The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (3 Viewers)

[tommyboy]

Algore is just the man to choose to go sell that climate fear.

 

[RCon]

This morning's piece by Al Gore:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/national-climate-assessment_b_5279943.html

The latest National Climate Assessment provides clear evidence of what many Americans are already experiencing in their daily lives: the growing impact of extreme weather events linked to global warming.

When Pensacola, Florida, gets two feet of rain in 26 hours, that is exactly the kind of extreme and destructive event that scientists have long warned will become way more common.

From stronger and more frequent storms that take lives and damage infrastructure, to deeper droughts and heat waves that hurt agriculture and threaten water supplies, to rising seas that threaten our coastal cities -- the way Miami Beach is already threatened -- the costs of carbon are growing rapidly.

The good news is that we now have the technologies and alternatives we need to really solve the climate crisis -- but we must start acting now.

More and more businesses and governments around the world understand this and have started working to stop recklessly dumping global warming pollution into the atmosphere, as if it is an open sewer. And under the leadership of President Obama, the United States has also now finally begun to make important changes to our energy infrastructure and start reducing emissions of pollution -- but we can and must do more. It's time for Congress to step up and enact legislation to make it easier to shift to a more efficient and competitive -- and job rich -- renewable, low carbon economy.

We have no time to waste. We must end our addiction to dirty fossil fuels and transition to clean, renewable energy in order to ensure a prosperous and sustainable future.

Pretty much exactly what I wrote above won't convince reasonable people.

Fear-mongering? Check. Questionable assertions as "facts" (rather than "we think" or "maybe")? Check. No specific plans? Check.

 

[jonessed]

This morning's piece by Al Gore:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/national-climate-assessment_b_5279943.html

The latest National Climate Assessment provides clear evidence of what many Americans are already experiencing in their daily lives: the growing impact of extreme weather events linked to global warming.

When Pensacola, Florida, gets two feet of rain in 26 hours, that is exactly the kind of extreme and destructive event that scientists have long warned will become way more common.

From stronger and more frequent storms that take lives and damage infrastructure, to deeper droughts and heat waves that hurt agriculture and threaten water supplies, to rising seas that threaten our coastal cities -- the way Miami Beach is already threatened -- the costs of carbon are growing rapidly.

The good news is that we now have the technologies and alternatives we need to really solve the climate crisis -- but we must start acting now.

More and more businesses and governments around the world understand this and have started working to stop recklessly dumping global warming pollution into the atmosphere, as if it is an open sewer. And under the leadership of President Obama, the United States has also now finally begun to make important changes to our energy infrastructure and start reducing emissions of pollution -- but we can and must do more. It's time for Congress to step up and enact legislation to make it easier to shift to a more efficient and competitive -- and job rich -- renewable, low carbon economy.

We have no time to waste. We must end our addiction to dirty fossil fuels and transition to clean, renewable energy in order to ensure a prosperous and sustainable future.

Pretty much exactly what I wrote above won't convince reasonable people.

Fear-mongering? Check. Questionable assertions as "facts" (rather than "we think" or "maybe")? Check. No specific plans? Check.

We need to act quickly and rid the world of deadly CO2.

 

[Koya]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

With all due respect, the magnitude of how misguided (and honestly, irresponsible) this position is happens to be terribly dangerous to our nation's well being.

The greatest issues our nation faces in terms of quality of life, cost of government services and associated infrastructure is not public transit and certainly not rail - it's the unsustainable COST of suburban sprawl.

You talk about how people have to drive to get to the train, how so few live near it. That was done by design. It's led to segregation according to economic class and race while exacerbating everything from traffic, to emissions, to potholes. Euclidian zoning is strangling many mature suburbs, because not only can the region's no longer grow, hey not meet the needs of a market that more and more demands urban living and mobility options (just check the stats on how the younger generation drives less and how vehicle registrations are decreasing. Worse yet, because of a lack of planning (or purposeful but poorly visioned and executed planning), many such regions have pigeon holed themselves in a manner where they can not adjust to new realities.

Suburban sprawl has existed for 60-70 years. It's a new phenomenon. And just because that mode of growth has killed mobility options is no excuse to blame that mistake for people not using, well, mobility options. You have created a self fulfilling scenario where the auto is your only option, and then you complain that transit doesn't work. Of course now, you've engineered yourself out of more responsible (I am talking ECONOMICS) and sustainable (also, ECONOMICS) means of transportation.

You talk about the cost of rail. Ever explored the costs of pavement? Both in terms of direct costs to build and maintain along with the indirect costs of having suburban areas that are more roads and parking lot than useful property - useful economically or useful by creating place and quality of life.

Infrastructure is a huge issue in our nation. We are woefully behind the world in terms of modernization and efficiency. Infrastructure should be the binder of good planning (land use and economic strategy alike). Unfortunately, we have become slaves to the infrastructure by building a nation around roads and the auto, and we are suffering the consequences of it today.

Perhaps most important of all, if you are a believer in the free market, the market is clearly stating that we are woefully behind on the creation of transit districts and regions that are full of great places that work interdependently, connected by more than auto-oriented means. Why do you think that in today's real estate cycle, in Atlanta of all places, 60% of income property is being developed within 1% of the land mass - and that land is all walkable, mixed use non auto dependent areas, most of it around the few transit oriented locations in the area. Oh, and those areas are getting a 112% price premium over traditional suburban developments.

Anyway, this is getting long, and I could go piece by piece, but I've brought up this mantra too many times on these boards. We need more and smarter investment and a better understanding for intelligent folk such as yourself to recognize not just the benefits of rail (it's a cost that provides returns far, far beyond whatever fares and subsidies are needed - you think NYC would be the world's financial capital without a subway system that doesnt "pay for itself"? of course it pays for itself, in multitudes, as a shared infrastructure cost), but as important, the high cost - economically and socially, not to say environmentally, of our auto-driven mode.

It's killing our economic competitiveness, and flippantly and stubbornly refusing to recognize that reality is a huge issue that our nation must address.

 

[DiStefano]

The typical fear mongering by the likes of Al Gore is why the whole question of global warming has been undermined. The default reaction by the global warming crowd is that any somewhat extreme weather pattern is caused by global warming. Unless, of course, it is colder than usual, or there are less hurricanes than usual, or less tornadoes than usual. Then it is weather, not climate. Interesting that Warren Buffett, who has a vested interest in insurance, says there has been no increase in damages because of extreme weather patterns.

 

[Koya]

The typical fear mongering by the likes of Al Gore is why the whole question of global warming has been undermined. The default reaction by the global warming crowd is that any somewhat extreme weather pattern is caused by global warming. Unless, of course, it is colder than usual, or there are less hurricanes than usual, or less tornadoes than usual. Then it is weather, not climate. Interesting that Warren Buffett, who has a vested interest in insurance, says there has been no increase in damages because of extreme weather patterns.

I think the use of terms like "global warming crowd" are disingenuous and pollute any legitimate discussion as well. Honestly, it almost appears to have become a strategy of attacking the messengers and calling them out rather than discuss the issue at hand.

Many of us are not part of any crowd more than we recognize the volumes of scientific data that demonstrate potentially disastrous changes, and are not so obtuse (be it because of political affiliation or some ideological bent) to just ignore the strong potential reality.

Enough is enough. I'd say stop the BS, but it appears to be the single biggest thread for many who wish to ignore what appears to be a potentially dangerous future. It's irresponsible, at best.

 

[DiStefano]

The typical fear mongering by the likes of Al Gore is why the whole question of global warming has been undermined. The default reaction by the global warming crowd is that any somewhat extreme weather pattern is caused by global warming. Unless, of course, it is colder than usual, or there are less hurricanes than usual, or less tornadoes than usual. Then it is weather, not climate. Interesting that Warren Buffett, who has a vested interest in insurance, says there has been no increase in damages because of extreme weather patterns.

I think the use of terms like "global warming crowd" are disingenuous and pollute any legitimate discussion as well. Honestly, it almost appears to have become a strategy of attacking the messengers and calling them out rather than discuss the issue at hand.

Many of us are not part of any crowd more than we recognize the volumes of scientific data that demonstrate potentially disastrous changes, and are not so obtuse (be it because of political affiliation or some ideological bent) to just ignore the strong potential reality.

Enough is enough. I'd say stop the BS, but it appears to be the single biggest thread for many who wish to ignore what appears to be a potentially dangerous future. It's irresponsible, at best.

I'm sorry, but when Timmy posts the crap from Al Gore, "global warming crowd" is exactly the right term. Unfortunately, if you are a rational viewer of the scientific evidence, your cause will be undermined by the likes of Al Gore. He pollutes the stream.

