Notes on the Decline of a Great Nation

[kochman]

Hey man, I'm all for that. But it's rather foolish to rail against spending on infrastructure of all things. There are so many worthier targets considering infrastructure is a place the USA is falling massively behind in.

See, I can't just say, oh, it's infrastructure, therefore good. I'm all for improving infrastructure... but is this particular train really doing that?

Rail lines traditionally in the country end up being subsidized annually... so, it's probably adding more stress to the already stressed budget situation. They can't compete with the price of buses, or the speed of airplanes... If you're traveling by more than just yourself, a car is still the way to go on long trips in a price/person consideration (plus you don't have to rent to get around at your destination)...

I get a little sad because I grew up partially in CA, and my mother is from there, and when I see spending that could have been made on more reasonable infrastructure... like expanding the metro in LA or down to San Diego, etc... I just wonder why people don't really look into it better on their own instead of just accepting that a train = good.
I see a decline in that great state that I am not really happy about.

 

[kochman]

Indeed. Rail against funding for military operations instead of being used for infrastructure. Much more sympathy from me

I think you've seen me do that, as well...
But I don't just say, infrastructure = good.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think you've seen me do that, as well...

Indeed, which is why I referred to it.

But I don't just say, infrastructure = good.

But it is!

Military funding should be used for infrastructure so that there will be more money to spend on education and state employee payment. Boom! Double whammy

 

[Farm Boy]

How do you know? This is something of an unqualified opinion.

Of course it's an unqualified opinion. Humans need oxygen. I'm not an expert steeped in research or qualified to state that either. Is anyone here claiming to be an expert?

I derive my assessment of the value of infrastructure spending the same way I would guess most people who don't work doing that sort of valuation for a living. I listen to people who are more educated on this issue than I be it on NPR or CNN or a newspaper or whatever and muddle through with forming my own opinion as best I can. Dutchfire made some excellent posts earlier on this. I consider them to have value. There are things I don't know. I had to edit in the possibility that underground lines might not be feasible in California due to geography since that isn't really a concern in Illinois and I didn't think of it right away. If somebody can convince me that my opinion or value judgement could be better, I'll probably change it. Highspeed rail isn't exactly an immovable opinion here for me. I guess I just enter these sorts of discussion with the assumption my fellow posters are in the same boat unless they specify otherwise.

 

[Zack]

I'm all for improving infrastructure... but is this particular train really doing that?

To clarify, you're asking whether improving infrastructure will improve infrastructure?

 

[illram]

Moderator Action: Hobbsyoyo and others, please discuss the points rather than the poster.

 

[Crezth]

See, I can't just say, oh, it's infrastructure, therefore good. I'm all for improving infrastructure... but is this particular train really doing that?

Rail lines traditionally in the country end up being subsidized annually... so, it's probably adding more stress to the already stressed budget situation. They can't compete with the price of buses, or the speed of airplanes... If you're traveling by more than just yourself, a car is still the way to go on long trips in a price/person consideration (plus you don't have to rent to get around at your destination)...

None of this seems born out by evidence, and does in fact come off as something of grumpy huffing and puffing. We know that modern high-speed trains are a terrific investment and the mark of modern, new-age infrastructure, because we see it in action in countries with modern, new-age infrastructure, like Germany or Japan. I grasp your point, I just don't think it's valid.

Of course it's an unqualified opinion.

Just so we're on the same page.

 

[kochman]

None of this seems born out by evidence, and does in fact come off as something of grumpy huffing and puffing. We know that modern high-speed trains are a terrific investment and the mark of modern, new-age infrastructure, because we see it in action in countries with modern, new-age infrastructure, like Germany or Japan. I grasp your point, I just don't think it's valid.

None of this is born out by evidence? Or, you just weren't aware of the evidence?
We aren't Germany or Japan...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-10-27-amtrak-passenger-subsidies_N.htm?csp=Travel

Amtrak subsidies total $32 per passenger, private study says

Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving more than 500 destinations in 46 states. Forty-one of Amtrak's 44 routes lost money in 2008, said the study by Subsidyscope, an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

As I said... it will probably, based on the current routes, lose money.
Granted the study is 3 years old...

http://www.usmayors.org/cdbg/documents/FY11-FinalAppropriations.pdf
Here are the FY11 subsidies...

Amtrak Operating: Level funded at the FY 2010 level of $563 million.
Amtrak Capital: Cut 8 percent below the FY 2010 level of $1 billion, to $922 million.

The routes that gain money... those going through the densest population areas, Boston - DC, for example.
I wish they were more successful, but even with gas at $3+/gallon it's easier for people to drive...

