• 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!

Is Congress quietly set for a jobs compromise?

Catawba said:
You and he are both thinking short term. Ridership is increasing and will much more as other forms of transportation become to expensive in the future. As ridership increases, price goes down.

You are ignoring also what I posted before, which is most pertinent to this thread, about increasing our energy effciency:

"A report released by ACEEE on Capitol Hill in conjunction with Senator Jeff Merkley, found that the American Power Act, recently introduced by Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman, would benefit from greater emphasis on energy efficiency measures.

It said by enhancing these provisions the number of jobs created would nearly triple, energy savings would quadruple and consumer savings would increase by about $200 per household, per year."

Are you opposed to all forms of energy efficiency or just with transportation?
Click to expand...

It could triple jobs, it could provide consumer savings, but at what cost to the taxpayer?
If it costs the tax payer more than the savings of the people who ride it, it is not a net savings.

I am opposed to top down creation of infrastructure without in sight to what is actually needed.
These problems are coming to light in the proposed designs (in the U.S.), because they are frankly, dumb as hell.

Do think it is appropriate for them to propose taking gas tax revenue and directing it towards HSR or more realistically, slightly faster trains, than to have it go towards road and bridge repairs?

How do you reconcile that most of the train service in the U.S. is consistently in the red?
How do you factor that even though many countries have these train programs, a great many of them can not keep it from losing money?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Your article is wrong. Tesla conceptualized the computer internet way before the cold war.
Click to expand...

Since your not posting any articles.. I will post a few others..

Despite what he may have claimed, Al Gore did not invent the Internet. The Internet was invented in the United States during the late 1950s to the 1970s by a group of researchers and scientists at the newly formed Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) after the former Soviet Union launched Sputnik. Realizing that the United States had suffered a great technological blow by allowing the USSR to hold the first successful satellite launch, ARPA set out to create a brand new technology unlike anything that had ever been done before; and the Internet was the result of their hard work.
Click to expand...

http://www.tech-faq.com/who-invented-the-internet.html

The Internet was originally developed by DARPA - the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency - as a means to share information on defense research between involved universities and defense research facilities.

Originally it was just email and FTP sites as well as the Usenet, where scientists could question and answer each other. It was originally called ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency NETwork). The concept was developed starting in 1964, and the first messages passed were between UCLA and the Stanford Research Institute in 1969. Leonard Kleinrock of MIT had published the first paper on packet switching theory in 1961. Since networking computers was new to begin with, standards were being developed on the fly. Once the concept was proven, the organizations involved started to lay out some ground rules for standardization.

One of the most important was the communications protocol, TCP/IP, developed by Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn in 1974. Robert Metcalfe is credited with Ethernet, which is the basic communication standard in networked computers.

Tim Berners-Lee, who perhaps specified technological applicability and/or linguistic construction of HTML while working at CERN, is chiefly credited for the ease of use and wide public adoption of the web. His website is: w3.org.

Al Gore really did have a substantial part in the US legal framework and governmental issues related to the Internet; he never said he invented it.

There wasn't just ONE person who invented the Internet. The Internet is just a way to view files and information that someone puts onto a server. The Internet is just a way to access the information.

Leonard Kleinrock was the first person to write a paper on the idea of packet switching (which is essential for the Internet to work. He wrote this idea in 1961.
Click to expand...

Answers.com - Who invented the Internet

Oddly?? Your guy Tesla isn't named anywhere?? Granted these articles do give slightly different accounts.. But both show government involvement..

As for highspeed trains?? I am not sure what to say?? You say they are a joke but don't qualify you reasoning?? Highspeed rail would be awsome in a lot of areas.. Seattle to Portland.. L.A. to San Francisco.. Houston to Dallas... I could go on.. But there is literally a ton of reasons to build these.. Business travelers would use them.. People might live in one city and commute to the other.. It would be good for the job market.. Not to mention create jobs!! Do you know anything about Japan?? Before the quake?? Trains are awsome and they aren't in decline else where.. Start posting links with your grand remarks..

High-speed rail is all the rage: here, there and everywhere | Newsdesk.org

Enjoy the read..
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It could triple jobs, it could provide consumer savings, but at what cost to the taxpayer?
Click to expand...

A savings of $200 dollars a year!

If it costs the tax payer more than the savings of the people who ride it, it is not a net savings.
Click to expand...

I would agree with not hiring a crook to be the head of the Construction project, which was part of China's problem. And again, you have to act now with energy efficiency because if you wait until our economy is too poor from the heavy cost of peak oil, it may be too late too recover.

I am opposed to top down creation of infrastructure without in sight to what is actually needed.
These problems are coming to light in the proposed designs (in the U.S.), because they are frankly, dumb as hell.
Click to expand...