 

[Koya]

The typical fear mongering by the likes of Al Gore is why the whole question of global warming has been undermined. The default reaction by the global warming crowd is that any somewhat extreme weather pattern is caused by global warming. Unless, of course, it is colder than usual, or there are less hurricanes than usual, or less tornadoes than usual. Then it is weather, not climate. Interesting that Warren Buffett, who has a vested interest in insurance, says there has been no increase in damages because of extreme weather patterns.

I think the use of terms like "global warming crowd" are disingenuous and pollute any legitimate discussion as well. Honestly, it almost appears to have become a strategy of attacking the messengers and calling them out rather than discuss the issue at hand.

Many of us are not part of any crowd more than we recognize the volumes of scientific data that demonstrate potentially disastrous changes, and are not so obtuse (be it because of political affiliation or some ideological bent) to just ignore the strong potential reality.

Enough is enough. I'd say stop the BS, but it appears to be the single biggest thread for many who wish to ignore what appears to be a potentially dangerous future. It's irresponsible, at best.

I'm sorry, but when Timmy posts the crap from Al Gore, "global warming crowd" is exactly the right term. Unfortunately, if you are a rational viewer of the scientific evidence, your cause will be undermined by the likes of Al Gore. He pollutes the stream.

I dont listen to Al Gore. But the overwhelming evidence and scientific study is something I can't ignore - unless I somehow think that I am smarter than they are in their own fields.

In addition, if you want to talk about pollution, when the denial of so much science happens to come from the same "crowd" (to use your parlance) that puts faith/religion before fact in many cases, that denies FACTS such as, well, the age of the earth, that distorts medical science and FACT as it pertains to women... please at least acknowledge that the ideology of the right de-legitimizes much of its stance on "science" since its a fairly comprehensive rejection of science, if when it's hard fact.

 

[DiStefano]

The typical fear mongering by the likes of Al Gore is why the whole question of global warming has been undermined. The default reaction by the global warming crowd is that any somewhat extreme weather pattern is caused by global warming. Unless, of course, it is colder than usual, or there are less hurricanes than usual, or less tornadoes than usual. Then it is weather, not climate. Interesting that Warren Buffett, who has a vested interest in insurance, says there has been no increase in damages because of extreme weather patterns.

I think the use of terms like "global warming crowd" are disingenuous and pollute any legitimate discussion as well. Honestly, it almost appears to have become a strategy of attacking the messengers and calling them out rather than discuss the issue at hand.

Many of us are not part of any crowd more than we recognize the volumes of scientific data that demonstrate potentially disastrous changes, and are not so obtuse (be it because of political affiliation or some ideological bent) to just ignore the strong potential reality.

Enough is enough. I'd say stop the BS, but it appears to be the single biggest thread for many who wish to ignore what appears to be a potentially dangerous future. It's irresponsible, at best.

I'm sorry, but when Timmy posts the crap from Al Gore, "global warming crowd" is exactly the right term. Unfortunately, if you are a rational viewer of the scientific evidence, your cause will be undermined by the likes of Al Gore. He pollutes the stream.

I dont listen to Al Gore. But the overwhelming evidence and scientific study is something I can't ignore - unless I somehow think that I am smarter than they are in their own fields.

In addition, if you want to talk about pollution, when the denial of so much science happens to come from the same "crowd" (to use your parlance) that puts faith/religion before fact in many cases, that denies FACTS such as, well, the age of the earth, that distorts medical science and FACT as it pertains to women... please at least acknowledge that the ideology of the right de-legitimizes much of its stance on "science" since its a fairly comprehensive rejection of science, if when it's hard fact.

I agree. I don't have much patience with those who deny evolution and legitimate scientific facts. But when you get Timmy bringing on the charlatan crowd, then you tend to get pollution in the thread. I don't think that's true of you. I believe the planet is warming; I think it is probable that humans are contributing to it, but don't know how much is due to natural causes. And I don't think it's a crisis, but it would be wise to prudently move away from fossil fuels.

 

[joffer]

The typical fear mongering by the likes of Al Gore is why the whole question of global warming has been undermined. The default reaction by the global warming crowd is that any somewhat extreme weather pattern is caused by global warming. Unless, of course, it is colder than usual, or there are less hurricanes than usual, or less tornadoes than usual. Then it is weather, not climate. Interesting that Warren Buffett, who has a vested interest in insurance, says there has been no increase in damages because of extreme weather patterns.

I think the use of terms like "global warming crowd" are disingenuous and pollute any legitimate discussion as well. Honestly, it almost appears to have become a strategy of attacking the messengers and calling them out rather than discuss the issue at hand.

Many of us are not part of any crowd more than we recognize the volumes of scientific data that demonstrate potentially disastrous changes, and are not so obtuse (be it because of political affiliation or some ideological bent) to just ignore the strong potential reality.

Enough is enough. I'd say stop the BS, but it appears to be the single biggest thread for many who wish to ignore what appears to be a potentially dangerous future. It's irresponsible, at best.

I'm sorry, but when Timmy posts the crap from Al Gore, "global warming crowd" is exactly the right term. Unfortunately, if you are a rational viewer of the scientific evidence, your cause will be undermined by the likes of Al Gore. He pollutes the stream.

So ignore itKnock down the science if you can.

 

[matuski]

The typical fear mongering by the likes of Al Gore is why the whole question of global warming has been undermined. The default reaction by the global warming crowd is that any somewhat extreme weather pattern is caused by global warming. Unless, of course, it is colder than usual, or there are less hurricanes than usual, or less tornadoes than usual. Then it is weather, not climate. Interesting that Warren Buffett, who has a vested interest in insurance, says there has been no increase in damages because of extreme weather patterns.

I think the use of terms like "global warming crowd" are disingenuous and pollute any legitimate discussion as well. Honestly, it almost appears to have become a strategy of attacking the messengers and calling them out rather than discuss the issue at hand.

Many of us are not part of any crowd more than we recognize the volumes of scientific data that demonstrate potentially disastrous changes, and are not so obtuse (be it because of political affiliation or some ideological bent) to just ignore the strong potential reality.

Enough is enough. I'd say stop the BS, but it appears to be the single biggest thread for many who wish to ignore what appears to be a potentially dangerous future. It's irresponsible, at best.

I'm sorry, but when Timmy posts the crap from Al Gore, "global warming crowd" is exactly the right term. Unfortunately, if you are a rational viewer of the scientific evidence, your cause will be undermined by the likes of Al Gore. He pollutes the stream.

Why would Al Gore pollute the stream, that I can recall he is about as relevant as birthers these days?

 

[Sand]

This morning's piece by Al Gore:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/national-climate-assessment_b_5279943.html

The latest National Climate Assessment provides clear evidence of what many Americans are already experiencing in their daily lives: the growing impact of extreme weather events linked to global warming.

When Pensacola, Florida, gets two feet of rain in 26 hours, that is exactly the kind of extreme and destructive event that scientists have long warned will become way more common.

From stronger and more frequent storms that take lives and damage infrastructure, to deeper droughts and heat waves that hurt agriculture and threaten water supplies, to rising seas that threaten our coastal cities -- the way Miami Beach is already threatened -- the costs of carbon are growing rapidly.

Ah, yes, pluck the one event from the last two weeks to say that global warming is causing everything. ####### idiot (Al, that is).

And, exactly where are these extreme weather events? Seriously. Tornadoes, way down. Hurricanes, other than 2005, pretty much all over the place and certainly no worse lately than in the mid-20th century. 2013 was one of the lowest on record.

If anything extreme weather events are becoming less prevalent. Al is just counting on people's short memory and pinging the latest weather event to con the masses. And line his pockets.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This morning's piece by Al Gore:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/national-climate-assessment_b_5279943.html

The latest National Climate Assessment provides clear evidence of what many Americans are already experiencing in their daily lives: the growing impact of extreme weather events linked to global warming.

When Pensacola, Florida, gets two feet of rain in 26 hours, that is exactly the kind of extreme and destructive event that scientists have long warned will become way more common.

From stronger and more frequent storms that take lives and damage infrastructure, to deeper droughts and heat waves that hurt agriculture and threaten water supplies, to rising seas that threaten our coastal cities -- the way Miami Beach is already threatened -- the costs of carbon are growing rapidly.

Ah, yes, pluck the one event from the last two weeks to say that global warming is causing everything. ####### idiot (Al, that is).

And, exactly where are these extreme weather events? Seriously. Tornadoes, way down. Hurricanes, other than 2005, pretty much all over the place and certainly no worse lately than in the mid-20th century. 2013 was one of the lowest on record.

If anything extreme weather events are becoming less prevalent. Al is just counting on people's short memory and pinging the latest weather event to con the masses. And line his pockets.

Global warming is the reason extreme weather events have been less prevalent. We need to address that!!!

 

[datonn]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

With all due respect, the magnitude of how misguided (and honestly, irresponsible) this position is happens to be terribly dangerous to our nation's well being.

