Obama plans high-speed money shredder, made in China.

[Cerb]

What is the lefts obsession with trains? I'll never understand it.

If you want to modernize our transportation why don't we build more interstates and airports that can take more volume.

That defeats the purpose. It would be like hitting the Chinese buffet every day for three meals to lose weight.

Traditional slow trains, running on diesel/electric, are exceptionally energy efficient, compared to trucks and airplanes, and are getting more-so. As oil prices get too high, electrical power lines can replace diesel (it would make sense to start electric, if building a new city/suburb passenger system). It would do a great deal of economic good to reduce transportation costs by making them better (including more use of them where big trucks are more commonly used). In many areas, they could also augment buses for transporting people beyond those poor city routes (better yet, build neighborhoods around train stations, where possible, over the long term). Unless you are a trucker, you could stand to benefit from expansion and maintenance of traditional rail systems.

A government like our current one, though, would certainly half-ass it, given the chance.

HSR, OTOH, is something that really should have gotten under way during good times, if it even should be done in the US at all. It makes a great deal of sense for moving people between two densely populated places, that can be both be quickly and easily traveled across by foot. We have only a handful of such places in the US, and HSR is quite costly. Looking at a population density map, I can see all of three good HSR routes for the whole country.

 

[nageov3t]

high speed trains in the north east would be amazing. it would be cool to have the option of living in a slightly more affordable area and still commute into NYC without it involving 2 hours of sitting in traffic or 3 hours on trains/buses.

but for what it's worth, it's a near-certainty that the GOP House will strip this money from the budget immediately.

 

[Steeplerot]

- I'll concede that Nature was a bad point, other than that Suburbs often destroy it in a massive fashion where it once existed

It actually is pretty valid as people tend to build population areas around water, or rivers or floodplains in valleys if possible. The most sensitive areas ecologically are usually the most desirable to drain and develop. If things were spread out across different ecosystems/habitats then it would be anywhere near as bad.

There is very little to none as far as long term urban development in this country, and we will pay the price for suburban folks short-sightedness.

 

[Genx87]

- usually built on Agricultural land

- forces residents to use vehicles for the simplest of tasks due to distances from Stores and Services

- lacks access to all sorts of activities, partially due to Distance, but also due to lack of population

- they're a freakin wasteland, devoid of beauty, nature, and culture

These reasons are weaksauce.

 

[sandorski]

It actually is pretty valid as people tend to build population areas around water, or rivers or floodplains in valleys if possible. The most sensitive areas ecologically are usually the most desirable to drain and develop. If things were spread out across different ecosystems/habitats then it would be anywhere near as bad.

There is very little to none as far as long term urban development in this country, and we will pay the price for suburban folks short-sightedness.

My original point was Suburb vs Urban. Throck pointed out that Nature doesn't exist in the Bronx, so I had to concede it as a bad point.

 

[werepossum]

high speed trains in the north east would be amazing. it would be cool to have the option of living in a slightly more affordable area and still commute into NYC without it involving 2 hours of sitting in traffic or 3 hours on trains/buses.

but for what it's worth, it's a near-certainty that the GOP House will strip this money from the budget immediately.

As they should. Descending into bankruptcy is no time to be investing in multi-billion dollar projects, even cool projects, and especially multi-billion dollar projects with large portions of the materials not available made in America. The first step when one finds oneself in a hole is to stop digging, not to find interesting new ways of digging faster.

One thing that might work is to fund a competition of American-made HSR systems from American-owned companies. Let several companies develop their own HSR systems, with the federal government purchasing the winning system for one HSR line. Hopefully by the time the competition's winner is selected, the economy will be back on track and we can afford to blow money on such projects, plus several manufacturers would have expertise in HSR as it becomes more practical and foreign competitors, no doubt partnering with American companies, would be less likely (and less well positioned) to come directly into our market for such projects. But any such large federal project needs to be manufactured in the USA, and right now even if we had the money we don't have the technology.

 

[Steeplerot]

My original point was Suburb vs Urban. Throck pointed out that Nature doesn't exist in the Bronx, so I had to concede it as a bad point.

Not very true though, most urban areas have limits on how many blocks of development before a park. Here you cannot build a building that casts a shadow on a city park for example. Besides, in the burbs nature and open spaces = parking lots/strip malls/fast food joints across the landscape in reality.

Find a nice spot of suburban open land and you will probably find in reality a ad-hoc garbage dump and the leaking husk of a old automobile or two also to compliment the scenery. (and irony)

That shit would be recycled in one night here by our more resourceful late night "urban miners".

