America will suffer because of the budget compromise

[WildCat]

You keep arguing that people are saying that HSR replaces the need for roads. The argument is that it decreases or supplements both road and air travel.

No they aren't. I don't know where you're getting that from. No one here has said any such thing. It's such a blatant strawman that I'm baffled as to why you stick with it. I'll eventually need to walk to get to my house, are you saying we should replace all walkways with roads? No of course not, so I don't think anyone believes someone is saying we need to replace all roads with rail of any sort.

You have a hell of a knack for completely missing the point. Sure, HSR will slightly decrease use of interstates and airports, but not enough to reduce any expenditures on said roads and airports. Nor will HSR get you from any given Point A to any given Point B that said roads or airports don't already service. So what will HSR accomplish? At best, you get a redundant service that costs many billions of dollars and likely will require heavy subsidies for the entire life of the system. It's a solution in search of a problem.

Road and air, is not going to be substituted with HSP. Again, that's not the claim. It would be useful to supplement, or augment our existing transportation options with more rail options.

And the point of this option is...? Can you justify the cost?

Again, if HSR located entirely within the state of California is such a good investment, then California should be able to fund it themselves. Why should Chicago residents pay for a HSR system in California they'll never use, while their own mass transit infrastructure is crumbling? I remember when the CTA trains used to be called "rapid transit", they dropped that years ago because it no longer was, given all the slow zones in the system due to disrepair.

 

[Ziggurat]

So just examining the claim about carbon, there are several massive problems with the calculations. First, per mile rail expells MUCH less carbon than cars and airplanes:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...he-environmental-benefits-of-high-speed-rail/

So, if everyone used trains instead of planes and cars, there would be an enormous drop in carbon release.

But everyone won't use trains instead of planes and cars. Not even if the ridership estimates are accurate. This isn't simply about whether or not rail will reduce carbon emissions. It's about whether it's an efficient use of resources for achieving that goal. And that depends not upon the per-passenger-mile reduction, but upon the per-dollar reduction. If it's too expensive, then you're better off doing something else to reduce carbon emissions. And it's too expensive.

Oh, and your link uses some pretty faulty analysis itself. It uses averaged passenger occupancy rates for ALL car travel, but the occupancy rates for intercity travel is higher than for all travel. And it STILL comes out with a carbon offset "value" ($4.24 million) which is basically just a rounding error compared to the total costs the list ($648 million). So even your own link doesn't support the notion that this is actually a cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Did you even notice that?

Now, the second question is whether this is the most cost effective way to reduce greenhouse gasses. Once again, we arrive at the sloppy math where the cost of building rail is factored into train travel but somehow road building, maintenance and the massive subsidies for the automotive and oil industries are ignored.

The nice thing about a price analysis is that you don't need to include such factors. Price carries the necessary information.

The price for reducing carbon emissions via high speed rail is MUCH higher than available alternatives. It's incredibly inefficient for that purpose. You haven't actually challenged those numbers, and your link doesn't actually suggest otherwise. Almost all of the benefits your own source cites come from factors other than reduced carbon emissions. And whether doing something like reducing oil industry subsidies would be efficient is a completely separate matter.

That "study" is just a reiteration of the sloppy analysis that underlies all of the anti-rail arguments. It doesn't even try to isolate rail travel, it just analyzes a specific program suggested in California and doesn't bother to control any variables.

So you're dismissing that because it's not about all rail everywhere?

That being said, the California plan might be a crappy one.

The California plan is a crappy one. So was the Florida one. You have yet to show that there's a plan anywhere in the US right now that isn't crappy.

Notice that a minority of states (almost all of which happen to be "blue," coincidence I'm sure) foot the federal bill for the welfare, or "Republican," states:

Off topic and irrelevant.

Enhancing the economy of California, which receives $0.78 for every dollar they pay to the federal government, would directly benefit the rest of the country.

It would benefit California even more. So you're failing (still) to make ANY case for why this should be federal and not state funds.

That money would pay for (guess what) roads and infrastructure in the retarded states.

Or that money could just be spent directly on those "retarded states".

Then it shouldn't be difficult to prove the benefits. I'm giving you a situation that is EASIER than the California HSR program because of that through traffic. Now go ahead, support your claim.

Instead you run and hide, whining the whole way.

