Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
Well, for one, it would be lobbied for extensively by tech companies. For two, it would definitely save thousands of lives. And for three, the Fed are control freaks generally.
Chitchat An Honest Proposal
- Thread starter Shireling
- Start date
Well, for one, it would be lobbied for extensively by tech companies. For two, it would definitely save thousands of lives. And for three, the Fed are control freaks generally.
Spacekitty
Recently Resurrected Divine Feline Entity.
I highly doubt such a thing would be implemented
But I sitll liek a cummter rail system
But I sitll liek a cummter rail system
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
Well, it's similar to why it's the law to wear a safety belt in your car. Used to be, cars didn't have seat belts but now we're mandated to wear them because they really do save lives.
charleen
nicos my lesbian swiffer
so communism??
Spacekitty
Recently Resurrected Divine Feline Entity.
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
No, not really. There ARE certain things the government should compel people to do. For instance, I am in favor of the seatbelt measure because it doesn't constitute an undo infringement on one's rights and the fine is fairly minimal.
Spacekitty
Recently Resurrected Divine Feline Entity.
Just a random guess. I agree with ya on that end. Government regulations are needed to some extent, especially in concern to public safety.
We must start the Pro-Commuter Lines Political party and Make american train again!
Also we should total do the Central powers in "The Last War". I am Italia B)
charleen
nicos my lesbian swiffer
OHHHH but let me tell you sir!! i got a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt, and it was easily $150 dollars while this other guy was driving under influence and he only got a warning. ik it's bad on my part, but damn never will i not wear seat belts, so in a way i learn my lesson.
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
Well that tends to happen when things are left to the officer's discretion. But there are sometimes circumstances we do not know or cannot foresee.
charleen
nicos my lesbian swiffer
well i don't want to get a ticket for not commuting on a train anytime soon lol
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
I don't think anyone is proposing that. You can still drive your automobile to work if you so desire. It's not compulsory.
charleen
nicos my lesbian swiffer
i can't even drive yet nor do i have "work" haha sorry maybe i can't relate as of now lol but im typing up my resume and it's all going to make sense
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd agree with most of the arguments save for 7 . 7 seems to be an ideological stretch . That could be construed as an assumption . While #2's doesn't account for the fact that not *everyone* lives in the city ( as what this past year's election has proved ) .
Now for the counter argument as to why this isn't *possible* to do . Its nice to have that ideal, but reality often makes things almost impossible.
1) Money , you need money , it doesn't matter if its " philosophically / morally " correct, money determines what's correct and what's not more so then before.
There aren't any big money interests that would seek to push this through in the first place. If your thinking about " CSX" or " Amtrak" , etc they're not exactly doing " well" by wall street standards. Those MAJOR train companies do not have the political clout , nor do they have the money to push this kind of legislation through. Plus they would face a ton of resistance from entrenched interests ( from car manufacturers Honda, Ford, etc to the tech industry, Uber, google, telsa ) . In general that kind of over sweeping legislation requires that you need, needs to have money to back this proposal or else it would fail ( That is if your talking about this on a federal level ). On the state level ? Depending on the state, this could be enacted or not ( most likely this will not be enacted for the reasons which i will list below ). This doesn't even take into account with the local municipalities and their laws as well . Its easy to think about it on a " macro ' level ( which most idealists do ) but when it comes to reality ? Idealism doesn't do too well because it cannot identify all the issues on a micro level and how to address them . This doesn't mean that Idealism doesn't work ( as evidenced by the civil rights movement ) , its just that without some huge amount of LONG LASTING support ( that civil rights movement lasted for decades before it finally became a reality ) , this kind of ideal is already DOA . It takes a while to get an ideal to become reality simply because you need to address all the practical issues that stand in the way of such ideal .
2) Private Property owners:
In order to build that kind of infrastructure, your going to have to deal with A LOT of private property owners. There's a reason why just merely expanding the highway in certain areas is a near impossibility even though its needed due to the growing population. It is because you have private property owners who will not sell their piece of land because they 1) they don't want to , 2) the government and/or the company that wants to expand the infrastructure won't pay the going rate that the owner has allotted for said piece of land. This is talking about highways, and roads. Railroads will be even more difficult to do so .
