quote:
The bill also would boost spending to repair and replace the country's crumbling network of bridges to more than $6 billion, an almost 50 percent increase over current levels.
That's probably a good idea. Out east especially, there are a bunch of bridges which were built back in the Depression.
quote:
Separately, Minnesota's senators won approval of $195 million to replace the collapsed Interstate 35W span in Minneapolis
Well, of course they did.
quote:
The bill would provide $1.4 billion for the money-losing Amtrak national passenger railroad, a perennial target of the administration. The White House proposed eliminating Amtrak's $500 million operating subsidy.
Honestly, I'm glad that Congress is fighting the administration on this. Amtrak in particular and passenger rail in general is going to become more and more important in the coming years as gas grows more and more expensive. And fortunately, about half the country still has the foundations of our world-class rail system in place. It's just a century old. Since we won't recognize the necessity and value of rail until shit really starts hitting the fan, I don't mind paying money to keep this beast afloat until then.
quote:
The bill also contains funding aimed at easing the subprime mortgage crisis, which is threatening 1 million to 3 million people with the loss of their homes.
At first I thought, "Fuck 'em. Their irresponsible behavior got them into this mess, let them rot." But, then again, a million people losing their homes in the next year or two would have a pretty nasty impact on the economy. And worse yet, the government would inevitably have to bail out those million people anyway, either with low-interest loans to get back into a house, or some other sort of subsidy. Either way, we're all going to pay for it. If we can spend some money to avoid the whole mess, or mitigate it to the point that a bailout isn't required, then let's do it.
The bill will probably be vetoed, but I believe that both the House and Senate carry enough votes to override the veto, so it will be a symbolic effort.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
I'd predict a hard fight to get the veto overturned, ending probably in a compromise amount on most of the spending requests.
quote:
Honestly, I'm glad that Congress is fighting the administration on this. Amtrak in particular and passenger rail in general is going to become more and more important in the coming years as gas grows more and more expensive.
There's a reason Amtrack is losing money. Rail will never be a viable substitute for automobile transportation.
Unlike intracity subways and monorails, passenger trains like the ones Amtrack administers simply aren't capable of the kind of transit that commuters require. Fast layovers, abundant stations, it's all out and out impossible for large train rail systems.
The place for rail is in freight and freight alone these days. Intercity passenger rail is obsolete.
Gas could be twenty bucks a gallon and the trains would still be empty because nobody wants to drive an hour to a station, ride for an hour, then walk for two hours. Amtrack is half a billion down the toilet. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 09-13-2007 at 06:24 PM.
quote:
Verily, Maradon! doth proclaim:
The place for rail is in freight and freight alone these days. Intercity passenger rail is obsolete.
For much of the country yes, but train is far from obsolete. Look to the expansive NJ/NY train system for a heavily used system that is actively expanding and picking up commuters every year.
Put an Amtrak line between Las Vegas and several large cities in California, and that line would make money hand over fist. Nobody likes making the drive between California and Las Vegas, they do it because it's cheaper than flying and that's it. Soon, that will no longer be the case.
Unfortunately, that's not where the trains are going. It's a waste of money to put trains like this between most cities, because Maradon is absolutely right.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Talonus booooze lime pole over bench lick:
For much of the country yes, but train is far from obsolete. Look to the expansive NJ/NY train system for a heavily used system that is actively expanding and picking up commuters every year.
That's NJT, MNR, and LIRR that are expanding - all basically intracity rail on a metropolitan scale. They're capable of faster stops and more compact, and thus more abundant, station complexes. Amtrack isn't. Amtrack is a national system, not metropolitan. They compete (very poorly) with jets and greyhounds, not so much cars and city buses.
Even intracity rail has pretty severe limitations, and it's popularity has more to do with parking than cost most of the time.
I wouldn't give up on intercity travel in metropolitan areas though. Look at NY/NJ rail lines for proof that these lines can make money and get riders. Unfortunately, a lot more planning and long-term thinking needs to go into these lines than most politicians/taxpayers would be willing to give.
But Amtrack isn't doing any of that.
An even better idea, though, is more urban residency. Physical space is rarely such an issue as it is in New York. Where I live, they're now beginning to allow large upscale residential towers to be built in places that were formerly zoned purely commercial or were residential but decrepit. It's one of the very few things our Wonder Boy of a mayor has done right.
A network of footbridges - some with moving walkways even - is planned to connect many of them, to ease street level pedestrian traffic too. It sounds positively futuristic, but it's been working very well. Or at least the news seems to praise it.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Maradon! said:
But Amtrack isn't doing any of that.
Like I said, Amtrak really can't do that. There are no passenger-specific lines and freight will always take priority over passenger, even if a line is normally passenger. It is absolutely fucking stupid, but there's some reasons why they're required to do this IIRC (probably business contracts). Any type of intercity travel systems can't be handled by Amtrak if you want passenger priority.
quote:
Talonusing:
Like I said, Amtrak really can't do that. There are no passenger-specific lines and freight will always take priority over passenger, even if a line is normally passenger. It is absolutely fucking stupid, but there's some reasons why they're required to do this IIRC (probably business contracts). Any type of intercity travel systems can't be handled by Amtrak if you want passenger priority.
Amtrack isn't even proposing these things. And why should they? Why should Amtrack build the smartest routes? Why should they prioritize passenger travel? Why would they want to do any better than they're currently doing if they can get a bigger subsidy just by asking for it?
More passengers just means more more maintenance, more staff to pay, more lines and cars to build.
Success is not in the best interest of the people who run Amtrack.
This is a big part of the reason why Amtrack needs to simply go away. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 09-13-2007 at 08:03 PM.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about John Romero:
This is a big part of the reason why Amtrack needs to simply go away.
You can't simply kill Amtrak totally, the freight side of things does earn money IIRC and is pretty necessary for national freight travel. I would agree with killing the passenger side, but that isn't likely to happen for other reasons most likely.
The whole situation is a catch-22 basically. They could build passenger-specific lines, but it won't be profitable because people won't purchase tickets because there's no passenger-specific lines now and they're not used to it.
Alaan fucked around with this message on 09-14-2007 at 01:44 AM.
quote:
Alaan had this to say about John Romero:
If you want to see how NOT to run a public transit system look at Chicago. Their two choices came down to A) Slash service and raise prices starting Monday or B) Basically take a loan from their future selves with the Governor(who shitcanned the best legislation to keep it afloat previously and is now covering his ass) blessing and function until November. This is followed by goat sacrifice and heavy prayer that the IL congress passes a bill to keep them afloat. If a bill doesn't pass, next year is a complete clusterfuck because the borrowed $25 million from the future that they won't actually have.
Well, I already have my U-Pass for unlimited CTA rides this quarter at DePaul, so I'm set through November 
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Duck Tales:
Rail will never be a viable substitute for automobile transportation.
Not to be a weeaboo fag, but do a bit of research on JR. They're mainly government funded, and cover an exhaustive part of Japan's railroad transport. It's extremely well-maintained, and in most cases it's much simpler to use the train (shinkansen or not) to travel distances. And there's also many private train lines as alternatives, so no crumbling government monopoly there.
Of course, Japan has a much smaller surface, much larger population density, has more taxes and JR train rides usually cost more than ones in America. So it's not the same situation at all. Just be careful not to make sweeping statements like that, as railroad transport tends to be much better with high density population. Asha'man fucked around with this message on 09-14-2007 at 02:39 AM.
Moreover, it is possible to electrify every single passenger automobile and power them with nuclear power, if we wanted to do so. Similarly, it's easy to string up overhead catenary wire or run a third rail to electrify rail lines, so it is indeed possible to fuel both our road and rail networks without using a drop of oil, be it from traditional or alternative sources.
This is not the case with air travel, as there's simply no way to electrify a jet. You need some sort of combustible fuel, and once you have that, you need to figure out a way to keep it from freezing. And then, once you do that, you still won't have enough fuel, because there isn't enough arable land to grow the plants needed to make jet fuel and feed the country. There remains coal gasification, but frankly, that process is very dirty and would face significant political opposition, not to mention the above technical challenges in turning the result into a viable jet fuel.