Oh, please. Stop with the pathetic posturing.
http://www.interstate50th.org/docs/techmemo2.pdf
"Net rate of social return on highway capital was about 35% in the 1950s and 60s; it declined to about 10% in the 1980s, or just about equal to rates of return on private capital. Nonetheless, the overall contribution to social welfare from Interstate highway investment has been enormous over the life cycle of the interstate system."

Now, what's your numbers? Got any?

I'm not demanding anything UNLESS you continue down the line of argumentation you've presented. YOU argued that California's rail system is closed and therefore it's different than the interstate highway system in terms of national benefit.

And the difference isn't really obvious to you? No, it is. You cannot honestly be so stupid as to not understand the difference in external benefits of a transportation system with through traffic and a system throughout. The reason you're getting your panties in a bunch has nothing to do with the fact that you don't understand the difference. You just think you can back me into a corner so you don't have to prove that a transportation system without through traffic has sufficient external benefits.

 

[WildCat]

And with this post we have reached the part of our interaction that has happened every time I've engaged you: I cannot tell if you're trying not to understand.

I understand perfectly.

Yes, roads pay for themselves in the long run, in fact, the interstate system has been a HUGE economic boom for the country, and through tax dollars, the government. But we do not require people using the roads to cover that cost. They aren't paid for by the gas tax alone. We don't make drivers bear the cost of the generous automotive and petroleum subsidies that keep gas artificially cheap at the pump.

A claim you have never been able to substantiate.

That cost is shared across society with government footing the massive upfront cost for road and bridge building and repair.

Yet with HSR you DEMAND that unless the cost can be covered by ticket purchases, it isn't worth it. The economic studies show a similar return of investment when a high speed rail is built, like this one:

http://www.usmayors.org/highspeedrail/documents/report.pdf

Oh there's an unbiased source, mayors looking for federal dollars like pigs running to the slop.

eta: and written by a company that manufactures high-speed trains.

Right. It's 1950: tell Kansas that if they think the interstate highway system will benefit them economically, they should just build it themselves and don't need a sigle penny from the other 49 states.

Once again, roads are a necessity. HSR is not, it's merely another option that has few if any discenible advantages over existing transportation options. Something that couldn't be said about the Eisenhower interstate system.

One thing government is great at is covering the upfront costs of a project that will have long term, rather than immediate, benefit.

And California is free to pay those costs.

Again, are you trying to be dense?

There is some percentage of car travel that will be replaced by HSR and there is some percentage of air travel that will be replaced.

We will still have cars and airplanes.

And we will still spend exactly the same on that infrastructure, and get to pay billions more so people have "options".

No, it doesn't. In order to make that math work you have to ignore the cost of highways when you consider car travel, you have to ignore the massive subsidies we dump into the automotive and oil industries, and you have to ignore the environmental costs.

We've been through this before, you failed completely to substantiate your claims of oil subsidies. I doubt you have anything new to bring to the table.

Well, that sums up your way of thinking nicely. Mull that sentence over in your head a few times.

Having access to sources of revenue capable of covering one's expenses is pretty much the exact opposite of being broke.

"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestical­ly and internatio­nally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchild­ren. America has a debt problem." - Barack Obama, 2006

 

[WildCat]

So, if everyone used trains instead of planes and cars, there would be an enormous drop in carbon release.

And I get accused of using a strawman when I say people are saying HSR will replace automobile use...

 

[Dymanic]

We've been through this before, you failed completely to substantiate your claims of oil subsidies.

For those of us who may have missed those discussions, would you mind clarifying which claims about oil subsidies you dispute and your reasons for doing so?

 

[WildCat]

For those of us who may have missed those discussions, would you mind clarifying which claims about oil subsidies you dispute and your reasons for doing so?

Because every example of an "oil subsidy" was simply standard practice for any industry high start-up costs and a term of years before any retuirns on investment were realized.

Every claim was utter and complete hogwash. And taht's without even getting into the nonsense about how the US not taxing income made in other countries amounts to a "subsidy". Bump the other thread if you want to discuss it.

 

[TraneWreck]

I understand perfectly.

That possibility is even more troubling.

A claim you have never been able to substantiate.

It was wrong the first time you said it, it's still wrong:

the real cost of energy dependence amounts to more than $11.35 per gallon, according to Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.

http://www.hybridcars.com/news/real-cost-gallon-gas-835.html

In 2007, the Earth Policy Institute took the ICTA numbers, added in the cost of oil and gas consumption, figured in inflation and calculated that the average real cost of a gallon of gasoline in this country should have been $11.92 in 2006. Adjusting for inflation, we'd be paying $12.75 at the pump on average if we were shelling out the real price of gas.

http://www.catalystmagazine.net/com...the-pump-uncovering-the-true-cost-of-gasoline

Now, you could go read those studies, but that would involve burning calories thinking. I'm fairly certain that won't happen.