2a) Laws , the current ones in place: ( from a local level to the state to the federal level , but mostly the local level and the state level )
Your also going to have to deal with a ton of different laws for each county, municipality . Everyone assumes that in the US that every law is made by the federal government . It isn't , depending on what and who you are , some of the federal laws will affect you more then state laws, and vice versa . This doesn't even take into account the local laws either. Its hard to keep to track of which laws are created by what type of government ( aka do you know that law XYZ is a local law, a state law or a federal law ??? Only the most politicized ones to those who are VERY well informed , would know about weather or not said law was a state law or a federal law , while the other laws , people most likely would have an issue discerning weather or not if its a federal or state law even, never mind a local muni / county /town / city law ) . This kind of involvement requires a lot of research and TIME to do so . Not many are able to do this even in the age of the internet ( simply put not ALL laws are on the internet , in particular the local/ county laws even ) .
3) Why invest for the future? I need my returns within 3 months !
If your a company, why even invest in infrastructure in the first place? Not to mention the hassles from #2 , you get better returns financialization of your cash reserves instead of actually spending money. This is evidenced by the lack of infrastructure upgrades that many companies will not take in general . I don't know of any companies outside of private contractors for the government who will undertake massive infrastructure building projects as of late . Latest one i can think of is Google's high speed internet, but they've stopped that after that shareholder backlash since last year and with the new ceo, Sundar Pichai who's trying to cut down on costs to boost EPS ( which hasn't been growing as of late ) . Which means , why spend more $$ on infrastructure ? In general , companies have been moving towards financing ( which includes company mergers and buyouts ) simply because it provides a far FASTER ROI then anything else. It doesn't matter if a project has a higher ROI if that takes years to realize that . Its better to have a low ROI , that has yields that would contribute immediately to the NEXT QUARTER for a company ( also reducing the number of competitors in your area yields better returns then investing into infrastructure ) . If a project doesn't yield returns by the next quarter, it will be deemed as an unnecessary cost, no matter how many accounting tricks you can use via depreciation and all . Which means.... who else can actually carry out this kind of project ? The government .
3a) " Big government " .
If your the government, why even give this a go when the majority of the public won't back this ..... well won't back this once they realize that its going to cost ALOT of money to do so ( aka your going to get higher taxes ) .Given the current political climate , its going to be impossible to pass anything if it means that it'll require a higher tax to pass . In general this is impossible to do , infrastructure spending is good to have, but that money has to come from somewhere.
4) Public isn't enthralled by this .
There really isn't that much public enthusiasm for this . Just because its a good idea doesn't mean that it'll succeed . If you don't have money to back a " good idea" you better have public support and at this point ? Public support isn't really there for this, not when everyone's concentrated on the current political..... climate. Which leads to
5) Politics and debates, are a toxic mix .
The current political climate. If you think its polarized now, wait till we're a few years into this current POTUS . If you haven't tracked how bitter and divided the political climate is here....well lets just say its so toxic that the mere mention of any kind of politics will kill relationships of any type. This started even before I was even self aware , but it has been getting worse as the years go by . Your better off not talking about it or anything of that sorts. Debates and such .... there really aren't any more debates its just a shouting match . If say one side ( say the republicans for some ... reason) propose this, then you'll have the other side shouting it down and saying that its somehow bad drawing from reason XYZ , etc, etc . Think the gridlock is bad during the Obama administration ? Right now everyone's casting Trump to be the next Hitler, which means that even if there is an infrastructure project ( not counting the wall ofc ) , it'll be gutted the moment any side proposes it simply because it would make the current administration look good.
6) If it doesn't benefit the current people in power.....
And lastly who does this benefit ? If it doesn't benefit the companies ( or the entrenched ones in power ) it won't be done , not unless again you have massive public backing and even then its impossible due to #5 .
Not saying that this isn't a good idea, its just impossible to pull off. Your better off with trying to argue why we should maintain our infrastructure which is hard enough to do as it is currently .
Last edited by a moderator:
_Line 213
| || || | __
To drive this point home a bit, since it's especially relevant to people in big cities, consider the following.
The average train fare in New York City and Chicago is about $2.50.
The average Lyft or Uber in these same places can average to $15-$25 or more, depending on where you're going, how far it is, and the current driver demand.
This means that, on average, taking a train is anywhere from 500% to 1000% cheaper than either of those taxi services.
This is far from sustainable for the average person, hence why one of the major demographics for both services are young, college-educated people without cars. Bonus Points if they live in a suburb.
Anyone who thinks that private transportation is cheaper than public transportation has probably never lived in a city.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
The Federal Government is about to undertake a massive multi-billion dollar infrastructure reinvestment. I cite this as an example that the government is willing to fork over money for these sorts of things all the time. It's only a matter of getting the citizenry to lobby Congress for it.
