Notes on the Decline of a Great Nation

[kochman]

Now that the pointless and snarky remarks are out of the way...

I await Owen's response to the fact that that money could have been spent elsewhere to much greater effect...
Bonds, federal $$$, etc

Grow up kids.

 

[Zack]

Now that the pointless and snarky remarks are out of the way...

You'll make one more?

Grow up kids.

 

[kochman]

Anything of substance to add Zack?

 

[Zack]

Why do you have to be so condescending and self-righteous all the time? Get off your high horse.

 

[kochman]

Why do you have to be so condescending and self-righteous all the time? Get off your high horse.

You've post nothing but "because, big government", and you want to talk about that? Good grief... the hypocrisy at this site knows no bounds.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Not redundant. Complementary. There are capacity issues. You can only expand airport service so far without major upgrades. There are also fuel use and pollution issues with aircraft. And there are security issues, which just make flying less attractive for short and middling distance trips.

By redundant I meant that (with notable exceptions) for many areas the current highway, train and railroad systems meet capacity and adding high speed rail wouldn't solve many problems while it would simultaneously be economically unsustainable. I could've been clearer and I fully accept your points.

Well, aside from the fact that the pension system I pay into, which overrides Social Security is so broke as to be considered a pipe dream for it to be functioning in 35 years... I'd say that the money I pay out in taxes is money I pay out whether it goes to our next governor's stay in prison or to the Cali rail line.

I'm just saying you pay federal taxes to do federal projects (and every state has these) while you pay state taxes for state projects that only benefit you.

I totally get and empathize with your feelings on the issue, I just felt you were unfairly conflating two different things.

Why do you have to be so condescending and self-righteous all the time? Get off your high horse.

I told you:

Owen, you clearly don't know what the heck you're talking about because moar substance!

Anything of substance to add Zack?

Coming from the guy who throws out one-liners and pointless quips about cults and us evil liberals: *Priceless*

 

[Zack]

You've post nothing but "because, big government", and you want to talk about that? Good grief... the hypocrisy at this site knows no bounds.

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

 

[kochman]

Do you actually engage in conversation... or just exhibit this behavior?

If you have something to say, that would possibly contradict what I am saying, go for it. I'm all ears.

 

[Zack]

Do you actually engage in conversation... or just exhibit this behavior?

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

 

[kochman]

OK, so, the answer is... No, you don't want to add anything to this conversation. I hope you've entertained yourself.

Ta ta.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

noice substantive post there, Kochman

Moderator Action: Please stop that - Grisu
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cutlass]

By redundant I meant that (with notable exceptions) for many areas the current highway, train and railroad systems meet capacity and adding high speed rail wouldn't solve many problems while it would simultaneously be economically unsustainable. I could've been clearer and I fully accept your points.

Part of that is that other forms of travel are actually being subsidized either directly, through allowing uncaptured externalities, or both. And so it is not true that HSR isn't competitive against a market outcome, because we don't have a market outcome to compare it to, and so we don't know the answer to that. And we have the further consideration that we need to plan not just for the now, but for the future. A future in which roads and airports are going to be far more crowded, and so far more time consuming and fuel consuming, and the fuel itself will be more expensive. So you have to consider not just current condition, but projected conditions.

 

[Zack]

OK, so, the answer is... No, you don't want to add anything to this conversation. I hope you've entertained yourself.

Ta ta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(military)

Moderator Action: This and more so the posts above are unacceptable behavior, please return to civility - ori
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kochman]

You wish to surrender?
Very well, I accept.

Moderator Action: This and more so the posts above are unacceptable behavior, please return to civility - ori
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Siderealex]

The one thing I will never understand with the dishonesty with which some speak of the concept of unions is the way in which they speak as if it is a system that is inherently and exclusively corrupt in nature. Never mind that organizational corruption is a potential flaw in all human organizations. I dislike many many things about the sort of capitalism that some companies with too much influence would push onto every else. But barring certain things inherent to the economic model, I couldn't say with a straight face companies=corrupt robber barons.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Part of that is that other forms of travel are actually being subsidized either directly, through allowing uncaptured externalities, or both. And so it is not true that HSR isn't competitive against a market outcome, because we don't have a market outcome to compare it to, and so we don't know the answer to that. And we have the further consideration that we need to plan not just for the now, but for the future. A future in which roads and airports are going to be far more crowded, and so far more time consuming and fuel consuming, and the fuel itself will be more expensive. So you have to consider not just current condition, but projected conditions.

