US infrastructure reconstruction

[Darth_Yuthura]

With the latest US economic crisis, President Obama had decided one of the best ways to combat the depression was to establish programs to repair the US infrastructure. Programs to replace bridges, repair highways, reinforce water mains, reconstruct sewage systems, and maintain the power grid were great ideas to create jobs; but he underestimated the sheer capital that would be required to provide for all of these.

 

When WWII ended, the US started establishing transportation and utility systems all across the nation, but the majority of the systems are reaching the point where they have to be replaced. Bridges designed to last 50 years are reaching the end of their lifespan and they will have to be replaced. The incident in Minneapolis was a major event, but it was just a symptom of a much greater problem: the US infrastructure is getting old. And most of the systems are reaching the end of their lifespans all at once.

 

The US has become dependent on roads and the power grid, and yet they are both dangerously taxed and outdated to the point that they are going to start failing more and more frequently across the nation. The problem is that there is simply not enough funding to maintain what's in place, let alone to replace what elements are reaching the end of their lifespan.

 

Obama has dedicated under $100 billion towards repairing the US infrastructure, but the projected costs for transportation, power, and water/sanitation systems are going to be in the trillions.

 

The point of this thread is me asking people for feedback about failures they've encountered and really just seeing where stimulus money is going in regards to repairing the US infrastructure.

 

-------

 

The Oakland Bay bridge is one such place where it makes sense to invest stimulus money because the economic cost of losing the original bridge would be far greater than whatever is being pumped into the construction of a new bridge designed to last a century ($2.6 billion). Or does it not?

 

California can barely pay to keep itself operating, so where are they going to get all this money? I certainly don't like the idea of taxpayers elsewhere footing the bill for this kind of project that doesn't involve them.

 

Anyone else with any complaints as to where their taxes are going to?

[Jae Onasi]

Serious topics belong in Kavar's, not Ahto. Don't post serious topics in Ahto again, please.

[Jae Onasi]

Currently we have a major construction project going on increasing traffic lanes on I-94 between Milwaukee and the WI/IL border from 3 to 4, along with completely reconfiguring the interchanges and access roads. It was a shovel ready project at the time the stimulus package got released so the relevant counties started moving on the project immediately. Those areas did need a lot of attention--with the growth in the SE counties, the interchanges have become high-accident areas along with just amazingly bad road quality. Reconfiguring them will hopefully improve road quality and decrease accidents.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Some sites to consider:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=us-infrastructure-crumbling-2009-01-28

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/infrastructure

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/27/national/main4758836.shtml

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2648_127/ai_54680883/

 

http://www.usmayors.org/maf/documents/20081027-Infrastructure.pdf

 

Also take into account that I am not making ANY declarations of any kind. These kind of flaws speak for themselves.

[Lord of Hunger]

I do not mind Obama's spending spree so much as Congress' pay. If only the President could order Congress to lower their own wages! Our representatives and senators in both state and federal levels fail daily to even work on solving our problems. At least Obama is actually tackling them, it's just a question how well he does it (I think in many cases it's too early).

 

People (well, the GOP in particular) are accusing Obama of being a tyrant. I'm not sure how much I would mind tyranny from our executive branch if it would mean that we could throw out all of elected officials in the legislative branch and start over, with neither Republicans or Democrats. Hell, we could use a few good Libertarians so that on social issues people are free to do what they want, but only if it doesn't bring harm to others (unlike Republicans who keep shouting freedom but really just want religious control of social issues). As much as I disagree with them, some members of the Green Party would as be nice, since they actually believe in the Green ideology (as opposed to Democrats who say they aim to protect the environment but ultimately just raise subsidies for agricultural corporations and the like).

 

I also think Obama should feel free to raise taxes on the wealthy, which is something I was against last year. Why was I against it? I held the ill informed view that it would be a "socialist" measure that would essentially contradict our American ideal of rewarding those who accomplish something. What changed my mind partially is that the 2008 election results showed that the wealthy of this country voted for Obama, essentially saying "we don't mind paying more if it'll fix things." Plus, I'm betting that there are plenty of the upper class who would like to be forced to do more to earn their extremely high wages or even live in a less expensive and grandiose mansion or villa. Does this sound naive? Yes, but I'm betting that the wealthy eventually get bored with their economic status and hope for some sort of excuse to live more the edge.

