dos

12/18/2008 1:24:44 PM

Re: new government projects and "infrastructure spending":

How much consternation was there over the Bridge to Nowhere? And now the Big Idea in government is to build a thousand Bridges to Nowhere!

*shakes head*

Seriously:

Quote :

""Our plan calls for investments that will stimulate our economy by quickly creating jobs, fixing our aging and crumbling infrastructure, increasing our global competitiveness, and further reducing our carbon footprint," Miami, Florida, Mayor Manny Diaz said at a news conference last week. Accompanied by other big-city mayors, he held up a copy of the hefty report to stress its importance."

Quote :

"Among the many requests is one for a $4.8 million polar bear exhibit at the Providence, Rhode Island, zoo. The zoo's director said it's needed to boost attendance."

Quote :

"When pressed, Diaz acknowledged he was not aware of the proposal for a new $1.5 million water ride at the Grapeland Water Park in his own city. But he defended paying for parks as part of infrastructure projects. CNN also found in the U.S. Conference of Mayors' report a proposed $20 million minor league baseball museum in Durham, North Carolina; $6.1 million for corporate jet hangars at the Fayetteville, Arkansas, airport; $20 million for renovations at the Philadelphia Zoo; and a $1.5 million program to reduce prostitution in Dayton, Ohio. Officials in those cities told CNN the projects were needed."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/mayors.pork/index.html

12/18/2008 1:41:23 PM

if a zoo exhibit is the worst example of pork they could find, I'm completely fine with this proposal.

12/18/2008 3:15:50 PM

omg parks. whatever will we do?!

12/18/2008 4:07:29 PM

And heck, parks seem especially suited to this type of scenario.

-they cost money
-they continue to employ people after the job is done
-assuming they charge fees, they increase state revenue
-they have a significant and lasting benefit to society

12/18/2008 4:10:05 PM

Well, spending money on parks is better than the Iraq War

But Id much rather them improve roads and put in some bike lanes too.

but most of all Id love our government not to run more record deficits. (I mean im not even asking to stop deficit spending, Im just asking to lower it substantially)

12/18/2008 5:54:50 PM

The US could actually use infrastructure improvements in key areas so I don't know exactly why everyone is all up in arms.

Fiber to the home, for example, would pay off in the long term.

As would public mass transit

and investing heavily in alternate fuels research

and reinvesting in education across the board

and increasing funding for scientific research

etc etc.

I suppose if the Federal government only built 7 lane highways in North Dakota, then this would be a waste but its not like there are domestic programs that the government can't engage in that would provide immediate economic boost and longterm growth benefit.

12/18/2008 6:06:37 PM

Quote :

"As would public mass transit "

Massively unnecessary considering the innovations being made in electric cars as well as the coming in the none too distant future hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Besides, American cities (which are the only place public mass transit would make even an iota of sense) aren't really right for public transit. The urban sprawl of most metropolises (metropoli?) sort of render mass transit systems useless.

12/18/2008 6:30:42 PM

Quote :

"if a zoo exhibit is the worst example of pork they could find, I'm completely fine with this proposal."

You think the federal government should spend $4+ million on polar bears? Are you nuts?

12/18/2008 6:43:17 PM

There isn't anything wrong with spending money on a polar bear exhibit. But if your aim is to bolster the economy both short and long term, that isn't the way to spend the money. Improving infrastructure isn't a bad idea, and if done wisely and responsibly could yield dividends both quickly and over a long duration, but the problem is when they throw pork spending in like this. I have a feeling the majority of projects are going to be overpriced and very inefficient. Call my crazy.

12/18/2008 7:05:02 PM

^

There's nothing wrong with a private individual spending his or her own money on a polar bear exhibit. But if you think it's OK for the government to take your money, my money, to spend it on this purpose -- then you're nuts. Plain and simple.

I think something is getting lost in this discussion about using government spending to "bolster" the economy. Just because we're in hard times, doesn't make it OK for the government to spend money on projects that are self-evidently not in the public interest. A polar bear exhibit is entertainment. Shit, if the government is going to get into the entertainment business, let's build strip clubs with tax money. We'll get a much better return on our investment, figuratively and literally.

12/18/2008 8:08:22 PM

The concept of vehicle ownership as a right is purely American.

Mass transit isn't just setting up TTA routes at a badly planned area like the Triangle, but would also include high speed bullet trains as a viable alternative to air travel.

You know, there ARE people that take trains in this country.

12/19/2008 2:39:18 AM

^

The ownership of private property is purely an American right? Well, God Bless America.

There ARE people who take trains. And they don't have the $90 billion that it will cost for my state (California) to build the trains for them. Instead the affluent (i.e. hard working and successful) people who can afford to fly Southwest from SFO to LAX will buy them and never ride them. That seems fair.