The greatest issues our nation faces in terms of quality of life, cost of government services and associated infrastructure is not public transit and certainly not rail - it's the unsustainable COST of suburban sprawl.

You talk about how people have to drive to get to the train, how so few live near it. That was done by design. It's led to segregation according to economic class and race while exacerbating everything from traffic, to emissions, to potholes. Euclidian zoning is strangling many mature suburbs, because not only can the region's no longer grow, hey not meet the needs of a market that more and more demands urban living and mobility options (just check the stats on how the younger generation drives less and how vehicle registrations are decreasing. Worse yet, because of a lack of planning (or purposeful but poorly visioned and executed planning), many such regions have pigeon holed themselves in a manner where they can not adjust to new realities.

Suburban sprawl has existed for 60-70 years. It's a new phenomenon. And just because that mode of growth has killed mobility options is no excuse to blame that mistake for people not using, well, mobility options. You have created a self fulfilling scenario where the auto is your only option, and then you complain that transit doesn't work. Of course now, you've engineered yourself out of more responsible (I am talking ECONOMICS) and sustainable (also, ECONOMICS) means of transportation.

You talk about the cost of rail. Ever explored the costs of pavement? Both in terms of direct costs to build and maintain along with the indirect costs of having suburban areas that are more roads and parking lot than useful property - useful economically or useful by creating place and quality of life.

Infrastructure is a huge issue in our nation. We are woefully behind the world in terms of modernization and efficiency. Infrastructure should be the binder of good planning (land use and economic strategy alike). Unfortunately, we have become slaves to the infrastructure by building a nation around roads and the auto, and we are suffering the consequences of it today.

Perhaps most important of all, if you are a believer in the free market, the market is clearly stating that we are woefully behind on the creation of transit districts and regions that are full of great places that work interdependently, connected by more than auto-oriented means. Why do you think that in today's real estate cycle, in Atlanta of all places, 60% of income property is being developed within 1% of the land mass - and that land is all walkable, mixed use non auto dependent areas, most of it around the few transit oriented locations in the area. Oh, and those areas are getting a 112% price premium over traditional suburban developments.

Anyway, this is getting long, and I could go piece by piece, but I've brought up this mantra too many times on these boards. We need more and smarter investment and a better understanding for intelligent folk such as yourself to recognize not just the benefits of rail (it's a cost that provides returns far, far beyond whatever fares and subsidies are needed - you think NYC would be the world's financial capital without a subway system that doesnt "pay for itself"? of course it pays for itself, in multitudes, as a shared infrastructure cost), but as important, the high cost - economically and socially, not to say environmentally, of our auto-driven mode.

It's killing our economic competitiveness, and flippantly and stubbornly refusing to recognize that reality is a huge issue that our nation must address.

If the forum software would allow me to like this post about 150 times, I would. But I suppose that would add fractionally more bandwidth that needs to be transmitted to all our devices, which is ultimately not good for the environment either. So I'll just like (LOVE) this posting once and see how other people might respond.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

This morning's piece by Al Gore:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/national-climate-assessment_b_5279943.html

The latest National Climate Assessment provides clear evidence of what many Americans are already experiencing in their daily lives: the growing impact of extreme weather events linked to global warming.

When Pensacola, Florida, gets two feet of rain in 26 hours, that is exactly the kind of extreme and destructive event that scientists have long warned will become way more common.

From stronger and more frequent storms that take lives and damage infrastructure, to deeper droughts and heat waves that hurt agriculture and threaten water supplies, to rising seas that threaten our coastal cities -- the way Miami Beach is already threatened -- the costs of carbon are growing rapidly.

Ah, yes, pluck the one event from the last two weeks to say that global warming is causing everything. ####### idiot (Al, that is).

And, exactly where are these extreme weather events? Seriously. Tornadoes, way down. Hurricanes, other than 2005, pretty much all over the place and certainly no worse lately than in the mid-20th century. 2013 was one of the lowest on record.

If anything extreme weather events are becoming less prevalent. Al is just counting on people's short memory and pinging the latest weather event to con the masses. And line his pockets.

Al Gore may well be an idiot, and I'm sure is also interested in lining his pockets, much like everyone else. In this case though he was citing the findings of the National Climate Assessment, so your beef wouldn't be with him but with the 250 or so scientists who contribute to that report. Here are some of what they highlight in that report for extreme weather:

Heavy DownpoursHeavy downpours are increasing nationally, especially over the last three to five decades. The heaviest rainfall events have become heavier and more frequent, and the amount of rain falling on the heaviest rain days has also increased. Since 1991, the amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events has been significantly above average. This increase has been greatest in the Northeast, Midwest, and upper Great Plains – more than 30% above the 1901-1960 average. There has also been an increase in flooding events in the Midwest and Northeast, where the largest increases in heavy rain amounts have occurred.

FloodsFlooding may intensify in many U.S. regions, even in areas where total precipitation is projected to decline. A flood is defined as any high flow, overflow, or inundation by water that causes or threatens damage.17 Floods are caused or amplified by both weather- and human-related factors. Major weather factors include heavy or prolonged precipitation, snowmelt, thunderstorms, storm surges from hurricanes, and ice or debris jams. Human factors include structural failures of dams and levees, altered drainage, and land-cover alterations (such as pavement).

Hurricanes

There has been a substantial increase in most measures of Atlantic hurricane activity since the early 1980s, the period during which high quality satellite data are available.20,21,22 These include measures of intensity, frequency, and duration as well as the number of strongest (Category 4 and 5) storms. The recent increases in activity are linked, in part, to higher sea surface temperatures in the region that Atlantic hurricanes form in and move through. Numerous factors have been shown to influence these local sea surface temperatures, including natural variability, human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases, and particulate pollution. Quantifying the relative contributions of natural and human-caused factors is an active focus of research.

Change in Other Storms

Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s,29 and their tracks have shifted northward over the United States.30,31 Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively. There has been a sizable upward trend in the number of storms causing large financial and other losses.32 However, there are societal contributions to this trend, such as increases in population and wealth.7

 

[TwinTurbo]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

Exactly. Rail travel is actually a less economical option than air travel for most people even in the Amtrak-owned and maintained Northeast Corridor. And it would never replace driving, except for big city to big city. And even then, it couldn't completely replace driving unless you live next to the train station. And it would cost untold billions of dollars to build out new infrastructure. Just picture an old time conductor shoveling piles of cash into a giant train furnace fueled by money.

So how does it work in Europe? In Japan? Oh RIGHT...population density. I would ask one more time then (post #1184), what is the REAL population density figures in the United States that would be relevant to the high-speed rail discussion, when you exclude Alaska's population and 570,641 square miles? When you exclude most of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. At least half of Texas and Oklahoma. How many people per square mile in the (remaining) United States are we looking at then?

I live in NYC. I don't even take the train to get to the airport. That's how bad it sucks. The only "high speed" train that is sometimes more economical or convenient than air travel is the Acela Express from NYC to Philly, DC, or Boston. But even then I still need to rent a car or take a cab when I get there. It's never more economical than driving, although it can be more convenient.

True high speed rail would be great but is extremely problematic due to the distances between major cities, even those in the Northeast corridor. It's ideal for high population, big cities that are clustered tightly together. But you want a long straight line with few curves or inclines. And no stops.

But in the US, the distances can be vast. Most of the high population cities are not close together. And most/all of the ideal paths and desirable routes are already occupied by roads.

I think there is barely a case for even attempting this in the Northeast corridor, let alone a nationwide HSR network. I recall Amtrak had a long term HSR vision proposal for the Northeast corridor that had a price tag of over $150 billion by 2040. Add in all the guaranteed political corruption and mismanagement of a billion here and a billion there and it's a total nonstarter. It's complete fantasy land that is not based in economic or political reality.

 

[MaxThreshold]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

Exactly. Rail travel is actually a less economical option than air travel for most people even in the Amtrak-owned and maintained Northeast Corridor. And it would never replace driving, except for big city to big city. And even then, it couldn't completely replace driving unless you live next to the train station. And it would cost untold billions of dollars to build out new infrastructure. Just picture an old time conductor shoveling piles of cash into a giant train furnace fueled by money.

So how does it work in Europe? In Japan? Oh RIGHT...population density. I would ask one more time then (post #1184), what is the REAL population density figures in the United States that would be relevant to the high-speed rail discussion, when you exclude Alaska's population and 570,641 square miles? When you exclude most of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. At least half of Texas and Oklahoma. How many people per square mile in the (remaining) United States are we looking at then?

I live in NYC. I don't even take the train to get to the airport. That's how bad it sucks. The only "high speed" train that is sometimes more economical or convenient than air travel is the Acela Express from NYC to Philly, DC, or Boston. But even then I still need to rent a car or take a cab when I get there. It's never more economical than driving, although it can be more convenient.