 

Ultimately, getting his health care reform through our leeches...er, Congress is what will get us out of debt. It ain't war that's crushing out government's budget, it's the fact that we have so many pointless middlemen standing in the way of our health care, so many pointless documents. At least Obama has paid to make the process digital so we don't have to fill out more forms.

 

I have every confidence that President Obama can and will fix our infrastructure. What I don't have confidence in is our Congress, which has done jack to help us.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Maybe we should look to a realistic solution (although playing god would be nice).

 

If it would cost so much to rebuild the US infrastructure, then instead of squandering more resources into this 'hydrogen economy,' we must reinforce what already exists first. If there is not enough funding for all these projects, then the only way to provide it is by taxing the ones demanding it all to pay whatever is required before it breaks down. That means everyone being responsible for their piece of the infrastructure and not manipulating taxes by creating artificial rates or altering anything other than what it costs for each person to have their utilities working properly. I for example would have to pay more to the electric company because we have 5 poles leading to a single home. Why should others pay our share of the electric grid when we're actually demanding more for those five poles than we are returning to the electric company?

 

I know the instant higher taxes is suggested, everyone begins to protest; but wouldn't that be better than for the power to go out without warning? To have your basement flooded with sewage before someone decides to act? To have a viaduct collapse before a new one is built (often hastily and disrupting life until it's rebuilt) I find this not to be a matter of what people want, but necessity. When you don't have the funding to pay to maintain a nation's infrastructure, then that means that it costs more to maintain than what is returned from taxes. When you have fewer people driving, and paying gas taxes, then you must sacrifice something in order to cope with the reduced funding.

[Web Rider]

I think Colorado's solution for roads is a rather good one, let corporations build the roads, and install toll booths every so often. With the new digital toll devices, you don't even have to slow down. Yes, it costs you about 5 dollars for the device and you sign up with it just like a Sirius radio. No annual fees though, just buy it and whenever you hit a toll both, bam, paid.

 

 

It should be noted in regard to dams, that several years ago(2003 I think), the Army Corps of Engineers changed the numbers in regards to fault lines. Nothing actually changed about the earth mind you, they just changed what they thought about it. As such, many dams, including one in my home town, were considered in "immediate danger of failure" due to some sort of earthquake.

 

So, just throwing it out there, just because someone says it's "worse" doesn't mean that the bar just didn't get higher.

 

here's the website for the report card BTW http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

[Darth_Yuthura]

Water resources: Desalinization is going to be critical to states like Florida. Locations west of the Rocky mountains are not going to depend so greatly on this technology, but they have their own problems with levies. Locations where salt water is drawn into aquifers are faced with having to quickly shift from one source of fresh water to another source. By using desalinization, and raising water prices accordingly, it would allow for a more gradual adjustment in prices while easy sources of fresh water are not taxed as heavily.

 

I-35 disaster: The symptoms of this disaster are the same for many other bridges. They are supporting more cars than what they were designed for over the course of decades. Most highways are nearing 50 years old and there are going to have to be replaced. The problem is that it would require building the bridges before the original ones collapse. The I-35 traffic was stalled for over a year while the old bridge was out of commission. The cost of loosing the bridge was in the billions (because it disrupted the economy)

 

The biggest problem with replacing the US infrastructure is also keeping the present systems functioning while the new ones are placed. Boston's Big Dig is a prime example of this, as it couldn't simply shut the roads down while construction took place. In requiring not to disrupt the old system, the new ones are going to be more expensive. People must face the fact it will be more expensive than anyone realizes, but that the alternative is to have everything periodically shut down and disrupt life while it is fixed. We must work and pay to keep the system operational in order to avoid having to pay an even greater toll when calculating the losses that will take place when the next disaster emerges.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

I find it an example of old thinking, and I am generally pro-Obama, but he is not providing any new or original solution or line of thought with this.

 

Repairing much of our infrastructure is condemning ourselves to more time lost in traffic jams, fighting traffic, breathing bad air.

 

Do away with the roads, but trailers on tracks like they are supposed to be, and let people fly around.

 

Wishful thinking? Sort of - the technology is really all right there. The train tracks have been waiting for years to get used again. All the concrete and blacktop is as much to blame for global warming as the next likely scapegoat.... IMO (for you data crunchers).