Oh there's an unbiased source, mayors looking for federal dollars like pigs running to the slop.

eta: and written by a company that manufactures high-speed trains.

What a substantive response. THis is your typical effort, not surprising at this point.

Once again, roads are a necessity. HSR is not, it's merely another option that has few if any discenible advantages over existing transportation options. Something that couldn't be said about the Eisenhower interstate system.

Roads are a necessity, an interstate system isn't.

And again, they're a necessity NOW because our culture has constructed itself around a certain model. That doesn't mean it is that way because of some natural force.

And California is free to pay those costs.

And Kansas is free to pay for the interstates that run through it.

And we will still spend exactly the same on that infrastructure, and get to pay billions more so people have "options".

It's like talking to a wall. The population will grow. There will be NEW infrastructure. We get to choose what that will be. You have, shockingly, miserably failed to support your claims about cost.

Set up the comparison between new auto-centric infrastructure and new rail infrastructure. That would be an honest comparison (which is why we'll never see it coming from you).

"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestical*ly and internatio*nally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchild*ren. America has a debt problem." - Barack Obama, 2006

Good lord. Look at the date of that quote. Was that BEFORE or AFTER the financial crisis that created the unique set of economic conditions that demand stimulative responses?

The 00's were the time we should have been cutting government debt. Instead we got unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts, unfunded prescription drug plans...etc.

After the crisis hit and aggregate demand crashed, the nature of our debt became very different, appropriate action became very different. Your reasoning is so sloppy and inadequate it's difficult to describe within the bounds of the membership agreement.

 

[TraneWreck]

And I get accused of using a strawman when I say people are saying HSR will replace automobile use...

Do you see this word:

IF?


That's called a conditional statement. Based purely on an assessment of carbon emissions per mile, if we went solely to a rail system, it would be significantly less. That doesn't mean 1) this is possible 2) this is a good idea or 3) that's what I'm arguing.

Just amazingly sloppy thinking.

 

[TraneWreck]

Because every example of an "oil subsidy" was simply standard practice for any industry high start-up costs and a term of years before any retuirns on investment were realized.

Every claim was utter and complete hogwash. And taht's without even getting into the nonsense about how the US not taxing income made in other countries amounts to a "subsidy". Bump the other thread if you want to discuss it.

Yeah, as you can imagine from Wildcat's work on this thread, that's perfectly the opposite of what actually occurred.

If you bump the thread you'll be overcome with sheer surprise that one side of the argument is supporting their position with studies and economic analyses and the other is talking out of their ass.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It was wrong the first time you said it, it's still wrong:


http://www.hybridcars.com/news/real-cost-gallon-gas-835.html


http://www.catalystmagazine.net/com...the-pump-uncovering-the-true-cost-of-gasoline

Now, you could go read those studies, but that would involve burning calories thinking. I'm fairly certain that won't happen.

I think those two articles are nominees for the "most dishonest piece of liberal trash ever written". Basically what they've done is take the total cost of automotive transportation: cost of fuel, cost of the car & maintenance, cost of the road and maintenance, cost of healthcare costs associated with automobile accidents, etc and divided that by the total number of gallons burned in a year and called that the "real price" of fuel. Which is a somewhat odd way to compute the transportation costs of the country, but I suppose it works. The dishonest part is that it calls the difference between the price of a gallon at the pump and the "real price" a subsidy and that we should be shelling out ~$12 at the pump. That's ludicrous. No one is ever going to pay their automobile manufacturer ~$5 a gallon whenever they fill up. They buy the car and that's the cost of the car. The price of fuel is the price of the fuel.

What tripe. A subsidy is what the government gives in tax breaks/gifts/whatever. It's pennies per gallon. Far less than the total tax per gallon.

 

[WildCat]

Yeah, as you can imagine from Wildcat's work on this thread, that's perfectly the opposite of what actually occurred.

If you bump the thread you'll be overcome with sheer surprise that one side of the argument is supporting their position with studies and economic analyses and the other is talking out of their ass.

You've demonstrated quite well what passes for "economic analysis" in your world in this thread. I like the one where mayors looking for federal money and a high-speed train manufacturer conclude that HSR generates bazillions of dollars... except apparently this only applies if it's federal money providing start-up costs. California's money is different.

