Obama's transportation agenda: high-speed rail

[SH3RL0CK]

Not to mention the limited surface area of roadway available through the mountains, a problem I hope this image makes abundantly clear:

 

 

That image absolutely did not make the surface area requirements clear to me.

 

First, I must assume the number of people are the same, though I'm not sure that is entirely true (I think I count more cars than bicycles, but its really difficult for me to determine for certain). That the picture is framed such that the cars go right to the edge gives the probably mistaken impression that the line of cars continues beyond the picture. The picture for the bus and bikes show the horizon unlike the picture for the cars, giving the impression that there are fewer of them than there actually are. Also, the people are not standing in the exact same place in each picture giving different images of the background, further making comparisons difficult to me.

 

But more importantly, the images are at different scales (notice the people and the road are not the same apparent size). If you were to scale the pictures to where the people and road are the same size, the space used by the cars, while still more than for the bus or bicycles, isn't as much more as appears at first glance.

 

In short, I don't believe everything I see and neither should you (although I do agree with the underlying premise despite the apparently intentional bias of the photographer). Is it possible to dig up actual data? How many people/how much area is necessary for each?

[doG]

And just who do you think should pay for it?

 

Still waiting....

[bascule]

Still waiting....

 

No, you already got a response

 

...and you replied to it. Do you think the federal government shouldn't spend money on national transportation infrastructure?

[doG]

No, you already got a response

 

...and you replied to it. Do you think the federal government shouldn't spend money on national transportation infrastructure?

 

I got a response to the second question in that post, not the first. And yes, I think the government should not be looking to spend money on the most expensive transportation options it could invest in right now. The country is already much much further in debt than it should be and it shouldn't be looking for an excavator so it can dig that hole even faster. Right now is the time to cut spending and pay our bill, not take out another credit card. Now, if you want to fund it go ahead but don't spend any of my money on it!

[bascule]

Right now is the time to cut spending and pay our bill, not take out another credit card. Now, if you want to fund it go ahead but don't spend any of my money on it!

 

Yes, we'd be spending money, but it'd be putting people back to work and lowering the unemployment rate. Those people would be building a new transportation infrastructure instead of just sitting around collecting unemployment checks. And they'd have more money to spend, which in turn stimulates the economy.

 

When the economy is bad is perhaps the worst time to cut spending, particularly if it's going to cost more people their jobs.

[Pangloss]

Now, if you want to fund it go ahead but don't spend any of my money on it!

 

Get off the Internet, then. Obviously you're using it hypocritically.

[doG]

however it was rejected because it was more expensive than simply expanding the highway to 6 lanes.

 

Yes, we'd be spending money, but it'd be putting people back to work and lowering the unemployment rate. Those people would be building a new transportation infrastructure instead of just sitting around collecting unemployment checks. And they'd have more money to spend, which in turn stimulates the economy.

 

When the economy is bad is perhaps the worst time to cut spending, particularly if it's going to cost more people their jobs.

 

They'd be building a new infrastructure that would cost more than they need to spend right now. If a guy's currently facing foreclosure on his house but needs transportation to get to work should he buy the most expensive car he can find or one that will get him by until he's more financially stable? Only an irresponsible homeowner would opt for the most expensive car and only an irresponsible government would opt for a more expensive transportation system than we need right now.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Get off the Internet, then. Obviously you're using it hypocritically.

 

Why? I pay for my internet service. How is it that anyone that advocates financial responsibility in government is a hypocrite?

[Mr Skeptic]

What if said homeowner were to get a better job and and an expensive car?

[Pangloss]

Why? I pay for my internet service. How is it that anyone that advocates financial responsibility in government is a hypocrite?

 

I'm not going to argue about all the NSF funding spent on the Internet. I'm simply going to point out that you're being disingenuous with your argument. You're not arguing for "fiscal responsibility", you're arguing for no government spending on mass transit even in places where it makes good financial sense to do so (because of the deficit). That's not a "fiscal responsibility" argument, it's a do-not-spend-my-money-under-any-circumstances argument.

 

I wonder sometimes if these conversations would be more productive if we simply removed extreme libertarian arguments and placed them over in Pseudoscience and Speculations with the other wacky conspiracy theories.

[bascule]

Why? I pay for my internet service. How is it that anyone that advocates financial responsibility in government is a hypocrite?

 

You're using a service that got off the ground by being bankrolled by the federal government in the middle of a financial crisis. Do you think during the oil crisis they should've cut funding for the Internet to save money?

[doG]

You're not arguing for "fiscal responsibility", you're arguing for no government spending on mass transit even in places where it makes good financial sense to do so (because of the deficit).