 

Flying a personal aircraft was the dream I had in grade school... you can see it all over my drawings, as far back as 1977 (oh wait... that's the year ANH came out.... hmmm)

 

I really believed then that the future was coming, that by the year 2000 we would all be travelling through space, and I would be signing up for Starfleet.

 

I still really believe that if our government was more than a front for Texan and Arabian oilmen that we would be much closer to my dream than our sad reality.

 

FDR's idea worked back then, because everything didn't cost so much, and the expense didn't really matter that much since we (US GOV) had none anyway.

[Jae Onasi]

Why would desalinization be an issue for Florida? They get a ton of (freshwater) rain every year.

 

I think all the infrastructure (railroads, schools, roads, bridges, hospitals, public works, public buildings) should be eligible. It sure beats giving a crapload of money to Chrysler so that they could move the factory in my town down to Mexico with my tax dollars.

[urluckyday]

Hm...normally I would comment on situations like this...but I just don't think I could back my statements up well enough for anyone to even consider my opinion viable.

[Web Rider]

I find it an example of old thinking, and I am generally pro-Obama, but he is not providing any new or original solution or line of thought with this.

You can't just "redo" the system, 4 years, even 8 years in office is not enough time to undo 200 years of infrastructure.

 

Repairing much of our infrastructure is condemning ourselves to more time lost in traffic jams, fighting traffic, breathing bad air.

Do away with the roads, but trailers on tracks like they are supposed to be, and let people fly around.

Wishful thinking? Sort of - the technology is really all right there. The train tracks have been waiting for years to get used again. All the concrete and blacktop is as much to blame for global warming as the next likely scapegoat.... IMO (for you data crunchers).

Trains really are only functional for long distance transportation between locations ONLY near the tracks. Trucks are required for navigating the sharp corners and tight roads to get shipments 5 miles away from the tracks. Flying cars really aren't feisable right now either.

 

 

Flying a personal aircraft was the dream I had in grade school... you can see it all over my drawings, as far back as 1977 (oh wait... that's the year ANH came out.... hmmm)

I really believed then that the future was coming, that by the year 2000 we would all be travelling through space, and I would be signing up for Starfleet.

I still really believe that if our government was more than a front for Texan and Arabian oilmen that we would be much closer to my dream than our sad reality.

The problem isn't the government. The problem is you. The problem is me. The problem is that the people are content. There's so little passion and drive to make these things reality.

 

FDR's idea worked back then, because everything didn't cost so much, and the expense didn't really matter that much since we (US GOV) had none anyway.

It's call inflation, it happens, but also people earned more in comparason as well. Additionally, the problem with Obama's spending as opposed to FDR's was that FDR's went to the people, it got people jobs, Obama has just saved a few big corporations, which are cutting jobs still. Either put people to work or tell them to go home. Don't dump money on people who aren't going to spend it.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Due to recent events, I'm not going to participate with the expectation that I will persuade anyone to see things my way. I'm just going to present what I know and will not contest anyone who says different.

 

Question: 'Why would desalinization be an issue for Florida? They get a ton of (freshwater) rain every year.'

 

Florida had gotten much of its freshwater from aquifers deep underground, but as that water was pumped to the surface; saltwater was drawn in from the displacement of freshwater. In other words, as freshwater was extracted from the ground, the force of suction drew saltwater from the Gulf into those underground cavities.

 

Because those cavities became saturated by salt water, there was no way for rain to infiltrate the ground and recharge those aquifers. The result is that there is more runoff and, thanks to chemical insecticides and fertilizers, most of the runoff gets contaminated.

[Jae Onasi]

Due to recent events, I'm not going to participate with the expectation that I will persuade anyone to see things my way. I'm just going to present what I know and will not contest anyone who says different.

 

Question: 'Why would desalinization be an issue for Florida? They get a ton of (freshwater) rain every year.'

 

Florida had gotten much of its freshwater from aquifers deep underground, but as that water was pumped to the surface; saltwater was drawn in from the displacement of freshwater. In other words, as freshwater was extracted from the ground, the force of suction drew saltwater from the Gulf into those underground cavities.