True high speed rail would be great but is extremely problematic due to the distances between major cities, even those in the Northeast corridor. It's ideal for high population, big cities that are clustered tightly together. But you want a long straight line with few curves or inclines. And no stops.

But in the US, the distances can be vast. Most of the high population cities are not close together. And most/all of the ideal paths and desirable routes are already occupied by roads.

I think there is barely a case for even attempting this in the Northeast corridor, let alone a nationwide HSR network. I recall Amtrak had a long term HSR vision proposal for the Northeast corridor that had a price tag of over $150 billion by 2040. Add in all the guaranteed political corruption and mismanagement of a billion here and a billion there and it's a total nonstarter. It's complete fantasy land that is not based in economic or political reality.

HSR is nothing but a money pit.

 

[MaxThreshold]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

With all due respect, the magnitude of how misguided (and honestly, irresponsible) this position is happens to be terribly dangerous to our nation's well being.

The greatest issues our nation faces in terms of quality of life, cost of government services and associated infrastructure is not public transit and certainly not rail - it's the unsustainable COST of suburban sprawl.

You talk about how people have to drive to get to the train, how so few live near it. That was done by design. It's led to segregation according to economic class and race while exacerbating everything from traffic, to emissions, to potholes. Euclidian zoning is strangling many mature suburbs, because not only can the region's no longer grow, hey not meet the needs of a market that more and more demands urban living and mobility options (just check the stats on how the younger generation drives less and how vehicle registrations are decreasing. Worse yet, because of a lack of planning (or purposeful but poorly visioned and executed planning), many such regions have pigeon holed themselves in a manner where they can not adjust to new realities.

Suburban sprawl has existed for 60-70 years. It's a new phenomenon. And just because that mode of growth has killed mobility options is no excuse to blame that mistake for people not using, well, mobility options. You have created a self fulfilling scenario where the auto is your only option, and then you complain that transit doesn't work. Of course now, you've engineered yourself out of more responsible (I am talking ECONOMICS) and sustainable (also, ECONOMICS) means of transportation.

You talk about the cost of rail. Ever explored the costs of pavement? Both in terms of direct costs to build and maintain along with the indirect costs of having suburban areas that are more roads and parking lot than useful property - useful economically or useful by creating place and quality of life.

Infrastructure is a huge issue in our nation. We are woefully behind the world in terms of modernization and efficiency. Infrastructure should be the binder of good planning (land use and economic strategy alike). Unfortunately, we have become slaves to the infrastructure by building a nation around roads and the auto, and we are suffering the consequences of it today.

Perhaps most important of all, if you are a believer in the free market, the market is clearly stating that we are woefully behind on the creation of transit districts and regions that are full of great places that work interdependently, connected by more than auto-oriented means. Why do you think that in today's real estate cycle, in Atlanta of all places, 60% of income property is being developed within 1% of the land mass - and that land is all walkable, mixed use non auto dependent areas, most of it around the few transit oriented locations in the area. Oh, and those areas are getting a 112% price premium over traditional suburban developments.

Anyway, this is getting long, and I could go piece by piece, but I've brought up this mantra too many times on these boards. We need more and smarter investment and a better understanding for intelligent folk such as yourself to recognize not just the benefits of rail (it's a cost that provides returns far, far beyond whatever fares and subsidies are needed - you think NYC would be the world's financial capital without a subway system that doesnt "pay for itself"? of course it pays for itself, in multitudes, as a shared infrastructure cost), but as important, the high cost - economically and socially, not to say environmentally, of our auto-driven mode.

It's killing our economic competitiveness, and flippantly and stubbornly refusing to recognize that reality is a huge issue that our nation must address.

Sorry to be the one tell you this, but you REALLY went off the rails with this one.

However, I'm not sure packing everyone into the cities like sardines to get HSR to work is the answer either.

Investing in infrastructure I'm on board with - not wasting money. We can improve the infrastructure without sinking every last penny into trains.

 

[Koya]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

Exactly. Rail travel is actually a less economical option than air travel for most people even in the Amtrak-owned and maintained Northeast Corridor. And it would never replace driving, except for big city to big city. And even then, it couldn't completely replace driving unless you live next to the train station. And it would cost untold billions of dollars to build out new infrastructure. Just picture an old time conductor shoveling piles of cash into a giant train furnace fueled by money.

So how does it work in Europe? In Japan? Oh RIGHT...population density. I would ask one more time then (post #1184), what is the REAL population density figures in the United States that would be relevant to the high-speed rail discussion, when you exclude Alaska's population and 570,641 square miles? When you exclude most of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. At least half of Texas and Oklahoma. How many people per square mile in the (remaining) United States are we looking at then?

I live in NYC. I don't even take the train to get to the airport. That's how bad it sucks. The only "high speed" train that is sometimes more economical or convenient than air travel is the Acela Express from NYC to Philly, DC, or Boston. But even then I still need to rent a car or take a cab when I get there. It's never more economical than driving, although it can be more convenient.

True high speed rail would be great but is extremely problematic due to the distances between major cities, even those in the Northeast corridor. It's ideal for high population, big cities that are clustered tightly together. But you want a long straight line with few curves or inclines. And no stops.

But in the US, the distances can be vast. Most of the high population cities are not close together. And most/all of the ideal paths and desirable routes are already occupied by roads.

I think there is barely a case for even attempting this in the Northeast corridor, let alone a nationwide HSR network. I recall Amtrak had a long term HSR vision proposal for the Northeast corridor that had a price tag of over $150 billion by 2040. Add in all the guaranteed political corruption and mismanagement of a billion here and a billion there and it's a total nonstarter. It's complete fantasy land that is not based in economic or political reality.

You not getting to LGA is terrible planning, not a lack of market demand for the route. Which, btw, is one of the reasons they are FINALLY bringing the subway, and investing $3.6B to improve that abomination of an airport.

Now, to high speed rail, I simply can't let a few of your comments go unchecked as they are simply inaccurate.

Acela - That's not high speed rail. Not by a long shot. But still a quicker and more comfortable ride than the Regional / Corridor rides.

High Speed Rail - The very reasons you point out for HSR to not work are the very reasons HSR would work, properly implemented (think as well as the Eisenhower Highway System, our country's last national infrastructure investment... SCARY). HSR is NOT ideal for big cities clustered together. For that, something better than Acela but not truly High Speed would probably be the best answer from a cost / safety / reality perspective.

Where you DO want HSR is to connect (ideal very) large, dense City centers to each other that are not too close, geographically. That's why the west could work so well. SD to LA to SF up to Portlan then SEA and a few stops in between. LA to LV to Denver. Connect Texas' cities to each other and then through OKC to Denver.

Thats the real opportunity, but it works SO much better if the HSR stops were more transit oriented. So you could, theoretically, take the LA Metro from your home (or a short cab ride to the Metro) to Union Station... then, you are a couple hours from half the west coast, and often less. That would be tremendous in terms of efficiency and the flow of ideas, which lets be honest, is the real "Product" that drives the economy today and especially moving forward.

 

[Koya]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

Exactly. Rail travel is actually a less economical option than air travel for most people even in the Amtrak-owned and maintained Northeast Corridor. And it would never replace driving, except for big city to big city. And even then, it couldn't completely replace driving unless you live next to the train station. And it would cost untold billions of dollars to build out new infrastructure. Just picture an old time conductor shoveling piles of cash into a giant train furnace fueled by money.

So how does it work in Europe? In Japan? Oh RIGHT...population density. I would ask one more time then (post #1184), what is the REAL population density figures in the United States that would be relevant to the high-speed rail discussion, when you exclude Alaska's population and 570,641 square miles? When you exclude most of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. At least half of Texas and Oklahoma. How many people per square mile in the (remaining) United States are we looking at then?

I live in NYC. I don't even take the train to get to the airport. That's how bad it sucks. The only "high speed" train that is sometimes more economical or convenient than air travel is the Acela Express from NYC to Philly, DC, or Boston. But even then I still need to rent a car or take a cab when I get there. It's never more economical than driving, although it can be more convenient.

True high speed rail would be great but is extremely problematic due to the distances between major cities, even those in the Northeast corridor. It's ideal for high population, big cities that are clustered tightly together. But you want a long straight line with few curves or inclines. And no stops.

But in the US, the distances can be vast. Most of the high population cities are not close together. And most/all of the ideal paths and desirable routes are already occupied by roads.

I think there is barely a case for even attempting this in the Northeast corridor, let alone a nationwide HSR network. I recall Amtrak had a long term HSR vision proposal for the Northeast corridor that had a price tag of over $150 billion by 2040. Add in all the guaranteed political corruption and mismanagement of a billion here and a billion there and it's a total nonstarter. It's complete fantasy land that is not based in economic or political reality.

