Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_new ... -the-rails" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, they talk about a 23 mile sea bridge that cost $2.3B and only took four years to build. ??? Here, it woulda cost $40B and taken 12 years.

Discuss.

In Norfolk, VA it has cost nearly $340 million to build a less than 8 mile section of light rail with at least half of that distance being existing rail and roadbed. I wouldn't want to calculate what a national system of high speed rail would cost.

I blame the unions.

Ivytalk wrote:I blame the unions.

Rare, but solid, agreement here, IT.

Obama missed the opportunity to be the "Infrastructure President". Dividends would take years to realize, but they would be there, eventually.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:In Norfolk, VA it has cost nearly $340 million to build a less than 8 mile section of light rail with at least half of that distance being existing rail and roadbed. I wouldn't want to calculate what a national system of high speed rail would cost.

In Phoenix it cost $1.4 billion to build 20 miles of light rail....the thing will NEVER pay for itself...

Cap'n Cat wrote:Obama missed the opportunity to be the "Infrastructure President". Dividends would take years to realize, but they would be there, eventually.

Would have been a better use of $2 trillion in government handouts...

If there was money to be made in high speed rail in the US people would've gone down that road (er, rail) years ago. Problem is, most railroads need to be subsidized by the government to just break even, and that's just after everything has been made and laid out. And in the US, you'd never be able to build a high speed rail, at least not near where anyone would live. The space you need to build it just isn't there, no one would want it in their backyard, and the safety measures that would be necessary to protect against accident and the litigation that would follow would be so dramatic that they would also inflate the costs. When it comes down to it, there are plenty of cheaper, less capital intensive ways to travel other than high speed rail.

As for building bridges, I agree, things cost way too much and take way too long. But that's the price to be paid for paying decent labor wages - it just means that you end up having fewer workers per project and things take longer. Heck, if you see a road get built in China you see the road crew basically sleep by the road they are building. You can get a lot more done when you don't have to go home to a family for months on end.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Obama missed the opportunity to be the "Infrastructure President". Dividends would take years to realize, but they would be there, eventually.

Would have been a better use of $2 trillion in government handouts...

You're right, but we disagree on your nebulous, blanket characterization of those expenditures as government handouts. For the most part, he was throwing good money after good, trying to ignite some recovery.

GannonFan wrote:If there was money to be made in high speed rail in the US people would've gone down that road (er, rail) years ago. Problem is, most railroads need to be subsidized by the government to just break even, and that's just after everything has been made and laid out. And in the US, you'd never be able to build a high speed rail, at least not near where anyone would live. The space you need to build it just isn't there, no one would want it in their backyard, and the safety measures that would be necessary to protect against accident and the litigation that would follow would be so dramatic that they would also inflate the costs. When it comes down to it, there are plenty of cheaper, less capital intensive ways to travel other than high speed rail.

As for building bridges, I agree, things cost way too much and take way too long. But that's the price to be paid for paying decent labor wages - it just means that you end up having fewer workers per project and things take longer. Heck, if you see a road get built in China you see the road crew basically sleep by the road they are building. You can get a lot more done when you don't have to go home to a family for months on end.

We have to get out of our cars first.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I blame the unions.

Rare, but solid, agreement here, IT.

I'm no lover of unions in their present form in the US, either, but it's not just their doing. Standards of living are just different in a developed country versus an undeveloped one. You're going to be able to throw a lot of manpower at something for relatively low cost in a country like China - it's changing, but it doesn't happen overnight. But to throw the same number of people at a similar job in a developed country, where standards of living are so much higher, is just going to cost a whole lot more. Unions probably inflate that even more, but even without unions it would still cost a lot to do here versus there.

Eminent domain battles are easier, less costly, and less litigous in China I would imagine. The displacement of people in high speed rail corridors in the US would be huge, especially in the DC - Boston area. LA - San Fran would be costly, but nothing like the NE.

We may not like communism, but it's hard to argue against its efficiency in getting things done.

Cap'n Cat wrote:http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_new ... -the-rails

Also, they talk about a 23 mile sea bridge that cost $2.3B and only took four years to build. ??? Here, it woulda cost $40B and taken 12 years.

Discuss.

Here, we have OSHA, EPA, Greenpeace, NHTSA, etc., etc., etc. all delaying the completion and driving up the end cost. In China somebody just writes a check.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

GannonFan wrote:If there was money to be made in high speed rail in the US people would've gone down that road (er, rail) years ago. Problem is, most railroads need to be subsidized by the government to just break even, and that's just after everything has been made and laid out. And in the US, you'd never be able to build a high speed rail, at least not near where anyone would live. The space you need to build it just isn't there, no one would want it in their backyard, and the safety measures that would be necessary to protect against accident and the litigation that would follow would be so dramatic that they would also inflate the costs. When it comes down to it, there are plenty of cheaper, less capital intensive ways to travel other than high speed rail.

As for building bridges, I agree, things cost way too much and take way too long. But that's the price to be paid for paying decent labor wages - it just means that you end up having fewer workers per project and things take longer. Heck, if you see a road get built in China you see the road crew basically sleep by the road they are building. You can get a lot more done when you don't have to go home to a family for months on end.

We have to get out of our cars first.

I agree. And then also out of our houses as we are far more spread out geographically than any other country that relies on rail. Not exactly something that's going to happen rapidly enough (if ever) to get to a point where high speed rail makes sense. And I'm real wary of the "build it and they will come" idea of it - build a high speed rail where it currently isn't needed and see if people and businesses flock to be near it. That has all the makings of a Simpson's Springfield Monorail outcome - minus the large metal doughnut and Leonard Nemoy.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_new ... -the-rails

Also, they talk about a 23 mile sea bridge that cost $2.3B and only took four years to build. ??? Here, it woulda cost $40B and taken 12 years.