 

Because those cavities became saturated by salt water, there was no way for rain to infiltrate the ground and recharge those aquifers. The result is that there is more runoff and, thanks to chemical insecticides and fertilizers, most of the runoff gets contaminated.

 

Fair enough.

This isn't a field I know much about at all, so I don't have much to say on it other than that question.

[Darth_Yuthura]

You can't just "redo" the system, 4 years, even 8 years in office is not enough time to undo 200 years of infrastructure.

 

The American infrastructure is very diverse and very broadly defined. Electricity, water, sewage, communications, sanitation, and transportation are coined as systems that the state depends upon to function.

 

However there are other components that are vitally important, but not basic necessities. A state could theoretically continue to operate if the tertiary, or public services ceased to function. Education, Military, Police, Firefighters, and other such government-operated services should be included as components of the US infrastructure, but they can take cuts without having a detrimental impact on the economy. You can cut teachers, keep old textbooks for a while longer, not replace a fire truck, let out prisoners a little earlier than usual... all these acts can be done without having a significant impact of people's way of life for the short term.

 

When I-35 collapsed, it was catastrophic because over 100,000 people used that bridge to commute every day and finding alternate routes disrupted their ways of life for a year after that. When a blackout hit the East coast in 2003, it was a major disaster that brought everything to a grinding halt. Without electricity, virtually everything ceased to function. Government services can be cut for a period of time without severely disrupting life, as the consequences only manifest after a long span of time.

 

The problem isn't the government. The problem is you. The problem is me. The problem is that the people are content. There's so little passion and drive to make these things reality.

 

No matter how much drive a person may have, they must take into consideration what they have to work with. Rail travel and driving suffices for our current demands, so there is no need for something that is more expensive and demands more energy than what exists today. Maybe some day when he have an excess of energy from a source that will sustain us indefinitely, then flying cars may be feasible, but that is not today. It's not that we don't have the drive, but that we should be having the drive to accomplish more urgent matters first.

[Bimmerman]

While I fundamentally agree that the US infrastructure could use some updating and an influx of money, what gets me is that people are surprised that bridges fail, that roads crack and shatter, and that pipes burst.

 

Everything that is subjected to a load has a service life, and if it is a frequent on/off loading(car or truck over bridge), the thing in question will eventually fatigue itself to death. Now....this usually takes so much time as to be irrelevant when properly maintained, but there's the key phrase: "properly maintained." An entirely new infrastructure isn't needed so much as maintenance and repairs are.

[Web Rider]

Everything that is subjected to a load has a service life, and if it is a frequent on/off loading(car or truck over bridge), the thing in question will eventually fatigue itself to death. Now....this usually takes so much time as to be irrelevant when properly maintained, but there's the key phrase: "properly maintained." An entirely new infrastructure isn't needed so much as maintenance and repairs are.

 

But some things simply cannot be maintained forever. Eventually parts will reach such a point that repairs will cost more than building a new one. EX: replacing oil filters is part of routine maintenance, but at some point your engine will become so worn out that repairing it or replacing it will not be worth the cost.

 

A local road was so bad, repaving it was as costly as rebuilding it. So instead of covering over the problem, they bulldozed the road down to the dirt, rebuilt the base ground, and are completely rebuilding the worst section of the road.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Another problem with the American infrastructure is that the average lifespan of various structures was only 50 years. This began after WWII when the US highway network was established. It was not solely restricted to transportation, as water mains, sewer systems, and power networks were all built to meet to roughly the same standards in order to reduce the capital cost needed to extend the lifespan further.

 

Getting back to the inefficiencies of low population density, when you need to replace a system within a network, it costs much more to replace many pipes or cables than if you used fewer of greater capacity. In other words, if you were to use a single water main to provide water for 100,000 residents, it would cost less to build, maintain, and eventually replace than if you used five built to handle 20,000. The more complex a network is, the more expensive it is to replace these systems. And we are at a point where so many of these systems are reaching the end of their intended lifespans after having been taxed beyond their intended capacity.

[Web Rider]

Another problem with the American infrastructure is that the average lifespan of various structures was only 50 years. This began after WWII when the US highway network was established. It was not solely restricted to transportation, as water mains, sewer systems, and power networks were all built to meet to roughly the same standards in order to reduce the capital cost needed to extend the lifespan further.

