Obama plans to be engaged in urban affairs/"White House Office on Urban Policy" (to live in, trains)

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

I notice, however, that you're forced to fall back on a strawman that no one has proposed in this thread.

We're not talking about Chicago to Miami. We're discussing a functioning regional transit system

I would note that your reading comprehension abilities are about par with your logical capacity. Go back and read the thread. Yes, that was precisely what's being proposed- not only in this thread, but it's a standard continuation of the discussion wherever it's had.

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by via chicago

Where is the right that you should be able to hop in a wasteful single occupancy vehicle and have a system of perfectly paved roads to get you to the same destination? Is that system the dominant one because its what people truly want, or is it because no efficient alternatives exist?

It's the dominant system because it's the system in place. We could probably argue in favor of retooling it and buttressing it with one degree of small scale, regional rail transit or another, but the idiotic fantasy that there should be non-stop rail transit between all major cities is just that... A fantasy, in the modern world anyway.

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Do we need to go over the Federal Highway Administration's budget? It's HUGE. The initial capital outlay for the interstate highway system was massive, and the maintenance of this system is nearly impossible--and has been neglected. The real maintenance costs are much higher than what we have been budgeting. Additionally, our current transportation system is inefficient, dangerous, and locks us in to dependence on foreign oil. And then there's the requirement that every man, woman, and teenager owns and maintains an automobile. And of course, economic externalities like pollution, accidents, sprawl, etc. that are distributed throughout society. Some would argue that you can add the costs of many recent wars to this total... The costs of our current transportation system are STAGGERING.

The political will to create better rail infrastructure doesn't yet exist, but the post-automoblie world is coming if you like it or not. You want to talk about fantasy? Affordable fuel cell cars are fantasy. And the electric car may look great at first, but it simply re-locates energy production to the power plants and tranfers it to wheels on the pavement in a less efficient manner. "Peak Oil" theory is becoming more accepted--in that we are quickly approaching a world where oil demand is greater than the supply. We saw some of this ramp up this past year, but energy demand has dropped with the decrease in worldwide economic activity. Rail freight traffic has been BOOMING for the last five years because the trucking industry is becoming economically infeasible. And our government is being very short-sighted and setting us up for a tremendous fall with our dependence on oil--both foreign and domestic. Even with increased domestic production, oil prices will rise and fall with the international commodities markets. And the long-term outlook for oil is upward price pressure--which will translate into increased consumer prices for just about anything in an oil-dependent society like ours.

STAGGERING!
HUGE!
BOOMING!
PEAK OIL!

... and yet I ask for something solid beyond your own personal 'theories' and 'hunches', and this is what you reply with in return. You wonder why so many causes like this get absolutely no pervasive acceptance whatsoever? Because people aren't likely to get on board with something completely lacking any sort of factual foundation.

Rights-of-way? Most of them already exist. You may recall that we once had a comprehensive rail infrastructure in this nation. You know, the one that was built 150 years ago and that most cities and towns owe their existence to? I'm sure some eminent domain will be needed, but it won't be the bloodbath produced by the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s.

LOL! Yeah, great comparison there... Comparing America Circa 1860 and America Circa 1950 with America circa 2008/9... because, obviously, building epic interstate railways would be the same task- particularly in the way of securing the requisite lands- in 2012 as it was in 1859.

Lets say we followed your idea- of bulldozing (I assume?) thousands of mile of interstate highway and laying high speed rail track in place. Got any idea what something like that might cost? How about a ballpark figure... Also, it's impact on existing automobile transport, because whether you like it or not- whether it happens to fit into your delusional perfect-world view of no one owning cars and everyone using trains as their primary mode of transport (and having drum circles as they travel), we still have to bear our ideas liable to things as they exist, down here in the lowly real world.

Look, we're not going to wake up tomorrow to a world where everyone jumps in a train in lieu of automobiles. But changes need to be made. And regional high-speed rail makes a lot of sense, even in today's world. But you can cling to your flat-earth ignorance for at least a few more decades if you like. History will eventually expose the folly of our failed transporation planning in the U.S., and the nations that thought ahead will prosper as well crash and burn. That's not the legacy I want to leave to MY children. You?

The best you can hope for your children is that a ones grasp of reality isn't a component of genetics. Unfortunately, in a relatively free-market, non-Socialist American system, what you're proposing is about as realistic as flying to the moon in a ship powered by hope and love.