What a great idea -- it fully complements Bridges to Nowhere, Government-subsidized pornography (excuse me, ubiquitous fiber), and polar bear extravaganzas.

12/19/2008 3:59:39 AM

Quote :

"The ownership of private property is purely an American right? Well, God Bless America. "

Hyperbole isn't going to add any merit to your opinion nor is trying to generalize a specific argument going to obfuscate my main point. I didn't say private party is an American Right alone, I said the belief that everyone deserves a car is an American viewpoint. You can't remotely argue this is untrue, so now you're attempting to reshape the argument into one that attacks the notion of private property. Thats ridiculous as humans have had a concept of private property thousands of years before the founding of this nation.

Quote :

"There ARE people who take trains. And they don't have the $90 billion that it will cost for my state (California) to build the trains for them. Instead the affluent (i.e. hard working and successful) people who can afford to fly Southwest from SFO to LAX will buy them and never ride them. That seems fair."

You're not even presenting an argument here, but rather stating a naive ideological belief. Suffice it to say, I myself can 'afford' a ticket from SFO to LAX or SJC to LAX, but would much rather have taken a cheaper train ride if it were at all possible. Furthermore, your entire ideological belief crumbles in glorious irony because as hard as you try to portray yourself as an individual who loves freedom, you're essentially supporting a transit method that requires a fuel which ties this country to the whims of countries that are not free, or even friendly with the United States.

Quote :

" What a great idea -- it fully complements Bridges to Nowhere, Government-subsidized pornography (excuse me, ubiquitous fiber), and polar bear extravaganzas. "

Yes, because an ultra fast CalTRAIN between San Francisco and LA is quite comparable to a 250 million dollar bridge to a island in Alaska.

[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 12:18 PM. Reason : >.<]

12/19/2008 12:17:27 PM

Quote :

"I said the belief that everyone deserves a car is an American viewpoint"

No you didn't. You said that "vehicle ownership as a right" is an American concept. If you're going to write one thing and then say it means another, don't be surprised when you're misinterpreted.

And for the record -- you're just condescending to car owners as these effete American snobs; in reality, Americans own cars because they are the most effective and expedient way for us to live our lives. You try running a business on a train schedule and let me know how it works out.

Where do you live, by the way? Cary? And you're talking to me about the merits of mass transit? I often ride it three+ hours a day around Northern California and San Francisco, usually for work. Anybody who's actually based their lives around it, knows the obvious limitations. In a sprawling metropolitan area, it can't go everywhere; not even close. Even if it did, the trains could not be express trains and add hours a day to your life.

That SF to LA train project? The ridership projections are generally 60+% off from reasonable assumptions; the cost will be massive (likely in the $80-$90 billion range); the speed projections are unrealistic. More so the government is funding competition for Southwest airlines which does a fantastic job of serving the SF to LA route, without any legitimate public interest in mind other than vague "environmental factors" (also unlikely to be met by the train project, especially if the ridership estimates are way off).

Quote :

"you're essentially supporting a transit method that requires a fuel which ties this country to the whims of countries that are not free, or even friendly with the United States."

Whatever. I suppose you buy 100% American made goods, then? As opposed to, say, "Made in China" (a country which is neither free nor particularly friendly).

Of course you do.

And as to oil -- I don't see how building ineffective mass transit systems reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Surely you can figure out that the reason people cannot take the train anywhere is because 99.99% of the country is not Manhattan or San Francisco. Use some common sense. How the fuck do you build trains that cover the suburbs and provide reasonably convenient travel to everyone? Or do you expect us all to spend an extra 2.5-3 hours a day on a smelly train so we can reduce our dependence on other countries' oil?

12/19/2008 2:12:05 PM

I have to side with Smoker4 on this one.

SandSanta, you still owe me $100.

12/19/2008 4:19:01 PM

Hasn't the justification for government intervention always been "if we don't do something RIGHT NOW, it'll get really bad!" And it always gets us to the same place. This recession needed to happen sooner, but the federal reserve stepped in and tried to fix it. That failed, and contributed to the housing bubble. We, as a country, can't just keep spending money that we don't have.

12/19/2008 4:31:50 PM

Quote :

" No you didn't. You said that "vehicle ownership as a right" is an American concept. If you're going to write one thing and then say it means another, don't be surprised when you're misinterpreted. "

Ok please explain how 'vehicle ownership as a right is an American concept' reinterpreted by you, cynically, as "The ownership of private property is purely an American right? Well, God Bless America." isn't trying to generalize a specific argument to obfuscate my main point.

Quote :

" And for the record -- you're just condescending to car owners as these effete American snobs; in reality, Americans own cars because they are the most effective and expedient way for us to live our lives. You try running a business on a train schedule and let me know how it works out. "

How am I condescending to american auto owners?