Point taken. I'm just repeating random thoughts I got from The Economist and nothing original.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm just saying you pay federal taxes to do federal projects (and every state has these) while you pay state taxes for state projects that only benefit you.

I totally get and empathize with your feelings on the issue, I just felt you were unfairly conflating two different things.

Unfairly? Oh you. I think I was pretty clear with the sentiment that I don't want to pay for high speed rail in California. Maybe we'll return the favor when our state goes bankrupt and Californians get to pay my pension.

 

[sophie]

I like how you tried to hide the price tag there...
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...Billion-What-Else-That-Can-Buy-133041823.html


Where else could that money have been spent?
Oh, on budgetary measures like schools. This isn't rocket science here... you're spending nearly $100B on this thing...
And, I'll be very shocked if it ever turns a profit. Instead, it'll be yet another budget expense... annually. Way to brain it out CA.

Check the budget dude. We devote exactly 750,000 dollars per year to the building project. It may cost 95B but that's going to be over a 30 year period, and as I said, it's mostly been subsidized by the federal government and bond measures which we voted on

 

[Verbose]

Well, honestly, it all seemed rather incidental. Living in Germany: I think you can find a broken escalator at some subway station in town at any given moment. These things just break every now and then (or are turned off or whatever). Having poor telephone reception on trains is also not unusual here, since trains tend to go through the middle of nowhere. And the quality of pavement varies from street to street here. I guess he might have a point that the US doesn't have any high speed rails, but that is probably because they started with a very good network of airports, because their cities tend to be a bit further apart* and because the rest of their infrastructure is just more built towards car+planes instead of public transport (many large, low density cities).

* NY - Boston and NY - Washington are both 300 km, I guess the only lines that might make sense are NY - Philly - Washington, the Austin - Houston - Dallas triangle, LA - San Diego, Seattle - Vancouver, but these are all in the 200-300 km range. Few of these lines would make sense without good secondary rail/public transport to connect them further. On the other hand, Germany has Cologne-Frankfurt (150 km), Cologne-Ruhr (50-100 km), the Hamburg-Bremen-Hanover triangle (100 - 150 km) and then a host of smaller cities all at ~100 km apart. These distances seem to be around the sweet spot for high speed rail, shorter and normal rail is just as good, longer and people will take a plane. And even then, I think the Deutsche Bahn is losing money by the bucket.

Doesn't explain why the US has to get by on a seriously brittle power grid (air power lines and all), and and railservices not just built in the 1950's-70's, but also operated like it.

My experiences of the US are mostly localised to the wealthier parts of New Jerser, Manhattan, and Westchester County. The infrastructure, be it rails, telephone communication or power supply, is seriously underwhelming. And considering the tenor of these places, it certainly is not a general lack of wealth holding things back there. And it's not just the infrastructure, it's how things are run as well. Making the local commute to Mangattan by train has been a serious blast from the past of my childhood in 1970's Sweden. Things are run as if it was the 1950's-70's as well. And I'm talking about the parts of the US even famous for being good at public transport.

And not comparing the US to the densely packed Germany where distances are short, but Sweden, which is even more sparesely populated than the US, and thus don't operate any high-speed rails either.

 

[kochman]

Check the budget dude. We devote exactly 750,000 dollars per year to the building project. It may cost 95B but that's going to be over a 30 year period, and as I said, it's mostly been subsidized by the federal government and bond measures which we voted on

OK, I get that part Owen. Repeating what you already clearly said doesn't change what I am asking you...
Could that money not have been spent elsewhere a little more reasonable???

The source is somewhat irrelevant, it is money that the state can use... Please answer the question I'm asking this time.