Simply put, passenger air service will be reduced due to lack of fuel availability, prices will increase so the airlines may remain solvent, and it will be reserved for the wealthy, leaving the rest of us work-a-day schlubs to ride the rails if we want to travel long distances.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Pirotess:
I don't know that freezing is the concern, I think it's the power density. A pound of gasoline caries a lot more energy than a pound of battery.
Its also processed a different way. You need the gas to feed the combustion chamber in the engines. You cant use a battery for that. In order to make an alternative fuel that can be used on existing aircraft, it would have to be combustable and safe to use at the same time.
I wouldn't imagine we'll find an alternate power source that will run in our current jet engines, but jet engines are not the only possible form of aircraft locomotion. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 09-14-2007 at 03:32 PM.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Blindy. said:
You don't need to burn something to turn a prop.I wouldn't imagine we'll find an alternate power source that will run in our current jet engines, but jet engines are not the only possible form of aircraft locomotion.
Prop aircraft are slow as all hell. It takes a c-130 about 12 hours to get from Virginia to Nevada flying nonstop, carrying only human cargo. It has 4 prop engines. On a jet aircraft, it is 4 to 6 hours nonstop. A C-130 is also a turboprop aircraft, meaning it basically has a jet engine with a prop augmenting it. A normal prop plane is even slower.
The propellers are not powered by fuel itself, but they are turned by the engine's bleed air which is siphoned off of the combustion of the engine. This is true of both turboprops and normal prop engines. Even if the prop does not use bleed air, the engine combustion is needed to power the mechanical motion, much like a car.
You wont get far trying to use battery power for major flight functions. Batteries are simply too heavy and dont put out near enough power. And they put out a lot of heat and if you have enough batteries to do anything of real value, you'll probably go into thermal runaway from the temperatures.
If an alternative power source were found, it would requiring a complete refiguring of any aircraft engine and possibly the electrical systems.
As oil demand falls - which is to say, as it becomes more and more economical for people to abandon their cars, take public transportation, or move into the city - oil prices will remain mostly stable, although a deal higher than they are today because today we behave as if oil is infinite. Demand will recede as decreasing supply drives costs up.
We'll see a spike once oil companies are reduced to processing shale oil, which is drastically more expensive to refine but abundant enough to last us for a century or more even at our present rate of consumption. This spike will probably destroy demand, and shift it over almost entirely onto other energy sources, of which there will be a great deal because by then the alternative energy market will be enormous.
If planes still need gas, they'll be able to get it at a reasonable rate, because even though it has to come from shale, almost nobody wants it, and the infrastructure to get it is already bought and paid for.
All without holding a gun to anybody's head. Jack booted thugs stamping on your face and taking your SUV = Unnecessary. Welcome to the wonders of Capitalism, where people act in their own best interest.
Anyway, the vast majority of travel and, thus, petrol use isn't long distance, it's short distance work commuting, which is an area that Amtrack can never penetrate, which is why they're losing so much money.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Maradon! wrote:
That said, I wonder if a nuclear airplane is possible...
iirc the airforce was working on a nuclear bomber in the 50s
quote:
Greenlit had this to say about Punky Brewster:
iirc the airforce was working on a nuclear bomber in the 50s
The NB-36H had a working reactor on board but it never powered the airplane, it was for research only and deemed too dangerous.
I just got back from a week's vacation in NYC and without rail I don't think I would have gone.
I took Amtrak in, walked and took subways while there, and took Amtrak back out.
quote:
Maradon! stopped beating up furries long enough to write:As oil demand falls - which is to say, as it becomes more and more economical for people to abandon their cars, take public transportation, or move into the city - oil prices will remain mostly stable, although a deal higher than they are today because today we behave as if oil is infinite. Demand will recede as decreasing supply drives costs up. This isn't how markets function. The demand for oil products isn't ever going to fall, in fact the global market will likely see continuing increases in demand. What happens is that supply is reduced which leads to higher prices and a lower amount of transactions. Current developed countries will see less oil, but the world will want to consume more petroleum and petroleum-based products. As an aside, oil exists in orders of magnitude more than we will ever use.