 

[Ziggurat]

It was wrong the first time you said it, it's still wrong:


http://www.hybridcars.com/news/real-cost-gallon-gas-835.html

That's your evidence? That's pathetic. To start with, the number he gives is based on attaching the entire cost he associates with oil to gasoline alone. Which might make some sense, if gasoline was the only thing that oil produces. But of course, it's not. Furthermore, a lot of those costs should NOT simply be attributed to oil in the first place. The purpose of our military presence in the Persian Gulf does a hell of a lot more than just reduce the cost of oil. And much of it comes from "economic consequences", which is basically a way of blaming oil for bad stuff you don't like and assigning a price tag to that. If one wants to take such an approach, one should also include any ancillary benefits and subtract that from the total, but nothing of the sort was done. It simply makes no sense to call this a subsidy.

And Kansas is free to pay for the interstates that run through it.

Once again, I see you're actively ignoring the fact that Kansas interstate highways carry through traffic, while California's high speed rail does not.

The only benefit that anyone outside of California would receive is from higher federal tax revenues due to increased economic activity. But for that to be worthwhile, the social return on investment would have to exceed typical infrastructure investment returns several-fold, and I've seen ZERO suggestion, even by advocates of HSR, that such a spectacularly high return will be realized. And if it were, well, California should be jumping at the chance to build it even without any federal funding. So, you're still failing to present any argument that federal funds should be used to fund a purely intra-state project like this.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I think those two articles are nominees for the "most dishonest piece of liberal trash ever written". Basically what they've done is take the total cost of automotive transportation: cost of fuel, cost of the car & maintenance, cost of the road and maintenance, cost of healthcare costs associated with automobile accidents, etc and divided that by the total number of gallons burned in a year and called that the "real price" of fuel. Which is a somewhat odd way to compute the transportation costs of the country, but I suppose it works. The dishonest part is that it calls the difference between the price of a gallon at the pump and the "real price" a subsidy and that we should be shelling out ~$12 at the pump. That's ludicrous. No one is ever going to pay their automobile manufacturer ~$5 a gallon whenever they fill up. They buy the car and that's the cost of the car. The price of fuel is the price of the fuel.

What tripe. A subsidy is what the government gives in tax breaks/gifts/whatever. It's pennies per gallon. Far less than the total tax per gallon.

Do you think the cost of water is really $0.005/gallon? Think again!. Once you include the cost of everything that uses water, such as farms and houses it's really more like $2/gallon! So every time you take a shower, think about how that water really costs $2/gallon you greedy bastard! And if it wasn't for all those government subsidies, you would be paying $2/gallon!

 

[Cobalt]

What a substantive response. THis is your typical effort, not surprising at this point.

*snicker*

Yes, Wendell Cox is an awesome source of information. He's an anti-rail lobbyist, but whatever, that doesn't mean he's automatically wrong.

Cute how the argument flies when you use it but not someone else.


It's like you're playing some dumb game where you ask for numbers that seem obscure, and when it's hard to find them, should they exist at all, you'll just turn around and say, "Ah ha! Then how do you know California's plan won't help Maine?" or something equally meaningless.

 

[TraneWreck]

*snicker*


Cute how the argument flies when you use it but not someone else.

Are you James O'Keefe? Here's what I wrote right after the section you quoted:

He's an anti-rail lobbyist, but whatever, that doesn't mean he's automatically wrong.

I then go on to substantively deal with the study.

It's like you're playing some dumb game where you ask for numbers that seem obscure, and when it's hard to find them, should they exist at all, you'll just turn around and say, "Ah ha! Then how do you know California's plan won't help Maine?" or something equally meaningless.

I'm asking for consistency. People are making claims about the cost of these two forms of transportation without supporting them and making sloppy mistakes in so doing.

They are demanding that rail proponents offer a cost-benefit analysis far more detailed than they are capable of giving for the programs they support, ie, the interstate system.

Glad to see the "don't read and think so good" group has another member.

 

[TraneWreck]

That's your evidence? That's pathetic. To start with, the number he gives is based on attaching the entire cost he associates with oil to gasoline alone. Which might make some sense, if gasoline was the only thing that oil produces. But of course, it's not. Furthermore, a lot of those costs should NOT simply be attributed to oil in the first place. The purpose of our military presence in the Persian Gulf does a hell of a lot more than just reduce the cost of oil. And much of it comes from "economic consequences", which is basically a way of blaming oil for bad stuff you don't like and assigning a price tag to that. If one wants to take such an approach, one should also include any ancillary benefits and subtract that from the total, but nothing of the sort was done. It simply makes no sense to call this a subsidy.

