Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The multi-national line you are talking about serves an area about the size of Kansas and Nebraska although it serves many more people than live in those two states. That area would be about 400 square miles and would hold all of those areas.
I think that this kind of travel would be fine for freight but doubt it would have a lot os success in the United States of America.
Why are the transport needs of California and the eastern seaboard (to name only the two most obvious examples) so different from those of Europe?
Also, I think you need to work on your maths, as 400 sq miles is less than the area of London or NYC
The point is ... if you build roads then you take land. If you build airports then you take land. Where I live, they improved the roads and did a very good job. However, it involved taking some land from our sub-division (I am on the HOA board) as well as from others. We negotiated with the authorities to minimize the impact and get a decent price for the community. To take a "principled" stance on the grounds of eminent domain is to say you are also against any other form of infrastructure development which requires acquiring land.
In many cases the landowners simply agree to sell for a price, thats not the same thing as seizure or "taking" as you are trying to indicate.
In many cases the landowners simply agree to sell for a price, thats not the same thing as seizure or "taking" as you are trying to indicate.
Trust me ... you don't get a choice ... that land was going to get used for the road. You just have to try to make the best of it. And that is true of any road, and airport as well as rail expansion. If you want development it is part of the cost you have to pay.
In many cases the landowners simply agree to sell for a price, thats not the same thing as seizure or "taking" as you are trying to indicate.
err the point being made is that the need for land acquisition, whether of a voluntary or compulsory nature, is a feature of all infrastructure development, and is not any more associated with rail than with air or road, as previous posters had implied.
err the point being made is that the need for land acquisition, whether of a voluntary or compulsory nature, is a feature of all infrastructure development, and is not any more associated with rail than with air or road, as previous posters had implied.
err see my prior posts where I have already offered my opinion on the matter.
Outside of any discussion on the moral hazard of eminent domain practises, the reality and facts simply don't support an argument for high-speed rail.
Last edited by Frank DeForrest; 02-14-2011 at 11:11 AM..
Building high-speed trains will obviously create jobs. But they have potential to do even more. Say a high speed train gets built in rural Iowa. These folks would be able to commute to Chicago or St. Louis to work for a fraction of the time it would take to drive.
During previous recessions, people would pack up and move to cities with job growth. Now, due to the dismal housing market, people are less likely to move away.
These high-speed trains can change the way we think about commuting. They can let people in rural areas compete for jobs in the city.
U.S. unveils $53 billion in high-speed rail plan - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110208/pl_nm/us_usa_transport_rail - broken link)
Being able to "beam" whereever I go in a Star Trek fashion would also create all sorts of job opportunities. Maybe we should invest a few hundred billion into trying to develop that?
There is no Article II/Section 8 in the constitution. But I knew (when I asked you about it earlier) that you implied Article I.
It is funny that you assume the word "establish" proves that the government wasn't meant to be the operator/provider of the service. And that it really mean that private enterprise should control it all. They use "establish" a uniform law for naturalization as well. Does that mean after writing the law, it is no longer the government's job to execute it? Establishing courts would mean government getting out of the way?
Yes I misspoke Artilce I Section 8...
Well what does establish mean and not mean? Let's examine Article 1 Section 8:
Quote:
<H3>Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Quote:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
</H3>
We see that the framers wrote:
Quote:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
We see in the above charge that the government is specifically charged with orgainization, arming and disciplining.....
Also:
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
And:
To provide and maintain a Navy;
So what see see in Section 8 is that when Congress means to constitute, or provide and maintain, or organize, provide and discipline, they mean for the government to participate in the charge. We don't see this in "establish" since if they wanted to have government operate something, they would have used the term "provide and maintain".
Therfore taking these words in the context of their meanings in Section 8, we find that when Congress wanted to operate something they used the words PROVIDE and MAINTAIN but if they simply wanted to establish something they merely meant to begin the institution or law.
As for establishing law, that is a different area, since laws are always administered by the government so there is no question as to what they meant by establishing a law as opposed to establishing a operation such as the post office.
Indeed, if you examine the early transportation of the mail, and even today's transportation of the mail, it is all done by private carriers from the RR to the Pony Express, to Steamboats, to airplanes, the Post office has used priavte carriage to move the mail.
We don't see this in "establish" since if they wanted to have government operate something, they would have used the term "provide and maintain".
They didn't think that there will be people over two centuries down the road who would prefer certain words over the other.
Let us look at another occurrence of "establish".
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States"
Does that mean the government was simply to lay down the laws but not to enforce them?
What reason do you see for using the word "to provide for" a law against counterfeiting as opposed to using the same "to establish". I am curious about your interpretation.
So, based on this post, you and I agree on lot. However, my contention with this whole issue is that people are pushing rail to be privatized without fixing the issues with restrictions and taxes that would stop it from happening all together (until this happens, rail can't even be born, much less survive). That's besides the issue that roads aren't even discussed as being a major subsidy by all of the American public, even those who don't use them.
I'm for multiple methods of transport, but rail always seems to be left out in the cold...and I believe it's the most efficient, reliable and potentially the most profitable method.
Roads are necessary for national security, as are rails, which is why I maintain the government should be responsible for providing the right of way. The governmentof course, if they provided the track, would have to buy it from private enterprise. HS Rail requires much longer and stronger rails and rail beds. I have no problem with the government doing this. I stop my train there. The operation should be priavte so the lines and the service can compete for passenegers which would keep the pressure on companies to provide the best service for the least amount of money. It usually work this way when we have healthy competition.
Remember who tore up all the trolley tracks? Once this nations major cities all had trolleys like you see in New Orleans, only on a much larger scale. Why did the government rip up all that trackage? Automobiles and buses.
Ripping up all of those trolley tracks was a major mistake imo. If they were still in place, one could park their car at the edge of congested cities, and use the trolley lines. Of course subways in large cities replaced the trolley, but if old mid sized cities like Milwaukee or Cincinnati still had them, they would have an alternative from driving into the city.
This makes one think of Light rail. But the cost of light rail has proved to be a bust when it comes to the cost / benefit.
In short, for a $300 million capital cost, light rail significantly increased the costs of operating Houston transit while it killed the growth in transit ridership and significantly reduced passenger miles. If you are an empire-building bureaucrat, transit employee seeking higher pay, or rail contractor, then you would probably consider Houston’s light rail to be a success. From the point of view of taxpayers and transit riders, if this is a success then I would hate to see a failure
They didn't think that there will be people over two centuries down the road who would prefer certain words over the other.
Let us look at another occurrence of "establish".
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States"
Does that mean the government was simply to lay down the laws but not to enforce them?
What reason do you see for using the word "to provide for" a law against counterfeiting as opposed to using the same "to establish". I am curious about your interpretation.
I explained the difference to you about this in my last post. When Congress establishes laws, it is inherent for government to enforce them. Not so when we establish a plan for a Post office.
I showed you why they used different words but you are simply ignoring the argument.
The exact wording is:
"to establish post-offices and post-roads:"
Does this mean the framers meant for the government to "OPERATE" the roads? Not hardly as we see no government operated "post roads" exclusively for the PO. Therefore since these two ideas are in the same snetence, we have to understand they never meant for the PO to operated soley by the government. It never has, even to this day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
