Skip to main content

View Diary: A destination for that high-speed rail money (363 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is no reason it won't work for us. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, martini, BYw, WineRev, Word Alchemy

    There is nothing all that different about the U.S. from those places that is relevant to whether HSR can work reasonably well here.

    Certainly there is less demand between those cities than in the Northeast. Granted on that. But think about WHY the Northeast is more densely built up. It's not all historic reasons, but also the fact that they built this kind of infrastructure there. Infrastructure drives future development and demand patterns. And such a line could help to make a Chicago-centered rail network more useful.

    The point is, HSR is about the future, not the present. Although it also can provide jobs in the present.

    •  if the demand is already there... (0+ / 0-)

      then why use my tax dollars to fund it?  If the demand was there, wouldn't you think prvate companies and investors would already be doing this?  Im all for bus and rail, but let them compete.  If there is enough demand, and enough investment made by private interests, then there would be no need to subsidize.  Just a thought.

      •  Private companies and investors have short (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BYw, johnva

        investment horizon.

        The US Senate is begging to be abolished. Let's fulfill its request.

        by freelunch on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:15:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why didn't private companies and investors... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BYw

        build the interstate highway system, if the demand was there? Private companies don't invest in things that take decades to pay back and have a lot of indirect benefits to society (rather than direct benefits to the investor) very often. That's why we have government to do that sort of thing. If you disagree, I would suggest you're disagreeing with most of the basic premise of progressivism. We can debate whether rail is the best use of resources, but it's absolutely silly to question whether government should be investing in infrastructure that has a long time horizon and a lack of immediate cost payoff unless you also question that in all the other areas where government does the same thing.

        Also, it's not "your" tax dollars, it's society's tax dollars. Implying that the government's taxation of you to pay for infrastructure that benefits us all in the end is somehow theft of your money is a right-wing meme that I reject.

      •  Ahh, and I see you're a Republican... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BYw

        from reading your history. That explains a lot.

        Unless you're willing to compromise, I doubt we have much room for agreement. I prefer to debate the merits of individual policies rather than fight with people about the basic premise of government over and over again.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site