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.
Yes, if it is actually properly developed, built and managed by the State. Otherwise, it ends up as a nightmare for tax payers and a windfall for the contractors. The toll road boondoggle should be enough evidence to support my statement.
I don't know if it can be categorized as a "liberal vs. conservative" issue, but where does the huge amount of money collected in tolls really go? I've never read in the paper something like "ding-ding-ding" the bonds have been paid off and what do the taxpayers want us to do with the future revenues. So far, I've only heard vague promises about applying them to maintenance and/or expansion. Maybe everything is being done on the up-and-up, but I haven't heard anything to support that.
As to your last point, people vote for the things that benefit them and theirs. I'm not going to use a train, so I wouldn't vote for it. I do use rural roads so I support their upkeep. The idea that people should vote for some kind of common good that is against their own interests is naive fantasy. I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as a common good anyhow since we don't really have shared values as a society anymore.
The thing is, it isn't. The only reason you have rural roads that you can support upkeep on (and yeah no, rural counties can't afford the upkeep for the most part) Is simply because those of us who will never use them chip in for them being built and for the upkeep.
You won't find any person, conservative or liberal, who actually believes that there is no such thing as the common good. That is incompatible with either ideology.
The only people who believe that on an intellectual level are pure libertarians, and if you were one of those and had any intellectual consistency you wouldn't be voting to support the upkeep of these rural roads, you would be crying to have them be made private, or at the very least have them returned to low cost/upkeep dirt roads until they can be made private.
Basically if you don't support the train because you think it is going to cost the common good too much money, thats fair, though it's probably a shortsighted opinion.
On the other hand if you oppose it just because you won't use it, don't believe in a common good and to that end support taking more of other people's money for projects you will use, well shame on you.
The thing is, it isn't. The only reason you have rural roads that you can support upkeep on (and yeah no, rural counties can't afford the upkeep for the most part) Is simply because those of us who will never use them chip in for them being built and for the upkeep.
You won't find any person, conservative or liberal, who actually believes that there is no such thing as the common good. That is incompatible with either ideology.
The only people who believe that on an intellectual level are pure libertarians, and if you were one of those and had any intellectual consistency you wouldn't be voting to support the upkeep of these rural roads, you would be crying to have them be made private, or at the very least have them returned to low cost/upkeep dirt roads until they can be made private.
Basically if you don't support the train because you think it is going to cost the common good too much money, thats fair, though it's probably a shortsighted opinion.
On the other hand if you oppose it just because you won't use it, don't believe in a common good and to that end support taking more of other people's money for projects you will use, well shame on you.
Someone give this man a prize. With that type of thinking, we'd never have something as visionary as the Interstate Highway System because the reasoning would have been why should I in Texas have to pay for some highway in Oregon? And we'd all be poorer and worse off for it, as our country wouldn't have the transportation and logistics advantages it does today.
Yes, there are wasteful government expenditures, but that doesn't mean that government expenditures that don't benefit you personally are wasteful. Race to the bottom type of thinking right there. If the train company insists they can do this privately, they should have a right to try. I do think that if the state doesn't want to get caught on the hook having to operate it should the company fail, then they should introduce legislation to make that law. I personally would probably be OK with spending taxpayer funding to continue the service if the private company failed (especially if the capital costs were already sunk and privatized), because we would get an advanced transportation asset for essentially free, as long as Texas decided to operate it. But I can certainly understand the opposite view as well. The cost/benefit formula probably looks very different to the state than it does to the private company.
I send my kids to private school but I still consider it in my interest for my community to have a well run and well funded public school system even though my family won't use it.
Common calculations in Europe and Asia suggest that a high speed rail line needs approximately 5 million people + another million people for every 100 km of rail that the line goes to generate the demand to break even. Anything less dense than that means the taxpayers have to chip in. (which means everywhere except for 1 line in France, 1 in Japan and 2 in china, though I'm 80% sure their respective governments still run these to help fund the rest of their networks)
I heard somewhere that there is a rail-line for passengers in the new-york area that operates with a profit, though it is far from high speed.
"High speed" should also be defined. For example "bright line" Maimi-Orlando would not be considered "high speed" in any other country than the US, as the trains (while capable of technical >200 km/h* or >125 mph) hardly ever run faster than standard rail speeds. *It is commonly defined as "high speed" if a train does >200 km/h on standard rails or >250km/h on tracks laid specifically for high-speed trains.
You're not discussing building a public library or paving some rural road here. The cost of building tracks in US can be estimated to about 56 million/km, which for Austin-Houston means approximately 14.5 billion dollars, for just the tracks.
Add operating, maintaining and running the trains and tracks.