Is that a problem, or a benefit? Instead of expecting one system to last forever, a system is employed that will be replaced after a while.

 

Getting back to the inefficiencies of low population density, when you need to replace a system within a network, it costs much more to replace many pipes or cables than if you used fewer of greater capacity. In other words, if you were to use a single water main to provide water for 100,000 residents, it would cost less to build, maintain, and eventually replace than if you used five built to handle 20,000. The more complex a network is, the more expensive it is to replace these systems. And we are at a point where so many of these systems are reaching the end of their intended lifespans after having been taxed beyond their intended capacity.

And then we have one singular system that if it quits will leave everyone without. Instead of only a small section. We have one system, that once overtaxed, the ENTIRE system needs to be replaced, not simply small parts upgraded.

 

You say it's inefficient to build many smaller systems and replace them more often. I say it's inefficient to rely on one large system and risk catastrophic failure of the entire thing. It's the old adage of "don't put all your eggs in one basket." If a small section of the system fails, no problem. But if there is one hole in your giant system, everything fails.

 

Look at the power outages we have, entire sections of the country, on ONE network. If individual states had their own power grids, when New York goes down, it won't take Pennsylvania with it. When California needs power it won't overtax Nevada and fry them too.

[Darth_Yuthura]

There is a term called road hierarchy. It revolves around establishing one primary road, such as a freeway, leading to a tributary road with stoplights and at least four lanes. From there you get down to two-lane streets with stop signs at each intersection before going to the stretch of road to your destination.

 

This works like a river system with tributary lines connecting to a more primary line. This works both for transportation, and other utilities. The problem is that you end up having so many more tributary lines and pipes branching out where you could have reduced the amount of pipe, roads, and sewers altogether. If you lived 20 miles away from where sewage is treated, it would cost more than if you were only 10 miles away.

 

If the problem is reliability, it would be much more viable to create alternate routes for these systems to go than the current 'hierarchy system' structure. You spread out the area that an infrastructure must cover, you end up with a more expensive grid to build and maintain.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

You can't just "redo" the system, 4 years, even 8 years in office is not enough time to undo 200 years of infrastructure.

No, you cannot just "redo" it, at least not overnight. But it has to happen sometime, and it seems to me and many others that that time is now. Why do we need to continue to be enslaved to automobiles and all of the bad things they bring to us? I find it interesting that you are willing to pay tolls along the way for riding on the roads, as you have also paid for your car, the insurance on it, the tag and license fees and the gasoline in it.... you might be content to get hosed, but that sounds like a raw deal to me.

Trains really are only functional for long distance transportation between locations ONLY near the tracks. Trucks are required for navigating the sharp corners and tight roads to get shipments 5 miles away from the tracks.

You did say that trains are good for long hauling. If they were actually maximized for this purpose currently, we could have a significant reduction of tractor trailer traffic and the stress on the infrastructure that they bring about.

Flying cars really aren't feisable (sic) right now either.

Well, I've been checking out new models of them for the last 20 years in Popular Science, and it seems like the only real hold-up in their feasibility is that the paradigm is yet to shift.

The problem isn't the government. The problem is you. The problem is me. The problem is that the people are content. There's so little passion and drive to make these things reality.

Speak for yourself WR, and please not for me. I speak my voice every day in RL, and am a royal pain in many asses as a result.

It's call inflation, it happens, but also people earned more in comparason as well. Additionally, the problem with Obama's spending as opposed to FDR's was that FDR's went to the people, it got people jobs, Obama has just saved a few big corporations, which are cutting jobs still. Either put people to work or tell them to go home. Don't dump money on people who aren't going to spend it.

Thanks for the definition. I had no idea

I am not sure how you inferred that I was supporting any part of the bailout?

[JediAthos]

So, qui gon...you would what, do away with cars all together? Good luck with that. As far as redoing the system...it would take years as WR stated, and be extremely costly...perhaps even more so than maintaining the current infrastructure.

 

As far as trains go, using rail is all well and good if there is no speed required for the freight you're shipping. I'm not saying that we can't use rail more, but rail is slower, and takes more time to ship with than trucking.

 

Flying cars...well, a flying car would require specialized avionics, and as part of the development you would have to teach people how to operate them which means teaching them how to fly, air traffic rules etc...flying is different than driving, it's a bit more complicated.

