Doug Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 How dare they spend our taxpayer dollars on Government sposored projects that should be private industry!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Massively negative ROI no matter what label is put on it. The revenues that these projects generate won't even come close to covering the costs of construction plus operating expenses at 0% interest. Not sure why using government as a mechanism to funnel money to private economic interests that will profit from constructing and operating an enterprise that will lose money year in and year out, and drain resources away from other social priorities is considered "progressive." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 as if highways on the taxpayer's dime, perennially bankrupt and bailed out airlines, etc .. had ever paid for themselves. At least with rail transit, Americans won't have to buy cars they can't afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 High speed rail is a less expensive and more efficient means of travel between cities 500 miles apart or less than air. In terms of fuel costs, air travel doesn't even come close. Furthermore, such trains can be powered off the grid from renewables. Planes cannot. Still, in an age when collaboration requires very little travel, $60 billion would buy us a modernized, optimized grid. This would increase overall efficiency by 20%, paying itself back well within a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Seams to me that the issue is paying off our current debt before taking on more, not the merits of high speed trains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 You fear change and all that's new stand in the way of progress like primitive man afraid of fire 'till he explored it's many uses The power of the atom at our disposal yet it is called unsafe nuclear energy so clean and pure your ignorance is a disgrace Do not resist it is your destiny have we not all become the children of technology Holding your fate in a magnetic grip of all your irrational fears the shadow of machinery cast upon the flesh of man blood, sweat, and gears the robots of dawn offsprings of industry spot you in the cobalt blue light one fell swoop and you've become a memory away with your intrusive life Into the reactor! You worship a dead man hung with nails only a fool would die for the sins of humanity on your knees before electronics lets replace this religious insanity tear down the churches instead on the ground build there the holy reactors give us the children science and math in place of bibles and pastors You bleeding heart liberals who oppose the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must be compelled to retire you serve only as obstacles and should be used to fuel the nuclear pyre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Seams to me that the issue is paying off our current debt before taking on more, not the merits of high speed trains. Businesses take on additional debt for a variety of good reasons. Investing in efficiency, which reduces costs and/or increases revenue is one. If eliminating debt was always the best choice, then you should write a big fat check to your mortgage provider today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Seams to me that the issue is paying off our current debt before taking on more Great! Let's start with our biggest expenditure (hint: it's not trains.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Seams to me that the issue is paying off our current debt before taking on more Great! Let's start with our biggest expenditure (hint: it's not trains.) Are you expecting me to disagree with you at this point? We coulkd afford all kinds of things if we reduced our spending. I'd be a lot more receptive to a new mass transportation program if we weren't under water from the last ten years of spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Seams to me that the issue is paying off our current debt before taking on more, not the merits of high speed trains. Businesses take on additional debt for a variety of good reasons. Investing in efficiency, which reduces costs and/or increases revenue is one. If eliminating debt was always the best choice, then you should write a big fat check to your mortgage provider today. And some businesses take on too much debt and become insolvent. As noble as keeping up with the Jones' is (or Chens' in this case), a high speed train isn't a necesity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 If the spending project was a new grid, with aforementioned rapid payback, would you support it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZimZam Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Considering America's infatuation with autos what's the likelihood it could sustain itself w/o outrageous fees ala Acela? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Name one government program with guaranteed rapid pay back that actually rapidly paid back? The Portland metro train is a shining example of a guaranteed cost savings turning into a black hole of spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I'm talking about a hypothetical investment in a new grid, which would almost certainly produce a very rapid payback. Spend 60 billion on a modernized, optimized grid, or draw down the debt? That's my question for youz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Hypothetically if I could turn water into wine would you wash my feet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) I wish we could find a way to charge single-occupancy vehicles on the bridge an EXTRA toll, and pump that money into supporting non-automobile forms of transportation. The fact that there is no train between Montlake and Redmond boggles my mind. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people all leaving the same place at the same time and travelling to the same destination? Hello!!! TRAIN!!! Single-occupancy driving should be taboo, like parking in a handicapped spot. Edited February 9, 2011 by rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 no public transportation system pays for itself. Roads are the worst - unless they are one of the few toll roads in the US (which have their own set of problems). The trouble is, light rail cost benefit analysis typically include buses, but not the cost of autos and roads. Buses always fair better than light rail in a cost/benefit, but buses a) still require road maintenance b) burn way more fuel c) are slow and subject to road closures and d) are crowded and smell like piss. Still, they are obviously more flexible than rail. When one compares ALL transportation alternatives, individual cars and the roads needed for them cost the state, the environment, and consumers far more per passenger mile than any other alternative. People are willing to pay this premium for the freedom to travel (often at a snail's pace through gridlock) wherever whenever. That's a choice, but a more expensive one. Furthermore, most light rail systems in the world have been a fantastic success. Citing Portland's current shortfall of $50 million or so for their new east side extension due to the drying up of federal funds does little to counter the overwhelmingly positive experience most cities, including Portland, have had with their light rail systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I wish we could find a way to charge single-occupancy vehicles on the bridge an EXTRA toll, and pump that money into supporting non-automobile forms of transportation. The fact that there is no train between Montlake and Redmond boggles my mind. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people all leaving the same place at the same time and travelling to the same destination? Hello!!! TRAIN!!! Single-occupancy driving should be taboo, like parking in a handicapped spot. Carpooling per capita has dropped to half of what it was in the '80s. People aren't going for it. Latin America has a system of collectivos - small vans that run around everywhere, basically little buses with flexible routes that respond to changes in demand. Seems like a great way to fill that gap between your single occupancy car and a full size bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I wish we could find a way to charge single-occupancy vehicles on the bridge an EXTRA toll, and pump that money into supporting non-automobile forms of transportation. The fact that there is no train between Montlake and Redmond boggles my mind. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people all leaving the same place at the same time and travelling to the same destination? Hello!!! TRAIN!!! Single-occupancy driving should be taboo, like parking in a handicapped spot. Carpooling per capita has dropped to half of what it was in the '80s. People aren't going for it. Latin America has a system of collectivos - small vans that run around everywhere, basically little buses with flexible routes that respond to changes in demand. Seems like a great way to fill that gap between your single occupancy car and a full size bus. I'm imagining a bunch of VW vans with "Ass, gas, or grass - nobody rides for free" stickers. How about substantial tax breaks for people who give up their driver's license? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Light rail is also intended not just to move people around - it's designed to promote urban density along more efficient corridors, thus reducing the incentives for creating more costly, environmentally disastrous sprawl. Historically, light rail has been very successful at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Also, kinda waiting on an answer about the grid. If you guys wanna just troll with each other, that's fine, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Massively negative ROI no matter what label is put on it. The revenues that these projects generate won't even come close to covering the costs of construction plus operating expenses at 0% interest. Not sure why using government as a mechanism to funnel money to private economic interests that will profit from constructing and operating an enterprise that will lose money year in and year out, and drain resources away from other social priorities is considered "progressive." yah, public subsidies of rail networks have been retarded. Look how well the Western US developed without them. lulz. Now back to plowing billions into roads with a negative ROI! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Light rail is also intended not just to move people around - it's designed to promote urban density along more efficient corridors, thus reducing the incentives for creating more costly, environmentally disastrous sprawl. Historically, light rail has been very successful at this. Exactly. What a concept - actually PLANNING for infrastructure, business, and community together. The hodge-podge of sprawl that is the result of lack of planning is quite evident on the fringe of most suburbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Massively negative ROI no matter what label is put on it. The revenues that these projects generate won't even come close to covering the costs of construction plus operating expenses at 0% interest. Not sure why using government as a mechanism to funnel money to private economic interests that will profit from constructing and operating an enterprise that will lose money year in and year out, and drain resources away from other social priorities is considered "progressive." yah, public subsidies of rail networks have been retarded. Look how well the Western US developed without them. lulz. Now back to plowing billions into roads with a negative ROI! The difference being that rail use in the infancy of this country was a private endeavor. I don't think there are any cost neutral commuter train systems in the US, Amtrac being another example. Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to spending the money but I'm not willing to do so under the pretense that we're going make/save money and certainly not if we just have to borrow more from the Chinese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.