And then we have buses to consider...
Tampa - Miami (3.5 hour drive generally)...
Amtrak price: $40.00 (subsidized) http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2Station/Station_Page&code=TPA
Greyhound price: $29.00 (some communities subsidize GH, I don't have that data) https://www.greyhound.com/farefinder/step2.aspx
Gas in my car: $25 about, plus tolls of about $6... and I have a car when I'm in Miami

 

[hobbsyoyo]

None of this seems born out by evidence, and does in fact come off as something of grumpy huffing and puffing. We know that modern high-speed trains are a terrific investment and the mark of modern, new-age infrastructure, because we see it in action in countries with modern, new-age infrastructure, like Germany or Japan. I grasp your point, I just don't think it's valid.

Well we gotta keep up with the Jones's and Chang's.

Personally, I am still waiting for the delivery of much-hyped air taxis. Have yoy heard of those?

 

[Farm Boy]

Just so we're on the same page.

Can I sleep soundly secure in the knowledge that you are aware you are equally full of feces as me? Or is that the stench of roses wafting from your posterior?

 

[Crezth]

None of this is born out by evidence? Or, you just weren't aware of the evidence?
We aren't Germany or Japan...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-10-27-amtrak-passenger-subsidies_N.htm?csp=Travel

As I said... it will probably, based on the current routes, lose money.
Granted the study is 3 years old...

http://www.usmayors.org/cdbg/documents/FY11-FinalAppropriations.pdf
Here are the FY11 subsidies...

The routes that gain money... those going through the densest population areas, Boston - DC, for example.
I wish they were more successful, but even with gas at $3+/gallon it's easier for people to drive...

And then we have buses to consider...
Tampa - Miami (3.5 hour drive generally)...
Amtrak price: $40.00 (subsidized) http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2Station/Station_Page&code=TPA
Greyhound price: $29.00 (some communities subsidize GH, I don't have that data) https://www.greyhound.com/farefinder/step2.aspx
Gas in my car: $25 about, plus tolls of about $6... and I have a car when I'm in Miami

That's more like it, but I'm not sure it really qualifies as a rigorous refutation of the train proposal.

Can I sleep soundly secure in the knowledge that you are aware you are equally full of feces as me? Or is that the stench of roses wafting from your posterior?

Hahaha, okay okay. That's a fair point. Well, I guess my short response is that I think your claims demand more substantiation than mine that certain countries use modern rail and are prosperous.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hahaha, okay okay. That's a fair point. Well, I guess my short response is that I think your claims demand more substantiation than mine that certain countries use modern rail and are prosperous.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say rail is a bad investment on the face of it. Some countries seem like they use it, and it at least kinda mostly works in a subsidized way. If it exists in an area where a large portion of the population can live free of owning personal transportation the odds of it being a good idea seem to improve.

Unfortunately, there is also some evidence that as distances spread out and personal car ownership rates increase the rail becomes significantly less effective at providing a vital and clear public good at anything approaching cost effectiveness. As I mentioned, I rather liked Dutchfire's analysis of distances in a European system. Kochman's rate analysis is pretty good too. Neither of these, even if 100% correct are damning to a high speed rail system, but they do indicate it's probably an iffy proposition as to if it will work out or be great.

Here's my general point. If we are going to spend a hundred billion dollars on something questionable, I would rather we would have exhausted projects first that are not questionable. We know that the powergrid needs to be updated. The one we have sucks. That doesn't go in the "maybe a good idea" column. It goes in the "why in the hell have we not done this already" column. Unless California is ages ahead of the rest of the country it probably desperately needs to shore up a huge number of very expensive bridges as well. That also is in the why in the hell is this not done already column. Now if this rail improvement was being done in tandem with large scale unfuggery of those two things and all the other low hanging fruits of infrastructure nobrainers - sure, my support might be genuine. But right now about the only rational explanation I am coming up with for why why why this project is being emphasized at a tenth of a trillion dollars is that it's either somebody's pet project or more likely people in power have friends that are making an absolute crapton of money off of this. But but <snicker> that might just be the Illinois in me talking. Other state governments hopefully <hehehe!> work better.

For the record, since it seems as if it's probably happening one way or another, I really do hope the rail line works out great and that it's worth it.

 

[Crezth]

Enh, I want to be contrarian but that's a really good point. Withdrawn.

 

[Farm Boy]

Enh, I want to be contrarian but that's a really good point. Withdrawn.

I'll give you more time. I'm sure there are pretty good holes to be shot in that assessment. I'm blinding you with the fact that I'm just so darn agreeable. Except when I'm being a jerk.

 

[Borachio]

Rail transport is really good at two things, in the UK.

1. Transporting freight. There is no reason to use road transport for distances greater than 30 miles in over 95% of cases (according to my ever useful book of made-up statistics), in terms of cost and environmental considerations. It is half the cost, but takes twice the time door to door.

2. Transporting huge numbers of daily commuters into the heart of metropolitan centres. Road transport is very much slower and expensive, and in fact ineffective.