Energy efficiency is not something new. It is the cheapest method of dealing with the energy crisis and the US is less efficient then most of the rest of the industrialized world. That is why other countries, especially China are gaining on us economically.

Do think it is appropriate for them to propose taking gas tax revenue and directing it towards HSR or more realistically, slightly faster trains, than to have it go towards road and bridge repairs?
Click to expand...

Since the tax is for transportation, hell yes I am for it. I am for anything that increases our efficiency, creates jobs, and makes us better prepared to weather the coming energy crisis.

How do you reconcile that most of the train service in the U.S. is consistently in the red?
Click to expand...

Because we have been subsidizing the price of gas through general tax funds in the form of subsidies to the oil companies. If people in the US had to pay for gas what many of the European countries pay, we would have higher ridership as well. And again, the further we get beyond peak oil the higher the gas prices are going to get.

How do you factor that even though many countries have these train programs, a great many of them can not keep it from losing money?
Click to expand...

Because they save so much in energy costs and in the future will mean the difference between a growing economy and a failing economy. They are thinking long-term, and I don't see them abandoning the train systems in favor of more cars and trucks on the road.

Why are you opposed to our making our residential, commercial, and industrial uses of energy more efficient? Don't you see how that is a disadvantage to a country trying to grow its economy? Don't you see how the high energy costs together with our inefficient use of it are hurting our economy now? Now imagine what it will be like in the near future when energy costs are twice what they are now. What effect do you think that will have on our economy?
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
It could triple jobs, it could provide consumer savings, but at what cost to the taxpayer?
If it costs the tax payer more than the savings of the people who ride it, it is not a net savings.
Click to expand...

I am just curious?? Do you have any clue how much tax revenue a train system can generate?? From riders to workers?? Do you realize that with your view, Hoover damn would have never been build.. The initial cost would have been to great.. That is why they call it investment spending.. There is no better way for our government to spend money than infrastructure spending.. Investing in our nations future.. If we sit and do nothing like republicans want.. Pretty soon the whitehouse will be in either China or Saudi Arabia.. We need to act now and invest in our nations future.. That is the only way we stay on top..
 
Last edited:
The economic viability of high speed rail is dependent upon metros in close geographic proximity of each other. Other wise, the upkeep kills you as they more line you have, the greater the upkeep in materials and manpower. The place where it would therefore be most feasible is on the east coast in the NY/Boston/DC metro corridor with the possible addition of Philly and Pittsburg. The problem is the government has been propping up the railway industry forever. They need to have a model whereby they actually make money or they shouldnt even consider building. St Louis to Chicago? No, bad idea. Not enough customers to make it work. West Coast? Possibly disastrous in terms of the effects earthquakes can have on the costs and safety. West Coast Washington? Yeah, possible.

Just a reference to the metro thing...thats why it works well in Japan, its a small geographic area that allows enormous numbers of people to move in and out of the metros each day without increasing an already bad traffic congestion.
 
DemonMyst said:
I am just curious?? Do you have any clue how much tax revenue a train system can generate?? From riders to workers?? Do you realize that with your view, Hoover damn would have never been build.. The initial cost would have been to great.. That is why they call it investment spending.. There is no better way for our government to spend money than infrastructure spending.. Investing in our nations future.. If we sit and do nothing like republicans want.. Pretty soon the whitehouse will be in either China or Saudi Arabia.. We need to act now and invest in our nations future.. That is the only way we stay on top..
Click to expand...

Hoover Damn does not have thousands of miles of track, leading to 2 cities were ridership was either non existant or already low, that will most likely continue to be low because the need for the service doesn't exist.

There are certain places where high speed rail makes sense.
Most of that is located in the northeast corridor.
Outside of there it isn't practical.

Plus many of the proposed HSR projects, are just slightly faster train programs, not HSR.
 
DemonMyst said:
Since your not posting any articles.. I will post a few others..

http://www.tech-faq.com/who-invented-the-internet.html

Answers.com - Who invented the Internet

Oddly?? Your guy Tesla isn't named anywhere?? Granted these articles do give slightly different accounts.. But both show government involvement..
Click to expand...

Tesla conceptualized it. :roll:
Meaning he came up with it as an idea.

Not only that but the telegram system was considerably the first "internet."

The internet is just a method of long distance communication between different nodes.
Precisely like the telegram, invented in the U.S. by Samuel Morse.

All the DARPA guys did was adapt modern technology to that concept.