There's plenty of empty space to run new rail lines between rural small cities where most of the new lines would have to go. Unused land is cheaper to purchase and is generally not missed. Landowners could be compensated in cash, bonds, or railroad stock options. Imminent domain is also a useful tool here.
Federal law supersedes local law and this is a federal project on land purchased by the federal government.
If private interests refuse to fork over the money, the government can cover the whole project. But I contest this point. There are bored millionaires forking over money for everything these days.
You raise a good point here. I think the best way to finance the project would be to make deep cuts to the Pentagon and eliminate superflous federal agencies like the Department of Education. Given that this is also a one-time investment. After the trains start running, the railroad finances itself. This is opposed to a highway, which never makes you back any money directly.
That's because nobody is really campaigning for it. If it had a good PR campaign, or if someone with the idea got in the President's good graces, it might find some popularity or at least some influence.
How else would you propose to get the project approved? Some sort of edict from God? It's public policy. It deserves a debate and an up or down vote. If it fails after a good campaign, well, it's just not meant to be.
It doesnt really hurt anyone either. If the project works out according to plan, the party that pushes it will probably gain the support of MILLIONS of suburban commuters. Not to mention the people who get jobs as a result of this.
Spacekitty
Recently Resurrected Divine Feline Entity.
eliminate superflous federal agencies like the Department of Education
I contest this point. Public schooling is more affordable and provides an over all well rounded education for those willing to actually apply themselves
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
It's my opinion that it's a power for the states and municipalities to decide education policy.
Spacekitty
Recently Resurrected Divine Feline Entity.
Well I'm typically all for states rights when the Federal government cant agree or its too controversial, but States individual states/municipalities wouldst be able to pull together much funds (if they are poor) and those who cannot will have utterly shit schools.
Although thats not too different than our current system... What even is our crrent system Ill need to research this. Im talking out of my ass atm lol, ill get back to you
Windsock
Two Thousand Club
yeah I hate state education too.
Spacekitty
Recently Resurrected Divine Feline Entity.
Doesnt mean it isnt worth while
When's the last time the federal government has undertaken a massive multi-billion dollar infrastructure reinvestment ? Trump's wall aside ( which has more backing and popularity then anything else that's currently on the table ) , there isn't any massive multi-billion dollar infrastructure reinvestment. The last time that came was during the 90's when the federal government forked over 1-2 billion dollars to the telecom industry ( cable ) to upgrade the networks . What happened ? The Cable companies barely upgraded the networks , pocketed most of the cash and used it by going on a merger spree ( which is why you saw ALOT of mergers in the telecom industry shortly thereafter during the early 2000's era ) . One of the primary reasons why I've listed that money is needed to push legislation through is because of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC ( Where corporations can lobby to the government and in general the corporation has far more resources than the public , recently passed ) and A joint study from Cambridge and Princeton which cite that most US laws aren't passed due to public interest , but due to the fact that there is money backing said law to enable it to pass.
If you want to find the tl;dr version, its located here :
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Railways don't have that kind of money , and money means political power in the US currently. Good luck trying to compete against incumbents such as Google, Tesla , Uber and never mind the other entrenched interests that have a ton of money who want to see the status quo as it is currently.
Now getting the citizenry to lobby congress for it ? It could work if Trump were to do it and were to use the " US versus them " argument ( aka if the republicans were to sell it as a grand plan and make the democrats look even worse ) . But that's again not an easy sell even for Trump to do . Not to mention it goes against the current republican mantra of " small" government. Infrastructure projects of this size means " bigger government " , which goes against republican ideals .
This makes " sense" and it *could work* if Trump were to push for it. Given that many rural areas in the US are Trump voters ( in general) , he could sell that plan as he's still riding high on that partisan wave . Could he do it ? Its possible , but that involves having him propose the plan in the first place. Although he has a far higher chance doing this then a democrat that's elected to the US ( given the current political environment) . Eminent domain , could work , but doing it on a wide scale is nearly impossible . This isn't Eisenhower era where there was a huge amount of trust in the federal government compared to today . When you have that massive trust gap in the government, large scale infrastructure projects are far harder to employ/ do . In general there's a reason why cynicism rules the day in the US and this is one of the many factors contributing to that .
Granted there is * plenty* of empty space and economically this would make sense in the long run. But however.... I'll address this in a later point , economics ( theory ) versus what really goes on in the real world ( short term profits > anything else ) .