HSR is nothing but a money pit.

If properly implemented, quite the opposite, as I described above.

It honestly confounds me how many people are against the U.S., as a nation, putting forward a concerted investment in economic competitiveness. It's so anti-business and small minded, short sighted... it's honestly frustrating. That doesn't mean we should accept a gov't run boondoggle. Let the private sector do it's thing with the right guidance and public oversight and put our nation in a better position to compete (Public-Private Partnership coupled with a profit motive and private sector expertise are a great combo, fwiw)

You are preaching that, essentially, we give up our standing as best nation, most powerful nation, richest (large) nation in the world by deciding to halt our future, not invest in ourselves, and watch the last 10 generations work go down the drain. I can't accept that.

 

[Sand]

This morning's piece by Al Gore:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/national-climate-assessment_b_5279943.html

The latest National Climate Assessment provides clear evidence of what many Americans are already experiencing in their daily lives: the growing impact of extreme weather events linked to global warming.

When Pensacola, Florida, gets two feet of rain in 26 hours, that is exactly the kind of extreme and destructive event that scientists have long warned will become way more common.

From stronger and more frequent storms that take lives and damage infrastructure, to deeper droughts and heat waves that hurt agriculture and threaten water supplies, to rising seas that threaten our coastal cities -- the way Miami Beach is already threatened -- the costs of carbon are growing rapidly.

Ah, yes, pluck the one event from the last two weeks to say that global warming is causing everything. ####### idiot (Al, that is).

And, exactly where are these extreme weather events? Seriously. Tornadoes, way down. Hurricanes, other than 2005, pretty much all over the place and certainly no worse lately than in the mid-20th century. 2013 was one of the lowest on record.

If anything extreme weather events are becoming less prevalent. Al is just counting on people's short memory and pinging the latest weather event to con the masses. And line his pockets.

Al Gore may well be an idiot, and I'm sure is also interested in lining his pockets, much like everyone else. In this case though he was citing the findings of the National Climate Assessment, so your beef wouldn't be with him but with the 250 or so scientists who contribute to that report. Here are some of what they highlight in that report for extreme weather:

Heavy DownpoursHeavy downpours are increasing nationally, especially over the last three to five decades. The heaviest rainfall events have become heavier and more frequent, and the amount of rain falling on the heaviest rain days has also increased. Since 1991, the amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events has been significantly above average. This increase has been greatest in the Northeast, Midwest, and upper Great Plains – more than 30% above the 1901-1960 average. There has also been an increase in flooding events in the Midwest and Northeast, where the largest increases in heavy rain amounts have occurred.

FloodsFlooding may intensify in many U.S. regions, even in areas where total precipitation is projected to decline. A flood is defined as any high flow, overflow, or inundation by water that causes or threatens damage.17 Floods are caused or amplified by both weather- and human-related factors. Major weather factors include heavy or prolonged precipitation, snowmelt, thunderstorms, storm surges from hurricanes, and ice or debris jams. Human factors include structural failures of dams and levees, altered drainage, and land-cover alterations (such as pavement).

Hurricanes

There has been a substantial increase in most measures of Atlantic hurricane activity since the early 1980s, the period during which high quality satellite data are available.20,21,22 These include measures of intensity, frequency, and duration as well as the number of strongest (Category 4 and 5) storms. The recent increases in activity are linked, in part, to higher sea surface temperatures in the region that Atlantic hurricanes form in and move through. Numerous factors have been shown to influence these local sea surface temperatures, including natural variability, human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases, and particulate pollution. Quantifying the relative contributions of natural and human-caused factors is an active focus of research.

Change in Other Storms

Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s,29 and their tracks have shifted northward over the United States.30,31 Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively. There has been a sizable upward trend in the number of storms causing large financial and other losses.32 However, there are societal contributions to this trend, such as increases in population and wealth.7

That disagrees with what I have seen, but let's say that's true. We have seen a 50 year high cycle in heavy downpours. Ok, since we have rain data back to 1870 or so that means we have no ability to show where this is cyclic or whether it is permanent. Same with the other items here.

Interestingly those don't point out tornadoes, as the big ones have gone down in frequency.

 

[MaxThreshold]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

Exactly. Rail travel is actually a less economical option than air travel for most people even in the Amtrak-owned and maintained Northeast Corridor. And it would never replace driving, except for big city to big city. And even then, it couldn't completely replace driving unless you live next to the train station. And it would cost untold billions of dollars to build out new infrastructure. Just picture an old time conductor shoveling piles of cash into a giant train furnace fueled by money.

So how does it work in Europe? In Japan? Oh RIGHT...population density. I would ask one more time then (post #1184), what is the REAL population density figures in the United States that would be relevant to the high-speed rail discussion, when you exclude Alaska's population and 570,641 square miles? When you exclude most of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. At least half of Texas and Oklahoma. How many people per square mile in the (remaining) United States are we looking at then?

I live in NYC. I don't even take the train to get to the airport. That's how bad it sucks. The only "high speed" train that is sometimes more economical or convenient than air travel is the Acela Express from NYC to Philly, DC, or Boston. But even then I still need to rent a car or take a cab when I get there. It's never more economical than driving, although it can be more convenient.

True high speed rail would be great but is extremely problematic due to the distances between major cities, even those in the Northeast corridor. It's ideal for high population, big cities that are clustered tightly together. But you want a long straight line with few curves or inclines. And no stops.

But in the US, the distances can be vast. Most of the high population cities are not close together. And most/all of the ideal paths and desirable routes are already occupied by roads.

I think there is barely a case for even attempting this in the Northeast corridor, let alone a nationwide HSR network. I recall Amtrak had a long term HSR vision proposal for the Northeast corridor that had a price tag of over $150 billion by 2040. Add in all the guaranteed political corruption and mismanagement of a billion here and a billion there and it's a total nonstarter. It's complete fantasy land that is not based in economic or political reality.

You not getting to LGA is terrible planning, not a lack of market demand for the route. Which, btw, is one of the reasons they are FINALLY bringing the subway, and investing $3.6B to improve that abomination of an airport.

Now, to high speed rail, I simply can't let a few of your comments go unchecked as they are simply inaccurate.

Acela - That's not high speed rail. Not by a long shot. But still a quicker and more comfortable ride than the Regional / Corridor rides.

High Speed Rail - The very reasons you point out for HSR to not work are the very reasons HSR would work, properly implemented (think as well as the Eisenhower Highway System, our country's last national infrastructure investment... SCARY). HSR is NOT ideal for big cities clustered together. For that, something better than Acela but not truly High Speed would probably be the best answer from a cost / safety / reality perspective.

Where you DO want HSR is to connect (ideal very) large, dense City centers to each other that are not too close, geographically. That's why the west could work so well. SD to LA to SF up to Portlan then SEA and a few stops in between. LA to LV to Denver. Connect Texas' cities to each other and then through OKC to Denver.

Thats the real opportunity, but it works SO much better if the HSR stops were more transit oriented. So you could, theoretically, take the LA Metro from your home (or a short cab ride to the Metro) to Union Station... then, you are a couple hours from half the west coast, and often less. That would be tremendous in terms of efficiency and the flow of ideas, which lets be honest, is the real "Product" that drives the economy today and especially moving forward.

HSR proponents all talk the the pie in the sky about it but every HSR project from coast to coast ALL end up being poorly planned, poorly managed and boondoggles of epic proportions that just cost billions more than advertised.

Maybe if you managed all these projects I'd feel better about it, but unless you're going to be on point then I'm not buying into this.

 

[Sand]

If properly implemented, quite the opposite, as I described above.

It honestly confounds me how many people are against the U.S., as a nation, putting forward a concerted investment in economic competitiveness. It's so anti-business and small minded, short sighted... it's honestly frustrating. That doesn't mean we should accept a gov't run boondoggle. Let the private sector do it's thing with the right guidance and public oversight and put our nation in a better position to compete (Public-Private Partnership coupled with a profit motive and private sector expertise are a great combo, fwiw)

You are preaching that, essentially, we give up our standing as best nation, most powerful nation, richest (large) nation in the world by deciding to halt our future, not invest in ourselves, and watch the last 10 generations work go down the drain. I can't accept that.

Question, since I haven't seen much data (other than Amtrak needing federal money every year to stay afloat). What train system in the US has become a big success? Do we have a history to say that this mode of transport has at least some indications that it will work well in this country?

 

[Koya]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

Exactly. Rail travel is actually a less economical option than air travel for most people even in the Amtrak-owned and maintained Northeast Corridor. And it would never replace driving, except for big city to big city. And even then, it couldn't completely replace driving unless you live next to the train station. And it would cost untold billions of dollars to build out new infrastructure. Just picture an old time conductor shoveling piles of cash into a giant train furnace fueled by money.

