• 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
SheWolf

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,412
Reaction score
13,542
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Obama keeps pushing for a high speed rail system, meanwhile, many in the GOP disdain the idea and the spending it would require. I have even heard some Conservatives argue that the only reason we have the national highway system, is for better transportation of troops.

If we didn't have the highway system, do you think the US economy would be nearly as powerful?

The GOP claims they want to improve the economy, and Obama can't do it... so is the GOP on the wrong side here?

A high speed rail system would allow quicker and more efficient transportation of labor and people in general, and quicker and more efficient transportation of labor and people over longer distances.

Many businesses in the USA would benefit from a rail system. Not only could companies send people to various locations on flights, but we'd have the choice to travel across country by rail too. I have found this to be a very real and huge barrier since graduating college. A lot of talented and bright people in the business world hate flying, and they often turn down jobs and promotions because it requires some flying.

Investing in a rail system would create jobs, and it give us more control over reducing US dependence on oil.

I believe that if America refuses to invest in a high speed rail system, the American economy will be held back.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
I don't think we need a national high-speed rail system at this point. If we did, the most suitable places would be the Northeast corridor, perhaps the midwest, and the Pacific Coast, but on the whole, the costs and lack of demand for such a system would probably outweigh the benefits, IMHO.

I do think other types of infrastructure need serious overhaul. Roads, bridges, highways, power grid, etc. The last time we seriously updated our national infrastructure was in the fifties.
 
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.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I don't think we need a national high-speed rail system at this point. If we did, the most suitable places would be the Northeast corridor, perhaps the midwest, and the Pacific Coast, but on the whole, the demand for such a system isn't enough to outweigh the costs, IMHO.

I do think other types of infrastructure need serious overhaul. Roads, bridges, highways, power grid, etc. The last time we seriously updated our national infrastructure was in the fifties.
Click to expand...

I do realize that some places that are not economic centers or have lots of workers, probably wouldn't benefit from a modern rail system as much as others. However, if such an area wanted to grow into a bustling economic center, attract the best workers and from longer distances, and reach it's full potential, then infrastructure investment becomes important. That is the general rule. No area/town/city can grow into a economic center without a strong infrastructure. One goal or need will naturally cause the other need.
 
SheWolf said:
I do realize that some places that are not economic centers or have lots of workers, probably wouldn't benefit from a modern rail system as much as others. However, if such an area wanted to grow into a bustling economic center, attract the best workers and from longer distances, and reach it's full potential, then infrastructure investment becomes important. That is the general rule. No area/town/city can grow into a economic center without a strong infrastructure. One goal or need will naturally cause the other need.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just question the need for high-speed rail in the US. Infrastructure is important, but what type and how you go about implementing it is also important.
 
I like the idea of a new kind of system much more than the current idea of expanding the old system. I believe, to an extent, that good economic growth needs good infrastructure, but I'm not sure that "new roads" equals "good infrastructure". Bringing existing roads up to better condition makes some sense. But, investing in transportation alternatives that have less long term maintenance expense and less reliance on foreign oil makes more sense to me (although I think we have plenty of oil here if we'd use it). But, what is the endgame of continuing to build more and more roads (a large part of the original stimulus package)? We haven't been able to keep up with the roads we have. Building more roads just obligates future maintenance expense.

A national high-speed rail system would certainly be a change for the better - especially if it encouraged multi-modal local systems like bus rapid transit, bike use, etc. If the average income isn't going up, taking the cost of living down a notch would be beneficial. It would also increase quality of life at the same time (less sitting in traffic, fewer traffic fatalities, less drinking & driving, more greenways and park connectivity, more social interaction, etc.).
 
High Speed Rail in the US would be worthwhile in three general locations

Southern California from San Diego to San Fran

The East coast, pretty much from Florida to Boston

And the Chicago region perhaps to Detroit.

Other areas of the US do not have the population densities to make such a capital investment worthwhile
 
SheWolf said:
I do realize that some places that are not economic centers or have lots of workers, probably wouldn't benefit from a modern rail system as much as others. However, if such an area wanted to grow into a bustling economic center, attract the best workers and from longer distances, and reach it's full potential, then infrastructure investment becomes important. That is the general rule. No area/town/city can grow into a economic center without a strong infrastructure. One goal or need will naturally cause the other need.
Click to expand...


There ya go thats the point of high speed rail...to bring GROWTH to areas that dont have it as well as serve areas that are already thriving metros...like the NE and W
 
Infrastructure is vital to the nation, but you need to build it intelligently. The high-speed rail project between LA and the bay area is a disaster waiting to happen. Despite being a great theoretical location, it is going down the tubes thanks to poor implementation. The most practical infrastructure development would be to replace or upgrade existing developments. Many older systems are falling into disrepair or need to be expanded to handle larger traffic volumes.
 
