4 ms·

> the only part of the U.S. comparable to Germany (600 people per square mile) is the northeast megalopolis (900 people per square mile) Which has >50M people,

> the only part of the U.S. comparable to Germany (600 people per square mile) is the northeast megalopolis (900 people per square mile) Which has >50M people, 2/3 of the population of Germany. In that comparison, that region should have then 2/3 of the rail network of Germany. It has 1 medium-speed rail line. > while the Amtrak map is just inter-city The Capitol Corridor, for example, is comparable to a Regio train in Germany (but slower, shittier, etc.).

rayiner 8y ago
> Which has >50M people, 2/3 of the population of Germany. In that comparison, that region should have then 2/3 of the rail network of Germany. It has 1 medium-speed rail line. What the U.S. also has is 275 million other people who (1) won't benefit from such a rail network; and (2) won't vote to fund it; (3) will condition any support of Amtrak on useless long-distance routes through low-density regions that sap money away from the only corridor in the U.S. where rail makes sense. And it's a completely rational decision for those people.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Oh, sure, I'm very familiar with the problems. That's why it is depressing. And it isn't even a rational decision for those people, the economic gains would largely outweigh the costs, being a net-positive for the rest of the country.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Even if that's true (which I'm not sure about), would economic gains from high-speed rail between New York and DC accrue to a taxpayer in Kansas? Or would a taxpayer in Kansas be bankrolling increased prosperity in a far-off part of the country that's already well off?
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      > would economic gains from high-speed rail between New York and DC accrue to a taxpayer in Kansas? Yes, because that economic gain would translate into more taxes, which would be applied across the rest of the country, funding, for example, infrastructure in Kansas. Of course, that's assuming a reasonable government...
    - nashashmi 8y ago
      There is a website somewhere that says how much benefit each state gets from the federal government versus how much their people put in. Half the states lose money. And half gain. And all those gaining states have low density. While all the losing states are in the North East.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        That doesn't seem to have much to do with rail improvements? Will a better service from Boston to NYC make the federal government so much more efficient that people in Kansas will be able to tell? Besides, the map to which you refer is the best possible result of voter preferences. Those who prefer lower spending are bribed into a compromise by those who prefer higher spending. If we didn't see the results you note, that would indicate a failure of democracy.
      - hueving 8y ago
        >much benefit each state gets from the federal government versus how much their people put in No, that's not what it shows. It talks about the balance of tax revenue vs subsidies for each state. That distinction is critical and can completely change the balance of which state is receiving more 'benefit'. If this confuses you, consider the following scenario. State A is filled with farmers subsidized to grow food so everyone in State B has a stable an cheap food supply. From a purely monetary accounting perspective A looks like a leech, but in reality it's a major part of the success of B (and the rest of the states it trades cheap food with) and separating them is a pointless exercise designed to score political points. This applies to any states receiving subsidies to support the rest of the states (e.g. ones with military bases, government research labs, etc). All of the states that look like they are self-sustaining mega economies would fall apart without the neighboring states that they suck cheap power, land use, etc off of. Don't perpetuate the myth that some states are just carrying the rest of them, it's just designed to divide people.
        mercutio2 8y ago
        You’re saying just getting rid of the farm bill, with all its subsidies for agriculture, would hurt urban areas by destroying production? That seems like a real stretch of economic theory, to me. Subsidizing the low-margin producers in certain states and putting up agricultural tariffs like we do is really not benefitting rich urban areas. Consumers in NYC don’t sit around saying, “thank goodness I have this expensive cane sugar and cheap high fructose corn syrup because of the exorbitant tariffs on Brazilian sugar and subsidized crop insurance for corn production!” New Yorkers also don’t get much direct benefit from Conservation Reserve, where farmers are paid to do restoration work on marginal farmland rather than sending the topsoil down the river. Finally, SNAP, which makes up 75% of the cost of the farm bill, last time I checked, is a conditional transfer directly to consumers, so SNAP tax expenditures to agricultural states are feeding poor people in those states, not subsidizing urban consumers in other states. That seems like a fine way to do the accounting to me. I support the conservation bits of the farm bill, and SNAP and Medicaid (which dominate interstate transfer payments), but not because they benefit rich urban states directly; I don’t think they do at all. I just think top soil conservation and providing food and health care to the poor are moral mandates, and I’m philosophically in favor of transfer payments from the rich to the poor.
    - pm24601 8y ago
      In a sane world, Kansas will be connecting their own rail lines and asking NY tax payers to help pay for that as well. There is a reason we are called the "United" states - no?
jcranmer 8y ago
Functionally speaking, the major cities in the NE US are in a very straight line, with the exception of the Hartford/Providence bifurcation. There is little point to building a more complex spider network because the cities you pick up are just so insubstantial. As for the NEC, it suffers from being a very early build. With the exception of the Penn Station approaches, the line is 4-tracked all the way through the NJ-CT corridor. Despite being 4-tracked, the capacity is still insufficient in places. Furthermore, the line in CT in particular is a fairly curvy line that prevents building up high-speed. So getting higher speed trains really requires building new track, a lot of it in topographically interesting locations and in high-priced real estate locations. On top of that, there's quite a few tunnels and bridges whose condition is best described not as "past its expected lifespan" but rather as "this should have failed already." So improvements on the order of billions of dollars, basically. It doesn't help that Amtrak appears to have decided that money will never be forthcoming, so all of its plans get scope-creeped to massive pie-in-the-sky boondoggles rather than trying to find smaller chunks that can make immediate improvements for relatively cheap. That's why there's a $150 billion plan to get 3-hr Boston-NYC-DC super-express service involving virgin track the entire length of the corridor and brand new stations (requiring extensive tunneling in downtown cores!) in Philly and Baltimore, or why Amtrak insists on building an entire new station annex in NYC when asking for just two new tubes under the Hudson.