So how does it work in Europe? In Japan? Oh RIGHT...population density. I would ask one more time then (post #1184), what is the REAL population density figures in the United States that would be relevant to the high-speed rail discussion, when you exclude Alaska's population and 570,641 square miles? When you exclude most of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. At least half of Texas and Oklahoma. How many people per square mile in the (remaining) United States are we looking at then?

I live in NYC. I don't even take the train to get to the airport. That's how bad it sucks. The only "high speed" train that is sometimes more economical or convenient than air travel is the Acela Express from NYC to Philly, DC, or Boston. But even then I still need to rent a car or take a cab when I get there. It's never more economical than driving, although it can be more convenient.

True high speed rail would be great but is extremely problematic due to the distances between major cities, even those in the Northeast corridor. It's ideal for high population, big cities that are clustered tightly together. But you want a long straight line with few curves or inclines. And no stops.

But in the US, the distances can be vast. Most of the high population cities are not close together. And most/all of the ideal paths and desirable routes are already occupied by roads.

I think there is barely a case for even attempting this in the Northeast corridor, let alone a nationwide HSR network. I recall Amtrak had a long term HSR vision proposal for the Northeast corridor that had a price tag of over $150 billion by 2040. Add in all the guaranteed political corruption and mismanagement of a billion here and a billion there and it's a total nonstarter. It's complete fantasy land that is not based in economic or political reality.

You not getting to LGA is terrible planning, not a lack of market demand for the route. Which, btw, is one of the reasons they are FINALLY bringing the subway, and investing $3.6B to improve that abomination of an airport.

Now, to high speed rail, I simply can't let a few of your comments go unchecked as they are simply inaccurate.

Acela - That's not high speed rail. Not by a long shot. But still a quicker and more comfortable ride than the Regional / Corridor rides.

High Speed Rail - The very reasons you point out for HSR to not work are the very reasons HSR would work, properly implemented (think as well as the Eisenhower Highway System, our country's last national infrastructure investment... SCARY). HSR is NOT ideal for big cities clustered together. For that, something better than Acela but not truly High Speed would probably be the best answer from a cost / safety / reality perspective.

Where you DO want HSR is to connect (ideal very) large, dense City centers to each other that are not too close, geographically. That's why the west could work so well. SD to LA to SF up to Portlan then SEA and a few stops in between. LA to LV to Denver. Connect Texas' cities to each other and then through OKC to Denver.

Thats the real opportunity, but it works SO much better if the HSR stops were more transit oriented. So you could, theoretically, take the LA Metro from your home (or a short cab ride to the Metro) to Union Station... then, you are a couple hours from half the west coast, and often less. That would be tremendous in terms of efficiency and the flow of ideas, which lets be honest, is the real "Product" that drives the economy today and especially moving forward.

HSR proponents all talk the the pie in the sky about it but every HSR project from coast to coast ALL end up being poorly planned, poorly managed and boondoggles of epic proportions that just cost billions more than advertised.

Maybe if you managed all these projects I'd feel better about it, but unless you're going to be on point then I'm not buying into this.

You bring up a very good point.

I contend that we don't ACCEPT just giving up.

Oh, well our gov't sucks and can't get #### right so we should just no longer invest in the future, since they will, well, #### it up.

No. We look to the regions that DO get it right. At least somewhat.

You look at how value capture works in DC for metro (essentially pooling future private sector profits in a manner to monetize the up front investment) and other PPPs [Public Private Partnership] and their exceptional marriage of land use and transportation [dense, mixed use with lots of residential near transit]. Not just in DC proper, but in the neighboring suburbs as well.

Look at the LA region. A place that when I lived there, 15 years ago, had NO mobility options. They now have a growing transit system with huge public and private sector profits to be had in the developments around the stations. They have $30 Billion for LA alone in dedicated future funding.

There are examples of doing it right. Of working with the private sector. Of not giving up and throwing away our future.

Let's learn from that. Stop being such stupid, coddled partisans, and govern. Which means managing this nation, not bickering about bull#### ideology and false priorities based upon amorphous special interests.

 

[Koya]

If properly implemented, quite the opposite, as I described above.

It honestly confounds me how many people are against the U.S., as a nation, putting forward a concerted investment in economic competitiveness. It's so anti-business and small minded, short sighted... it's honestly frustrating. That doesn't mean we should accept a gov't run boondoggle. Let the private sector do it's thing with the right guidance and public oversight and put our nation in a better position to compete (Public-Private Partnership coupled with a profit motive and private sector expertise are a great combo, fwiw)

You are preaching that, essentially, we give up our standing as best nation, most powerful nation, richest (large) nation in the world by deciding to halt our future, not invest in ourselves, and watch the last 10 generations work go down the drain. I can't accept that.

Question, since I haven't seen much data (other than Amtrak needing federal money every year to stay afloat). What train system in the US has become a big success? Do we have a history to say that this mode of transport has at least some indications that it will work well in this country?

A couple key thoughts:

1. Amtrak is actually profitable along key routes. It's the gov't mandate that they serve everyone (to a degree) that kills it from an economic model. If we actually just left it to the market, Amtrak would make money, ideally would have competition on those same rails (infrastructure) and the market would need to adjust (i.e., if you live in the middle of no where, you don't get train. Or maybe you move to a different market because they have transit that exists and doesn't need to be unfairly subsidized [unless as a nation you value providing some level of connectivity and mobility to places that can't/won't justify that service by straight economics). But our regulations constrain the market so people think Amtrak and rail MUST be a money loser. Not necessarily the case.

2. Has anyone examined how "profitable" the U.S. road system is? Last I checked, there are some tolls in some places, but a HUGE majority of driving is "free" for usage of that infrastructure. So, people rail (get it?) against subsidizing trains, but seem totally ok with not only subsidizing roads and the auto industry, but all of the other direct and ancillary costs associated with building so many roads and so few trains. Once again, how much more do we SPEND on roads in our nation than accrue in revenue? Maybe we should stop building and repairing roads, too.

 

[TwinTurbo]

My 5 point plan. Poke holes.

-Invest heavily in Nuke plants away from fault lines and oceans and where waste can be stored.

-Allow massive tax breaks for solar at the home and business level.

-Raise gas tax to the point where people would be cost neutral at 45mpg at today's rates. That's probably a buck a gallon. This would be used to invest in rail infrastructure, and large scale wind infrastructure.

-End corn subsidies and ban the practice of feeding corn to livestock.

-Begin a Manhattan project type project to capture and store CO2 underground.

Honestly, this would probably be revenue positive while reducing CO2 emissions substantially.

I just cannot get behind the idea of nuclear. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Japan, etc. Folks can say "yabbut" or offer "unlikelihoods" all they want, but even if the chances are 1 in 100,000, when something FUBARs, it's not like cleaning up after a tornado or hurricane and getting "back to normal."

I'm all-for the ending of corn subsidies too! But good luck ever telling any "patriots" in the Bible Belt what they can and cannot feed to their livestock. Especially if what you might want to feed them will cost a lot more.

I also think it is embarrassing how limited our transit/high-speed rail service is in this country. Go to Japan? Hop on the train. Go to Europe? Hop on the train. Go to the United States? Rent a car. I get it. Freedom...don't tread on me...blah, blah, blah. But our love affair with the automobile is harming the environment. Hurting our economy. As just think if even $0.20 of every $1.00 that is spent on road construction, road maintenance, road clearing (Northern climates) were to be invested in developing a kick-### rail system instead? I could hop on the train in MSP, and be in Chicago in time for a late dinner. Or Kansas City. Or St. Louis. Or __________. With no car being necessary. And no billions needed to give me a smooth, safe ride on my way to/from.

So...I'll still need a car to drive to the station?

Seriously, this choo-choo train stuff has got to stop. The US is 3.8 million square miles. Japan is about 145,000 square miles. Europe is packed together whereas the US is spread out.

And how the hell are people going to get to the train station? Walk? Nope. They'll probably have to take their car. But hey, if you live right next to the train station it should work out great. And how about when the trains stop? They'll probably have to rent a car. So now not only are you STILL spending money on a car, you still have to buy train tickets and maybe parking fees for the car you took to the train station. How is this economical?

Let's not forget that just about EVERY....SINGLE...train and rail project ALWAYS goes way over budget and ends up becoming a monetary black hole.

Our previous Governor wanted to put, quote "HIGH SPEED RAIL" from Milwaukee to Madison. You want to take a stab at the definition of what they thought HIGH SPEED was? 75 miles per hour. yep, you read the right. 75 miles per hour. Now take a stab at what the posted speed is from Milwaukee to Madison by car? 70 mph.

Train/Rail is nothing but a loser unless you're shipping product.

Exactly. Rail travel is actually a less economical option than air travel for most people even in the Amtrak-owned and maintained Northeast Corridor. And it would never replace driving, except for big city to big city. And even then, it couldn't completely replace driving unless you live next to the train station. And it would cost untold billions of dollars to build out new infrastructure. Just picture an old time conductor shoveling piles of cash into a giant train furnace fueled by money.

So how does it work in Europe? In Japan? Oh RIGHT...population density. I would ask one more time then (post #1184), what is the REAL population density figures in the United States that would be relevant to the high-speed rail discussion, when you exclude Alaska's population and 570,641 square miles? When you exclude most of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. At least half of Texas and Oklahoma. How many people per square mile in the (remaining) United States are we looking at then?

I live in NYC. I don't even take the train to get to the airport. That's how bad it sucks. The only "high speed" train that is sometimes more economical or convenient than air travel is the Acela Express from NYC to Philly, DC, or Boston. But even then I still need to rent a car or take a cab when I get there. It's never more economical than driving, although it can be more convenient.

True high speed rail would be great but is extremely problematic due to the distances between major cities, even those in the Northeast corridor. It's ideal for high population, big cities that are clustered tightly together. But you want a long straight line with few curves or inclines. And no stops.

But in the US, the distances can be vast. Most of the high population cities are not close together. And most/all of the ideal paths and desirable routes are already occupied by roads.

I think there is barely a case for even attempting this in the Northeast corridor, let alone a nationwide HSR network. I recall Amtrak had a long term HSR vision proposal for the Northeast corridor that had a price tag of over $150 billion by 2040. Add in all the guaranteed political corruption and mismanagement of a billion here and a billion there and it's a total nonstarter. It's complete fantasy land that is not based in economic or political reality.

You not getting to LGA is terrible planning, not a lack of market demand for the route. Which, btw, is one of the reasons they are FINALLY bringing the subway, and investing $3.6B to improve that abomination of an airport.

Now, to high speed rail, I simply can't let a few of your comments go unchecked as they are simply inaccurate.

Acela - That's not high speed rail. Not by a long shot. But still a quicker and more comfortable ride than the Regional / Corridor rides.

High Speed Rail - The very reasons you point out for HSR to not work are the very reasons HSR would work, properly implemented (think as well as the Eisenhower Highway System, our country's last national infrastructure investment... SCARY). HSR is NOT ideal for big cities clustered together. For that, something better than Acela but not truly High Speed would probably be the best answer from a cost / safety / reality perspective.

Where you DO want HSR is to connect (ideal very) large, dense City centers to each other that are not too close, geographically. That's why the west could work so well. SD to LA to SF up to Portlan then SEA and a few stops in between. LA to LV to Denver. Connect Texas' cities to each other and then through OKC to Denver.

Thats the real opportunity, but it works SO much better if the HSR stops were more transit oriented. So you could, theoretically, take the LA Metro from your home (or a short cab ride to the Metro) to Union Station... then, you are a couple hours from half the west coast, and often less. That would be tremendous in terms of efficiency and the flow of ideas, which lets be honest, is the real "Product" that drives the economy today and especially moving forward.

Koya, HSR is absolutely better suited for cities that are closer together. To put it in terms of travel time, it would be ideal for trips of 1-4 hours. Less you take a car. More you take a plane. It would not be competitive with air travel for longer trips. Portland to Seattle, yes. SD to LA, yes. LA to SF, maybe. SF to Portland, no way. Sure it would be fantastic if you could connect all the major west coast cities with HSR. But financial and economic challenges aside, you're sort of thinking about this as a 2D line on a map, instead of 3D. There are also significant challenges due to the terrain, geology, and existing infrastructure, let alone the multitude of red tape with all of the different localities, cities, and states that you would pass through. It would also cost hundreds of billions and probably still not finish in your lifetime. Texas might actually be the best place to attempt it. But good luck getting it past Southwest Airlines.

I also avoid LGA at all costs

 

[Koya]

If there's one thing EVERYone can agree on, it's that LGA absolutely sucks. It's literally, an embarrassment.

 

[Sand]

1. Amtrak is actually profitable along key routes. It's the gov't mandate that they serve everyone (to a degree) that kills it from an economic model. If we actually just left it to the market, Amtrak would make money, ideally would have competition on those same rails (infrastructure) and the market would need to adjust (i.e., if you live in the middle of no where, you don't get train. Or maybe you move to a different market because they have transit that exists and doesn't need to be unfairly subsidized [unless as a nation you value providing some level of connectivity and mobility to places that can't/won't justify that service by straight economics). But our regulations constrain the market so people think Amtrak and rail MUST be a money loser. Not necessarily the case.

Aaand we're back to government management...

 

[timschochet]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

 

[Koya]

1. Amtrak is actually profitable along key routes. It's the gov't mandate that they serve everyone (to a degree) that kills it from an economic model. If we actually just left it to the market, Amtrak would make money, ideally would have competition on those same rails (infrastructure) and the market would need to adjust (i.e., if you live in the middle of no where, you don't get train. Or maybe you move to a different market because they have transit that exists and doesn't need to be unfairly subsidized [unless as a nation you value providing some level of connectivity and mobility to places that can't/won't justify that service by straight economics). But our regulations constrain the market so people think Amtrak and rail MUST be a money loser. Not necessarily the case.

Aaand we're back to government management...

More private sector involvement, better the results.

It's not rocket science here, folks.

 

[Koya]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

9 hours? That's crazy talk. 7.5 hours max and could be less by my memory.

More importantly, HSR would not eliminate driving. It would provide a very efficient option to the marketplace. And while there may be a few losers in the equation, nothing is 100% pain free.

I've seen once vibrant towns decimated because the highway system chose another route.

Let's stop looking for reasons to not invest and agree upon what is the right investment from an ROI perspective.

 

[timschochet]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

9 hours? That's crazy talk. 7.5 hours max and could be less by my memory.

More importantly, HSR would not eliminate driving. It would provide a very efficient option to the marketplace. And while there may be a few losers in the equation, nothing is 100% pain free.

I've seen once vibrant towns decimated because the highway system chose another route.

Let's stop looking for reasons to not invest and agree upon what is the right investment from an ROI perspective.

If it made sense financially, it would have happened long since without the necessity of government investment.

 

[Koya]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

9 hours? That's crazy talk. 7.5 hours max and could be less by my memory.

More importantly, HSR would not eliminate driving. It would provide a very efficient option to the marketplace. And while there may be a few losers in the equation, nothing is 100% pain free.

I've seen once vibrant towns decimated because the highway system chose another route.

Let's stop looking for reasons to not invest and agree upon what is the right investment from an ROI perspective.

If it made sense financially, it would have happened long since without the necessity of government investment.

1. There are some examples of infrastructure that's been privatized which has brought in full private investment and management. Straight up, makes money.

2. The problem once again, is our (mis)regulation, which too often makes this cumbersome, or not possible/legal at all.

3. You recognize that there are some items, once again I'll use the NY subway, which are worth far more than if it "makes sense financially" without the context of the greater value it brings to an area.

4. The first transit systems in america were often privately funded. Simply put, developers would buy a nice plot of land on the outskirts of LA, and then build a train to connect it to the City, so they could sell their plots. True story.

 

[datonn]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term.

I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."

HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

 

[humpback]

9 hours? That's crazy talk. 7.5 hours max and could be less by my memory.

More importantly, HSR would not eliminate driving. It would provide a very efficient option to the marketplace. And while there may be a few losers in the equation, nothing is 100% pain free.

I've seen once vibrant towns decimated because the highway system chose another route.

Let's stop looking for reasons to not invest and agree upon what is the right investment from an ROI perspective.

Isn't this based on a bunch of subjective opinions?

 

[DrJ]

Wow, this thread is becoming even more full of crazy.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term.

I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."

HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

 

[jonessed]

Our economy is doomed because of suburban sprawl now?

 

[matuski]

If there's one thing EVERYone can agree on, it's that LPGA absolutely sucks. It's literally, an embarrassment.

fyp

 

[DrJ]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all. Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

 

[mattdaddy]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

The government can't compete with Amazon, Google, or pretty much anything in the tech sector. The price keeps dropping, the quality keeps improving, and the remote office is leaps and bounds better than any solution put forth by any government to lower carbon footprints. The stuff of science fiction from 50 years ago is here today and it didn't need billions of taxpayers dollars to get developed. It just needed to be cheap, accessible and improve our quality of life.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.

Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

This will be foreign to you, but the primary reason I leave the neighborhood is to connect to other people that live elsewhere. WebEx, 3D printers, drones, etc. won't completely replace this.

 

[pantagrapher]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

The government can't compete with Amazon, Google, or pretty much anything in the tech sector. The price keeps dropping, the quality keeps improving, and the remote office is leaps and bounds better than any solution put forth by any government to lower carbon footprints. The stuff of science fiction from 50 years ago is here today and it didn't need billions of taxpayers dollars to get developed. It just needed to be cheap, accessible and improve our quality of life.

