• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does strong infrastructure perpetuate economic growth

Does strong infrastructure perpetuate economic growth

  • Yes, economic growth is dependent on infrastructure investment

    Votes: 26 86.7%
  • No, economic growth is NOT dependent on infrastructure investment

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Unsure/other

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • Total voters
    30
Infrastructure facilitates economic activity though it is not dependent.
 
What do you think?

I picked other. I say it depends what that highly developed and costly infrastructure is and where it is placed. For example would a passenger rail system/subway benefit the city I live in that has nearly 400,000 people in it and be cost effective? No it wouldn't because most people in my city drive their own car. If it was a city where most people did not drive then a subway/passenger rail service would be beneficial and cost effective.
 
Last edited:
The problem with a high speed rail system in the US is that we have 2 1/2 coasts where most of the wealth of the country is generated, and then a giant chunk in the middle that on average never goes more then 200 miles from its house. If a highway speed rail system were to be built, it'd necessarily have to exclude most of the geographic middle of the country. Otherwise we're looking at some very expensive lines that nobody uses. HSRs in Europe work because you can go in pretty much every direction and you'll hit a major commercial center every 100-150 miles.

A lot of what you are saying could have very well been said about the trans siberian railway. Just like in Siberia, a lot of people may not necessarily live in the middle of the US compared to the coastal regions, but connecting the less densely populated areas of Russia has had affects.

The Trans-Siberian Railway gave a positive boost to Siberian agriculture, facilitating substantial exports to central Russia and Europe. It influenced the territories it connected directly, as well as those connected to it by river transport. For instance, Altai Krai exported wheat to the railway via the Ob River.

The Trans-Siberian line remains the most important transportation link within Russia; around 30% of Russian exports travel on the line. While it attracts many foreign tourists, it gets most of its use from domestic passengers.

It's not necessary a line linking all areas of Siberia either. It's basically a line meant to connect east and west by ground. It's convenient for tourists, native people, and business enterprises. It's another option to rapidly transport people and goods, including getting exports and imports on opposite sides of the country.

But supporting a HSR doesn't even have to start there. Despite the lower population in some states, some big cities like Denver or Dallas could benefit from a rail that served the city residents and laborers only, and didn't have to connect to a national line.
 
Last edited:
I think something that a lot of people are missing is that HSR isn't just about passengers. It can also be used to transport freight much more efficiently than by truck or airplane or diesel engine.
 
Well sure, but HSR could be just as valuable as the interstate system if it was done right.

The interstate system is largely beneficial for interstate commerce of goods.
That's largely represented in what does the most road damage, OTR trucking and we already have a rail system for goods.

HSR, with the exceptions of place like the North East corridor and maybe California, is wastefully dumb, the proposed lines outside of those areas serve no real purpose.
Part of the primary problem with any mass transit systems is that the government takes money from road maintenance funds, to subsidize those systems.
Causing what we have now, deficient road infrastructure.
 
I think something that a lot of people are missing is that HSR isn't just about passengers. It can also be used to transport freight much more efficiently than by truck or airplane or diesel engine.

Speed costs money. It takes energy to accelerate a given mass to a set velocity. The faster you want to go the more energy it takes to propel that mass to your desired velocity. Energy equates to money in this calculation. Then there are also the additional engineering costs required to make transportation at higher speeds as safe as transportation at lower speeds. That too costs money.

We're not going to see any increase in efficiency from hauling coal and grain at 400 km/h. There is already an existing transportation infrastructure in place to move high value items rapidly from point to point. The additional costs associated with building out a national HSR network to replace air transport for high value freight will not increase efficiency.
 
btw.. the subway system in NYC sucks. I hate riding the sub in NYC. I would prefer a rail to the subway. I would also prefer a rail system over domestic flights.
 
The interstate system is largely beneficial for interstate commerce of goods.
That's largely represented in what does the most road damage, OTR trucking and we already have a rail system for goods.