High speed rail is a great invention. However it has two main drawbacks - it is a monopoly and it could be easy target for terrorists. But I believe this can be tackled. :)
I don't see any problem with the middle states not having HSR because of low population density. You'll have to take the plane. ;)
 
A problem with looking to 'build more stuff' to spur job-growth is that such job-growth is temporary: in a few years they'll still need a job. And it's long-term costly: maintenance.

If we can't maintain what we already have - then why add onto it?
 
what we need is expansion of roads, bridges, and electrical infrastructure. we don't have the electrical capacity to meet current demand in some places, much less expanded demand generated by electric vehicles in the future.
 
Canell said:
High speed rail is a great invention. However it has two main drawbacks - it is a monopoly and it could be easy target for terrorists. But I believe this can be tackled. :)
I don't see any problem with the middle states not having HSR because of low population density. You'll have to take the plane. ;)
Click to expand...

Planes are terror targets too... well, almost anything is really.
 
Helix said:
what we need is expansion of roads, bridges, and electrical infrastructure. we don't have the electrical capacity to meet current demand in some places, much less expanded demand generated by electric vehicles in the future.
Click to expand...

I was actually wondering what caused that massive power outage in CA and AZ, but I never found the cause... I figured it was overload or something. :(
 
SheWolf said:
I was actually wondering what caused that massive power outage in CA and AZ, but I never found the cause... I figured it was overload or something. :(
Click to expand...

human error and an overloaded grid :

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10power.html

Update: Power Coming Back On In San Diego; Human Error Blamed : The Two-Way : NPR

if it was worth building an interstate highway system federally, then it is certainly worth it to expand and secure our electrical grid. it is time to act.
 
SheWolf said:
Planes are terror targets too... well, almost anything is really.
Click to expand...

Well, it would certainly be better to pour a couple of hundred billion dollars in HSR than to blow it for bailouts. At least America will have something real and useful. :)
Hey, Hoover Dam worked at the time and I believe HSR has the same or even greater potential.
 
SheWolf said:
I agree. It's really embarrassing. Ever since the recession and anti spending movement, I have been scared to drive on bridges. :(
Click to expand...

And bridges are one of the parts of our infrastructure in the best shape. Energy is still lagging behind what it should be IMO, but the shortfalls in that category pale in comparison to the shortfalls in drinking water and waste water. People take these things for granted until they are gone.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
A problem with looking to 'build more stuff' to spur job-growth is that such job-growth is temporary: in a few years they'll still need a job. And it's long-term costly: maintenance.

If we can't maintain what we already have - then why add onto it?
Click to expand...

Mainly the point is to spur demand by putting money in people's pockets, while paying them to do work that desperately needs to be done anyway.
 
In the U.S. HSR is largely a boondoggle, with the exception of a select few places.

Infrastructure is important to maintaining economic growth, provided it is consistently maintained.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
A problem with looking to 'build more stuff' to spur job-growth is that such job-growth is temporary: in a few years they'll still need a job. And it's long-term costly: maintenance.

If we can't maintain what we already have - then why add onto it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
atrasicarius said:
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.
Click to expand...

The jobs have to be long term value added positions, not just bridges to nowhere, HSR to places where it won't be used and the like.
If it isn't done wisely, it's a waste of resources, no matter the temporary stimulative effect.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The jobs have to be long term value added positions, not just bridges to nowhere, HSR to places where it won't be used and the like.
If it isn't done wisely, it's a waste of resources, no matter the temporary stimulative effect.
Click to expand...

Well sure, but HSR could be just as valuable as the interstate system if it was done right.
 
As others have already pointed out HSR is a boondoggle. It only makes sense in very limited circumstances and we don't actually have any locations that meet those conditions. The ones that come close, like Boston-NYC-Philadelphia-Washington suffer from congested land and lack of transport corridors. The expropriation of land needed to make a HSR system viable would mean having to bear prohibitive costs. The time to have planned for this was 100 years ago with transportation corridors set aside when land was cheap and then development could have risen with a corridor in mind.

On the general issue of infrastructure, oil pipelines from the Oil Sands to the Gulf Coast refineries are also vitally important. Maybe all good liberals interested in boosting economic development via robust infrastructure development should follow the President's lead and support such pipeline projects instead of pie-in-the-sky HSR developments.

There must be a good academic paper in the topic of what it is that so tickles the liberal sensibility when it comes to HSR. Is it that there is something appealing about centralizing transportation, or is it that there is something distasteful about the current decentralized mode of transportation?
 
RiverDad said:
There must be a good academic paper in the topic of what it is that so tickles the liberal sensibility when it comes to HSR. Is it that there is something appealing about centralizing transportation, or is it that there is something distasteful about the current decentralized mode of transportation?
Click to expand...

It's more efficient. Duh. Also, it doesn't necessarily rely on oil buried under other people's land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom