Convicted One For all it's flaws and short comings, the highway system is, (for the most part) "open access", so taxpayers have less objection to supporting it than they would paying a king's ransom to build a system that somebody else is going to control via a farebox. Perhaps if the expanded toll road system concept gains momentum, that might change some minds?
For all it's flaws and short comings, the highway system is, (for the most part) "open access", so taxpayers have less objection to supporting it than they would paying a king's ransom to build a system that somebody else is going to control via a farebox.
Perhaps if the expanded toll road system concept gains momentum, that might change some minds?
Convicted One,
I’ve wondered about the full rollout of self-driving vehicles. An administrative state’s dream. Millions of vehicles to control.
Falcon48Something like this could only be conceived in a state that has legalized pot.
BaltACDThe USA made one choice, other countries made a different choice. The 'land grab' that was required for the Interstate system, in relative terms precludes a second land grab that would be required to build and implement real HSR.
Balt, maybe that is the best answer.
For all it's flaws and short comings, the highway system is, (for the most part) "open access", so taxpayers have less objection to supporting it than they would paying a king's ransom to build a system that somebody else is going to control via a farebox. America loves it's "freedom", rah! rah! and all that.
Much of the push for direct election of United States Senators (the Seventeenth Amendment) was the result of the corruption involved in the selection of Senators by the various state legislatures. Mark Hanna (and many others) were pretty free with "campaign contributions" and less thinly veiled incentives to gain and hold their Senate seats.
Baltacd, your observation is well taken.
I should add one of those other 1913 events - the 17th amendment. Allowed senators to be elected by popular vote rather than be selected by state legislatures. A natural check on spending disappeared because up until then, state legislatures had to foot the bill of increased spending. The states lost their control over the senate. Both the houses could pander directly to the electorate. The federal government slowly took over many state powers, and gained the upper hand.
GrampI think this whole discussion can really be sourced in the watershed year 1913. The 16th amendment was ratified then, allowing the federal government to tax people’s income without paying attention to the population of each state. With a couple other events that year, what was set into motion was policy that supports the federal government in our time as the “great provider”. To me, the great provider ethic yields the California HSR mess. In contrast I look to the Pennsy’s building of the Hudson River tunnels plus Penn Station. This is one reason I am so interested in and a supporter of what Texas Central is trying to do. Our country needs “generators”, not “providers”. As an aside, I don’t like when word meanings are hijacked. “organic” is muddled to mean “bad pesticide-free“ now. Dumb and dummer. My 2 cents. One for the postcard, one to mail it.
To me, the great provider ethic yields the California HSR mess. In contrast I look to the Pennsy’s building of the Hudson River tunnels plus Penn Station.
This is one reason I am so interested in and a supporter of what Texas Central is trying to do. Our country needs “generators”, not “providers”.
As an aside, I don’t like when word meanings are hijacked. “organic” is muddled to mean “bad pesticide-free“ now. Dumb and dummer.
My 2 cents. One for the postcard, one to mail it.
While the Income Tax is one thing. The real defining moment was when Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway legislation in 1956 with 90/10 federal/state funding to create the Interstate system. At that same relative point in time Japan was begining to undertake the Shinkasen high speed rail system as they were starting to reach economic 'normalization' after the war, the European countries were also starting the reach economic normalization and making plans for their futures, not just recovering from the destruction of the past.
The USA made one choice, other countries made a different choice. The 'land grab' that was required for the Interstate system, in relative terms precludes a second land grab that would be required to build and implement real HSR.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I'm late to this party. But let me make an observation, for what (if anything) it may be worth.
If a given corridor has no or minimal passenger rail service today, it's not going to be a good candidate for HSR. My understanding is that most of the European HSR corridors were important passenger corridors with multiple trains per day long before they were upgraded to HSR (notice I say "corridors" not lines - I recognize that an HSR line may not precisely follow the non-HSR line, but the major markets will be the same).
Now look at the California fiasco. For many decades, the only rail passenger service between Los Angeles and San Francisco has been one train per day in each direction. So, we are expected to believe that there is, nonetheless, a huge unfulfilled demand for rail transport that would miraculously materialize if a zillion dollars were spent on an HSR line? Something like this could only be conceived in a state that has legalized pot.
I think this whole discussion can really be sourced in the watershed year 1913. The 16th amendment was ratified then, allowing the federal government to tax people’s income without paying attention to the population of each state. With a couple other events that year, what was set into motion was policy that supports the federal government in our time as the “great provider”.
diningcar with all of the diverse discussion I notice no one wishes to talk about California's very current, complex and expensive situation
with all of the diverse discussion I notice no one wishes to talk about California's very current, complex and expensive situation
We kinda did that already a few months ago over in the "Passenger" section.
Nobody could come up with a reasonable answer to the question "if somebody wishes to earn $15/hr working at McDonalds in San Fran, while living on the cheap in a quonset hut out in the middle of the high desert, why do they deserve a subsidized commute to boot?"
I apologize also. The thread subjects were connected, if barely. One fact directly related to HSR is this: In 2012 the federal government spent over $20 billion on subsidies to farm businesses, 39% of the 2.1 million farms receiving them. That $20 billion is an unnecessary pork barrel of the worst sort. If it were used for passenger train improvements, that would be an investment in the future.
This discussion has really gone off the deep end, and for that I'm sorry. I posted my comments about why I thought HSR in our country was not something to be pursued. You guys obviously disagree. That's fine.
And GMO foods, farm size, and hick farmers poisoning the air, land, and water really have nothing to do with it.
York1 John
charlie hebdo Instead of posting non-scientific erroneous statements, try telling the public what is in non-organic, GMO foods. A few choice substances: 1. the use of the neurotoxin extraction agent, hexane. 2. glyphosate, linked to kidney disease, birth defects and breast cancer 3. use of growth-promoting ractopamine, which is linked to cardiovascular disease.
Instead of posting non-scientific erroneous statements, try telling the public what is in non-organic, GMO foods.
A few choice substances: 1. the use of the neurotoxin extraction agent, hexane. 2. glyphosate, linked to kidney disease, birth defects and breast cancer 3. use of growth-promoting ractopamine, which is linked to cardiovascular disease.
I assume this comment is not aimed at me. I don't recall posting any "non-scientific erroneous statements" about organic or GMO foods.
Again ... how does any of this have anything to do with the discussion of American HSR?
charlie hebdo1935 average farm size 154.8 acres; 2016, 442 acres, almost triple, 41% of farms have sales over $500K, with average size ~2300 acres. So much for the little family farm.
If you reread my post, you'll notice I didn't say anything about the farm's size. I talked about corporate farming. Yes, farm size has increased.
And before you make too much of that sales figure, try figuring in the cost of the equipment, seed, fuel, and taxes. That's why farms have grown. It would be impossible to survive on a small farm.
York1 charlie hebdo York1 as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs. Ever wonder why people consume less and less beef (and chicken) here? Why more people have turned to grass-fed beef minus growth hormones and antibiotics? Non-GMO products? Obviously the market is there for healthy foods. In this day and age, people are willing to spend more for healthier foods but more and more folks are fed up with subsidizing corporate farming. It might have made sense in the depression, when we mostly had small family farms of ~100 acres. Times change 1. Non-GMO? There's no such thing. Humans have been crossbreeding and genetically modifying plants since ancient times. 2. Corporate farming is a non-issue. When you read that over 90% of farmland is corporate-farmed, you instantly get the idea that some large nefarious company somewhere is plowing the landscape. The vast majority of farms are still family farms. The family has formed a corporation for tax and liability reasons. Nearly every farm in my area is corporately owned, and those corporations are completely owned by the farming family.
charlie hebdo York1 as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs. Ever wonder why people consume less and less beef (and chicken) here? Why more people have turned to grass-fed beef minus growth hormones and antibiotics? Non-GMO products? Obviously the market is there for healthy foods. In this day and age, people are willing to spend more for healthier foods but more and more folks are fed up with subsidizing corporate farming. It might have made sense in the depression, when we mostly had small family farms of ~100 acres. Times change
Ever wonder why people consume less and less beef (and chicken) here? Why more people have turned to grass-fed beef minus growth hormones and antibiotics? Non-GMO products? Obviously the market is there for healthy foods. In this day and age, people are willing to spend more for healthier foods but more and more folks are fed up with subsidizing corporate farming. It might have made sense in the depression, when we mostly had small family farms of ~100 acres. Times change
1. Non-GMO? There's no such thing. Humans have been crossbreeding and genetically modifying plants since ancient times.
2. Corporate farming is a non-issue. When you read that over 90% of farmland is corporate-farmed, you instantly get the idea that some large nefarious company somewhere is plowing the landscape. The vast majority of farms are still family farms. The family has formed a corporation for tax and liability reasons. Nearly every farm in my area is corporately owned, and those corporations are completely owned by the farming family.