Discuss.

Here, we have OSHA, EPA, Greenpeace, NHTSA, etc., etc., etc. all delaying the completion and driving up the end cost. In China somebody just writes a check.

....throw in a bunch of Congressmen and state government officials trying to maximize their state/district's benefit too.

ASUG8 wrote:Eminent domain battles are easier, less costly, and less litigous in China I would imagine. The displacement of people in high speed rail corridors in the US would be huge, especially in the DC - Boston area. LA - San Fran would be costly, but nothing like the NE.

We may not like communism, but it's hard to argue against its efficiency in getting things done.

True - look at all those people they moved involuntarily when they built that Three Gorges Dam. 1.3M people were relocated to build that thing. Wouldn't even get off the drawing board in the US - that's 1.3M lawsuits right there.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_new ... -the-rails

Also, they talk about a 23 mile sea bridge that cost $2.3B and only took four years to build. ??? Here, it woulda cost $40B and taken 12 years.

Discuss.

Here, we have OSHA, EPA, Greenpeace, NHTSA, etc., etc., etc. all delaying the completion and driving up the end cost. In China somebody just writes a check.

And not even just in a negative sense - most of what OSHA and the EPA and the NHTSA and others do is very valuable and something that we should have. But it does get in the way of efficiency - something we have and would still gladly trade for the benefits we get from having the regulations.

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Here, we have OSHA, EPA, Greenpeace, NHTSA, etc., etc., etc. all delaying the completion and driving up the end cost. In China somebody just writes a check.

And not even just in a negative sense - most of what OSHA and the EPA and the NHTSA and others do is very valuable and something that we should have. But it does get in the way of efficiency - something we have and would still gladly trade for the benefits we get from having the regulations.

However, and not to be argumentative, we continue playing the global economic game by a different set of rules yet guys like cappy continue to wonder why countries like China and India and South Korea are catching us and/or passing us by from an economic and productivity standpoint. Hell, we fight wars the same way, and wonder why we don't win.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
And not even just in a negative sense - most of what OSHA and the EPA and the NHTSA and others do is very valuable and something that we should have. But it does get in the way of efficiency - something we have and would still gladly trade for the benefits we get from having the regulations.

However, and not to be argumentative, we continue playing the global economic game by a different set of rules yet guys like cappy continue to wonder why countries like China and India and South Korea are catching us and/or passing us by from an economic and productivity standpoint. Hell, we fight wars the same way, and wonder why we don't win.

You really think India is 'catching us' from an economic standpoint?

Cap'n Cat wrote:Why Does The US Not Have High Speed Rail?

From where to where? It would only work in the NE corridor and we already have Acela that's losing money.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Obama missed the opportunity to be the "Infrastructure President". Dividends would take years to realize, but they would be there, eventually.

Would have been a better use of $2 trillion in government handouts...

Yup. I've been saying that all along. We need infrastructure repairs/upgrades, and even if the stimulus used to make them failed, we would still have something to show for it afterwards.

I think dramatically more fuel-efficient and/or alternatively powered aircraft would make much more sense to invest billions in.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
However, and not to be argumentative, we continue playing the global economic game by a different set of rules yet guys like cappy continue to wonder why countries like China and India and South Korea are catching us and/or passing us by from an economic and productivity standpoint. Hell, we fight wars the same way, and wonder why we don't win.

You really think India is 'catching us' from an economic standpoint?

I picked countries out of thin air.

Does it change the point?

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
And not even just in a negative sense - most of what OSHA and the EPA and the NHTSA and others do is very valuable and something that we should have. But it does get in the way of efficiency - something we have and would still gladly trade for the benefits we get from having the regulations.

However, and not to be argumentative, we continue playing the global economic game by a different set of rules yet guys like cappy continue to wonder why countries like China and India and South Korea are catching us and/or passing us by from an economic and productivity standpoint. Hell, we fight wars the same way, and wonder why we don't win.

You aren't going to get a person in China to care about air pollution until they don't have to care about where the next meal is coming from. People who are starving or dirt poor really don't care much about greenhouse gases or what safety gear coal miners should wear or what's the heaviest load a person should lift before using a mechanical device. There will, of course, always be haves and have nots in the world, but the key is to allow other countries to improve their standard of living to a point where they actually do start to care about the things that we care and regulate about. That will bring about a much more even playing field.

We may very well be passed in terms of economic output (by China, not sure if ever by South Korea) but not productivity. China's got 1.3B people putting out the same economic output that 300M Americans are doing - that makes us about 3x more productive.

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
However, and not to be argumentative, we continue playing the global economic game by a different set of rules yet guys like cappy continue to wonder why countries like China and India and South Korea are catching us and/or passing us by from an economic and productivity standpoint. Hell, we fight wars the same way, and wonder why we don't win.

You aren't going to get a person in China to care about air pollution until they don't have to care about where the next meal is coming from. People who are starving or dirt poor really don't care much about greenhouse gases or what safety gear coal miners should wear or what's the heaviest load a person should lift before using a mechanical device. There will, of course, always be haves and have nots in the world, but the key is to allow other countries to improve their standard of living to a point where they actually do start to care about the things that we care and regulate about. That will bring about a much more even playing field.

We may very well be passed in terms of economic output (by China, not sure if ever by South Korea) but not productivity. China's got 1.3B people putting out the same economic output that 300M Americans are doing - that makes us about 3x more productive.

Not to mention, China won't pass us in economic output until 2020, at the earliest, and they'll probably have 1.4 billion by then.