This is incorrect. If that were so, then why would we have individual states legalizing marijuana in spite of the fact that it is banned on a federal level ? If your smoking pot ,etc you won't be arrested in certain states where as other states you will be arrested . Its also the same thing with guns where some states your not allowed to have a specific weapon or weapon modification , whereas other states you can in-spite of federal law. You even have states that have won major cases against the federal government as seen here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States#Opinion_of_the_U.S._Supreme_Court .
It all depends on the courts to see weather or not if the said law will be upheld or not. There's a reason why there's three branches of the government, legislative , judiciary and the executive branches that *should be *separate from each other.
Federal laws *do* supersede state laws *IF* the supreme court deems it so , but the opposite can also happen as well where state laws do supersede federal laws. If federal laws always supersedes local law and state law , then why even have states in the first place ? Not to mention that you'd have a ton of push back as well . The states and the federal lawmakers can do what they wish or want to do, but ultimately the courts will rule on weather or not if said laws can be upheld or not .
Currently Trump's ban on specific citizens from certain countries , its being held up in the 9th district court , if federal law was like the " word of god " , then this would have been implemented asap and not be held up by a district court in the US .
" The government can cover the whole project" . Yes, the government can cover the whole project. But again private interest *drive* government policy to a large degree . Reference the first point i had made earlier on . Bored millionaires forking money for everything these days ? I'd agree with that point, but it depends on the whims of a fickle if not eccentric group(s) of people to which there aren't many people who belong to said income level. Bored millionaires or not , they won't be able to compete against those who hold far more sums of money they do .
Besides private interests are there to do one thing: make money as quickly as they possibly can . As evidenced by the current environment in the stock market ( where cost cutting is king and innovation's only for those who can be bought out within the next quarter or used to bring in even more profit within the next quarter ) .
So not only will the federal government be fighting against lawsuits and challenges from entrenched interests ( Tech : Google, Telsa , Uber . Apple , Lyft ; Automobiles : Ford, Honda , BMW , Toyota ; Transportation : UPS, Fedex , J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Con-way , all of which have a combined net worth in the trillions ) the federal government will fight against the Education lobby ( Colleges such as Harvard , Princeton , Cal-tech , MIT, etc , also they would have to fight the student loan industry which would include banks who wield a lot of power Wells fargo , Bank Of America , Capital One, PNC bank and they would also have to fight against those who publish and/or create books along with big media : Mcgraw hill , Simon & Schuster (a subsidiary of CBS Corporation) , HarperCollins (a subsidiary of NewsCorp aka Fox News), Penguin Random House (a subsidiary of Bertelsmann and Pearson) and a whole host of land owners ranging from companies to private land owners who would lose out if the department of education is gutted ) .
Not to mention going up against the defense industry as well ? Good luck .
Lockheed Martin
Boeing
Raytheon
Northrop Grumman
General Dynamics
And last but not least.... your threatening oil interests as well : ( trains will consume less oil then cars )
Chevron Corporation
Shell Oil Company
ExxonMobil
Koch Industries ****** ( Probably the most influential company in the US on a state level ) .
If i were a gambler, I'd bet on the corporations with my life savings to win against the federal government currently. Those interests wield far more power then you'd realize in the federal government then the actual federal government themselves . The federal government of today ? Is actually weaker today then it was in the past ( again due to the lack of public trust and the whole sale infighting that occurs at nearly every level in many areas ) .
It can be argued that highways *already * make more money then a railway because there are TOLLS , not to mention there is a gas tax ( yes it actually exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States ) . The infrastructure is there already ( for highways ) , all the states need to do is slap a toll booth on it and boom, there's money and its revenue generating ( which satisfies a few things, 1) it preserves the status quo , 2) It doesn't cost a alot more $$ to slap a toll in an area versus a railway , 3) you can see far faster returns sooner, then you can with a railway\ .
This i would agree with before 2001. After 2001 ? The nature of politics as it is , is so toxic that it doesn't matter *if * its a good idea or not that comes from one side . If it comes from a Republican , Democrats will oppose it . If it comes from a Democrat ? Republicans will oppose it . There's always a way to make a good idea look " evil" and those goes for both sides. A president only has so much power and a good PR campaign could help if there weren't entrenched interests there to oppose it with a ton of money in the first place.
