5 ms·

"Personally I think cars are awesome, and I'd love to see some high-speed highways criss-crossing America, but I don't want the government involved in it, and i

"Personally I think cars are awesome, and I'd love to see some high-speed highways criss-crossing America, but I don't want the government involved in it, and if that means we go without highways, that's an outcome I find acceptable." Can you imagine the US without the Interstate? That's the sort of opportunity you're missing out on here. The subsidy the government has given American businesses a huge competitive advantage, you can ship almost anything cross-continent within a few days. This has enabled companies like UPS to exist. High-speed trains have the potential to dramatically shrink distances between major hubs, giving people an alternative to aviation for their mid-range transportation needs, and could allow people to live in more affordable neighborhoods without an unbelievably long commute. There are people that live in northern France and commute to London and it takes them about an hour. Meanwhile getting from Buffalo to New York City takes a full day.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
> The subsidy the government has given American businesses a huge competitive advantage This is specious. It's the whole Bastiat "That which is seen and unseen" problem of economic manipulation. You don't know what would have happened if trillions in resources hadn't been diverted. I find it very easy to argue things would be better if Ike had never taken over the highway system and federally subsidized it. We've wasted massive amounts of public resources spreading thinly used infrastructure out all over the land and it's been largely enabled by the interstate system. Also consider the absurd highway fatility/injury rate in America and how much that costs.
ams6110 12y ago
From the story: fifty years ago, the train from New York to Washington was much faster than it is now 50 years ago that railroad was private. Freight rail today in the USA is privately owned and doing really well. I would fully support all interstate highways being private toll roads, but I don't think highways and rail travel are comparable any more than highways and air travel is. And airlines are privately owned (though heavily regulated).
- darkmighty 12y ago
  Amtrak is a for-profit corporation too. But note who built those railroads: the government. I'm not sure trains in the US for passenger transport make sense, but either way they're going to need an initial infrastructure subsidy.
agumonkey 12y ago
I read an argument about why Airplanes made more sense for the U.S (very large area, etc, etc). But somehow it could have been an opportunity to develop very high speed trains. Well now there's the hyperloop unicorn filling this daydream niche.
- darkmighty 12y ago
  Yes, one could even argue evacuated tube trains with maglev are the most efficient for of transportation. Believe it or not, this was known 5 years ago -- you can find it on old documentaries, where they talk about it with conviction this was the future of transportation. The problem is simply the early investment. The tech is here. With our current pace of innovation, a pharaonic transportation project with recoup costs on the order of a century is hard to justify. The need to physically displace yourself is changing rapidly with the internet, and who knows what we'll need in 100 years!
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    "Believe it or not, this was known 5 years ago" It's been known for a lot longer than that. Larry Niven had them in his novel A World Out of Time (1976) and I think Heinlein had them in some of his novels from the 1960s. I suspect the concept predates those novels.
    - darkmighty 12y ago
      Yes it was I typo, I did mean "50 years ago" :P
      - Turing_Machine 12y ago
        Okay, gotcha. :-)
_archon_ 12y ago
I agree with astrodust, and would like to point out to the GP that arranging the real estate necessary, plus getting all the zoning/easements/whatever (I'm not in property development), would easily be prohibitively expensive for a company trying to join any two major cities. I am currently of the opinion that major logistical infrastructure can't feasibly be done by any non-governmental entity since such company can't force land acquisition and usage approval by their own fiat. A company could propose a project to legislators, but would have to invest significantly before that stage with no guarantee of return. If a company could feasibly be granted such power plenipotentiarily, it would be a huge bill of rights issue (that eminent domain is controversial is another discussion). Other than government, I don't see a feasible solution here.
- mindcrime 12y ago
  I agree with astrodust, and would like to point out to the GP that arranging the real estate necessary, plus getting all the zoning/easements/whatever (I'm not in property development), would easily be prohibitively expensive for a company trying to join any two major cities. I never said it would be easy.
  - mozumder 12y ago
    Of course it would be easy. Private companies can easily take people's property - just point a gun at them. It worked well for the East India company. If we can eliminate government, we can eliminate the people's protection racket. This will allow private companies to flourish, and the weak to be eliminated.
    - mindcrime 12y ago
      The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right. I find it amusing that you would cite that example as an argument FOR government, as I think it stands as a classic example of the worst of what government enables.
mindcrime 12y ago
High-speed trains have the potential to dramatically shrink distances between major hubs, giving people an alternative to aviation for their mid-range transportation needs, and could allow people to live in more affordable neighborhoods without an unbelievably long commute. No question. Like I said, I'm pro-train. I just don't think that subsidizing trains is a proper role for government. If there is enough market demand to fund and support trains (or Interstate highways, or the Post Office, or whatever) then more power to them. If not, I don't believe in propping them up through taxpayer funded subsidies.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Like I said, I'm pro-train. I just don't think that subsidizing trains is a proper role for government. If there is enough market demand to fund and support trains (or Interstate highways, or the Post Office, or whatever) then more power to them. If not, I don't believe in propping them up through taxpayer funded subsidies. One idea behind taxpayer subsidies for these things is that they have external benefits (either directly, or in that they have less externalized costs than alternatives). With trains, particularly, the argument is that they have less externalized costs than other forms of transit. (Of course, you could address this by imposing taxes on the more-externally-costly alternatives, but that's equivalent to subsidy to the alternative with less external costs, so it amounts to the same thing.)
derekp7 12y ago
I think the difference is -- the Interstate is heavily used, so it makes a good government subsidy (that is, you don't have a large number of people paying for a very small number of users). But passenger trains would end up being the opposite -- large number of people paying, and a small number benefiting. Now you can have some routes (such as the Buffalo to NYC one that you mentioned), but again if it is paid for federally, then unless there are similar situations that the majority of the country could take advantage of, it doesn't make sense.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago

> The subsidy the government has given American businesses a huge competitive advantage This is specious. It's the whole Bastiat "That which is seen and unseen" problem of economic manipulation. You don't know what would have happened if trillions in resources hadn't been diverted. I find it very easy to argue things would be better if Ike had never taken over the highway system and federally subsidized it. We've wasted massive amounts of public resources spreading thinly used infrastructure out all over the land and it's been largely enabled by the interstate system. Also consider the absurd highway fatility/injury rate in America and how much that costs.

ams6110 12y ago

From the story: fifty years ago, the train from New York to Washington was much faster than it is now 50 years ago that railroad was private. Freight rail today in the USA is privately owned and doing really well. I would fully support all interstate highways being private toll roads, but I don't think highways and rail travel are comparable any more than highways and air travel is. And airlines are privately owned (though heavily regulated).

darkmighty 12y ago
Amtrak is a for-profit corporation too. But note who built those railroads: the government. I'm not sure trains in the US for passenger transport make sense, but either way they're going to need an initial infrastructure subsidy.

agumonkey 12y ago

I read an argument about why Airplanes made more sense for the U.S (very large area, etc, etc). But somehow it could have been an opportunity to develop very high speed trains. Well now there's the hyperloop unicorn filling this daydream niche.

darkmighty 12y ago
Yes, one could even argue evacuated tube trains with maglev are the most efficient for of transportation. Believe it or not, this was known 5 years ago -- you can find it on old documentaries, where they talk about it with conviction this was the future of transportation. The problem is simply the early investment. The tech is here. With our current pace of innovation, a pharaonic transportation project with recoup costs on the order of a century is hard to justify. The need to physically displace yourself is changing rapidly with the internet, and who knows what we'll need in 100 years!
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  "Believe it or not, this was known 5 years ago" It's been known for a lot longer than that. Larry Niven had them in his novel A World Out of Time (1976) and I think Heinlein had them in some of his novels from the 1960s. I suspect the concept predates those novels.
  - darkmighty 12y ago
    Yes it was I typo, I did mean "50 years ago" :P
    - Turing_Machine 12y ago
      Okay, gotcha. :-)

_archon_ 12y ago

I agree with astrodust, and would like to point out to the GP that arranging the real estate necessary, plus getting all the zoning/easements/whatever (I'm not in property development), would easily be prohibitively expensive for a company trying to join any two major cities. I am currently of the opinion that major logistical infrastructure can't feasibly be done by any non-governmental entity since such company can't force land acquisition and usage approval by their own fiat. A company could propose a project to legislators, but would have to invest significantly before that stage with no guarantee of return. If a company could feasibly be granted such power plenipotentiarily, it would be a huge bill of rights issue (that eminent domain is controversial is another discussion). Other than government, I don't see a feasible solution here.

mindcrime 12y ago
I agree with astrodust, and would like to point out to the GP that arranging the real estate necessary, plus getting all the zoning/easements/whatever (I'm not in property development), would easily be prohibitively expensive for a company trying to join any two major cities. I never said it would be easy.
- mozumder 12y ago
  Of course it would be easy. Private companies can easily take people's property - just point a gun at them. It worked well for the East India company. If we can eliminate government, we can eliminate the people's protection racket. This will allow private companies to flourish, and the weak to be eliminated.
  - mindcrime 12y ago
    The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right. I find it amusing that you would cite that example as an argument FOR government, as I think it stands as a classic example of the worst of what government enables.

mindcrime 12y ago

High-speed trains have the potential to dramatically shrink distances between major hubs, giving people an alternative to aviation for their mid-range transportation needs, and could allow people to live in more affordable neighborhoods without an unbelievably long commute. No question. Like I said, I'm pro-train. I just don't think that subsidizing trains is a proper role for government. If there is enough market demand to fund and support trains (or Interstate highways, or the Post Office, or whatever) then more power to them. If not, I don't believe in propping them up through taxpayer funded subsidies.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Like I said, I'm pro-train. I just don't think that subsidizing trains is a proper role for government. If there is enough market demand to fund and support trains (or Interstate highways, or the Post Office, or whatever) then more power to them. If not, I don't believe in propping them up through taxpayer funded subsidies. One idea behind taxpayer subsidies for these things is that they have external benefits (either directly, or in that they have less externalized costs than alternatives). With trains, particularly, the argument is that they have less externalized costs than other forms of transit. (Of course, you could address this by imposing taxes on the more-externally-costly alternatives, but that's equivalent to subsidy to the alternative with less external costs, so it amounts to the same thing.)

derekp7 12y ago

I think the difference is -- the Interstate is heavily used, so it makes a good government subsidy (that is, you don't have a large number of people paying for a very small number of users). But passenger trains would end up being the opposite -- large number of people paying, and a small number benefiting. Now you can have some routes (such as the Buffalo to NYC one that you mentioned), but again if it is paid for federally, then unless there are similar situations that the majority of the country could take advantage of, it doesn't make sense.