There's no reason that, in principal, these two aren't also true, to some extent, in all countries.

 

[Leoreth]

None of this is born out by evidence? Or, you just weren't aware of the evidence?
We aren't Germany or Japan...

Nobody expects dense modern infrastructure in Nebraska. But I do think certain US regions like the Northeast are indeed comparable to other countries with superior infrastructure.

 

[kochman]

Nobody expects dense modern infrastructure in Nebraska. But I do think certain US regions like the Northeast are indeed comparable to other countries with superior infrastructure.

Absolutely, and in the densely populated areas, the trains make sense.

However, there is a HUGE space that isn't very populated between SF and LA... You've got moderately populated Monterey Bay, and really that's not that populated, then a lot of farms/vineyards/etc until you start hitting the outskirts of LA (Lancaster, etc).

Now, North LA to the base of San Diego, that's a very populated area, and would allow for easier trips into Mexico with pushing the rail down across the border into Tijuana.

 

[Farm Boy]

Nobody expects dense modern infrastructure in Nebraska. But I do think certain US regions like the Northeast are indeed comparable to other countries with superior infrastructure.

Omaha is pretty nice, akshually.

 

[Murky]

Lincoln's foresight.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

 

[sophie]

Absolutely, and in the densely populated areas, the trains make sense.

However, there is a HUGE space that isn't very populated between SF and LA... You've got moderately populated Monterey Bay, and really that's not that populated, then a lot of farms/vineyards/etc until you start hitting the outskirts of LA (Lancaster, etc).

Now, North LA to the base of San Diego, that's a very populated area, and would allow for easier trips into Mexico with pushing the rail down across the border into Tijuana.

Yes but the bay area and LA are two regions which commonly commute between each other. If building this rail line means businessmen, students, and families (travelling for Disneyland, say) can get from one end of the state to the other (because honestly, who goes up to Redding?) both cheaply and affordably, and without having to go through the rigamarole of the airport, is that really such a waste of money (especially when it doesn't actually eat into our budget that much at all?

Let me tell you as somebody who has had to travel from Northern California to LA. It sucks. If you're taking a car it really sucks. Gas is expensive, it's 6 hours and traffic stops entirely the instant you enter the San Fernando valley. If you get a flat out in the central valley ain't nobody gonna help you. If you don't have a car, it still sucks. There are no trains, let me repeat that no trains which go from San Jose/San Francisco to LA directly. Your only alternatives are to take the Grayhound, which is cheap, but also takes 10 hours at minimum, requires you to wait for the buses literally in the epicenter of each respective city's ghetto, and they're just extremely uncomfortable in general. The other alternative is air travel. The problem with air travel is that it's expensive (try finding a flight for under 180 dollars round trip) only really services San Francisco and occasionally Oakland (good luck if you live in San Jose), and you still have to go through all the crap you ordinarily have to go through on an airplane.

Personally I have been a huge fan and proponent of this High Speed Rail project at least since 2008. I really don't think there is much better that California can spend their money on. It beats the hell out of a lot of the other crappy pet projects who get portions of the budget allocated via the Proposition system.

I've already explained this to you in another thread Kochman. These sorts of things are not why California is in dire straits. It has nothing to do with expensive welfare or "costly" infrastructure expenses. It has to do with a variety of systemic issues including our budget amendment process, massive gerrymandering, and a backwards proposition system which forcibly allocates portions of the budget, no matter how silly and frivolous, to some person's (or corporation's) pet project via a simple majority. Often these propositions are intentionally worded confusingly to help this.

An excellent example of the above would be Proposition 8, which was a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The problem was that you would get people who wouldn't properly read the bill, but know (through ads and publicity) that the prop was about gay marriage. People would vote "yes" assuming this meant that they were saying "yes, I think gay marriage should be legal" rather than what they were actually voting for which was "yes I don't think gays should ever be allowed to marry ever". It sounds silly, but this really was a problem and I watched people get the bill mixed up on a regular basis.

Anyway, other problems with our state include the fact we are as populous and wealthy as most modern 1st world countries, and yet are forced to give away a sizeable chunk of our tax dollars and aren't allowed to run a deficit, effectively barring us from solving our own infrastructure and employment issues through deficit spending, as most modern nations would.

Additionally in the late 70s we voted through a measure making it so that property taxes cannot be higher than 1% of the value of the property. Oh, hey, guess where all of our school funding comes from? Yeah, that would be property taxes. Whoops. Chalk that one up to a proposition system success. We also repealed a tax on luxury car licenses that in the early 2000s was bringing in revenue to the order of over 10 billion. Yeah, sure wish we could have that back now, too.

I don't know why I keep having to remind you of this, I'm sure you've heard me say this at least 10 or 11 times by now.