TitusAndronicus
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 57
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Which makes this even more nonsensical to me. Again...if individual cities and states want to fund it thats fine. This is just a simple minded federal 'solution' to throw at the growing unemployment problem.
Have you ever heard the expression 'If you can't pay for it, you can't afford it'?
The internet was conceived byscientists wishing to share data fasterAl Gore...
corrected.
Oh dear lord...
Im all about spending money to make money. We are talking about laying down 86 MILES OF TRACK. At a cost of 3 billion dollars. And a bullet train from Orlando to Tampa helps tourism how exactly?
Seriously...help me understand how much this is going to cost to implement on a nationwide scale where it might be effective for people to use. I simply cannot fathom people are buying into this just because the president said it would be a good idea. So...give me something more to work with. Help me to understand how we justify taxing citizens around the country for services they wont have access to.
To a degree. But not in what we're talking about here. The money you'd save by not building the high speed rail won't significantly increase your personal impact on the economy. However, the thousands of jobs that would be produced because of building the high speed rail would have a significantly greater impact on the economy.
And obviously you can't understand that people could make exactly the same argument about a high-speed rail system. You're a hypocrite, and I'm done talking to you in this thread. I'd rather debate the issue with someone who actually has the nation's best interests in mind. Your argument is essentially "I don't want any trains competing with my trucks...so I'll pretend to object to it on principle. By the way, pay your damn taxes for the interstate highway system, which is obviously a totally different situation." :roll:
Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation for just one of the societal benefits of a high-speed rail system:
When a person drives a car, it costs about 30 cents per passenger-mile in external costs (i.e. costs that are incurred by society, rather than by the driver). These externalities include pollution, road maintenance, highway police, emergency services for accidents, congestion, land use, etc.
So let's use that Tampa-to-Orlando route that keeps being cited as an example of an absurdly expensive boondoggle, with that $3 billion price tag for an 86 mile track. And let's assume a payback period of 20 years (which seems reasonable, given that a high-speed rail system is intended to be a long-term investment). How many people would need to make the round trip between Tampa and Orlando each day via the train in order to justify the cost? Here's how we could calculate it:
N = The number of customers per day
$51.60 = The total cost to society for each round trip in a car ($0.30 per mile * 172 miles)
N * $51.60 * 365 days * 20 years = $3 billion
N = 7,964
So roughly 8,000 people would need to make the round trip each day in order to recover merely the EXTERNAL costs to society...and that's not even taking into account the money that would actually be saved by the individuals making the switch. Nor am I including the non-driving related externalities, such as airport congestion.
How many people travel this route on the highways every day? I bet a hell of a lot more than 8,000. If you could convince a fraction of them to switch to rail, even this route being cited as grossly overpriced would be well worth the cost over the course of 20 years.
And I bet the numbers are quite a bit better still for places like California and the Atlantic Corridor.
But the notion of "paying for itself" or "being profitable" is a red herring, because that's not the point of government services. The point of government services is to provide a benefit to society. I do not know if other AMTRAK routes provide enough of an economic benefit to society to justify their costs...but I do know that you can't measure that strictly by looking at the government's balance sheets.
A faster train would have more demand, because highway travel would no longer be viewed as a cheaper substitute.
Oh come on man. I know it is kind of funny (I think it was even derived from an SNL skit), but Al Gore clearly did not say he invented the internet or any other silly statement like that. Poor guy won the popular vote and did not get elected. Can't that torment him enough?
Poor Al Gore.He just wants to catch ManBearPig!!
source for your numbers? Besides the back of your own envelope?
But is it worth the resources?
Businesses borrow money all the time to finance long-term assets, as well they should. Are you against all corporate finance too?
The internet was conceived by scientists wishing to share data faster. And all these things are specific areas of research, they are not base scientific research.
As it stands, the specialized research can be done in companies once the base research necessary to develop the technology has been achieved. That's how a lot of the technical companies come to be in fact. There are many scientists, grad students, post docs, etc. who work on something in academia, develop some good techniques for AR coatings or laser doubling. When they leave, they start up small start up companies which focus on these specific forms of research. They are able to take the that base research already done and refine it into something which becomes a consumer product. New Focus, Sigma, Spectra Physics, etc. all started out in that manner.
Yes, specialized research can be done by private companies once the base research and discoveries have been made in academia, funded by the government. This is one way in which government and the private sector interact.
Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation for just one of the societal benefits of a high-speed rail system:
When a person drives a car, it costs about 30 cents per passenger-mile in external costs (i.e. costs that are incurred by society, rather than by the driver). These externalities include pollution, road maintenance, highway police, emergency services for accidents, congestion, land use, etc.
So let's use that Tampa-to-Orlando route that keeps being cited as an example of an absurdly expensive boondoggle, with that $3 billion price tag for an 86 mile track. And let's assume a payback period of 20 years (which seems reasonable, given that a high-speed rail system is intended to be a long-term investment). How many people would need to make the round trip between Tampa and Orlando each day via the train in order to justify the cost? Here's how we could calculate it:
N = The number of customers per day
$51.60 = The total cost to society for each round trip in a car ($0.30 per mile * 172 miles)
N * $51.60 * 365 days * 20 years = $3 billion
N = 7,964
So roughly 8,000 people would need to make the round trip each day in order to recover merely the EXTERNAL costs to society...and that's not even taking into account the money that would actually be saved by the individuals making the switch. Nor am I including the non-driving related externalities, such as airport congestion.
How many people travel this route on the highways every day? I bet a hell of a lot more than 8,000. If you could convince a fraction of them to switch to rail, even this route being cited as grossly overpriced would be well worth the cost over the course of 20 years.
And I bet the numbers are quite a bit better still for places like California and the Atlantic Corridor.
For high speed rail in Florida, absolutely. That would turn the Florida economy around. Imagine what it would do for the Orlando economy if South Florida families could just hop a train and be at Disney World in an hour. Or if yuppies from Orlando, Jacksonville and Tampa could be down in South Beach in an hour. Or if the trains that constantly ship goods back and forth between Florida's eight major metro area could be from south Florida to the panhandle in a matter of hours instead of a full day? It would do so much for commerce in Florida it is unimaginable. Absolutely worth it.
Increasing connections among people is what boosts the economy. Look at everything from the internet to the interstate. Whenever you bring people together they trade. Normally I wouldn't be advocating for the government handling high speed rail, either, but the corporatist quasi-free market we have no sure won't come up with this on its own. A true free market would have high speed rail in heart beat, but corporatist suppression favoring the oil-based economy keeps that from happening.
How dishonest.
It'd be a giant waste of money that would put us further indebt for what? Another AMTRACK?
Amen to that. Let's put people to work by building these waste of time rails but then cut their jobs because no one will use them. Definitely a waste of time and money.
Any claim that a project will create jobs should be viewed with suspicion. We should ask how many jobs this money would create if it was not tied up in this project. People seem to have a hard time understanding opportunity cost.
I never support such large government projects even if private comapnies would be engaging in them in the free market.
Reason being government doesn't know how to run a system plus I can never support government increases.
False.Anywhere and everywhere the government needs to shrink,
This is simple-minded.so if there is a proposal for government to basically do anything, the standard answer should be no.
No, failure to compromise and failure to be pragmatic is what leads to the corrupt system we have now.Making exceptions only leaves you with the system that we have now.
A free market system with a ton of "exceptions."
Florida scraps high-speed rail plan pushed by Obama - USATODAY.com
But...but...didn't Obama promise us high speed rail in the SOTU address?
Why not? As a libertarian, I myself am a minarchist, meaning I support the minimal government necessary to protect liberty. A truly free market would have naturally produced high speed rail, that is just simple market efficiency. But what we have is a system where corporatism exerts a corrupt control over the market. Therefore minimal government requires that fighting fire with fire. Minimal government does not mean small government, it means the least necessary, which in this case is still quite a lot of government. But necessary to counterbalance the corruption of the free market.
So you'd rather trust crony corprotists with the project? Sorry, they're to busy manipulating our government into favoring oil.
False.
This is simple-minded.
No, failure to compromise and failure to be pragmatic is what leads to the corrupt system we have now.
Do you actually think we live in a true free market now? If so I suggest you bone up on Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and learn what a free market really ought to look like. It's nothing like the corrupt corporatist cluster-**** we have right now, I can tell you that much.
Was definitely using sarcasm when stating it would make jobs. There are many other things we could be doing instead of spending money on frivolous things
How is that comment related to the story... except to say the GOP scores a political victory at the expense of their unemployed constituents.
Well done GOP!! Way to represent!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?