HSR, with the exceptions of place like the North East corridor and maybe California, is wastefully dumb, the proposed lines outside of those areas serve no real purpose.
Part of the primary problem with any mass transit systems is that the government takes money from road maintenance funds, to subsidize those systems.
Causing what we have now, deficient road infrastructure.

Do you understand that HSRs can travel at faster speeds than average semi trucks are legally allowed to drive on the highway?
 
btw.. the subway system in NYC sucks. I hate riding the sub in NYC. I would prefer a rail to the subway. I would also prefer a rail system over domestic flights.

How do you imagine that rail system functioning in NYC? Would it be underground, would it be elevated or would it be on the surface? Would you tear down buildings or just buy out floors and rip a HSP corridor right through the buildings?
 
Do you understand that HSRs can travel at faster speeds than average semi trucks are legally allowed to drive on the highway?

Trucking can go from point to point, HSR cannot. This means that HSR can only go from terminal to terminal.
The Interstate Highway System creates a very dense network of interconnections and it allows all sorts of vehicles to travel along the routes. HSR only allows one type of vehicle to travel on the HSR system and it doesn't create a dense network. If you displaced all IHS travel onto HSR then you'd get massive congestion at terminals for all of the traffic that was diffused across a wide network of IHS would be concentrated onto a small HSR network and then have to be diffused from the terminals. The terminals would become massive chokepoints in the system.
 
How do you imagine that rail system functioning in NYC? Would it be underground, would it be elevated or would it be on the surface? Would you tear down buildings or just buy out floors and rip a HSP corridor right through the buildings?

In Germany I recall some parts of their rails would be underground then go to above ground, and some were elevated in the city centers... Germany is older than America, and has less space than America. A rail didn't connect everything single thing either...
 
How do you imagine that rail system functioning in NYC? Would it be underground, would it be elevated or would it be on the surface? Would you tear down buildings or just buy out floors and rip a HSP corridor right through the buildings?

If it were underground, wouldn't that be the subway?
 
I think ultimately, the question of whether high speed rail will be beneficial depends on how competitive it is with air lines on those markets.
 
Trucking can go from point to point, HSR cannot. This means that HSR can only go from terminal to terminal.
The Interstate Highway System creates a very dense network of interconnections and it allows all sorts of vehicles to travel along the routes. HSR only allows one type of vehicle to travel on the HSR system and it doesn't create a dense network. If you displaced all IHS travel onto HSR then you'd get massive congestion at terminals for all of the traffic that was diffused across a wide network of IHS would be concentrated onto a small HSR network and then have to be diffused from the terminals. The terminals would become massive chokepoints in the system.

Highways get congestion... highways also have more accidents. Yes, some terminals can be crowded but that has never honestly been a problem in my travels. People can't legally delay trains or rails without a legitimate reason... there is an emergency lever, and I have never once seen it pulled. Pulling one as a prank would result in serious legal punishment.

If people are waiting for transport and miss the rail, the next one comes, and the next on comes... but I have never missed one because of terminal congestion. You might run a few minutes late if you miss your rail, but people don't have the authority to stall the entire system. The German rails are especially well known for running on time and on schedule. The rail arrives to pick you up the same time, everyday, and brings you home the same time, everyday.

You can't say about the highway system.
 
I can't say that it's "essential" for growth, but I do think that infrastructure investment can spur some growth. The Interstates have been a major boon for the trucking industry, that's for sure.
 
If it were underground, wouldn't that be the subway?

I'm asking SheWolf to clarify. Perhaps she doesn't like the clankety-clank of subways or the way the cars are designed and a HSR levitated train in their place would make her like subways.
 
I'm asking SheWolf to clarify. Perhaps she doesn't like the clankety-clank of subways or the way the cars are designed and a HSR levitated train in their place would make her like subways.

In Germany the U Bahn is the part that goes underground.... The German national railway system is called Die Deutsche Bahn, so no, it's not technically a subway.
 