We'll see a spike once oil companies are reduced to processing shale oil, which is drastically more expensive to refine but abundant enough to last us for a century or more even at our present rate of consumption. This spike will probably destroy demand, and shift it over almost entirely onto other energy sources, of which there will be a great deal because by then the alternative energy market will be enormous. That's not how markets adapt. This silly neoliberal concept of immediate adaptability of markets does not apply to established economies of developed countries. People are dumb; they don't tend to plan ahead and a massive spike in energy costs is much more likely to trash the economy than be a blip that causes energy reformation. The economies of developed countries are based on oil, you can't change it rapidly.
If planes still need gas, they'll be able to get it at a reasonable rate, because even though it has to come from shale, almost nobody wants it, and the infrastructure to get it is already bought and paid for. Why will gas be cheap, why won't anyone want it?
All without holding a gun to anybody's head. Jack booted thugs stamping on your face and taking your SUV = Unnecessary. Welcome to the wonders of Capitalism, where people act in their own best interest. Read up on game theory. Or the tragedy of the commons. People don't always act in their long, or even short term interests.
quote:
Maradon! thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
That said, I wonder if a nuclear airplane is possible...
In short, yes, but it would be prohibitively expensive.
There are really only two types of nuclear propulsion available. Nuclear thermal propulsion, which can be crudely compared to a rocket engine operates by expelling thrust resulting from a reaction. It's wasteful, and rather difficult because of the amount of heat produced could melt the engine. However, its operating principles are simple and easy to apply if not at all economical.
The second type is Nuclear electric propulsion which is vastly more complicated and much more difficult to apply. The basic principle is that a nuclear fission reactor produces energy to run a propulsion device (probably a jet engine). As with thermal propulsion, cooling is a huge problem; every other reactor in the world has some sort of body of water to use for cooling. It would also be incredibly expensive, perhaps impossible, to build a safe system to use in flight. Probably also not economical. Planes would have to be massive to defray the cost of the reactor. Not to mention political problems; we don't even want nuclear reactors on the ground.
Not gonna happen, not for the planes as we know them. Noxhil is right.
If we had some sort of anti-grav powered by a nuclear reactor, then sure, lets go make a floating city somewhere. YAY!!
quote:
x--Noxhil2O-('-'Q) :
This isn't how markets function.
Yeah, it kinda is. Take a macro econ 101 class sometime. When things are scarce, they're expensive, and people use less of them. Supply and demand.
quote:
What happens is that supply is reduced which leads to higher prices and a lower amount of transactions.
What you just described here is literally a drop in the demand for oil.
The demand for energy will not fall, but the demand for oil as a solution to that need very much will.
quote:
That's not how markets adapt.
Again, yeah, it kinda is. Count on a socialist to know absolutely nothing about economics.
quote:
This silly neoliberal concept of immediate adaptability of markets does not apply to established economies of developed countries.
Do you even know what "neoliberal" means?
quote:
People are dumb; they don't tend to plan ahead and a massive spike in energy costs is much more likely to trash the economy than be a blip that causes energy reformation.
People actually aren't very dumb and can be counted upon to act in their own best interest in all matters. In fact, people are professionals in the area of our natural resources and oil supplies and they even have a pretty solid idea of how long they will last, when they'll need to drill for shale, and when it'll all run out - or at least, the only people who matter are, those being the oil companies who set the prices of oil and whose personal self interest is highly dependent on those facts.
It's those prices that will drive people away from oil use when people need to be driven away from it. You see, we don't need your kind pointing guns at everybody after all!
quote:
Why will gas be cheap, why won't anyone want it?
For the same reason ethanol is cheap now: Because there's no market for it, smaller quantities can be obtained from an established market for a lower price. If there were a larger market for it, it wouldn't be cheap anymore, because the industry would hit a supply ceiling.
quote:
Read up on game theory. Or the tragedy of the commons. People don't always act in their long, or even short term interests.
The tragedy of the commons scenario is only applicable to certain specific resources for which use precludes perpetuation, ie. the fishing in a lake scenario, and even then one must first assume that nobody has been allowed to purchase the lake and actively foster it's wellbeing. To return to the fish pond scenario, if the fisherman's lake were owned by somebody who made a business of allowing people to fish there, then the owner would carefully monitor and stock the lake to prevent exhaustion.
In other words, the tragedy of the commons only arises when you attempt to distribute a sensitive resource to everybody "for free", as in socialism. Conversely, capitalism is a means of limiting access to only those who would benefit the most from it.
This is all stuff that's been observed and proven countless times over through centuries of recorded human history.
quote:
Yeah, it kinda is. Take a macro econ 101 class sometime. When things are scarce, they're expensive, and people use less of them. Supply and demand.
Haha, ok champ. Let me explain it in a basic, Intro to Econ type of way. Supply and demand operate independently of each other. Kinda blows your mind doesn't it? In other words, certain things will happen, namely oil becoming more scarce which will shift the supply curve to the left to reflect the reduced supply. A reduced supply doesn't equal reduced demand, it means the prices increase. Here's another mind-blower price (ideally) has absolutely no effect on demand. Price only affects the quantity transacted, it doesn't make people desire the good any less!
quote:
What you just described here is literally a drop in the demand for oil.The demand for energy will not fall, but the demand for oil as a solution to that need very much will.
First off, oil does not only provide energy. There are tons of petroleum-based product... plastic, asphalt, wax to name a few. There aren't any substitutes for most of these oil-based products right now. For example, unless you want to scrap every single car made... ever, there will still be substantial demand for gasoline even in 30 years. Not everyone will go out and buy an electric or whatever car immediately. Not everyone can afford to. Once again, the demand for oil as a good won't fall.
quote:
Again, yeah, it kinda is. Count on a socialist to know absolutely nothing about economics.
This coming from a man who doesn't know how basic supply and demand works. It's like being lectured on number theory by someone who doesn't know arithmetic. Here's some more information they probably don't give you on your radio shows, not only do markets never have perfect information (which would be required in this fantasy) but many times people ignore mid to long-term information! And even better, other agents manipulate information. And any switch from an oil based economy is a very long-term proposition.
quote:
Do you even know what "neoliberal" means?
I know anything with "liberal" in it is offensive to you, but you're pretty close to a neoliberal-anarchist. Show me some evidence of my "socialist" views; it should be pretty easy, I don't post much anymore. Or at least admit you just call anyone who points out the insanity of your ideas a socialist.
quote:
It's those prices that will drive people away from oil use when people need to be driven away from it. You see, we don't need your kind pointing guns at everybody after all!
But it has to be done before market conditions dictate it. That's the whole point; the switch is so long term that the economy will be trashed instead of smoothly switching.
quote:
For the same reason ethanol is cheap now: Because there's no market for it, smaller quantities can be obtained from an established market for a lower price. If there were a larger market for it, it wouldn't be cheap anymore, because the industry would hit a supply ceiling.
Ethanol is cheap because it's subsidized. But you're right if there was more demand, the price would be higher.
quote:
The tragedy of the commons scenario is only applicable to certain specific resources for which use precludes perpetuation, ie. the fishing in a lake scenario, and even then one must first assume that nobody has been allowed to purchase the lake and actively foster it's wellbeing. To return to the fish pond scenario, if the fisherman's lake were owned by somebody who made a business of allowing people to fish there, then the owner would carefully monitor and stock the lake to prevent exhaustion.In other words, the tragedy of the commons only arises when you attempt to distribute a sensitive resource to everybody "for free", as in socialism. Conversely, capitalism is a means of limiting access to only those who would benefit the most from it.
This is all stuff that's been observed and proven countless times over through centuries of recorded human history.
This is assuming you believe that any and everything should be able to be owned or purchased. What if I restricted access to the ocean claiming I owned it? Can any one person actually claim to own something like that?
Anyway, that was just a single example and you conveniently ignored GAME THEORY which resoundingly proved people don't always act in their best interest.
Just a little nugget I thought of now- why would people support a government if it isn't in their best interest? How has democratic government even been formed if it isn't in the best interest of its constituents? Isn't it in our best interest, as you argue, to live in some anarchist society? If everyone was acting in their best interest, surely everyone would revolt and repeal government, instead of your views being part of a heavily ostracized minority.