 

I'm pretty sure Web wasn't directly implicating anything about you qui gon...he was speaking of the general population not attacking or calling out anyone in particular. I'm sure he doesn't need me to defend him, but the point exists nonetheless.

[Web Rider]

No, you cannot just "redo" it, at least not overnight. But it has to happen sometime, and it seems to me and many others that that time is now. Why do we need to continue to be enslaved to automobiles and all of the bad things they bring to us? I find it interesting that you are willing to pay tolls along the way for riding on the roads, as you have also paid for your car, the insurance on it, the tag and license fees and the gasoline in it.... you might be content to get hosed, but that sounds like a raw deal to me.

Unless you can figure out a way to build everything in walking distance ala Darth Yuthura's ideals, we're a big country, and we need cars to get around it. And the "bad" they bring us is what, specifically?

The tolls are for a private company to maintain the road in tip-top shape. Yes, I could drive on B or C grade roads, but I'm willing to pay some change to drive on A++ roads.

My car was older and not that expensive. People are stupid when it comes to buying a car, and few bother to look for good deals.

Fees are minimal, including insurnace, I probably pay 500 a year in fees. Gas, maybe $60 a month because I don't drive a lot.

 

You'd have to pay for fees, maintence, liscenes, for your flying cars too.

 

 

You did say that trains are good for long hauling. If they were actually maximized for this purpose currently, we could have a significant reduction of tractor trailer traffic and the stress on the infrastructure that they bring about.

Yes, our rail system could certainly be improved.

 

Well, I've been checking out new models of them for the last 20 years in Popular Science, and it seems like the only real hold-up in their feasibility is that the paradigm is yet to shift.

Links please, I'd like to see these.

 

Speak for yourself WR, and please not for me. I speak my voice every day in RL, and am a royal pain in many asses as a result.

Well, criticizing is fine and all, but I've yet to see any specifics of how to shift those paradigms.

 

Thanks for the definition. I had no idea

I am not sure how you inferred that I was supporting any part of the bailout?

I wasn't, I was saying your stimulate the economy by employing people, not saving big companies.

[Darth Avlectus]

No, you cannot just "redo" it, at least not overnight. But it has to happen sometime, and it seems to me and many others that that time is now.

 

Now, where have I heard this before? Oh, right--all that talk about "change".

 

Why do we need to continue to be enslaved to automobiles and all of the bad things they bring to us? I find it interesting that you are willing to pay tolls along the way for riding on the roads, as you have also paid for your car, the insurance on it, the tag and license fees and the gasoline in it.... you might be content to get hosed, but that sounds like a raw deal to me.

Sounds to me like you're basing the entirety of the road system of America on bridges in coastal cities. While your sentiments are noted and the toll bit does in fact exist as there is a mass of population in those areas, it isn't indicative of the whole picture. Most of the country I have ever been in does not require you to pay a toll. Tell me the last time wide open areas in states like Texas, Missouri, or Nevada required you to pay a toll?

 

While some areas inland are catching on, frankly, it won't reach a point where you need to spend $5 each time to go anywhere in your car (on top of gas, upkeep, insurance and registration). It could, but long before that there would be some kind of mass uproar. Such a scenario would require things w.r.t senatorial power to have gotten *so* much more imbalanced than it already is.

 

You did say that trains are good for long hauling. If they were actually maximized for this purpose currently, we could have a significant reduction of tractor trailer traffic and the stress on the infrastructure that they bring about.

Well, I've been checking out new models of them for the last 20 years in Popular Science, and it seems like the only real hold-up in their feasibility is that the paradigm is yet to shift.

 

Paradigm is yet to shift? I'm sorry but you'll have to elaborate. Do you mean that people have yet to accept this on a larger scale? Think there might be a bit more to it than just convincing people? I'm sure there are some things the magazine's research has left out or omitted.

 

While Popsci does carry a ton of interesting science (I once subscribed), I have observed that, like all monthly magazines, it focuses a bit on what seems most fashionable to their readers. A tad sensational rather than practical. Not necessarily the real shebang; the truth and facts alone are too boring to generate personal interest of the masses. How better to grab that than reporting on what is in vogue to a certain portion? It is ultimately a business of its own, after all.