rayiner 8y ago

> Which has >50M people, 2/3 of the population of Germany. In that comparison, that region should have then 2/3 of the rail network of Germany. It has 1 medium-speed rail line. What the U.S. also has is 275 million other people who (1) won't benefit from such a rail network; and (2) won't vote to fund it; (3) will condition any support of Amtrak on useless long-distance routes through low-density regions that sap money away from the only corridor in the U.S. where rail makes sense. And it's a completely rational decision for those people.

ucaetano 8y ago
Oh, sure, I'm very familiar with the problems. That's why it is depressing. And it isn't even a rational decision for those people, the economic gains would largely outweigh the costs, being a net-positive for the rest of the country.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Even if that's true (which I'm not sure about), would economic gains from high-speed rail between New York and DC accrue to a taxpayer in Kansas? Or would a taxpayer in Kansas be bankrolling increased prosperity in a far-off part of the country that's already well off?
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    > would economic gains from high-speed rail between New York and DC accrue to a taxpayer in Kansas? Yes, because that economic gain would translate into more taxes, which would be applied across the rest of the country, funding, for example, infrastructure in Kansas. Of course, that's assuming a reasonable government...
  - nashashmi 8y ago
    There is a website somewhere that says how much benefit each state gets from the federal government versus how much their people put in. Half the states lose money. And half gain. And all those gaining states have low density. While all the losing states are in the North East.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      That doesn't seem to have much to do with rail improvements? Will a better service from Boston to NYC make the federal government so much more efficient that people in Kansas will be able to tell? Besides, the map to which you refer is the best possible result of voter preferences. Those who prefer lower spending are bribed into a compromise by those who prefer higher spending. If we didn't see the results you note, that would indicate a failure of democracy.
    - hueving 8y ago
      >much benefit each state gets from the federal government versus how much their people put in No, that's not what it shows. It talks about the balance of tax revenue vs subsidies for each state. That distinction is critical and can completely change the balance of which state is receiving more 'benefit'. If this confuses you, consider the following scenario. State A is filled with farmers subsidized to grow food so everyone in State B has a stable an cheap food supply. From a purely monetary accounting perspective A looks like a leech, but in reality it's a major part of the success of B (and the rest of the states it trades cheap food with) and separating them is a pointless exercise designed to score political points. This applies to any states receiving subsidies to support the rest of the states (e.g. ones with military bases, government research labs, etc). All of the states that look like they are self-sustaining mega economies would fall apart without the neighboring states that they suck cheap power, land use, etc off of. Don't perpetuate the myth that some states are just carrying the rest of them, it's just designed to divide people.
      - mercutio2 8y ago
        You’re saying just getting rid of the farm bill, with all its subsidies for agriculture, would hurt urban areas by destroying production? That seems like a real stretch of economic theory, to me. Subsidizing the low-margin producers in certain states and putting up agricultural tariffs like we do is really not benefitting rich urban areas. Consumers in NYC don’t sit around saying, “thank goodness I have this expensive cane sugar and cheap high fructose corn syrup because of the exorbitant tariffs on Brazilian sugar and subsidized crop insurance for corn production!” New Yorkers also don’t get much direct benefit from Conservation Reserve, where farmers are paid to do restoration work on marginal farmland rather than sending the topsoil down the river. Finally, SNAP, which makes up 75% of the cost of the farm bill, last time I checked, is a conditional transfer directly to consumers, so SNAP tax expenditures to agricultural states are feeding poor people in those states, not subsidizing urban consumers in other states. That seems like a fine way to do the accounting to me. I support the conservation bits of the farm bill, and SNAP and Medicaid (which dominate interstate transfer payments), but not because they benefit rich urban states directly; I don’t think they do at all. I just think top soil conservation and providing food and health care to the poor are moral mandates, and I’m philosophically in favor of transfer payments from the rich to the poor.
  - pm24601 8y ago
    In a sane world, Kansas will be connecting their own rail lines and asking NY tax payers to help pay for that as well. There is a reason we are called the "United" states - no?

jcranmer 8y ago

Functionally speaking, the major cities in the NE US are in a very straight line, with the exception of the Hartford/Providence bifurcation. There is little point to building a more complex spider network because the cities you pick up are just so insubstantial. As for the NEC, it suffers from being a very early build. With the exception of the Penn Station approaches, the line is 4-tracked all the way through the NJ-CT corridor. Despite being 4-tracked, the capacity is still insufficient in places. Furthermore, the line in CT in particular is a fairly curvy line that prevents building up high-speed. So getting higher speed trains really requires building new track, a lot of it in topographically interesting locations and in high-priced real estate locations. On top of that, there's quite a few tunnels and bridges whose condition is best described not as "past its expected lifespan" but rather as "this should have failed already." So improvements on the order of billions of dollars, basically. It doesn't help that Amtrak appears to have decided that money will never be forthcoming, so all of its plans get scope-creeped to massive pie-in-the-sky boondoggles rather than trying to find smaller chunks that can make immediate improvements for relatively cheap. That's why there's a $150 billion plan to get 3-hr Boston-NYC-DC super-express service involving virgin track the entire length of the corridor and brand new stations (requiring extensive tunneling in downtown cores!) in Philly and Baltimore, or why Amtrak insists on building an entire new station annex in NYC when asking for just two new tubes under the Hudson.