1935 average farm size 154.8 acres; 2016, 442 acres, almost triple, 41% of farms have sales over $500K, with average size ~2300 acres. So much for the little family farm.
charlie hebdo Per capita beef consumption reached its peak in 1976 - 94.1 lbs. 2018? 57 lbs. A real growth industry, down 39.4%.
Per capita beef consumption reached its peak in 1976 - 94.1 lbs. 2018? 57 lbs. A real growth industry, down 39.4%.
And what does per capita beef consumption have to do with HSR? You were the one that brought up the whole livestock issue: "Says the guy in sparsely populated Nebraska, where there are probably more livestock than humans.
So if we lower beef consumption, we can then have our HSR system?
charlie hebdoYork1 as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs. Ever wonder why people consume less and less beef (and chicken) here? Why more people have turned to grass-fed beef minus growth hormones and antibiotics? Non-GMO products? Obviously the market is there for healthy foods. In this day and age, people are willing to spend more for healthier foods but more and more folks are fed up with subsidizing corporate farming. It might have made sense in the depression, when we mostly had small family farms of ~100 acres. Times change
BaltACDAh! the current story of the USA. If I don't directly and personally benefit from it - RIGHT NOW - I'm not going to pay for it. Enviornmental regulations - imagine wanting to breathe unpolluted air and drink unpoisioned water how totally archaic a thought. Will farmers turned their fields into super fund sites by their aniti-enviornment actions? Will farmers recreate the Dust Bowl conditions of the 1930's?
1. I have no problem paying for something that would really benefit the country. However, the payoff on this one is ridiculous. California HSR continues to hurt your cause. $77 Billion (probably $90 Billion) estimate right now, for 200 miles. And for what benefit? So that we can be more like Europe?
2. Farmers don't spit out here without filing a 42-page form for the EPA. Do you really think today's farmers would pollute their own land? They know more about pollution control than anyone else. They know more about soil conservation and preserving the land than you give them credit for.
Boy is that 'non- GMO' blown out of proportion! I especially like the signs that proclaim 'organic'. If it grew it's organic!!! The world will starve without GMO products and the railroads won't much corn to haul.
York1as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs.
Ever wonder why people consume less and less beef (and chicken) here? Why more people have turned to grass-fed beef minus growth hormones and antibiotics? Non-GMO products? Obviously the market is there for healthy foods. In this day and age, people are willing to spend more for healthier foods but more and more folks are fed up with subsidizing corporate farming. It might have made sense in the depression, when we mostly had small family farms of ~100 acres. Times change.
York1You bet, as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs.
Somehow I doubt everyone is on board with that one.
Although considering the importance of aquifiers to your state, your scoffing at environmental regs is intriguing.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
York1 zugmann York1 If people in urban areas who "would benefit from and want HSR" want it so badly, then more power to them. Let them pay for it. I'll wish you good luck with that one. Willing to have your state give up its farming subsidies as well? You bet, as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs. Besides, we're not asking for hundreds of billions of dollars so someone can ride a train instead of flying or driving.
zugmann York1 If people in urban areas who "would benefit from and want HSR" want it so badly, then more power to them. Let them pay for it. I'll wish you good luck with that one. Willing to have your state give up its farming subsidies as well?
York1 If people in urban areas who "would benefit from and want HSR" want it so badly, then more power to them. Let them pay for it. I'll wish you good luck with that one.
Willing to have your state give up its farming subsidies as well?
You bet, as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs.
Besides, we're not asking for hundreds of billions of dollars so someone can ride a train instead of flying or driving.
Ah! the current story of the USA. If I don't directly and personally benefit from it - RIGHT NOW - I'm not going to pay for it.
Enviornmental regulations - imagine wanting to breathe unpolluted air and drink unpoisioned water how totally archaic a thought. Will farmers turned their fields into super fund sites by their aniti-enviornment actions? Will farmers recreate the Dust Bowl conditions of the 1930's?
York1If people in urban areas who "would benefit from and want HSR" want it so badly, then more power to them. Let them pay for it. I'll wish you good luck with that one.
Are we learning anything from the current California fiasco?
zugmann York1 We don't because we don't want it. We have something we like better. Who is "we"? Nebraska?
Who is "we"? Nebraska?
"We"? In our country, if enough people wanted HSR, there would be congressmen willing to work on this, there would be companies begging to build it, and there would be people demanding that their taxes be raised to pay for it.
I moved to Nebraska from a big city. I didn't hear of a great groundswell of support for any more mass transit than was already in place.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.