I am not arguing against regional rail transit- quite to the contrary, if it's proven to be cost effective, I'd totally be in favor of that. I am totally against the idiotic fulminations of fantasy-prone leftists who believe that their causes needn't be constrained by any modicum of reality since, ya know, we did put a man on the moon after all! and ZOMG CARS ARE BAD!!!

[via chicago]

[quote]

Lets say we followed your idea- of bulldozing (I assume?) thousands of mile of interstate highway and laying high speed rail track in place.

No one is proposing bulldozing freeway. However, if we can at will add extra lanes every 10-20 years, why can we not build rail within the median (which has already been done on a smaller scale with the Red and Blue line)?

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

and ZOMG CARS ARE BAD!!!

I always just think back to these quotes

If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places. - Fred Kent

Smart Growth defined: Making the car an option, not a necessity. – Dom Nozzi

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

I would note that your reading comprehension abilities are about par with your logical capacity. Go back and read the thread. Yes, that was precisely what's being proposed- not only in this thread, but it's a standard continuation of the discussion wherever it's had.

More insulting B.S. from our village idiot.

Your reading comprehension is apparently lacking as well. I was proposing separate regional high-speed rail networks that are loosely connected. Non-stop is highly unlikely, but express trains are a time-tested option.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

... and yet I ask for something solid beyond your own personal 'theories' and 'hunches', and this is what you reply with in return. You wonder why so many causes like this get absolutely no pervasive acceptance whatsoever? Because people aren't likely to get on board with something completely lacking any sort of factual foundation.

What, you want a detailed budget proposal? I'm not a general contractor. We won't know the exact costs we are dealing with here until concrete proposals are developed and priced. But it is a FACT that rail is a more cost-efficient and energy-efficient form of transportation in the long run! If you want a detailed proposal with maps and rights-of-way, check out the Midwest Highspeed Rail Association's web site. If you want Federal and State highway expenditures and the costs of deferred maintenance, find them yourself. There were several articles after the Minneapolis I-35 bridge collapse that talked about the staggering (yes, staggering ) costs of fixing our existing highway infrastructure. Not budgeted costs, but the actual costs that we are currently neglecting.

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

LOL! Yeah, great comparison there... Comparing America Circa 1860 and America Circa 1950 with America circa 2008/9... because, obviously, building epic interstate railways would be the same task- particularly in the way of securing the requisite lands- in 2012 as it was in 1859.

I'm talking about EXISTING rights-of-way, you half wit. They are still around, and many are abandoned or underused. More reading comprehension problems, I'm guessing.

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

The best you can hope for your children is that a ones grasp of reality isn't a component of genetics. Unfortunately, in a relatively free-market, non-Socialist American system, what you're proposing is about as realistic as flying to the moon in a ship powered by hope and love.

You have no grasp of history, and your limited world view is astonishing. It was mere decades ago that the expensive and ambitious interstate highway system was built through the densest urban areas of the country. Was Eisenhower-era America a Socialist nation? LOL indeed. You refuse to grasp reality that doesn't coform to your limited world view. Tell Western Europe, Japan, and the new Asian powerhouses that high-speed rail is a pipe dream. It EXISTS IN THE WORLD TODAY. And meanwhile, the U.S. has a transportation system worse than Bulgaria's.

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

ZOMG CARS ARE BAD!!!

Nothing has a greater impact on the forms our cities take than transportation systems. You can throw out your dillusional version of "logic", but it is illogical for America to continue the failed transportation planning strategies of the 20th century. Like I said before, we will not give up cars tomorrow. But the costs of automobile ownership will eventually become such a burden on our economy that we will either adapt to new thinking, or we will die. You can keep your head in the sand, PokerPlayer1, but it's not 1960 anymore. And the happy motoring ways of the post-war period are beginning to unravel. And the do-nothing know-nothing conservatives have their heads up their asses instead of facing the FACTS. Why can't you morons look at existing conditions and plan for the future? I suppose global warming is fake too, right? LMFAO!

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by via chicago

No one is proposing bulldozing freeway. However, if we can at will add extra lanes every 10-20 years, why can we not build rail within the median (which has already been done on a smaller scale with the Red and Blue line)?