 

Point being: You want some real answers? Go to your nearest college/Uni and ask a professor of Civil Engineering, and while we're at it Economics for a little more in depth analysis on that with some thoroughly verified information. Then get back to me.

 

 

My layman's view: I am inclined on the one hand to agree with you that trains should be more fully utilized in many areas of the country and that there are numerous benefits to be gained.

On the other, I know that certain states still use mass transit to its full extent. Which still doesn't come close to meeting the demand of the population. The whole idea about the auto was that it was expedited travel and freedom in areas where rails are too cumbersome to be practical.

 

What is more is that, like a river scheme, it is largely centralized. People spread out are not going to be near enough to the mass transit systems for it to be "worth it" for them to use. Sure it works out in SimCity, but that's just a simulation (with all due respect of course). What it does not cover is that in itself presents a whole set of issues with taxation and people are not going to fund creation/expansion something massive and central that doesn't even come near them physically, nor significantly benefit them, practically, in the completed plans.

 

It is not a simple matter of "just conforming to the train schedule". It is not just some hicks in the booneys, or rich people in rural areas that will complain if you take out the roads to replace it all with railing and bicycle trails. Nor will those complaints necessarily be for frivolous leisure. Just something to remember as you go off on how great this change towards mass transit is going to be.

 

Most people can see the positives, if you ask them; yet you'll find they

1) see it as being too uneconomical for much the same reasons I said above

2) you're arguing against a certain freedom of both travel movement and market (please don't dodge this by getting phillisophical on the semantics of "free" or "freedom")

 

Speak for yourself WR, and please not for me. I speak my voice every day in RL, and am a royal pain in many asses as a result.

[Acknowledgement]: More power to you--freedom of speech and I'll defend your right to it even if I disagree intensely with what you're saying. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right to meatb--I mean Humanoids.[/HK-47]

 

He was pointing out in a general sense that most people are just not going to go for that. ...You obviously are an exception. Yes, such things *will* take time. What you seem to miss is that such things will also require necessity and discontent with status quo for reasons relating to such necessity.

 

<Track Back>

Flying a personal aircraft was the dream I had in grade school... you can see it all over my drawings, as far back as 1977 (oh wait... that's the year ANH came out.... hmmm)

I really believed then that the future was coming, that by the year 2000 we would all be travelling through space, and I would be signing up for Starfleet.

I still really believe that if our government was more than a front for Texan and Arabian oilmen that we would be much closer to my dream than our sad reality.

 

So then, what are you saying? That we ought to be flying hovercraft by now? Sure I'd go for that. Unfortunately the laws of physics haven't been repealed to allow for that hover board on back to the future. But I'd definitely go for that.

 

As for government, well, we're about to get a whole bunch more of it. And no, I don't believe it will be a changed government which cuts out the "fatty pork". Ultimately because of human nature. (Could Web Rider have been also alluding to this I wonder? )

 

Paint me cynical, but I prefer to be a realist. Or that government really represents the people in its majority. The 2 party system is really just 2 sides of the same coin to me.

 

I do see it implementing more environmentalist based legislation for laws. Not sure what good it will do in the big picture; Will the actions taken to supposedly do the planet good will truly be good enough to be worth all these new laws and rules on how we live?

 

Like it or not, that is the inevitable conclusion of the environmental sentiments. They will become laws and controls which may not necessarily serve their initially intended purpose effectively, if at all. Not saying at all that I want the forests cut down--quite opposite. I just don't really see "Carbon Footprinting" as really being able to accomplish that, or to make a significant difference other than now charging and additional fortune just to live.

 

The problems are people, and reality itself.

[Bimmerman]

But some things simply cannot be maintained forever. Eventually parts will reach such a point that repairs will cost more than building a new one. EX: replacing oil filters is part of routine maintenance, but at some point your engine will become so worn out that repairing it or replacing it will not be worth the cost.

 

A local road was so bad, repaving it was as costly as rebuilding it. So instead of covering over the problem, they bulldozed the road down to the dirt, rebuilt the base ground, and are completely rebuilding the worst section of the road.

 

Agreed, but I'd consider that part of maintenance. Replacing what makes no fiscal sense to repair is part of maintenance, no?