Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
The US of A has been an also ran for at least 10 years .RMF5630 said:Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
Also, China is ramping up. You do this, we lose the dollar as the world trading currency. Then, it is game over. The good ole US of A becomes an also ran. Just keep following pseudo-science and AOC.
Canada2017 said:The US of A has been an also ran for at least 10 years .RMF5630 said:Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
Also, China is ramping up. You do this, we lose the dollar as the world trading currency. Then, it is game over. The good ole US of A becomes an also ran. Just keep following pseudo-science and AOC.
China is the big dog now .
Our current under trained , overly entitled electorate ...put Biden in office.RMF5630 said:Canada2017 said:The US of A has been an also ran for at least 10 years .RMF5630 said:Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
Also, China is ramping up. You do this, we lose the dollar as the world trading currency. Then, it is game over. The good ole US of A becomes an also ran. Just keep following pseudo-science and AOC.
China is the big dog now .
Holding on by a thread... Biden last straw
RMF5630 said:Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?Booray said:Generally true. I agree with your post 99%RMF5630 said:whiterock said:The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.RMF5630 said:The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.nein51 said:
100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.
- The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
- The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
- The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
- The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
- Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
- It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
- US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.
The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.
At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.
It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.
What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...
But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.
We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.
Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.
Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.
But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.
Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.
On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?
This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.
Yeah. Back in the 1980s, they said Japan was going to wipe us out.Canada2017 said:The US of A has been an also ran for at least 10 years .RMF5630 said:Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
Also, China is ramping up. You do this, we lose the dollar as the world trading currency. Then, it is game over. The good ole US of A becomes an also ran. Just keep following pseudo-science and AOC.
China is the big dog now .
Our biggest problem competing with China is our increasingly obese , drug dependent , under trained , under motivated , overly entitled , population .C. Jordan said:Yeah. Back in the 1980s, they said Japan was going to wipe us out.Canada2017 said:The US of A has been an also ran for at least 10 years .RMF5630 said:Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
Also, China is ramping up. You do this, we lose the dollar as the world trading currency. Then, it is game over. The good ole US of A becomes an also ran. Just keep following pseudo-science and AOC.
China is the big dog now .
How did that work out?
Our biggest problem in competing with China is we have freedoms and democracy and they don't.
Their central committee can set policies and they don't have to care about voter rancor, about people losing their life savings, etc.
well, we told people anybody can be president and here we are.. we went from a Hillbilly to a dummy who laughed at his own jokes, to an empty suit, to an egotistical TV star, to a dementia patient..Canada2017 said:Our biggest problem competing with China is our increasingly obese , drug dependent , under trained , under motivated , overly entitled , population .C. Jordan said:Yeah. Back in the 1980s, they said Japan was going to wipe us out.Canada2017 said:The US of A has been an also ran for at least 10 years .RMF5630 said:Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
Also, China is ramping up. You do this, we lose the dollar as the world trading currency. Then, it is game over. The good ole US of A becomes an also ran. Just keep following pseudo-science and AOC.
China is the big dog now .
How did that work out?
Our biggest problem in competing with China is we have freedoms and democracy and they don't.
Their central committee can set policies and they don't have to care about voter rancor, about people losing their life savings, etc.
Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?Booray said:Generally true. I agree with your post 99%RMF5630 said:whiterock said:The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.RMF5630 said:The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.nein51 said:
100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.
- The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
- The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
- The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
- The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
- Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
- It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
- US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.
The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.
At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.
It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.
What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...
But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.
We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.
Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.
Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.
But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.
Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.
On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?
This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.
Was building the interstate system with tax dollars a loss of freedom?
RMF5630 said:Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?Booray said:Generally true. I agree with your post 99%RMF5630 said:whiterock said:The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.RMF5630 said:The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.nein51 said:
100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.
- The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
- The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
- The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
- The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
- Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
- It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
- US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.
The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.
At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.
It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.
What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...
But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.
We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.
Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.
Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.
But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.
Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.
On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?
This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.
Was building the interstate system with tax dollars a loss of freedom?
Actually, that was responsible Government spending for several reasons.
1 to a scale private sector can't do.
2 serves national defense function
3 supports interstate commerce
4 everyone benefits
Infrastructure is well within. Govt pursue. Much more than the COVID stimulus. Or any other social program. Infrastructure is a core function of govt. Ike knew... We can use another Ike.
and our government threatened trade sanctions, leading Japan to decide upon the trade model it still uses today - locating manufacturing operations in the markets where the goods are to be sold. It's why Toyota Tundras are made in Texas rather than Japan. We studied that model in class. At Baylor. A real world example, to show how trade affects balance of payments, and how to structure trade deals to ameliorate potential problems into win/win structures.C. Jordan said:Yeah. Back in the 1980s, they said Japan was going to wipe us out.Canada2017 said:The US of A has been an also ran for at least 10 years .RMF5630 said:Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
Also, China is ramping up. You do this, we lose the dollar as the world trading currency. Then, it is game over. The good ole US of A becomes an also ran. Just keep following pseudo-science and AOC.