LOL I think the government played a tiny role in creating the internet and fostering internet commerce. Oh, and taxpayers heavily subsidized much of the infrastructure we use for the internet today.

 

[mattdaddy]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

The government can't compete with Amazon, Google, or pretty much anything in the tech sector. The price keeps dropping, the quality keeps improving, and the remote office is leaps and bounds better than any solution put forth by any government to lower carbon footprints. The stuff of science fiction from 50 years ago is here today and it didn't need billions of taxpayers dollars to get developed. It just needed to be cheap, accessible and improve our quality of life.

LOL I think the government played a tiny role in creating the internet and fostering internet commerce. Oh, and taxpayers heavily subsidized much of the infrastructure we use for the internet today.

yeah, yeah, yeah. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, etc.. all used government roads, parks, etc.. So what? I think you've missed my point.

 

[Koya]

9 hours? That's crazy talk. 7.5 hours max and could be less by my memory.

More importantly, HSR would not eliminate driving. It would provide a very efficient option to the marketplace. And while there may be a few losers in the equation, nothing is 100% pain free.

I've seen once vibrant towns decimated because the highway system chose another route.

Let's stop looking for reasons to not invest and agree upon what is the right investment from an ROI perspective.

Isn't this based on a bunch of subjective opinions?

Two comments:

1. My opinions have been formed primarily through my activity as a real estate developer - originally auto/suburban based before recognizing tremendous market demand for more urban living. As such it's about 10 years of studies from industry, flowing legislative efforts in DC and reading a lot of imperial data.

2. More importantly, the very comment you highlighted is a call to action not a demand for a specific action. I stated that we need to construct more infrastructure based upon business principles of controlled and managed growth, need to fund investment up front to accrue profits down the road and as such based upon a return on investment ( recognizing that this has a bit of art to the match as infrastructure by nature has benefits that are not always 100% correlateable as it's shared by so many). That said there are ways to measure ROI to determine what types of investment make more sense.

 

[Koya]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."

HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

This is why urban growth is moving out of core cities and into some smaller but geographically well situated cities and also the inner ring suburbs that provide transit connections to the core city.

It's been estimated that our nations urban population will double from just over 150m today to 300m by 2050 - two thirds of that will occur in suburban areas. We call it urban nodes in suburbia, or urban-suburban

 

[Koya]

Our economy is doomed because of suburban sprawl now?

Doomed? Hardly.

Severely market constrained and fiscally burdened? Absolutely. I'll try to get some of the links to the cost of sprawl, but it's a significant economic detractor when there is not the right balance between suburban areas with certain urban centers connected by modes of transit other than the auto. A lot of data on this subject.

Heck, just google cost of sprawl

 

[Koya]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips (or even cross city) - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all. Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

Actually, the dinosaurs are those who continue to push for an antiquated model of auto oriented development when it's proven itself economically unsustainable.

And sometimes you do need to look at the centrioles for context.

Predictions have been made since the mid-late 90s that telecommuting and the internet would render the workplace irrelevant.

It hasn't. Now, the workplace has changed , especially for the growing innovation / creative class economy (Which made up about 10% of the workforce as recently as the 80s, is about a third today and will likely rise to over 50% in another decade or so). More shared space. Less formal work areas and private offices. More communal working in and out of "the office environment" ( cafés, parks, bars, places ).

However there is a driving human social need along with significant efficiencies and economic benefits by going to a workplace, interacting, sharing ideas and community.

While there is less need for travel for many needs, there's still an absolute need to shake a hand, look someone in an eye, work through tough issues in the same room, network, break bread.

Humans are social creatures. Have been for millenia and that won't change.

 

[pantagrapher]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

The government can't compete with Amazon, Google, or pretty much anything in the tech sector. The price keeps dropping, the quality keeps improving, and the remote office is leaps and bounds better than any solution put forth by any government to lower carbon footprints. The stuff of science fiction from 50 years ago is here today and it didn't need billions of taxpayers dollars to get developed. It just needed to be cheap, accessible and improve our quality of life.

LOL I think the government played a tiny role in creating the internet and fostering internet commerce. Oh, and taxpayers heavily subsidized much of the infrastructure we use for the internet today.

yeah, yeah, yeah. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, etc.. all used government roads, parks, etc.. So what? I think you've missed my point.

Yeah, I must have missed your point. It's really hard to unravel complicated statements like this:

The stuff of science fiction from 50 years ago is here today and it didn't need billions of taxpayers dollars to get developed.

ETA: Oh, and by "infrastructure," I'm not referring to parks and roads. You do realize DSL networks and satellite projects were and are government subsidized, right?

 

[mattdaddy]

Koya, there's two major highways connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's about a 9 hour drive, give or take. If you don't want to drive it, you can take a plane for cheap.

But along that highway, there are a whole lot of towns whose main economy comes from people passing through and stopping to eat, shop, fill up. Even if HSR were to be successful, it would effectively kill all of these towns.

This is going to sound extremely cold-hearted...but probably a majority of the suburbs, the exurbs, that have experienced a boom in development post-WWII never should have. They are the 20th and early 21st Centuries' equivalent to gold rush towns in the Western US. People live there because they can (because the economics work, for them). But the economics of urban sprawl in our nation are completely unsustainable. And everyone wants their cake (2-5 acre lots with a 4+/2.5 and a 2+ car garage) and be able to eat it too (low property taxes, smaller government). It doesn't work. Or at least it won't work long-term. I remember visiting Tokyo, how easy it was to get around the city. And if I wanted to get to Nagoya? Osaka? Niigata? Piece of cake (no car needed). When I went to Rome for work, I remember thinking the exact same thing. Marveling at how easy it was to NOT have a car and get anywhere/everywhere I needed to. And if we wanted to head up/down the coast? We happily took the train. A local did drive us in her car one afternoon, so we could meet in a city maybe 45 minutes from Rome. But the whole time, I was thinking "this is a pain in the butt...get me back on the train, where I can read a newspaper/book or simply enjoy the sights."HSR doesn't work (so far) because people who are heavily-leveraged in "horses, buggies, and buggy whips" don't want to see their property values in the suburbs/exurbs plummet because they would be 20-30+ minutes from rail transit. On top of the fact that change is always hard. But if we continue to build tens of thousands of developments, further and further away from our urban centers, our economy is doomed. We simply cannot and will not be able to afford to expand and maintain our transportation, water, sewage, and power infrastructure. Unless someone can invent an economical car that can run on air/water, or finally deliver that flying car the Jetsons promised us. More asphalt and more fossil fuels = the American economy eventually going bust. Not in 2014, 2024, or even 2034! But what we're doing now is not sustainable for the long term. Kinda like...climate change?!

One reason we build developments outside of urban centers is because of limited new housing inventory and available space in big cities and the price per sq foot is not affordable. Most people can't afford to live in NYC, Tokyo, London, or San Francisco even if they wanted to. Sure it's easy to get around Tokyo but you're paying thousands of dollars per sq. foot for the privilege of living there.

Besides, we aren't even going to need to get around all that much in the future. The Internet, video conferencing, all of this is having dramatic impact on how people are living their lives. Why take all of these cross country trips - by train, by plane, whatever when it's far cheaper and faster to hold a WebEx session. And soon Amazon's drones, 3D printers, etc are going to cut down on your need to actually go anywhere at all.Why are people offering century old solutions to century old problems still? Because they're dinosaurs I guess. The same reason I still have to go to an office every day despite there being no additional value to me physically being there 99% of the time.

The government can't compete with Amazon, Google, or pretty much anything in the tech sector. The price keeps dropping, the quality keeps improving, and the remote office is leaps and bounds better than any solution put forth by any government to lower carbon footprints. The stuff of science fiction from 50 years ago is here today and it didn't need billions of taxpayers dollars to get developed. It just needed to be cheap, accessible and improve our quality of life.

LOL I think the government played a tiny role in creating the internet and fostering internet commerce. Oh, and taxpayers heavily subsidized much of the infrastructure we use for the internet today.

yeah, yeah, yeah. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, etc.. all used government roads, parks, etc.. So what? I think you've missed my point.

Yeah, I must have missed your point. It's really hard to unravel complicated statements like this:

The stuff of science fiction from 50 years ago is here today and it didn't need billions of taxpayers dollars to get developed.

ETA: Oh, and by "infrastructure," I'm not referring to parks and roads. You do realize DSL networks and satellite projects were and are government subsidized, right?

So all the tech advances just don't happen without government subsidies? Paperless office, Remote Connections, cloud - based computing. Without government were still just trying to get off of bulletin boards and 56kbps modems. Ok. got it.