Quote :

" Where do you live, by the way? Cary? And you're talking to me about the merits of mass transit? I often ride it three+ hours a day around Northern California and San Francisco, usually for work. "

I've live/stayed for a period greater then 1 month in

Cary
San Jose, CA (Transit in SJ is actually pretty spotty but SF was fine)
Frankfurt
Ankara
and Istanbul

Quote :

" Anybody who's actually based their lives around it, knows the obvious limitations. In a sprawling metropolitan area, it can't go everywhere; not even close. Even if it did, the trains could not be express trains and add hours a day to your life. "

My grandmother owned a car for exactly 5 years out of her entire life. She raised two kids through college alone, got her own degree, rode to the school where she taught by bus (2 hours away) in the mornings and back in the afternoon to open her own store. This all in Turkey.

When I went every year during college to stay with her for a month or two, I'd help out with her daily work and we practically lived on the most destitute transit system known to man. Even then, I still prefer that to having to drive nonstop, deal with parking, gasoline (hey lonesnark, how'd you like paying nearly 5$ a gallon a couple months ago?).

Her viewpoint is the exact opposite of yours, which is why she sold her car.

Quote :

" That SF to LA train project? The ridership projections are generally 60+% off from reasonable assumptions; the cost will be massive (likely in the $80-$90 billion range); the speed projections are unrealistic. More so the government is funding competition for Southwest airlines which does a fantastic job of serving the SF to LA route, without any legitimate public interest in mind other than vague "environmental factors" (also unlikely to be met by the train project, especially if the ridership estimates are way off). "

How affordable would those short shuttle routes be for the Airlines if fuel costs continued to skyrocket. Southwest dodged the bullet by negotiating fuel prices before the spike and will probably dodge it again for another two years by doing the same now in these economic conditions. I'm not going to make vague future predictions how sustainable they will be, but I can say that Delta, and AA were notorious for dropping short shuttle routes last year.

Furthermore, please feel free to offer an alternative to rising congestion in every major city in America. I'm all ears.

[Edited on December 20, 2008 at 1:34 AM. Reason : >.<]

12/20/2008 1:33:46 AM

Quote :

"My grandmother owned a car for exactly 5 years out of her entire life. She raised two kids through college alone, got her own degree, rode to the school where she taught by bus (2 hours away) in the mornings and back in the afternoon to open her own store. This all in Turkey."

I see the conflict here. Understand, we have nothing against your mother. I'm sure whatever she did while raising you was awesome and everyone should be honored to live as she did.

But we refuse to ride 2 hours each way on a bus when with sufficient road capacity we can drive it in 30 minutes. That said, my favorite solution to transportation is to privatise the bus system with enforceable curb rights. Then we can ride the bus and still be there in 40 minutes, because the bus we are on goes straight to where we want and might not even stop along the way.

Quote :

"hey lonesnark, how'd you like paying nearly 5$ a gallon a couple months ago?"

I wouldn't know; where I live it never got much above $4. On NYMEX (you remember what that is, right?) it never got much above $3.50. You still owe me $100.

Quote :

"How affordable would those short shuttle routes be for the Airlines if fuel costs continued to skyrocket."

Substantially more affordable when you include the absurd construction costs of building and operating the rail link. We can buy a small fleet of 737s (about $50 million each) for the price of building the first mile of high speed rail (LA has allocated $9 billion to go about 10 miles).

Especially when you realize that the high speed rail is going to average less than 100 miles an hour. Well, right next to that is a highway with a 70 mph speed limit. Instead of spending $60 billion we could instead spend about $10 million for a fleet of non-stop buses serving between the two cities.

Even more especially when you realize gasoline is $0.96 on NYMEX and falling.

12/20/2008 4:03:51 AM

Quote :

"The concept of vehicle ownership as a right is purely American."

I haven't heard anyone on the right ever asserting that vehicle ownership was a right. I'm not sure where this came from.

Our current dependence on cars isn't a massive corporate plot to destroy the environment, or the result of excessive greed and selfishness, it is simply an outgrowth of the post WWII economy. Land was cheap, oil was cheap, and servicemen returning from the war had money, and people were shifting off farmland and into the orbit of commercial areas. This made the most sense. I personally feel that suburbs were originally a bastardization of the "rural aesthetic" by people who weren't interested in living in the cramped quarters of a city, but weren't interested in making a living off the land just yet. However, in a world before the environmental movement, it made sense and was efficient.

Now, should we have it now? Possibly. But our infrastructure simply isn't designed for it. As gas prices rise again (and we all know they will) people will begin shunning the large houses of the suburbs for more efficient dwellings closer to the city. Then, you'll see mass transit begin to come into its own, but probably not until then.

And I might be more inclined to take Amtrak if it weren't so damned expensive and inefficient.

12/20/2008 10:58:17 AM