China is the big dog now .
How did that work out?
Our biggest problem in competing with China is we have freedoms and democracy and they don't.
Their central committee can set policies and they don't have to care about voter rancor, about people losing their life savings, etc.
Yep. This was coming before Covid but was accelerated once people found out en masse that doing business with the CCP will make you sick or kill you.whiterock said:C. Jordan said:Yeah. Back in the 1980s, they said Japan was going to wipe us out.Canada2017 said:The US of A has been an also ran for at least 10 years .RMF5630 said:Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
Also, China is ramping up. You do this, we lose the dollar as the world trading currency. Then, it is game over. The good ole US of A becomes an also ran. Just keep following pseudo-science and AOC.
China is the big dog now .
How did that work out?
Our biggest problem in competing with China is we have freedoms and democracy and they don't.
Their central committee can set policies and they don't have to care about voter rancor, about people losing their life savings, etc.
It's all moot. Globalism is over. Much of the supply chain stress we see today is derivative of restructuring to a model with much more domestic production. Chinese manufacturing has no real cost advantage over Mexico or any of the other nations with whom we have new bi-lateral agreements, and is now running merely to recover sunk costs. When existing capacity ages out, it will not be replaced.
So many leftists believe the complete opposite.C. Jordan said:Our biggest problem in competing with China is we have freedoms and democracy and they don't.Canada2017 said:The US of A has been an also ran for at least 10 years .RMF5630 said:Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
Also, China is ramping up. You do this, we lose the dollar as the world trading currency. Then, it is game over. The good ole US of A becomes an also ran. Just keep following pseudo-science and AOC.
China is the big dog now .
Private companies should not own public infrastructure, that is why infrastructure is a core function of Govt. Can they own toll roads? Yes, there are privatized toll roads. They are not typically better run than Public Authority toll roads.Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?Booray said:Generally true. I agree with your post 99%RMF5630 said:whiterock said:The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.RMF5630 said:The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.nein51 said:
100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.
- The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
- The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
- The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
- The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
- Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
- It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
- US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.
The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.
At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.
It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.
What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...
But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.
We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.
Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.
Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.
But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.
Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.
On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?
This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.
Was building the interstate system with tax dollars a loss of freedom?
Actually, that was responsible Government spending for several reasons.
1 to a scale private sector can't do.
2 serves national defense function
3 supports interstate commerce
4 everyone benefits
Infrastructure is well within. Govt pursue. Much more than the COVID stimulus. Or any other social program. Infrastructure is a core function of govt. Ike knew... We can use another Ike.
You're surely joking. Of course 1 private company wouldn't build the entire interstate system, but a trucking company connecting 2 big hubs? Of course they could.
It's lost on many that there were grumbling about it when it happened, people making these same arguments. Waste of money, government overreach, etc. Of course it was done based upon a different premise.
In the end though it was the exact same thing, same arguments. It was in America's best interest to connect cities, not only for the public, but in the case of intracontinental war. It is in America's best interest that citizens be able to travel for tourism or whatever else, so the government regulates cars and travel, guess what because private companies wouldn't do as good of a job.
These are all technically losses of freedom, but if you have blinders on you just accept them for reality, and parrot your freedom argument selectively based upon whatever strikes a fancy. It's ridiculous that you could hold the opinion that connecting cities via roads was good and not an abuse of federal power, but connecting them via train track would be. The same military argument easily fits in, and clearly people would use long range trains given that the price and speed was right.
RMF5630 said:Private companies should not own public infrastructure, that is why infrastructure is a core function of Govt. Can they own toll roads? Yes, there are privatized toll roads. They are not typically better run than Public Authority toll roads.Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?Booray said:Generally true. I agree with your post 99%RMF5630 said:whiterock said:The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.RMF5630 said:The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.nein51 said:
100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.
- The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
- The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
- The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
- The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
- Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
- It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
- US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.
The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.
At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.
It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.
What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...
But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.
We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.
Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.
Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.
But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.
Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.
On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?
This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.
Was building the interstate system with tax dollars a loss of freedom?
Actually, that was responsible Government spending for several reasons.
1 to a scale private sector can't do.
2 serves national defense function
3 supports interstate commerce
4 everyone benefits
Infrastructure is well within. Govt pursue. Much more than the COVID stimulus. Or any other social program. Infrastructure is a core function of govt. Ike knew... We can use another Ike.
