GibbsFactor Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 No. My assumption is that you can run parallel rail lines.My understanding is that the high volume main rail corridors are more than one train wide. Am I incorrect? The lines have to be as straight as possible in order to maintain the speed. At least that's true with the Acella lines. I'm sure some land will need to be given up. ED will get a bunch of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 The lines have to be as straight as possible in order to maintain the speed. At least that's true with the Acella lines.I'm sure some land will need to be given up. ED will get a bunch of people. Oh, I have no doubt. I was just refuting the idea that this plan requires buying out every landowner between Boston and Miami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Oh, I have no doubt. I was just refuting the idea that this plan requires buying out every landowner between Boston and Miami. Nobody said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Nah, they'll use "interstate commerce" on this one. (And in this case, they won't even be lying.) And how exactly does, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", translate into "provide means of transportation in between states"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Oh, I have no doubt. I was just refuting the idea that this plan requires buying out every landowner between Boston and Miami. How much of the existing rail lines do you figure have enough empty land on them to allow adding two more rail lines next to the existing ones? (I'm also wondering how many grade-level crossings those existing rail lines have, and contemplating American driver's fondness for driving around railroad crossing gates. Never overestimate the intelligence of an American driver.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 And how exactly does, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", translate into "provide means of transportation in between states"? But you knew that already, didn't you? Still, my compliments. You've got that playing dumb act down, cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 The concept of economic stimulus seems to fly right over most people's heads. These jobs that are being created are short term, of course. They are contract jobs. But what about the jobs that are created as a result of so many people suddenly having an income? And what about the jobs that are created as a result of the jobs that are created because of the temporary jobs building the rail system? Everything in the economy is connected. One thing leads to another. You can't just look at the jobs that are DIRECTLY being created as a result of a specific policy or program. So, you're saying that other jobs will be created because of short-term jobs... which will run out... which will cause the jobs caused by the jobs that just ran out to run out. Man, kick the can is a fun game, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 How much of the existing rail lines do you figure have enough empty land on them to allow adding two more rail lines next to the existing ones? (I'm also wondering how many grade-level crossings those existing rail lines have, and contemplating American driver's fondness for driving around railroad crossing gates. Never overestimate the intelligence of an American driver.) That would be really stupid. Wherever the existing tracks cross roads, you would have to either move to road or elevate the tracks. No way they would risk trains hitting vehicles at a couple hundred mph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 But you knew that already, didn't you? Still, my compliments. You've got that playing dumb act down, cold. I could say the same for you, but wouldn't want to be considered "mean spirited". I'll break it down a little further for you: How does: To REGULATE COMMERCE Mean: To PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Armstrong, in theory, I agree with you on this one. The problem is that the federal government is really the only entity with the power to force all of the state and local governments to get in line in order to make this thing work. It's the same as the interstate highway system - theoretically, would it be better-run if it were owned and operated by private companies? I say a thousand times yes. But in practice, those companies would find themselves relentlessly bogged down by all sorts of varying and contradicting regulations, laws, lawsuits, standards, and abrupt changes coming from local/state governments that disagree with one another about all sorts of issues. The private model would work best if all government interference were removed, but that's simply not possible. Thus, the only way to achieve the goal is to ask the federal government, as bloated and inefficient as it is, to step in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I could say the same for you, but wouldn't want to be considered "mean spirited". I'll break it down a little further for you:How does: To REGULATE COMMERCE Mean: To PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION Because transportation is commerce? :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 It's the same as the interstate highway system - theoretically, would it be better-run if it were owned and operated by private companies? I say a thousand times yes. You say that, of course, based on your extensive study of all of the places in which major, multi-state, highway projects were conceived, funded, built, and operated, completely without any input whatsoever from any government agency, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Armstrong, in theory, I agree with you on this one. The problem is that the federal government is really the only entity with the power to force all of the state and local governments to get in line in order to make this thing work. It's the same as the interstate highway system - theoretically, would it be better-run if it were owned and operated by private companies? I say a thousand times yes. But in practice, those companies would find themselves relentlessly bogged down by all sorts of varying and contradicting regulations, laws, lawsuits, standards, and abrupt changes coming from local/state governments that disagree with one another about all sorts of issues. The private model would work best if all government interference were removed, but that's simply not possible. Thus, the only way to achieve the goal is to ask the federal government, as bloated and inefficient as it is, to step in. State governments. See the 10th Ammendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Because transportation is commerce? :whoknows: *sigh* One more time: How does REGULATE mean PROVIDE? My dictionary says that regulate means, "to bring order, method, or uniformity". It defines provide as, "to supply or make available". Regulate does not mean provide. If the Federal government wants to define standards in which to construct railroads throughout the country, so be it. That would be their right. But building those railroads is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 How much of the existing rail lines do you figure have enough empty land on them to allow adding two more rail lines next to the existing ones? (I'm also wondering how many grade-level crossings those existing rail lines have, and contemplating American driver's fondness for driving around railroad crossing gates. Never overestimate the intelligence of an American driver.) I honestly don't know. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 State governments. See the 10th Ammendment. You are aware, of course, that the states built the Interstate Highway system? The Feds simply published a book of specifications, and told the states that if the states followed this book, then the feds would give the states 9 dollars for every dollar the states spent? You know. They regulated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 one of the best ideas coming out of the Obama camp, and our federal government, in a long time i am so unbelievably pumped for this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 *sigh*One more time: How does REGULATE mean PROVIDE? My dictionary says that regulate means, "to bring order, method, or uniformity". It defines provide as, "to supply or make available". Regulate does not mean provide. If the Federal government wants to define standards in which to construct railroads throughout the country, so be it. That would be their right. But building those railroads is not. As we have discussed in a different thread, the armstrong001 theory of governmental powers is an interesting abstract question, but basically meaningless in light of the last 200 years of history and legal precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 As we have discussed in a different thread, the armstrong001 theory of governmental powers is an interesting abstract question, but basically meaningless in light of the last 200 years of history and legal precedent. Yes. And up until 1954, equal rights for minorities were also "an interesting abstract question, but basically meaningless in light of the last 200 years of history and legal precedent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 i don't quite get why anyone would be against this... but then again i'm not a cuckoo "obama only does wrong nut job". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You are aware, of course, that the states built the Interstate Highway system? The Feds simply published a book of specifications, and told the states that if the states followed this book, then the feds would give the states 9 dollars for every dollar the states spent? You know. They regulated it. So, this isn't going to be money spent by the Federal government, but the States? Will the States be able to opt out? Or is the Federal government going to be building these railroads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 i don't quite get why anyone would be against this... but then again i'm not a cuckoo "obama only does wrong nut job". Yes, because only cuckoo "obama only does wrong nut job" could want to see less Federal government. Being against Federal encroachment is not equal to being against Obama. The two just happen to overlap a hell of a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 i don't quite get why anyone would be against this... but then again i'm not a cuckoo "obama only does wrong nut job". I'll admit I'm pretty critial of Obama, but you're right. This makes sense. It's one step towards getting off foreign oil right? It'll help business right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Armstrong, how do you define commerce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Armstrong, how do you define commerce? My dictionary defines it as: "The exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place" Sounds reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.