It's almost like you'd have to look at the study to see how those issues were handled.

Once again, I see you're actively ignoring the fact that Kansas interstate highways carry through traffic, while California's high speed rail does not.

That is irrelevant. Whether it goes through or not, there is a way to calculate the cost benefit. The Grand Canyon is only in Arizona, but it economically benefits the nation because of tourist dollars.

But again, you're just trying to escape your burden of proving your case. You say that rail can never return the money that's invested. I have given you sources that disagree with this, but you don't accept them.

I'm just asking for you to even attempt to show that building interstates in Montana, N + S Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho generates enough economic activity to cover that cost. If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be that tough.

The only benefit that anyone outside of California would receive is from higher federal tax revenues due to increased economic activity. But for that to be worthwhile, the social return on investment would have to exceed typical infrastructure investment returns several-fold, and I've seen ZERO suggestion, even by advocates of HSR, that such a spectacularly high return will be realized. And if it were, well, California should be jumping at the chance to build it even without any federal funding. So, you're still failing to present any argument that federal funds should be used to fund a purely intra-state project like this.

Again, that return isn't seen on interstate highways when the costs of construction are imposed on the method of travel (automobiles + oil), and you still haven't bothered to show the amount of national benefit for building interstate highway systems in rural areas. California can't (or more specifically, doesn't want to) cover the massive upfront cost. If we required states to pay for their own interstates, you'd see a great many of them refuse to provide that service (especially if you eliminated the welfare assistance to Republican states).

The studies show that rail returns significantly more in economic activity than it costs. Those returns, however, operate over the long term while the costs are immediate. Especially in our current climate, the federal government paying for those projects would have massive benefit to the economy and the bonus would be all the advantages that HSR provides (environment, safety, quality of travel...etc.).

 

[Cobalt]

I'm asking for consistency. People are making claims about the cost of these two forms of transportation without supporting them and making sloppy mistakes in so doing.

Yet your numbers have all been completely flawless and wonderful and not biased at all....
Oh.

Glad to see the "don't read and think so good" group has another member.

lolyumadtho? Grow up kiddo.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think those two articles are nominees for the "most dishonest piece of liberal trash ever written". Basically what they've done is take the total cost of automotive transportation: cost of fuel, cost of the car & maintenance, cost of the road and maintenance, cost of healthcare costs associated with automobile accidents, etc and divided that by the total number of gallons burned in a year and called that the "real price" of fuel. Which is a somewhat odd way to compute the transportation costs of the country, but I suppose it works. The dishonest part is that it calls the difference between the price of a gallon at the pump and the "real price" a subsidy and that we should be shelling out ~$12 at the pump. That's ludicrous. No one is ever going to pay their automobile manufacturer ~$5 a gallon whenever they fill up. They buy the car and that's the cost of the car. The price of fuel is the price of the fuel.

What tripe. A subsidy is what the government gives in tax breaks/gifts/whatever. It's pennies per gallon. Far less than the total tax per gallon.

And here we go again. Temper tantrums without actual quality argument. If you disagree, fine. SHow where the studies went wrong and provide your own citation.

The cost of rail tickets could be similarly hidden through subsidies to rail companies. The government could build the track and other infrastructure and not require ticket prices to reflect this expenditure like we do with gas at the pump. That would make the cost argument much different.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yet your numbers have all been completely flawless and wonderful and not biased at all....
Oh.

You can say what you want about my numbers, but you presented some infantile point that only worked because you deceptively edited my post. You attempted to make a charge of hypocrisy, but only managed to reveal your inadequacies or malicious intent.

lolyumadtho? Grow up kiddo.

Amusing how whiney you guys are.

 

[TraneWreck]

Do you think the cost of water is really $0.005/gallon? Think again!. Once you include the cost of everything that uses water, such as farms and houses it's really more like $2/gallon! So every time you take a shower, think about how that water really costs $2/gallon you greedy bastard! And if it wasn't for all those government subsidies, you would be paying $2/gallon!

Of course water prices are heavily subsidized. That's a very good thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with subsidizing prices.

But when you try to compare industries with drastically different levels of subsidy based on cost alone, that government assistance should be considered.