You're surely joking. Of course 1 private company wouldn't build the entire interstate system, but a trucking company connecting 2 big hubs? Of course they could.
It's lost on many that there were grumbling about it when it happened, people making these same arguments. Waste of money, government overreach, etc. Of course it was done based upon a different premise.
In the end though it was the exact same thing, same arguments. It was in America's best interest to connect cities, not only for the public, but in the case of intracontinental war. It is in America's best interest that citizens be able to travel for tourism or whatever else, so the government regulates cars and travel, guess what because private companies wouldn't do as good of a job.
These are all technically losses of freedom, but if you have blinders on you just accept them for reality, and parrot your freedom argument selectively based upon whatever strikes a fancy. It's ridiculous that you could hold the opinion that connecting cities via roads was good and not an abuse of federal power, but connecting them via train track would be. The same military argument easily fits in, and clearly people would use long range trains given that the price and speed was right.
As for freedom, the car and limited access system has done more for personal freedom and independence than any other invention. You can live where you want, more job options, education options, the list goes on. The interstate system provided unimaginable access, economic development and opportunity. Will something else come that rivals it? Not that allows you to have the freedom to come and go where you want, when you want and in a variety of styles. Mr, Musk and Bezos will determine what you do and when. Real free... I'll pay my 45$ registration.
Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Private companies should not own public infrastructure, that is why infrastructure is a core function of Govt. Can they own toll roads? Yes, there are privatized toll roads. They are not typically better run than Public Authority toll roads.Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?Booray said:Generally true. I agree with your post 99%RMF5630 said:whiterock said:The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.RMF5630 said:The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).Porteroso said:RMF5630 said:Mass transit is not competitive and people do not want to use it. Everyone says look at Europe and the rail system.nein51 said:
100B In public transportation is a laughable amount. The average price of a bus is around $190,000. Average for a single rail car is about the same. $100B is a drop in the bucket in terms of the costs of units alone, nevermind 1.5 million on average for every mile of rail. That amount seems huge, it won't change mass transit in any way at all.
- The rail system is intercity, not 1st mile, last mile, which does nothing for the majority of the trips (only really competing against air travel).
- The ROW for those tracks have been in place for over 100 years, try buying the ROW to create that system in the US.
- The way the "successful" transit systems get ridership is pricing people out of cars. Those wealthy enough to want to drive can still drive in Copenhagen, London, Singapore, Stockholm, etc.
- The non-car areas are limited. For example, Amsterdam. They have a great bike/ped area. But it is in the Central Business District, a limited area. In the US, it is like Boston and Fenway Park. No cars maybe 1 mile by 1 mile. NOT THE WHOLE CITY!
- Almost all the great transit cities are still building roads. Amsterdam just opened a new toll road and the speed harmonization with dynamic pricing is the most sophisticated in the world.
- It is also top 20 in GDP with the land mass of Maryland. Like Singapore, alot of money for small land mass equals high quality services.
- US laws do not help transit. Many States require County-wide services. Almost impossible to create a system to handle a County in many areas of US. It is a pipe-dream.
The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.
At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.
It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.
What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...
But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.
We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.
Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.
Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.
But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.
Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.
On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?
This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.
Was building the interstate system with tax dollars a loss of freedom?
Actually, that was responsible Government spending for several reasons.
1 to a scale private sector can't do.
2 serves national defense function
3 supports interstate commerce
4 everyone benefits
Infrastructure is well within. Govt pursue. Much more than the COVID stimulus. Or any other social program. Infrastructure is a core function of govt. Ike knew... We can use another Ike.
You're surely joking. Of course 1 private company wouldn't build the entire interstate system, but a trucking company connecting 2 big hubs? Of course they could.
It's lost on many that there were grumbling about it when it happened, people making these same arguments. Waste of money, government overreach, etc. Of course it was done based upon a different premise.
In the end though it was the exact same thing, same arguments. It was in America's best interest to connect cities, not only for the public, but in the case of intracontinental war. It is in America's best interest that citizens be able to travel for tourism or whatever else, so the government regulates cars and travel, guess what because private companies wouldn't do as good of a job.
These are all technically losses of freedom, but if you have blinders on you just accept them for reality, and parrot your freedom argument selectively based upon whatever strikes a fancy. It's ridiculous that you could hold the opinion that connecting cities via roads was good and not an abuse of federal power, but connecting them via train track would be. The same military argument easily fits in, and clearly people would use long range trains given that the price and speed was right.