The "urban core" of NYC is not so bad, we have a park similar also that is the center area across half of SF.

I live deep in a urban area yet I can walk a few blocks and dissapear into woods at will, or tea gardens, or buffalo pens. (stinky) Hell, the other day there was a herd of sheep blocking a MUNI train in the sunset district comign out of the park. It's all about planning to make a habitable area. Luckily some cities peoples thought about these things ahead of time. (unlike nowadays)

 

[Steeplerot]

And we're sick of people talking shit about cars when they are obviously too poor to afford one.

Why would I want a car? Suburbanites move here and wind up giving them away after a few months. Besides, ever tried to drive here? Ask a bay area person or someone from NYC. It is not even feasible unless you park it 20 miles out and leave it there. Why bother having to take a train to drive your car when you can just walk 2 blocks and grab what you need? I know your a bit dense but really?

This is quite culturally funny really, when someone here says they have a car everyone diverts their eyes and mumble apologies. It means you are a noob who has not been "initiated" yet. (people who still think they need or can have a car here and have not had the inevitable tow away or selling/ditching of their "dead weight". You are a awesome stereotype in ignorance. Noob.

 

[Throckmorton]

- Suburbia is usually built on Agricultural land, because it's the most convenient and best suited for that purpose.

It just doesn't matter. The portion of suburban development that is on farmland is a small percentage of farmland. You might as well complain about urban development encroaching on farmland.

- Having to Drive everywhere isn't just about Pollution, but lack of physical activity, Cost, and convenience.

Riding the bus everywhere is almost as bad for physical activity and cost, and much worse for convenience. I spent several years riding buses everywhere in the Houston urban sprawl.

- I'll concede that Nature was a bad point, other than that Suburbs often destroy it in a massive fashion where it once existed

I thought it was farmland they were destroying. :\
Yes, development has to take place somewhere. Unless your alternative is for everybody to live in high rises. BTW have you looked at condo prices in a city lately? And how about those fees?

Without taking up a huge amount of land, 2.6%, a LOT of people have been able to afford their own property. It takes a LOT more land just to grow crops to feed our livestock. Suburbanization is a damn good deal overall.

- It's not that one Culture is superior to another, but that the Suburbs are devoid of it.

How do you figure? Suburbs are full of people. People have culture.

Maybe you mean the Jill Taylor (Home Improvement) misdefinition of "culture"... The ballet and plays? Well there's plenty of that performing art stuff at every local high school.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why would I want a car? Suburbanites move here and wind up giving them away after a few months. Besides, ever tried to drive here? Ask a bay area person or someone from NYC. It is not even feasible unless you park it 20 miles out and leave it there. Why bother having to take a train to drive your car when you can just walk 2 blocks and grab what you need? I know your a bit dense but really?

This is quite culturally funny really, when someone here says they have a car everyone diverts their eyes and mumble apologies. It means you are a noob who has not been "initiated" yet. (people who still think they need or can have a car here and have not had the inevitable tow away or selling/ditching of their "dead weight". You are a awesome stereotype in ignorance. Noob.

Its ok to be poor. We don't hold it against you. Just don't complain when us rich people want to have our own cars and not sit with the steerage on public buses and trains.

But seriously, why can't you choose your lifestyle and those of us who don't want to live like you do can choose something else? Its called freedom and choice. I wish 'choice' was something lefties used more often than to justify the vacuuming out of unborn babies. Unfortunately for socialists like yourself thats not something you can easily understand. Keep trying though, eventually you'll get it.

 

[werepossum]

Not very true though, most urban areas have limits on how many blocks of development before a park. Here you cannot build a building that casts a shadow on a city park for example. Besides, in the burbs nature and open spaces = parking lots/strip malls/fast food joints across the landscape in reality.

Find a nice spot of suburban open land and you will probably find in reality a ad-hoc garbage dump and the leaking husk of a old automobile or two also to compliment the scenery. (and irony)

That shit would be recycled in one night here by our more resourceful late night "urban miners".

The "urban core" of NYC is not so bad, we have a park similar also that is the center area across half of SF.

I live deep in a urban area yet I can walk a few blocks and dissapear into woods at will, or tea gardens, or buffalo pens. (stinky) Hell, the other day there was a herd of sheep blocking a MUNI train in the sunset district comign out of the park. It's all about planning to make a habitable area. Luckily some cities peoples thought about these things ahead of time. (unlike nowadays)

You have a truly warped idea of what suburbs are like. I live in an unincorporated bedroom community not far from Chattanooga, Tennessee. We commonly have deer, raccoons, wild turkey, even coyotes crossing across our property or browsing through the woods out back. Our open areas tend to be working farms or woods.