If you keep the ticket prices affordable, based on the 3.3~ milllion combined inhabitants of Austin and Houston, and the population to demand ratio described above, the taxpayer or whoever is the intended funder of this project will have to pick up about 50-60% of the cost. (As roughly a population of 8 million would be required along the line for non-subsidized break even)
So 8~ billion dollars for starters for the tracks....
With such high costs, it becomes very relevant to discuss whether this is really enough "public good"/dollar to be motivated compared to other possible projects or compared to the good the public does when keeping this money in their own pockets.
You're not discussing building a public library or paving some rural road here. The cost of building tracks in US can be estimated to about 56 million/km, which for Austin-Houston means approximately 14.5 billion dollars, for just the tracks.
This is being paid for by a private enterprise though so you aren't picking up that tab.
I do think it is likely in some shape or form we will end up paying something for this, possibly in free land or by giving it tax breaks, idk, but it is miss leading to indicate the whole cost is being put on us Tax payers.
I would love to see this project go through, I would prefer for the whole thing to be private and not subsidize, but recognize that that isn't how anything is done these days, not how we fly or drive, so I'm willing to accept it will be subsidized in some way, I just want it to be done in a reasonable way.
Someone give this man a prize. With that type of thinking, we'd never have something as visionary as the Interstate Highway System because the reasoning would have been why should I in Texas have to pay for some highway in Oregon? And we'd all be poorer and worse off for it, as our country wouldn't have the transportation and logistics advantages it does today.
Yes, there are wasteful government expenditures, but that doesn't mean that government expenditures that don't benefit you personally are wasteful. Race to the bottom type of thinking right there. If the train company insists they can do this privately, they should have a right to try. I do think that if the state doesn't want to get caught on the hook having to operate it should the company fail, then they should introduce legislation to make that law. I personally would probably be OK with spending taxpayer funding to continue the service if the private company failed (especially if the capital costs were already sunk and privatized), because we would get an advanced transportation asset for essentially free, as long as Texas decided to operate it. But I can certainly understand the opposite view as well. The cost/benefit formula probably looks very different to the state than it does to the private company.
The thing is, I'm far from a liberal person myself. I'm something of a Conservaitarian , fiscally conservative, generally free market, don't think the Feds should be involved in Drug wars, forcing drinking ages on states, I strongly support immigration reform, so on and so forth. I'm even quite empathetic to the idea of private roads, honestly, in a lot of ways, it could make sense for subdivisions to have their roads privatized so they pay the real cost.
But as much as I distrust how the government spends our money, I also pragmatically realize that the federal government was essential in building the Trans-Continental Railway, the Interstate System and some of the best camp grounds in the country though the CCC.
You won't find anyone who thinks LBJ was a more terrible human being and crooked politician than myself, but even I will admit, rural electrification which he was a huge supporter of was a great idea, even if it was paid for by people who didn't benefit from it, it saved countless lives and lifted the quality of life for huge parts of this state.
I'm not anti rural either: I'm from a state that is rural and even wilderness, on a level that most Texans couldn't relate to, where a metro of 100k can be a hub for hours around it. (in Idaho,
Amarillo, would be an major city, 2nd largest in fact) My mom's whole side of my family farmed (in a different state), and I've watched her home town slowly die over my life time. It's genuinely sad.
The only reason I bring this up, is because I'm trying to express that I'm not some big city liberal trying to force our way of life on unwilling folks.
But that all said the truth is, over 100 counties in Texas lost population at the last census. Unless you are near one of the big metros or have a ton of oil you are probably taking in more money than you are putting back. Nothing against the farmers and ranchers.
What is good for Dallas and Houston is good for the state, since they are the real heavyweights paying the lionshare of the state tab.
I'm not saying I support this train regardless of the cost, but if private industry is picking up most of the tab I think it will be good enough for the state that I can bite the bullet, same as I don't like subsidizing DFW airport, or the way it came about but It's a top 3 airport.
I send my kids to private school but I still consider it in my interest for my community to have a well run and well funded public school system even though my family won't use it.
Yeah, I don't have kids, and when I do I probably will send them to private. I still pay for my neighbors kids to go to school via my taxes.
On the other hand if you oppose it just because you won't use it, don't believe in a common good and to that end support taking more of other people's money for projects you will use, well shame on you.
Shame on me then because those are the exact reasons. I doubt care about nameless, faceless people I will never meet. All I care about is my family and my own circle of friends. I'm certainly not going to vote against my own interests for people I don't know.
My political ideology is essentially nihilistic. I don't really believe in our system of government. When I vote, I'm voting against politicians; I don't have faith in politicians to vote FOR them.
I admit what I've said is selfish and I don't care. I refuse to put others' interests above me or my family.
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.