250px-Berlin_U-Bahn%2C_station_Osloer_Straße%2C_H-type_train_on_U8_line.jpg


The U Bahn is underground... but then suddenly, the U Bahn is above ground...

220px-U-Bahn_Berlin_Nollendorfplatz2.JPG
 
Just some facts about rail transport:

Rail transport is an energy-efficient but capital-intensive, means of mechanized land transport. The tracks provide smooth and hard surfaces on which the wheels of the train can roll with a minimum of friction.

Essentially, resistance differs between vehicle's contact point and surface of roadway. Metal wheels on metal rails have a significant advantage of overcoming resistance compared to rubber-tired wheels on any road surface (railway - 0.001g at 10 mph and 0.024g at 60 mph; truck - 0.009g at 10 mph and 0.090 at 60 mph).

As an example, a typical modern wagon can hold up to 113 tonnes of freight on two four-wheel bogies. The contact area between each wheel and the rail is a strip no more than a few millimetres wide, which minimizes friction. The track distributes the weight of the train evenly, allowing significantly greater loads per axle and wheel than in road transport, leading to less wear and tear on the permanent way. This can save energy compared with other forms of transport, such as road transport, which depends on the friction between rubber tires and the road. Trains have a small frontal area in relation to the load they are carrying, which reduces air resistance and thus energy usage.

:peace
 
A lot of what you are saying could have very well been said about the trans siberian railway. Just like in Siberia, a lot of people may not necessarily live in the middle of the US compared to the coastal regions, but connecting the less densely populated areas of Russia has had affects.

What effects? Most of the Russian economy is concentrated in a few select areas. The rest of the country is dirt poor. Russian railways serve as a way to make the poor move towards the cities. The US already has those. They're called Greyhounds.
 
Try another perspective. Infrastructure is energy use. We use most energy at about 13% efficiency, at least that is true for oil and natural gas and elecricity. The Centralized Distributions Networks for energy that exist are monopolistic cash cows. Start a program that stops distributing energy and manufactures it at the user level efficiently. Look at those nuclear and other fueled cooling towers and realize that those billowing clouds of steam/water vapor are huge amounts of wasted energy, just like a smokestack at a coal plant. Make it an imfrastructure plan to capture waste heat and distribute/use it as needed, not waste it. The side benefit of fighting Global Warming comes into this reality. 13% efficiency says we are leaving 87% on the table and that translates that there is something wrong with the infrastructure, don't you think? Infrastructure must be developed that advantages "local" needs, not corporate needs. We are local as we are the public. Gov't should serve us.
 
Speed costs money. It takes energy to accelerate a given mass to a set velocity. The faster you want to go the more energy it takes to propel that mass to your desired velocity. Energy equates to money in this calculation. Then there are also the additional engineering costs required to make transportation at higher speeds as safe as transportation at lower speeds. That too costs money.

We're not going to see any increase in efficiency from hauling coal and grain at 400 km/h. There is already an existing transportation infrastructure in place to move high value items rapidly from point to point. The additional costs associated with building out a national HSR network to replace air transport for high value freight will not increase efficiency.

You're oversimplifying the physics side of things pretty seriously. The two most important points are that HSR suffers much less from air resistance than trucks do, and that electric motors are much more efficient than combustion engines. Sure, it takes more energy to accelerate a train to 400 km/h than it does to accelerate a truck to 80 km/h. but once the train is up to speed, it won't take much energy at all to keep it going. The journey will also be much shorter. It will also keep the freeways clear of trucks, which any driver can tell you are a major pain in the ass. And, of course, there's the fact that electric trains don't run on oil.
 
Giving people jobs in the short term will give the economy a swift kick in the pants to get it started again. More people with jobs = more people spending money = more demand = private sector expansion. Also, that long term maintenance also means long term jobs.

It wouldn't simply mean giving people jobs either, it's also investing in the country which will have additional benefits...
 
Back
Top Bottom