Everything sucks in excess, including people. Especially people.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

That won't be be relevant when we have electric cars running on free wind and solar power. .

Uh...what?

Anyone who tells you solar and wind are "free energy" is an idiot. They are the most expensive energy solutions available now, and major technological breakthroughs are needed before they can be used as our sole energy sources.

 

[bfdd]

High speed rail here in California is projected to use 1/10 the fuel of a plane from SF to LA per person, get you there just as fast, for less $ and without getting your junk touched by some government neanderthal. Hmm, why would we want trains?

California is one of the few places in the country that could benefit somewhat from high speed rail.

 

[werepossum]

California is one of the few places in the country that could benefit somewhat from high speed rail.

California will probably start it in Tijuana, where there's the highest demand to get to LA.

 

[Throckmorton]

California is one of the few places in the country that could benefit somewhat from high speed rail.

What makes California different from everywhere else in the country?

 

[zinfamous]

It only takes a week in the Bay Area to realize that high speed rail is sorely missing in this region alone.

I mean--dipshits commute all the way from Sacramento every freaking day?

it's insane.

taking it down to LA and SD just seems inevitable.
Northeast makes plenty of sense, too.

within a few decades, I see Atlanta > RTP >Maryland becoming a huge spot for it as well.

It is crucial in plenty parts of the country--basically, where all of the money is.

Those living on farms and other fly-over states need not have an opinion on the matter. :\

 

[Steeplerot]

California is one of the few places in the country that could benefit somewhat from high speed rail.

CA is setup size-wise for a SF-LA line perfect, a plane has to basically climb really high because of mountains after takeoff then land when they get to cruising altitude since its not really that far. Really bad for fuel costs.

-OR-

You can drive 8 hours in Bay Area and LA traffic to go inbetween.

Getting HSR through the pass north of LA down into the central valley is going to be really tough though, it will not be cheap to pull off the Pacheco Pass grade without tunneling 200 miles to get into downtown LA. Looking at a map it would seem cheaper. (sarcasm)

 

[Steeplerot]

California High-Speed Rail Authority on FB.

 

[bfdd]

What makes California different from everywhere else in the country?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question or not. So I'll answer it with a picture of a Lemur.

 

[Throckmorton]

I'm not sure if this is a serious question or not. So I'll answer it with a picture of a Lemur.

Yes it's a serious question. How is California different from, say, Texas? http://www.thsrtc.com/

 

[zinfamous]

Yes it's a serious question. How is California different from, say, Texas? http://www.thsrtc.com/

the websites work in CA?

 

[theeedude]

Sounds like a great idea to me. Why have people sitting unemployed when they can build useful infrastructure instead? No brainer. This is a perfect time for government to do some infrastructure spending. The argument that some here are making that this is the wrong time because we are in a budget hole is just idiotic. This is exactly the right time for government to step in, not when the economy is booming and it has to compete with the private sector for labor. Republicans simply can't see the forest for the trees. Government spending has to be acyclical to private sector spending, and since tax revenues are cyclical with private sector income, government has to spend the most exactly when its revenues are the lowest.

 

[bfdd]

Because California has a larger population and a lot of that population commutes for work. HSR wouldn't necessarily help me as I live within 20 miles of my job and it's a relatively easy drive and there are cheap easy alternatives if I didn't want to drive. But there are plenty of people who travel 100+ miles round trip for work every day. HSR would also help lower cost of living in California as populations would be able to spread out with easier access to the productive working areas.

 

[bfdd]

Sounds like a great idea to me. Why have people sitting unemployed when they can build useful infrastructure instead? No brainer. This is a perfect time for government to do some infrastructure spending. The argument that some here are making that this is the wrong time because we are in a budget hole is just idiotic. This is exactly the right time for government to step in, not when the economy is booming and it has to compete with the private sector for labor. Republicans simply can't see the forest for the trees. Government spending has to be acyclical to private sector spending, and since tax revenues are cyclical with private sector income, government has to spend the most exactly when its revenues are the lowest.

Huh? I've seen a lot of Republicans wanting workfare, the shit you're talking about, but I've never seen you condone it.

 

[PeshakJang]

Republicans simply can't see the forest for the trees.

You forgetting? I already proved quite handily that you were a Republican.

Acceptance is the last step in grieving... you'll get there