 

No I'm not. I'm arguing for the less expensive option, not no spending at all. Please justify extravagant spending in our current financial situation and demonstrate how it represents anything but immature irresponsibility. There are less expensive options available than a high speed rail. If you want a high speed rail then spend your money on it and leave mine alone until we can afford it.

[Sisyphus]

Extravagant spending is part of the point of it, actually. The analogy with buying an expensive car isn't applicable. He'd have to be buying it from himself, and building it himself too. It's about real wealth creation - building a car and getting paid for it instead of trying to find a job, and then keeping the car. Now, you can disagree that this is the best allocation of spending or even with the whole concept of stimulus spending (although that would be better argued in a different topic), but don't misrepresent the fundamental concept.

[the tree]

How about a system of green buses? This would be green but not require new infrastructure.

Buses don't need to be spectacularly green if they are an alternative to people driving everywhere. Google wasn't particularly helpful on bus emissions but I'd imagine that it wouldn't take many people riding a standard bus to be more efficient than them all with their own super efficient hybrid.

 

In an established city where it'd be difficult to change infrastructure - more and better buses are an obvious answer.

 

For between cities I don't think the change in infrastructure is such a big deal that it should prevent the use of trains. Also, from my understanding of America - you guys have a lot of train tracks that you're simply not using (we have that problem as well actually - in the middle of the city in fact - but we're working on it) so just putting some regular trains on those (why do they have to be super duper high speed and efficient?) would seem sensible.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Please justify extravagant spending in our current financial situation

Isn't it obvious that the current financial situation is the primary reason for extravagant spending?

[iNow]

I wonder sometimes if these conversations would be more productive if we simply removed extreme libertarian arguments and placed them over in Pseudoscience and Speculations with the other wacky conspiracy theories.

<off topic> I'm not sure anybody, you included, is objective enough to make such decisions fairly and consistently. Keeping it all together as "Politics," which has known subjectivity issues, seems the best option IMO. </off topic>

[doG]

Extravagant spending is part of the point of it, actually. The analogy with buying an expensive car isn't applicable. He'd have to be buying it from himself, and building it himself too. It's about real wealth creation - building a car and getting paid for it instead of trying to find a job, and then keeping the car. Now, you can disagree that this is the best allocation of spending or even with the whole concept of stimulus spending (although that would be better argued in a different topic), but don't misrepresent the fundamental concept.

 

Isn't it obvious that the current financial situation is the primary reason for extravagant spending?

 

How can a man that's already up to his eyeballs in debt borrow the money to build himself a luxury car using the argument that he's doing so to create a job for himself building a car that is fancier than he needs? That is not responsible financial planning by any stretch of the imagination.

 

We cannot borrow our way out of debt. If our infrastructure needs work and we have to borrow the money to work on it then that is one thing. Borrowing the money to build extravagant infrastructure that we don't need, and cannot afford, will not help us to get out of the financial trouble we are in and proposing to do so is irresponsible. It makes no sense at all that we spend any more than we have to when doing so is just piling more debt on top of the debt that already has us in trouble. You cannot grow wealth by increasing your debt.

[Dudde]

I tend to agree with a lot of your point, but I see merit in the trains at least in densley populated areas where they have a good effect. You can create jobs for building/maintaining and working the rail line, generate revenue for the business through commuters having a cheaper, more economic transportation, you can also create tax revenue and put back to the fund it came out of.

 

Somebody please correct me if I'm mistaken

[the tree]

You cannot grow wealth by increasing your debt.

I think you are missing on the point on a pretty fundamental level here - obviously this wouldn't improve the government's debt levels - but that not whose debt is the issue.

[bascule]

We cannot borrow our way out of debt.

 

Are we trying to get out of debt, or out of a recession? I think you've got your priorities backwards. How about we worry about trying to get out of debt after we're out of a recession?

 

If our infrastructure needs work and we have to borrow the money to work on it then that is one thing. Borrowing the money to build extravagant infrastructure that we don't need, and cannot afford

 

An "extravagant infrastructure"? What's extravagant about it? We're talking about the first upgrade to our national transportation infrastructure since the Eisenhower Highway System. Our transportation infrastructure is crap compared to Europe. I think once every 50 years isn't too shabby for a transportation infrastructure upgrade, don't you?

 

will not help us to get out of the financial trouble

 

It worked for FDR.

[Mr Skeptic]

Buses don't need to be spectacularly green if they are an alternative to people driving everywhere. Google wasn't particularly helpful on bus emissions but I'd imagine that it wouldn't take many people riding a standard bus to be more efficient than them all with their own super efficient hybrid.

 

Good point. Mass transport is far more efficient then regular transport, possibly comparable to "green" cars. But by the same token, it would be far easier to have green mass transport than green cars.