True, I agree there needs to be debate. But given the current political environment debate is simply impossible to have. Most people will avoid talking about politics or even having a debate ( unless its for something frivolous like "Cash Me Ousside" girl , is she being harassed too much ? or is Kim Kardashian: Completely Controlling Kanye West? Or were the Atlanta Falcons the biggest losers in sports history ? ) for one reason : It divides people and destroys relationships . If its that toxic, and no one is talking about politics , there's a reason why the current incarnation of the US government is the way it is currently . You'll need a miracle on a vast scale to change this mindset and its only going to get worse. Its so toxic that in the workplace , that political discussions are Banned and talking about it can get you fired. And this article was written in 2012 , imagine today in 2017 with how politics are these days ? Impossible, to have ANY debate of any substance given how toxic the environment is. Even college students are affected to a small extent whole sale by any kind of debate that has substance ( a topic so toxic i won't list examples since it'll just mean the RPN GM's would lock this thread ) .
How can you have a debate if each side starts screaming and labeling the other side as " label XYZ " ..... ??? That's how it is these days . I've probably seen more threads shut down in this year already then i have in RPN in the past year . And this is in RPN never mind IRL .
That's the problem , your assuming that
1) MILLIONS of suburban commuters , will support this ( The assumption) . Many people in the current political environment will not .
2) People are willing to wait in crowded areas ( the assumption) . Trains have the issue where people have to wait ( and waiting frustrates people even more so then driving in rush hour traffic ) .... and most of all deal with other people in the public . Suburbanites are who they are BECAUSE they've moved away and outside of the city . They don't want to deal with other people . That's one of the biggest reasons why they are suburbanites and are not living in the city . They don't want to deal with crowds of people even if it means suffering in a traffic jam which is better then standing at a train station that's crowded . An added bonus would be the fact that one's own personal space isn't violated in a car , versus standing in a crowded train and sitting in a crowded train during rush hour where your personal space means that your sides might be brushed up against someone else , etc.
3) Everyone benefits from this ( the assumption ) . This kind of proposal only benefits specific portions of society who would utilize this . Companies in general *will* not benefit from this save from the freighter transportation industry ( which is already on its last legs unfortunately ) . The assumption is that everyone will use this , and if that were the case then why are trains ( current ones ) like Amtrak , etc already have gone through a bankruptcy and are on the verge of heading towards another bankruptcy ?
Economically, in the long term this makes sense ( and would also provide jobs that last more then a year or so ) , however to address the point above , short term profits triumph over long term profits no matter the cost. As evidenced by the current business environment and how the government currently operates. If we're already not investing in the future, what makes you think that such a huge sea of change ( from the current mindset ) will be doable ? its impossible at the federal AND state levels ( outside of perhaps California , however that infrastructure project has run into major major issues http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-cost-overruns-20170106-story.html ) . . Local levels ? Different story but still fairly difficult to do .
Again.... not that I'm against this idea, I think its cool. Its just that given the current environment. Its made to crush idealism . There's a reason why there's far more cynics than there are idealists . Its because reality crushes idealism in general , unless there's a ton of money backing said ideal .
Last edited by a moderator:
Spacekitty
Recently Resurrected Divine Feline Entity.
tldr
Vudukudu
Farseer to the Warsong Clan
Burn everything to the ground. Reorganize society around national rail system. Viva le revoluccion.
1. Federal government isn't going to do anything that would endanger the automobile industry (frankly, self driving cars are going to kill them anyway) and annihilating the automobile industry is dangerous to American labor, steel, and energy interests. While such a massive systemic overhaul would provide benefits to these groups in the short term, they recognize the long term play - cars break down every few years and need to be replaced completely. Trains ARE cheaper, and that's why they aren't competitive in the market - the economic system doesn't actually favor the cheapest, most efficient product, it favors whatever product is sufficient and can be resold. Fossil fuel interests also have enormous reason to be concerned - such a system could put them out of business if Tesla were helping.
2. The party in power is opposed to doing anything productive, in a government structure where doing productive things is structurally prohibited.
3. Please please please make a national rail system happen because its a legitimately good idea.
1. Federal government isn't going to do anything that would endanger the automobile industry (frankly, self driving cars are going to kill them anyway) and annihilating the automobile industry is dangerous to American labor, steel, and energy interests. While such a massive systemic overhaul would provide benefits to these groups in the short term, they recognize the long term play - cars break down every few years and need to be replaced completely. Trains ARE cheaper, and that's why they aren't competitive in the market - the economic system doesn't actually favor the cheapest, most efficient product, it favors whatever product is sufficient and can be resold. Fossil fuel interests also have enormous reason to be concerned - such a system could put them out of business if Tesla were helping.
2. The party in power is opposed to doing anything productive, in a government structure where doing productive things is structurally prohibited.
3. Please please please make a national rail system happen because its a legitimately good idea.