I suppose some sort of layered proposal might be possible in a century or so; developing connectivity hubs over time and just linking them up... Still, the costs associated would be massive and at this point in time, the idea of unlimited, profligate spending on behalf of 'well intentioned ideas' is passe. We just can't keep doing that. There would have to be some sort of cost to benefit ratio developed that's at least remotely considerate of the fact that our existing infrastructure base isn't rail.

I always just think back to these quotes

If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places. - Fred Kent

Smart Growth defined: Making the car an option, not a necessity. – Dom Nozzi

Unfortunately, no one has invented a time machine. There's a time and place for examining how we would like things to be, but it always, always fails when it's done in a context that ignores how things are.

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

More insulting B.S. from our village idiot.

Your reading comprehension is apparently lacking as well. I was proposing separate regional high-speed rail networks that are loosely connected. Non-stop is highly unlikely, but express trains are a time-tested option.

I wasn't even talking about you. I guess the world has to revolve around someone, though... Only child, by any chance?

[PokerPlayer1]

(that thing where people parse down a post and reply quid pro quo, paragraph for paragraph, is annoying, and generally considered to be bad BBS form. If you can't make a cogent, organized statement and must reply in that schizophrenic way, just know that you're making it hard for the peanut gallery to follow along)

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

We won't know the exact costs we are dealing with here until concrete proposals are developed and priced. But it is a FACT that rail is a more cost-efficient and energy-efficient form of transportation in the long run!

Good, Cite something to back up that "fact" within the context of developing a totally new form of rail transit from scratch. Stop with the hand-waving and howling and provide something concrete.

I'm talking about EXISTING rights-of-way, you half wit. They are still around, and many are abandoned or underused. More reading comprehension problems, I'm guessing.

The great irony is that you're talking to a guy who probably has more knowledge about Railroad ROW's in my fingernail clippings than you ever will... I actually own property that directly abuts RR/ROW property and have personally negotiated it's release to me... But yeah, keep on with your dumb little "hunches" about ROW's and blathering some idea that you read somewhere about how those ROW's would totally solve the wee little problem of 'where to put it'.

You will notice that absolutely nothing you say in support of your ideas has any adjoining fact. You use lots of invective, hyperbole, emotional pleas, declarative statements about how things are "FACTS", make a few abstract comparisons yet you do not provide one single shred of data or evidence to support your claims and thusfar, everything you've said is about as factually solid as dog****.

But yeah, let me see if I can't predict what your reply will be...

YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT HISTORY! EUROPE AND JAPAN BOTH HAVE RAIL! IT IS COMMON SENSE THAT IT IS THE MOST EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO GO! CARS ARE THE WAYS OF THE PAST AND AMERICAS TRANSPORTATION IS OUTDATED! IF WE CAN PUT A MAN ON THE MOON, WE CAN DO THIS!!! YOU POOPOOHEAD IDIOT!!
YES WE CAN!
YES WE CAN!
YES WE CAN!

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

You will notice that absolutely nothing you say in support of your ideas has any adjoining fact. You use lots of invective, hyperbole, emotional pleas, declarative statements about how things are "FACTS", make a few abstract comparisons yet you do not provide one single shred of data or evidence to support your claims and thusfar, everything you've said is about as factually solid as dog****.

So, your proposed standard for informal internet forums like this is equal to academic or journalistic standards? Are you asking for primary and secondary sources perfectly cited with footnotes and appendices? If I had time to dig up sources for everything I'm stating here, what benefit does this painstaking endeavour of time and effort provide for me? Are you f***ing kidding me? Talk about living in a world of fantasy...

And of course, I'm sure you'll want to subject your own posts to the same rigourous standards of research? The evidence and data you provide to support your opinions here amounts to, well, NOTHING AT ALL. Just hunches and anecdotes. Hmmf.

Don't talk down to me about what I know and don't know. I have an undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering with an emphasis on transportation planning and urban infrastructure. I then entered a dual masters program for Architecture and Urban Planning. While I didn't ultimately finish the urban planning program (architecture was more interesting), I have my name on a published a study of the costs and benefits of urban sprawl, and am INTIMATELY familiar with issues of urban and regional planning, infrastructure, and the built environment. I have many years of experience in the REAL WORLD of development and planning. I own you on this subject, PokerPlayer1, and I am finished with you since you offer nothing. And honestly, I see no further benefit to putting in massive amounts of work to convince an imbecile such as yourself.