4 ms·

The government can’t afford it because it can’t afford basic healthcare or social-security. Trains are great but not financially viable, so the money comes from

The government can’t afford it because it can’t afford basic healthcare or social-security. Trains are great but not financially viable, so the money comes from somewhere else. Trains are not worth turning our backs on the poor, the old and the sick.

ehnto 7y ago
Trains benefit the poor a lot more than a road ever could. Trains enable cheaper mobility, opening up way more job opportunities and access to services in the process. The article alludes to the enterprise being state/private partnership anyway, the federal government doesn't need to pay for it. Many high speed rail systems are public/private partnerships. The rail network in the article is proposed at 50billion. There are individuals worth more than the US. The US spent 55 billion developing a single fighter jet platform, and that was just the R&D. If the US needs to cut from anywhere, it's definitely not infrastructure initiatives that should be cut. Infrastructure creates jobs, and increases economic opportunities for everyone.
- DataWorker 7y ago
  I’m going off what I know about Amtrak, the California high speed rail project and local municipal transportation. It’s all a waste; not enough ridership to stay profitable, massive and unpredictable costs (California high speed rail is a great example) and ultimately not able to move the needle at all in terms of environmental concerns. These are feel good efforts, vanity driven or genuine expressions of a vision for the future which naively and irresponsibly refuse the accept the truth about ridership and costs that any competent political decision maker knows to be the sad truth.
organsnyder 7y ago
We can afford those things perfectly well—we just choose not to.
- DataWorker 7y ago
  Prove it. Start with California’s attempt to build high speed rail. That’s a case where we explicitly didn’t “choose not to.” We went all in and spent money that could have gone to poor children, the homeless and healthcare and gave it to business men who said what you say, “we can afford this and should.” Boondoggles hurt the poor and needy and redistribute money to well paid consultants, lawyers and developers. And the environmental impact of “green” rail projects is actually worse than not taking them on in the first place.
  - ehnto 7y ago
    > And the environmental impact of “green” rail projects is actually worse than not taking them on in the first place. While that's true, these propositions should be getting brought up to solve a particular commuting problem. In this case it's the highway between the three cities being clogged and slow. If not rail, then how do you solve the existing problem of car commuting not working in these areas? I understand you see California's attempt resulting in low ridership as a failure of the rail system, but rail is a long term commitment to solve the commuting problem. Car commutes won't go away, and eventually they'll get so bad people will need, not want, a replacement service. If trains can be that service instead of planes, then that's a long term win environmentally (and I would argue as a community, getting out of cars is a net benefit for all kinds of metrics). Perhaps the idea of commuting long distance for work in the first place is the real issue. But our communities have forgotten how to be local centric I think, especially in the more sprawling suburbias and car clogged metros.

ehnto 7y ago

Trains benefit the poor a lot more than a road ever could. Trains enable cheaper mobility, opening up way more job opportunities and access to services in the process. The article alludes to the enterprise being state/private partnership anyway, the federal government doesn't need to pay for it. Many high speed rail systems are public/private partnerships. The rail network in the article is proposed at 50billion. There are individuals worth more than the US. The US spent 55 billion developing a single fighter jet platform, and that was just the R&D. If the US needs to cut from anywhere, it's definitely not infrastructure initiatives that should be cut. Infrastructure creates jobs, and increases economic opportunities for everyone.

DataWorker 7y ago
I’m going off what I know about Amtrak, the California high speed rail project and local municipal transportation. It’s all a waste; not enough ridership to stay profitable, massive and unpredictable costs (California high speed rail is a great example) and ultimately not able to move the needle at all in terms of environmental concerns. These are feel good efforts, vanity driven or genuine expressions of a vision for the future which naively and irresponsibly refuse the accept the truth about ridership and costs that any competent political decision maker knows to be the sad truth.

organsnyder 7y ago

We can afford those things perfectly well—we just choose not to.

DataWorker 7y ago
Prove it. Start with California’s attempt to build high speed rail. That’s a case where we explicitly didn’t “choose not to.” We went all in and spent money that could have gone to poor children, the homeless and healthcare and gave it to business men who said what you say, “we can afford this and should.” Boondoggles hurt the poor and needy and redistribute money to well paid consultants, lawyers and developers. And the environmental impact of “green” rail projects is actually worse than not taking them on in the first place.
- ehnto 7y ago
  > And the environmental impact of “green” rail projects is actually worse than not taking them on in the first place. While that's true, these propositions should be getting brought up to solve a particular commuting problem. In this case it's the highway between the three cities being clogged and slow. If not rail, then how do you solve the existing problem of car commuting not working in these areas? I understand you see California's attempt resulting in low ridership as a failure of the rail system, but rail is a long term commitment to solve the commuting problem. Car commutes won't go away, and eventually they'll get so bad people will need, not want, a replacement service. If trains can be that service instead of planes, then that's a long term win environmentally (and I would argue as a community, getting out of cars is a net benefit for all kinds of metrics). Perhaps the idea of commuting long distance for work in the first place is the real issue. But our communities have forgotten how to be local centric I think, especially in the more sprawling suburbias and car clogged metros.