Gaaah!

Please, get it the right way around! Jobs are a cost of a scheme, not a benefit! What you have just said is an inane fallacy!

It’s fully explained here:

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-14795-Page-One-Examiner~y2009m8d4-Economics-101-Jobs-are-a-cost-not-a-benefit

(1) Amtrak is not exactly a financially exciting proposition where historic train use and population density have come together, unless it’s suddenly started turning a profit in the Northeast. Not to be too snide, but that “profit” thing is kind of important. Heck, breaking even would be kind of cool, too.

Why? Do you expect roads, airports, and airlines to turn a profit as well? How about other public services such as police/fire departments and schools?

(4) I appreciate that you’re pushing for rail corridors, which presumably would skip cities you either don’t like, don’t feel would want to use the trains, or have insufficient population to support the thing. As I followed President Obama’s proposed plan, though, he intends rail corridors to run into the Midwest, obviously for some Chi-town love, but moreover, to spread outward from there. Even that notwithstanding, and even given how much land involved is Federal land, you’re talking a lot of takings there.

“He” doesn’t intend for corridors to run anywhere. The HSR corridors were decided upon at least as early as 2002 by Congress, and do not in any way represent a preference for or against a particular corridor. Obviously the California and Northeast Corridor plans make the most economic sense in terms of ridership, but given proper planning other corridors are feasible. Eminent domain may of course be necessary, but this is no different from any other large public works project.

(5) Last but not least, my primary purpose here was to gently note that employing government employees to run trains through the great American car land is probably not the most economically productive use of resources. I understand I’m the heretic here, but “jobs” does not mean “best use.”

Why? Other countries seem to be able to do a good job using public employees to operate HSR. What makes you automatically assume that the same couldn’t be true in the US?

Amtrak is not exactly a financially exciting proposition where historic train use and population density have come together, unless it’s suddenly started turning a profit in the Northeast. Not to be too snide, but that “profit” thing is kind of important. Heck, breaking even would be kind of cool, too.

And how much profit does your local road system make? Oh right, our roads are heavily subsidized by federal, state and local governments too… Why don’t we get big government’s meddling hand out of the way and let the inanimate asphalt pay for itself!

“The Eastern U.S. and the west coast” covers a lot more ground, much of which is extremely sparse, and has the benefit of being poorly defined. Does the Eastern U.S. include rural Georgia and Carolinas? Alabama? Mississippi? In the West, do we include Oregon?

You know how to use Google Earth, don’t you? Here’s a hint: look for places where there’s more grey than green.

The post at issue lauded the idea of moving 500 million Americans annually. I’m aware that California and the Northeast have large (if declining) populations, but seems to me you’d need, even with replication, to expand outward from there.

500 million passengers–or 500 million rides, if you prefer. Sorry if that was unclear.

The fact that people are moving from the northeast and SoCal (where land is expensive, since so many people live there, what with them being hubs of commerce and all) to places like Texas, Arizona and Virginia means that those places are going to get a lot more crowded themselves, which is all the more reason to build transit linking such places in the south.

I appreciate that you’re pushing for rail corridors, which presumably would skip cities you either don’t like, don’t feel would want to use the trains, or have insufficient population to support the thing. As I followed President Obama’s proposed plan, though, he intends rail corridors to run into the Midwest, obviously for some Chi-town love, but moreover, to spread outward from there. Even that notwithstanding, and even given how much land involved is Federal land, you’re talking a lot of takings there.

I’m not quite sure what your argument is here. Are you simply venting your soreness that your city wasn’t picked? You could always just ask nicely…

Last but not least, my primary purpose here was to gently note that employing government employees to run trains through the great American car land is probably not the most economically productive use of resources. I understand I’m the heretic here, but “jobs” does not mean “best use.”

Do you also object to employing government employees to build the roads and highways that make American car land possible? Do you think manufacturing 8 million cars a year and having to pay for insurance, law enforcement, road and vehicle repairs, highway expansion, parking, accident cleanup and hospitalization for road victims is a better use of resources than fuel-efficient, high-density, high-speed mass transit?

(1) Amtrak is not exactly a financially exciting proposition where historic train use and population density have come together, unless it’s suddenly started turning a profit in the Northeast. Not to be too snide, but that “profit” thing is kind of important. Heck, breaking even would be kind of cool, too.

(2) “The Eastern U.S. and the west coast” covers a lot more ground, much of which is extremely sparse, and has the benefit of being poorly defined. Does the Eastern U.S. include rural Georgia and Carolinas? Alabama? Mississippi? In the West, do we include Oregon?

(3) The post at issue lauded the idea of moving 500 million Americans annually. I’m aware that California and the Northeast have large (if declining) populations, but seems to me you’d need, even with replication, to expand outward from there.

(4) I appreciate that you’re pushing for rail corridors, which presumably would skip cities you either don’t like, don’t feel would want to use the trains, or have insufficient population to support the thing. As I followed President Obama’s proposed plan, though, he intends rail corridors to run into the Midwest, obviously for some Chi-town love, but moreover, to spread outward from there. Even that notwithstanding, and even given how much land involved is Federal land, you’re talking a lot of takings there.

(5) Last but not least, my primary purpose here was to gently note that employing government employees to run trains through the great American car land is probably not the most economically productive use of resources. I understand I’m the heretic here, but “jobs” does not mean “best use.”

More here:
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/03/17/how-much-would-it-cost-to-have-high-speed-rail-network-like-spains/

-Jebediah

I agree. Let’s go replicate Japan’s and Germany’s economic growth these last twenty years. Upward and onward!

Ed - Yes. The possibilities are very exciting.

So, we just need to duplicate the stimulus’ HSR funding each year. Seems like a modest proposal.