DemonMyst said:
As for highspeed trains?? I am not sure what to say?? You say they are a joke but don't qualify you reasoning?? Highspeed rail would be awsome in a lot of areas.. Seattle to Portland.. L.A. to San Francisco.. Houston to Dallas... I could go on.. But there is literally a ton of reasons to build these.. Business travelers would use them.. People might live in one city and commute to the other.. It would be good for the job market.. Not to mention create jobs!! Do you know anything about Japan?? Before the quake?? Trains are awsome and they aren't in decline else where.. Start posting links with your grand remarks..

High-speed rail is all the rage: here, there and everywhere*|*Newsdesk.org

Enjoy the read..
Click to expand...

Being all the "rage" and being financially smart are two different things.
Even international organizations warn this.

There are limited circumstances where HSR would work, like the north east corridor.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The economic viability of high speed rail is dependent upon metros in close geographic proximity of each other. Other wise, the upkeep kills you as they more line you have, the greater the upkeep in materials and manpower. The place where it would therefore be most feasible is on the east coast in the NY/Boston/DC metro corridor with the possible addition of Philly and Pittsburg. The problem is the government has been propping up the railway industry forever. They need to have a model whereby they actually make money or they shouldnt even consider building. St Louis to Chicago? No, bad idea. Not enough customers to make it work. West Coast? Possibly disastrous in terms of the effects earthquakes can have on the costs and safety. West Coast Washington? Yeah, possible.

Just a reference to the metro thing...thats why it works well in Japan, its a small geographic area that allows enormous numbers of people to move in and out of the metros each day without increasing an already bad traffic congestion.
Click to expand...

Yes, government has been propping up the rail industry for years. The other reason that rail works on the East Coast and not elsewhere is because the only region in the country to have raillines dedicated to passenger-traffic only is the East Coast. I took Amtrak from Indianapolis to Chicago once because it looked cheap and I thought I could get more work done than I could on a plane and definitely easier than driving. The ride was supposed to take three hours. It took nearly seven. Now, most will say, "See, Amtrak is inefficient". But it's not really their fault. Amtrak is forced to yield to all commercial traffic on the rail. Thus, like (I assume) a lot of people, my one experience was never repeated.

Now, that aside, I found it much more pleasant than either flying or driving and would love to take rail more often - if it were efficient.

My biggest problem with the "keeps propping up rail" argument is that completely ignores that government props up the automobile industry all the time. And I'm not talking about the GM & Chrysler bailouts. Road maintenance and construction is nothing but government support of private activity. We just don't think about it that way, because we're in the bubble of our cars - one of the most inefficient ways to travel.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Yes, government has been propping up the rail industry for years. The other reason that rail works on the East Coast and not elsewhere is because the only region in the country to have raillines dedicated to passenger-traffic only is the East Coast. I took Amtrak from Indianapolis to Chicago once because it looked cheap and I thought I could get more work done than I could on a plane and definitely easier than driving. The ride was supposed to take three hours. It took nearly seven. Now, most will say, "See, Amtrak is inefficient". But it's not really their fault. Amtrak is forced to yield to all commercial traffic on the rail. Thus, like (I assume) a lot of people, my one experience was never repeated.

Now, that aside, I found it much more pleasant than either flying or driving and would love to take rail more often - if it were efficient.

My biggest problem with the "keeps propping up rail" argument is that completely ignores that government props up the automobile industry all the time. And I'm not talking about the GM & Chrysler bailouts. Road maintenance and construction is nothing but government support of private activity. We just don't think about it that way, because we're in the bubble of our cars - one of the most inefficient ways to travel.
Click to expand...

While that is true, the infrastructure for the car network already exists and the method of paying for it is sound, as long as the funds are not diverted to other things.

It could be made more efficient, with the use of automated driving, which already exists but remains illegal.
 
Harry, when you get around to it, I would like to hear your response to these questions:

Why are you opposed to our making our residential, commercial, and industrial uses of energy more efficient? Don't you see how that is a disadvantage to a country trying to grow its economy? Don't you see how the high energy costs together with our inefficient use of it are hurting our economy now? Now imagine what it will be like in the near future when energy costs are twice what they are now. What effect do you think that will have on our economy?
 
If HSR was a practical, useful option, private industry would have all ready made it happen. It hasn't BECAUSE it's a waste of money, time and resources.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Better to let automated cars work for us, they exist already and just require that states remove legislation currently making them illegal.
Click to expand...

How does automated cars help reduce fossil fuel consumption and improve mass transit?
Cali sounds like its mismanaged
Sounds like Europe needs to raise the rates on the rail system to maintain upkeep
Sounds like Europe is moving to cars for in-State use, but still relies on mass transit of interstate commutes.
 
MrVicchio said:
If HSR was a practical, useful option, private industry would have all ready made it happen. It hasn't BECAUSE it's a waste of money, time and resources.
Click to expand...