As for freedom, the car and limited access system has done more for personal freedom and independence than any other invention. You can live where you want, more job options, education options, the list goes on. The interstate system provided unimaginable access, economic development and opportunity. Will something else come that rivals it? Not that allows you to have the freedom to come and go where you want, when you want and in a variety of styles. Mr, Musk and Bezos will determine what you do and when. Real free... I'll pay my 45$ registration.
If you're trying to argue against mass transit you must have another set of arguments, because you just wrote several reasons to support government supported mass transit.
If there was pent-up demand for inter-city rail, we'd already have it, but that never stops politicians from offering solutions in search of a problem.RMF5630 said:
The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.
At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.
It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.
What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...
But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.
We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.
Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.
Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.
But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.
Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.
On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?
This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.
Was building the interstate system with tax dollars a loss of freedom?
Actually, that was responsible Government spending for several reasons.
1 to a scale private sector can't do.
2 serves national defense function
3 supports interstate commerce
4 everyone benefits
Infrastructure is well within. Govt pursue. Much more than the COVID stimulus. Or any other social program. Infrastructure is a core function of govt. Ike knew... We can use another Ike.
You're surely joking. Of course 1 private company wouldn't build the entire interstate system, but a trucking company connecting 2 big hubs? Of course they could.
It's lost on many that there were grumbling about it when it happened, people making these same arguments. Waste of money, government overreach, etc. Of course it was done based upon a different premise.
In the end though it was the exact same thing, same arguments. It was in America's best interest to connect cities, not only for the public, but in the case of intracontinental war. It is in America's best interest that citizens be able to travel for tourism or whatever else, so the government regulates cars and travel, guess what because private companies wouldn't do as good of a job.
These are all technically losses of freedom, but if you have blinders on you just accept them for reality, and parrot your freedom argument selectively based upon whatever strikes a fancy. It's ridiculous that you could hold the opinion that connecting cities via roads was good and not an abuse of federal power, but connecting them via train track would be. The same military argument easily fits in, and clearly people would use long range trains given that the price and speed was right.
As for freedom, the car and limited access system has done more for personal freedom and independence than any other invention. You can live where you want, more job options, education options, the list goes on. The interstate system provided unimaginable access, economic development and opportunity. Will something else come that rivals it? Not that allows you to have the freedom to come and go where you want, when you want and in a variety of styles. Mr, Musk and Bezos will determine what you do and when. Real free... I'll pay my 45$ registration.
If you're trying to argue against mass transit you must have another set of arguments, because you just wrote several reasons to support government supported mass transit.
I am not against mass transit. The only way the US will ever get an intercity rail system like Europe is as a Federal project with a dedicated funding source.
Just do not take away options, we need it all -limited access roads, toll roads, rail, bus, peds, and trails. It is the short sighted all or nothing for one mode that I have worked against.
whiterock said:If there was pent-up demand for inter-city rail, we'd already have it, but that never stops politicians from offering solutions in search of a problem.RMF5630 said:
The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.
At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.
It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.
What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...
But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.
We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.
Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.
Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.
But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.
Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.
On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?
This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.
Was building the interstate system with tax dollars a loss of freedom?
Actually, that was responsible Government spending for several reasons.
1 to a scale private sector can't do.
2 serves national defense function
3 supports interstate commerce
4 everyone benefits
Infrastructure is well within. Govt pursue. Much more than the COVID stimulus. Or any other social program. Infrastructure is a core function of govt. Ike knew... We can use another Ike.
You're surely joking. Of course 1 private company wouldn't build the entire interstate system, but a trucking company connecting 2 big hubs? Of course they could.
It's lost on many that there were grumbling about it when it happened, people making these same arguments. Waste of money, government overreach, etc. Of course it was done based upon a different premise.
In the end though it was the exact same thing, same arguments. It was in America's best interest to connect cities, not only for the public, but in the case of intracontinental war. It is in America's best interest that citizens be able to travel for tourism or whatever else, so the government regulates cars and travel, guess what because private companies wouldn't do as good of a job.
These are all technically losses of freedom, but if you have blinders on you just accept them for reality, and parrot your freedom argument selectively based upon whatever strikes a fancy. It's ridiculous that you could hold the opinion that connecting cities via roads was good and not an abuse of federal power, but connecting them via train track would be. The same military argument easily fits in, and clearly people would use long range trains given that the price and speed was right.
As for freedom, the car and limited access system has done more for personal freedom and independence than any other invention. You can live where you want, more job options, education options, the list goes on. The interstate system provided unimaginable access, economic development and opportunity. Will something else come that rivals it? Not that allows you to have the freedom to come and go where you want, when you want and in a variety of styles. Mr, Musk and Bezos will determine what you do and when. Real free... I'll pay my 45$ registration.
If you're trying to argue against mass transit you must have another set of arguments, because you just wrote several reasons to support government supported mass transit.
I am not against mass transit. The only way the US will ever get an intercity rail system like Europe is as a Federal project with a dedicated funding source.
Just do not take away options, we need it all -limited access roads, toll roads, rail, bus, peds, and trails. It is the short sighted all or nothing for one mode that I have worked against.
whiterock said:If there was pent-up demand for inter-city rail, we'd already have it, but that never stops politicians from offering solutions in search of a problem.RMF5630 said:
The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.
At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.
It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.
What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...
But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.
We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.
Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.
Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.
But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.
Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.
On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?
This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.
Was building the interstate system with tax dollars a loss of freedom?
Actually, that was responsible Government spending for several reasons.
1 to a scale private sector can't do.
2 serves national defense function
3 supports interstate commerce
4 everyone benefits
Infrastructure is well within. Govt pursue. Much more than the COVID stimulus. Or any other social program. Infrastructure is a core function of govt. Ike knew... We can use another Ike.
You're surely joking. Of course 1 private company wouldn't build the entire interstate system, but a trucking company connecting 2 big hubs? Of course they could.
It's lost on many that there were grumbling about it when it happened, people making these same arguments. Waste of money, government overreach, etc. Of course it was done based upon a different premise.
In the end though it was the exact same thing, same arguments. It was in America's best interest to connect cities, not only for the public, but in the case of intracontinental war. It is in America's best interest that citizens be able to travel for tourism or whatever else, so the government regulates cars and travel, guess what because private companies wouldn't do as good of a job.
These are all technically losses of freedom, but if you have blinders on you just accept them for reality, and parrot your freedom argument selectively based upon whatever strikes a fancy. It's ridiculous that you could hold the opinion that connecting cities via roads was good and not an abuse of federal power, but connecting them via train track would be. The same military argument easily fits in, and clearly people would use long range trains given that the price and speed was right.
As for freedom, the car and limited access system has done more for personal freedom and independence than any other invention. You can live where you want, more job options, education options, the list goes on. The interstate system provided unimaginable access, economic development and opportunity. Will something else come that rivals it? Not that allows you to have the freedom to come and go where you want, when you want and in a variety of styles. Mr, Musk and Bezos will determine what you do and when. Real free... I'll pay my 45$ registration.
If you're trying to argue against mass transit you must have another set of arguments, because you just wrote several reasons to support government supported mass transit.
I am not against mass transit. The only way the US will ever get an intercity rail system like Europe is as a Federal project with a dedicated funding source.
Just do not take away options, we need it all -limited access roads, toll roads, rail, bus, peds, and trails. It is the short sighted all or nothing for one mode that I have worked against.
Of the several reasons, my favorite is:nein51 said:whiterock said:If there was pent-up demand for inter-city rail, we'd already have it, but that never stops politicians from offering solutions in search of a problem.RMF5630 said:Quote:Quote:Private companies should not own public infrastructure, that is why infrastructure is a core function of Govt. Can they own toll roads? Yes, there are privatized toll roads. They are not typically better run than Public Authority toll roads.Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Has it really been proven that getting rid of cars solves that problem? That a world of mass transit makes things better? IS their anything that can be done to stop climate change? Do we know?Quote:Generally true. I agree with your post 99%Quote:Quote:The more free the market, the more that market will put capital to its highest and best use. That we do not have a nationwide system of mass transit means mass transit is not highest and best use of capital spent on transportation.Quote:The trolley systems were removed as a response to a new technology- the automobile which became affordable and provided more independence which people liked or they would not have sold. The depression and busses killed the trolley systems, as they were going under. As for the GM, they had shares in 30 of over 300 systems. Where GM got in trouble was they tried to monopolize bus sales, I think they were later acquitted on appeal (not sure).Quote:
The US did have successful mass transit. Part of the issue is people distrust mass transit, which comes from companies like GM buying trolley and train companies, and either dismantling them or not maintaining them, creating the perception of unreliability.
At one time, had we made a push towards mass transit, our country would look very different now, so advanced were our trains. Instead, the greedy part of capitalism snuffed out an entire sector of the economy, long range mass ground transit.
It could still easily work, but the same companies that ruined mass transit will lobby against it. I say easy, but in reality it would all be uphill. Too much money would be made by its failure.
What you are describing is the a policy telling everyone what they have to use. That is not the same thing. If the trolley systems made money or were desired over the automobile they would have survived. Some places kept them, such as San Fran, New Orleans or they developed into other systems like BRT, subways and bus lines. This policy is pushing an 18th century technology to be forced back into the system. Buses are a much more efficient transit vehicle and with platooning you can even create bus trains that operate on existing roads, no billion dollar investment in tracks. Leave rail to intercity, more efficient...
But (horror) highest and best use of capital means more profit.
Profit is bad (according to the left).
So profit is the reason we don't have mass transit.
We let people make money on transportation needs as expressed in a free market rather than government deciding via central planning what transportation solutions would be. And we still have utopianists trying to undo it all because they think they know better, spending monies on solutions looking for problems.
Building more mass transportation is a solution to nothing bedeviling us now on transportation. Factories are no longer located in multi-story office buildings in major metro areas. Jobs are much more dispersed geographically than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution. We have vehicles and highways because land use made them the most efficient means of conveyance for commerce.
Best post on mass transit i have seen in a while. Work 30+ years in transportation. There are few places where densities allow mass transit to be sustainable. The problem I see is the new Utopians serm to forget that each trip is a person living their life. Not building a lane that serves 2000 trips per hour for some social concern only hurts the common person. I dont think they care.
But if the impact of an activity (driving a car) imposes costs (climate change) on someone who has no say (my two-year old grandson) on pricing, demand by itself is not society's best way to determine what products to sell.
Is carbon really the problem or just the easiest to market? Ever hear of the Solar Minimus? According to some parts of science being too cold is going to be more of a problem in 10 or so years. There are way too many questions to totally scrap our energy system and basically destroy civilization as the necessities of civilization cement, plastic, steel and ammonia. All petro based.
On the equity side, price controls don't stop those with money from doing it. So, we will artificially price it so that if you can afford it you can drive, if not on a bike? Wasn't that the argument against tolls? It was only the rich that avoided traffic. Now, it doesn't matter because you like this movement?
This is all a feel good circle jerk that is not going to solve anything. But it will infringe on individual freedom. In my opinion, the question that should be asked is the change we are seeing actionable or informational, not can we stop it? We would be better served working on mitigation and resiliency strategies. By the way, no invention has given more people freedom to move, access to opportunity and control over their lives than the car. I am against taking that away.
Was building the interstate system with tax dollars a loss of freedom?
Actually, that was responsible Government spending for several reasons.
1 to a scale private sector can't do.
2 serves national defense function
3 supports interstate commerce
4 everyone benefits
Infrastructure is well within. Govt pursue. Much more than the COVID stimulus. Or any other social program. Infrastructure is a core function of govt. Ike knew... We can use another Ike.
You're surely joking. Of course 1 private company wouldn't build the entire interstate system, but a trucking company connecting 2 big hubs? Of course they could.
It's lost on many that there were grumbling about it when it happened, people making these same arguments. Waste of money, government overreach, etc. Of course it was done based upon a different premise.
In the end though it was the exact same thing, same arguments. It was in America's best interest to connect cities, not only for the public, but in the case of intracontinental war. It is in America's best interest that citizens be able to travel for tourism or whatever else, so the government regulates cars and travel, guess what because private companies wouldn't do as good of a job.
These are all technically losses of freedom, but if you have blinders on you just accept them for reality, and parrot your freedom argument selectively based upon whatever strikes a fancy. It's ridiculous that you could hold the opinion that connecting cities via roads was good and not an abuse of federal power, but connecting them via train track would be. The same military argument easily fits in, and clearly people would use long range trains given that the price and speed was right.
As for freedom, the car and limited access system has done more for personal freedom and independence than any other invention. You can live where you want, more job options, education options, the list goes on. The interstate system provided unimaginable access, economic development and opportunity. Will something else come that rivals it? Not that allows you to have the freedom to come and go where you want, when you want and in a variety of styles. Mr, Musk and Bezos will determine what you do and when. Real free... I'll pay my 45$ registration.
If you're trying to argue against mass transit you must have another set of arguments, because you just wrote several reasons to support government supported mass transit.
I am not against mass transit. The only way the US will ever get an intercity rail system like Europe is as a Federal project with a dedicated funding source.
Just do not take away options, we need it all -limited access roads, toll roads, rail, bus, peds, and trails. It is the short sighted all or nothing for one mode that I have worked against.
It's almost like all of Europe is set up for that and the US just isn't.
If we spend every single dollar of the US budget for the next 5 years on high speed rail/rail/light rail/mass transit I'm not sure it would be enough money to actually have a functioning system that worked for even 25% of the population.
I agree. People seem to overlook that Euro Rail is inter-city. We used the rail to travel between cities, but walked, drove or cabbed around the Cities. A European Rail System does not solve the "first mile, last mile" issue. Locals would still need to invest (heavily) in transit.nein51 said:
The single largest problem with any discussion of rail is "what then". Ok, so the train takes you from Waco to Dallas. What then? The DFW Metro area is just at 1/2 of the size of the country of Denmark, by sq mile.
Where does the train pick you up in Waco? Where does it drop you off in Dallas? What good is being in downtown Dallas if you need to be near Plano? Since the drop off and pick up answer is nowhere near the population of the city (since building rail to the populated parts of the city would cost, literally, trillions of dollars in land acquisition alone) how do you get from the pick up/drop off to where you need to go?
At this point in our history there really is no feasible way to massively shift from cars/airplanes to trains (and Im not sure the general public even wants to do that).
I lived in Europe and Chicago. I could have taken rail in Chicago from my house in plainfield to the office in Medina. I would have had to get up, drive the car to the train station, wait for it to make approx 100 stops, walk about 12 blocks in the blistering cold and snow, rain, heat and pay a monthly parking fee. There were days my drive to work to well over 2 hours and that was still preferable.RMF5630 said:I agree. People seem to overlook that Euro Rail is inter-city. We used the rail to travel between cities, but walked, drove or cabbed around the Cities. A European Rail System does not solve the "first mile, last mile" issue. Locals would still need to invest (heavily) in transit.nein51 said:
The single largest problem with any discussion of rail is "what then". Ok, so the train takes you from Waco to Dallas. What then? The DFW Metro area is just at 1/2 of the size of the country of Denmark, by sq mile.
Where does the train pick you up in Waco? Where does it drop you off in Dallas? What good is being in downtown Dallas if you need to be near Plano? Since the drop off and pick up answer is nowhere near the population of the city (since building rail to the populated parts of the city would cost, literally, trillions of dollars in land acquisition alone) how do you get from the pick up/drop off to where you need to go?
At this point in our history there really is no feasible way to massively shift from cars/airplanes to trains (and Im not sure the general public even wants to do that).
I agree passenger rail only makes sense in some areas, Northeast, Chicago and a few others. Strangely, the routes that AMTRAK actually make money or lose acceptable amounts! Imagine that...
Agree, it really depends on where you live. Northeast, Chicago and a few other cities provide viable options. Problem I see is that rail and even buses are 19th Century technologies being shoehorned into a 21st Century expectation.nein51 said:I lived in Europe and Chicago. I could have taken rail in Chicago from my house in plainfield to the office in Medina. I would have had to get up, drive the car to the train station, wait for it to make approx 100 stops, walk about 12 blocks in the blistering cold and snow, rain, heat and pay a monthly parking fee. There were days my drive to work to well over 2 hours and that was still preferable.RMF5630 said:I agree. People seem to overlook that Euro Rail is inter-city. We used the rail to travel between cities, but walked, drove or cabbed around the Cities. A European Rail System does not solve the "first mile, last mile" issue. Locals would still need to invest (heavily) in transit.nein51 said:
The single largest problem with any discussion of rail is "what then". Ok, so the train takes you from Waco to Dallas. What then? The DFW Metro area is just at 1/2 of the size of the country of Denmark, by sq mile.
Where does the train pick you up in Waco? Where does it drop you off in Dallas? What good is being in downtown Dallas if you need to be near Plano? Since the drop off and pick up answer is nowhere near the population of the city (since building rail to the populated parts of the city would cost, literally, trillions of dollars in land acquisition alone) how do you get from the pick up/drop off to where you need to go?
At this point in our history there really is no feasible way to massively shift from cars/airplanes to trains (and Im not sure the general public even wants to do that).
I agree passenger rail only makes sense in some areas, Northeast, Chicago and a few others. Strangely, the routes that AMTRAK actually make money or lose acceptable amounts! Imagine that...
Public transport in the US also has a massive image issue to overcome. It is the transportation of the broke and poor. If we were serious about public transportation people would be pouring money into celebrity ad campaigns to make it "cool".
Canada2017 said:Our current under trained , overly entitled electorate ...put Biden in office.RMF5630 said:Canada2017 said:The US of A has been an also ran for at least 10 years .RMF5630 said:Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
Also, China is ramping up. You do this, we lose the dollar as the world trading currency. Then, it is game over. The good ole US of A becomes an also ran. Just keep following pseudo-science and AOC.
China is the big dog now .
Holding on by a thread... Biden last straw
Such an electorate can not compete against a better trained ....better motivated work force.
China is the big dog now.
China is about to have to start their printing press real soon. People no pay mortgage no more. Economy need stimulus.quash said:Canada2017 said:Our current under trained , overly entitled electorate ...put Biden in office.RMF5630 said:Canada2017 said:The US of A has been an also ran for at least 10 years .RMF5630 said:Biden is destroying our Nation with a strategy that no one knows if it will work.quash said:
American oil production is increasing. I can't believe Biden wants to repeat the last administration's stupidity.
Also, China is ramping up. You do this, we lose the dollar as the world trading currency. Then, it is game over. The good ole US of A becomes an also ran. Just keep following pseudo-science and AOC.
China is the big dog now .
Holding on by a thread... Biden last straw
Such an electorate can not compete against a better trained ....better motivated work force.
China is the big dog now.
China is not the big dog. Lulz, y'all scare so easily.
They couldn't even get the LA to Vegas line built, if there was ever a corridor that made sense for high speed rail, that is it. That was with Federal funds for capital. People blame CA rules, but SANDAG gets things built. I think it is just mass transit incompetence from never having to provide a service that actually makes money.cowboycwr said:
When discussing rail in Europe (or specific European country) vs US the argument almost always fails to compare the sizes/distances of the two. Nein mentioned it above briefly but I think that is a huge difference between why they have it and we don't. It was easier to establish it in a small scale compared the vast distances of the US.
Then you get the politics involved like with the proposed rail systems say in TX where every city tries to get a stop so that nothing gets built- like the proposed rail between SA and DFW.
RMF5630 said:They couldn't even get the LA to Vegas line built, if there was ever a corridor that made sense for high speed rail, that is it. That was with Federal funds for capital. People blame CA rules, but SANDAG gets things built. I think it is just mass transit incompetence from never having to provide a service that actually makes money.cowboycwr said:
When discussing rail in Europe (or specific European country) vs US the argument almost always fails to compare the sizes/distances of the two. Nein mentioned it above briefly but I think that is a huge difference between why they have it and we don't. It was easier to establish it in a small scale compared the vast distances of the US.
Then you get the politics involved like with the proposed rail systems say in TX where every city tries to get a stop so that nothing gets built- like the proposed rail between SA and DFW.
Im not so sure I agree. I dont know that any private company could raise enough capital to build the required infrastructure for HSR.quash said:If there was money to be made in high speed rail a private company would have done it by now. Having said that nobody wants to build the first X. They want to see if it works and then build Brand Y X.RMF5630 said:They couldn't even get the LA to Vegas line built, if there was ever a corridor that made sense for high speed rail, that is it. That was with Federal funds for capital. People blame CA rules, but SANDAG gets things built. I think it is just mass transit incompetence from never having to provide a service that actually makes money.cowboycwr said:
When discussing rail in Europe (or specific European country) vs US the argument almost always fails to compare the sizes/distances of the two. Nein mentioned it above briefly but I think that is a huge difference between why they have it and we don't. It was easier to establish it in a small scale compared the vast distances of the US.
Then you get the politics involved like with the proposed rail systems say in TX where every city tries to get a stop so that nothing gets built- like the proposed rail between SA and DFW.
I put a deposit on a Hummer EV3X the other day. Coming Spring 2024.Canada2017 said:
Ford Mustang Mach E finally gets delivered next Tuesday .
5 months late .
Can't decide if its the dumbest purchase I have ever made or the best.
Most of the rail projects are P3's. The capital outlay is huge, but usually not the problem. They could raise the capital, some of the Aussie, Spanish and French firms can, the inclusion of Government and the use of municipal bonds, eminent domain and permitting make a P3 much more doablenein51 said:Im not so sure I agree. I dont know that any private company could raise enough capital to build the required infrastructure for HSR.quash said:If there was money to be made in high speed rail a private company would have done it by now. Having said that nobody wants to build the first X. They want to see if it works and then build Brand Y X.RMF5630 said:They couldn't even get the LA to Vegas line built, if there was ever a corridor that made sense for high speed rail, that is it. That was with Federal funds for capital. People blame CA rules, but SANDAG gets things built. I think it is just mass transit incompetence from never having to provide a service that actually makes money.cowboycwr said:
When discussing rail in Europe (or specific European country) vs US the argument almost always fails to compare the sizes/distances of the two. Nein mentioned it above briefly but I think that is a huge difference between why they have it and we don't. It was easier to establish it in a small scale compared the vast distances of the US.
Then you get the politics involved like with the proposed rail systems say in TX where every city tries to get a stop so that nothing gets built- like the proposed rail between SA and DFW.
Good deal.nein51 said:I put a deposit on a Hummer EV3X the other day. Coming Spring 2024.Canada2017 said:
Ford Mustang Mach E finally gets delivered next Tuesday .
5 months late .
Can't decide if its the dumbest purchase I have ever made or the best.