 

In an established city where it'd be difficult to change infrastructure - more and better buses are an obvious answer.

 

For between cities I don't think the change in infrastructure is such a big deal that it should prevent the use of trains. Also, from my understanding of America - you guys have a lot of train tracks that you're simply not using (we have that problem as well actually - in the middle of the city in fact - but we're working on it) so just putting some regular trains on those (why do they have to be super duper high speed and efficient?) would seem sensible.

 

Yes, the reason I suggested buses has to do with infrastructure. Buses don't need almost any infrastructure, and can just use roads. This applies both intercity and for longer distances. Trains are more efficient, but require rail infrastructure. However, being able to travel large distances doesn't help if you don't have transport when you get there. To have trains be of significant use, you'd need to ensure that the destination have mass transport of some sort, or at least affordable car rentals. Alternately, a train that can carry cars might be popular for long distances, but of course would be ridiculously inefficient compared to just taking passengers.

 

It occurs to me that we don't need to pay tolls on most roads, even though there are maintenance costs for using them, but train rides usually do charge something.

[bascule]

so just putting some regular trains on those (why do they have to be super duper high speed and efficient?) would seem sensible.

 

They need to be high-speed because we are geographically vast. Just to get halfway across the country by train takes several days, at prices which are hardly competitive with airlines. I don't think most Americans would even think of using trains for inter-city travel unless it was a light rail system catering to suburbs.

 

And just for the record, Warren Buffet thinks investing in trains is a good idea:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/07/pf/sivy_apr.moneymag/

[doG]

Are we trying to get out of debt, or out of a recession? I think you've got your priorities backwards. How about we worry about trying to get out of debt after we're out of a recession?

 

I'm not talking about trying to get out of debt, just limiting our rate of spending to slow down the rate at which we are getting deeper into debt.

 

An "extravagant infrastructure"? What's extravagant about it?

 

It's more than we need or can afford at this time. Aside from artificially creating jobs just what reason is there that we need, not want, but need a high speed rail system?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think you are missing on the point on a pretty fundamental level here - obviously this wouldn't improve the government's debt levels - but that not whose debt is the issue.

 

Not at all when the point is avoiding bankruptcy on a national level....

[waitforufo]

I recall reading several years ago a paper on passenger travel based on BTUs / Passenger mile traveled. I remember being quite surprised how well automobiles stacked up against mass transit systems. If I recall they were better than buses, light rail (BART in particular) and most trains. I seem to recall this was true even when infrastructure construction was considered. Mass transit suffered, particularly buses, in that they most often travel with few passengers on board. The data in the paper was either from the US department of Transportation or Energy. I tried a Google search and did not find anything I considered reliable. Anyone know where this data might be found? I believe George Will also wrote a few articles on this topic.

 

Also, how well do high speed trains perform based on BTUs / Passenger mile? I would be particularly interested to see the data with infrastructure construction and maintenance included. Such data should be compaired to air travel.

[Sisyphus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

[bascule]

I'm not talking about trying to get out of debt, just limiting our rate of spending to slow down the rate at which we are getting deeper into debt.

 

I think lowering the deficit is great. Know the best way to do that? Get the economy going again, which will increase tax revenue. More than percentage tax increases and spending cuts under Clinton and Congressional Republicans, the number one thing which brought down the national debt was increased tax revenue due to a soaring economy.

 

If you covered your roommate's rent because he lost his high paying tech job and now works at McDonalds, and he asked you to borrow even more money to buy a suit so he can go interview for a new tech job, would you loan him the money, or would you rather wait for him to pay you back on his McDonalds salary?

 

It's more than we need or can afford at this time. Aside from artificially creating jobs just what reason is there that we need, not want, but need a high speed rail system?

 

Well, just with the example of Colorado, we NEED increased transportation capacity along the I-70 corridor. This affects the country as a whole as this is one of the main east/west transportation corridors for the entire country, and it's presently plagued with bumper-to-bumper traffic on trecharous mountain passes.

 

The only reason it's cheaper to expand the existing roadways as opposed to building a monorail or other train system is the immense amount of federal funding available for expanding interstate highways as opposed to building rail systems. Either way it's federal government money. It's really just a matter of how it should be spent.

[doG]

I think lowering the deficit is great. Know the best way to do that? Get the economy going again, which will increase tax revenue.

 

How many of the currently 12.5 million unemployed do you think this alleged economic stimulus will put to work? 10%? 20%? How many would it really take to effectively stimulate the national economy as you claim? How many more billions will it put us in debt? So far I'm not seeing anything to support such claims to support this spending without matching budget cuts.