High Speed Rail could work. What does work great is intra-city commuter trains. The El in Chicago, the NY Subway, and the Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis are very popular. In fact, the line in Minneapolis had Conservatives here saying "nobody will ever ride it." Guess what, they did! Packed like sardines at rush hour and Twins and Vikings games.
 
Catawba said:
Harry, when you get around to it, I would like to hear your response to these questions:

Why are you opposed to our making our residential, commercial, and industrial uses of energy more efficient? Don't you see how that is a disadvantage to a country trying to grow its economy? Don't you see how the high energy costs together with our inefficient use of it are hurting our economy now? Now imagine what it will be like in the near future when energy costs are twice what they are now. What effect do you think that will have on our economy?
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are taking an idea, that has potential but you're thinking that it can be used across the whole U.S.
It can't.

The best places for HSR are between high density cities that are close to each other.
The current proposed rail line upgrades and HSR projects are craptacularly dumb.

The best place for HSR is in places that already heavily use rail networks.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The best place for HSR is in places that already heavily use rail networks.
Click to expand...

Actually, it would work great to connect Indianapolis, Ohio, Detroit, and Chicago since a lot of people already commute between these states/cities. It would have to be planned properly but it definitely worth looking into. Of course, the problem with said system, is that it probably wouldn't be very profitable considering its huge up front cost.
 
xpiher said:
How does automated cars help reduce fossil fuel consumption and improve mass transit?
Cali sounds like its mismanaged
Sounds like Europe needs to raise the rates on the rail system to maintain upkeep
Sounds like Europe is moving to cars for in-State use, but still relies on mass transit of interstate commutes.
Click to expand...

Automated vehicles use always attentive sensor networks surrounding the whole vehicle.
It can allow for less traffic accidents, especially during rush hour, which not only saves lives but it also saves energy that is wasted while people wait.

It has be proposed that a fully automated fleet of cars could increase capacity of current road networks by a factor of 3.
 
xpiher said:
Actually, it would work great to connect Indianapolis, Ohio, Detroit, and Chicago since a lot of people already commute between these states/cities. It would have to be planned properly but it definitely worth looking into. Of course, the problem with said system, is that it probably wouldn't be very profitable considering its huge up front cost.
Click to expand...

It could be, but you have to have a wanting public.
For many people, the privacy of a personal vehicle is better than any cost savings for a train.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Automated vehicles use always attentive sensor networks surrounding the whole vehicle.
It can allow for less traffic accidents, especially during rush hour, which not only saves lives but it also saves energy that is wasted while people wait.

It has be proposed that a fully automated fleet of cars could increase capacity of current road networks by a factor of 3.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it isn't a good idea, I'm saying it isn't as good as boosting mass transit.

Harry Guerrilla said:
It could be, but you have to have a wanting public.
For many people, the privacy of a personal vehicle is better than any cost savings for a train.
Click to expand...

Until gas becomes $5/gallon on avg.
 
xpiher said:
I'm not saying it isn't a good idea, I'm saying it isn't as good as boosting mass transit.
Click to expand...

Yea but mass transit isn't something you can encourage people to use by creating it.
"Build it and they will come" is not always true.

Hell, we could improve energy usage by switching to scooters like Europe uses.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The problem is that you are taking an idea, that has potential but you're thinking that it can be used across the whole U.S.
It can't.
Click to expand...

We are 35th in energy efficiency in the world. How is it most of the rest of the industrialized world can be so efficient and we can't?

The best places for HSR are between high density cities that are close to each other.
The current proposed rail line upgrades and HSR projects are craptacularly dumb.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about HSR here, I'm talking about the the low energy efficiency of our residential, commercial, and industrial uses of energy. What enables other first world countries to be so much more energy efficient?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
I'm not talking about HSR here, I'm talking about the the low energy efficiency of our residential, commercial, and industrial uses of energy. What enables other first world countries to be so much more energy efficient?
Click to expand...

They built their infrastructure later than we did.
 
Catawba said:
We are 35th in energy efficiency in the world. How is it most of the rest of the industrialized world can be so efficient and we can't?



I'm not talking about HSR here, I'm talking about the the low energy efficiency of our residential, commercial, and industrial uses of energy. What enables other first world countries to be so much more energy efficient?
Click to expand...

Most of Europe already had high population densities, makes it easy to implement useful mass transit services.
On the other hand, we have been dispersed, with exceptions.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Most of Europe already had high population densities, makes it easy to implement useful mass transit services.
On the other hand, we have been dispersed, with exceptions.
Click to expand...

BINGO

Take just the State of Texas and the cit of San Antonio.

Travel time by car on average:
2 Hours to Corpus Christi
1.5 hours to Austin
4 to Houston
7 to Dallas (And dear all mighty that drive sucks ass)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom