RNC remembers who it is suddenly?

[RedskinsDave]

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.

"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/

While something is better than nothing, this is like yelling "fire" when there's nothing left but smoldering ashes.

[akhhorus]

Where were these guys 3 years ago?

[RedskinsDave]

Where were these guys 3 years ago?

I would have settled for three months ago.

[akhhorus]

I would have settled for three months ago.

If they were around 3 years ago, we wouldn't have needed them 3 months ago lol.

[Fathead]

Its about time.

[BostonSkins]

And the Repubs are playing this stimulus bill right by all voting against it. They'll paint it as typical wasteful Dem spending in '10 when it fails to deliver as promised.

[akhhorus]

And the Repubs are playing this stimulus bill right by all voting against it. They'll paint it as typical wasteful Dem spending in '10 when it fails to deliver as promised.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in committee and what the vote is when it comes back to the House(if the Senate wants significant changes). I suspect the Dems will throw their no vote back in their face on the line that they voted against 275 billion in tax cuts.

[RedskinsDave]

Change huh? LMAO

[shally]

Where were these guys 3 years ago?

voting for the defense of marriage act ???

[BurgundyNGold]

And the Repubs are playing this stimulus bill right by all voting against it. They'll paint it as typical wasteful Dem spending in '10 when it fails to deliver as promised.
From what I've seen, the proposed stimulus package needs work. Only about 1/5 of the money will be spent within 18 months. That's not stimulus. Plus, there are a whole lot of pet project programs and paybacks to the tune of billions added on.

[akhhorus]

From what I've seen, the proposed stimulus package needs work. Only about 1/5 of the money will be spent within 18 months. That's not stimulus. Plus, there are a whole lot of pet project programs and paybacks to the tune of billions added on.

Thats from a false report. According to the *real* CBO report, 64% of the spending is in the first 18 months.

I like the stim package slightly more with this AMT fix that the Senate will put in(which will force another vote in the House that will get GOP votes). But it should be the start of stimulus, not the end: do round 2 with that national bullet train idea(connecting DC, Philly, NYC, Boston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, St Louis, Cincy and Pittsburgh with the high speed train line[500+ mph] at the cost of 165 billion), Infrastructure Bank and changing the corporate tax structure(reduce corp tax rates in exchange for eliminating some loopholes). That would be moving in the right direction.

[Ibleedburgundy]

From what I've seen, the proposed stimulus package needs work. Only about 1/5 of the money will be spent within 18 months. That's not stimulus. Plus, there are a whole lot of pet project programs and paybacks to the tune of billions added on.

I read that in an opinion this morning by Martin Feldstein. After days of wondering where are the intelligent conservatives (too much Kristol, Krauthammer, and Gerson) I found his opinion to be reasonable and well-founded. If he is using faulty reports I'll re-consider but I still appreciated his logic, particularly the first few paragraphs.

Hypothetically though, I'm not sure it is necessary to spend every dime in the first 18 Months. When projects are started and the Gubmint has made its initial investment decision, a committment is made to a contractor and they hire new people. I would imagine the fact that a project is not going to be done in 6 Months might reinforce the company's feelings about bringing on new full time employees.

[akhhorus]

Larison sums it up for me(politically):

link (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/01/29/strange-time-to-take-a-stand/)

Having blown the obvious opportunity to tap into populist outrage over the bailout, which was supported by perhaps a third of the electorate at most, the leadership now decides to make their stand opposing a bill that commands support from a broad majority of the country, and they do so at a time when their stand, such as it is, will be forgotten by the time the midterms come around.

Indeed, the sudden unanimous opposition of House Republicans to this bill mainly accomplishes one thing, which is to remind everyone of how gutlessly the Republican leadership acquiesced to whatever the Bush administration wanted and how they only managed to discover some interest in resisting massive expenditures when someone from the other party is in the White House. This highlights the past fecklessness and opportunism of the current Republican leadership. Given the current mood in the country, the House GOP in ‘10 will probably be received in the country about as well as the House GOP was received during the ‘98 midterms. The lesson to draw from the Democrats’ defeat in 2002 is not that cooperation with the White House loses the opposition party seats in the next elections, but that challenging a very popular President on a major piece of legislation (especially when the legislation is also popular) usually ends up costing the opposition party seats.

[BurgundyNGold]

Thats from a false report. According to the *real* CBO report, 64% of the spending is in the first 18 months.

I like the stim package slightly more with this AMT fix that the Senate will put in(which will force another vote in the House that will get GOP votes). But it should be the start of stimulus, not the end: do round 2 with that national bullet train idea(connecting DC, Philly, NYC, Boston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, St Louis, Cincy and Pittsburgh with the high speed train line[500+ mph] at the cost of 165 billion), Infrastructure Bank and changing the corporate tax structure(reduce corp tax rates in exchange for eliminating some loopholes). That would be moving in the right direction.
Infrastructure Bank, yes. Changing the corporate tax code (not necessarily reducing rates), sure. Bullet train? For $165B? There's just no justification for throwing that kind of money at inter-regional commuter rail when the current system (Amtrak) is such a poorly run, unprofitable and lightly traveled transportation method. They would do better to break that $165B up across 12 or 16 cities to add or expand light commuter rail (subway, metro, etc) as part of a parallel infrastructure improvement/green alternative mass transit initiative.

I read that in an opinion this morning by Martin Feldstein. After days of wondering where are the intelligent conservatives (too much Kristol, Krauthammer, and Gerson) I found his opinion to be reasonable and well-founded. If he is using faulty reports I'll re-consider but I still appreciated his logic, particularly the first few paragraphs.

Hypothetically though, I'm not sure it is necessary to spend every dime in the first 18 Months. When projects are started and the Gubmint has made its initial investment decision, a committment is made to a contractor and they hire new people. I would imagine the fact that a project is not going to be done in 6 Months might reinforce the company's feelings about bringing on new full time employees.
The point of stimulus is to inject capital into the economy for immediate impact. Even waiting 18 months is not a stimulus, really. By then, the market forces would have corrected many of the current deficiencies and the economy will likely be turning around if not in full rebound.

The concept of a "stimulus package" is a borderline joke as it is. We're talking about $1T being injected into the economy over 3 years or more. With a $14T economy, that's scarcely more than 7% of the GDP if they were to inject it all over one year, which is hardly more than a nudge. As it is, the nudges will be far smaller and over several years.

Consider this "stimulus package" a "retooling package". America will be going $1T further in debt (or more) as an investment in her future. We shouldn't expect that it will be any true stimulus as it will not have short term impacts and the economy will correct itself in that amount of time. Selling the plan that way is as misleading as saying that we went into Iraq because they had nukes. It should be sold and bought as an investment in America to create jobs and retool the country for the next 50 years. The true results of stimulus/retooling will come in 10 or more years.

[akhhorus]

Infrastructure Bank, yes.

Yep, they should have done this with the stim package, if not tomorrow.

Changing the corporate tax code (not necessarily reducing rates), sure.

I think that trade off is a good idea. I think it should be combined with repatriation of funds.

Bullet train? For $165B? There's just no justification for throwing that kind of money at inter-regional commuter rail when the current system (Amtrak) is such a poorly run, unprofitable and lightly traveled transportation method. They would do better to break that $165B up across 12 or 16 cities to add or expand light commuter rail (subway, metro, etc) as part of a parallel infrastructure improvement/green alternative mass transit initiative.

There's billions going to light rail/mass transit already. Business travelers would love this plan, especially if the prices were lower than flying. The problem, imo, with Acela/Amtrak is that it caters to a very narrow clientele and really isn't convenient. If you had a 500 mph bullet train that could get you from Chicago to NYC in 90 minutes, you would bring in the tourist crowds also. You could day trip to another part of the country. You could live in DC and work just about anywhere in the east coast(or vice versa). There's also a lot of support among both parties in the House for this one.

[MONK_in_HOF]

Infrastructure Bank, yes. Changing the corporate tax code (not necessarily reducing rates), sure. Bullet train? For $165B? There's just no justification for throwing that kind of money at inter-regional commuter rail when the current system (Amtrak) is such a poorly run, unprofitable and lightly traveled transportation method. They would do better to break that $165B up across 12 or 16 cities to add or expand light commuter rail (subway, metro, etc) as part of a parallel infrastructure improvement/green alternative mass transit initiative.


http://www.patientpowernow.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/simpsons-lyle-lanley-monorail.gif

Monorail!! Monorail!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAk2BBhQm1o)

[Sweepea436]

There's billions going to light rail/mass transit already. Business travelers would love this plan, especially if the prices were lower than flying. The problem, imo, with Acela/Amtrak is that it caters to a very narrow clientele and really isn't convenient. If you had a 500 mph bullet train that could get you from Chicago to NYC in 90 minutes, you would bring in the tourist crowds also. You could day trip to another part of the country. You could live in DC and work just about anywhere in the east coast(or vice versa). There's also a lot of support among both parties in the House for this one.

Do you have any info on the 500 mph train? I spent a little time googling it, and kept running in to the 500 series bullit train in Japan (300 mph). Is it a new technology? Or just the next progression in the same train? Seemed interesting so I wanted to check it out. If you have anything, that'd be sweet. Thanks.

[akhhorus]

Do you have any info on the 500 mph train? I spent a little time googling it, and kept running in to the 500 series bullit train in Japan (300 mph). Is it a new technology? Or just the next progression in the same train? Seemed interesting so I wanted to check it out. If you have anything, that'd be sweet. Thanks.

All I know is what I've been reading about it. I haven't done any digging on it, but it would have to be a Maglev train. And the latest ones, that were started a few years back(China and Japan), go around 400 mph.

[Sweepea436]

All I know is what I've been reading about it. I haven't done any digging on it, but it would have to be a Maglev train. And the latest ones, that were started a few years back(China and Japan), go around 400 mph.


That helps. I found some new reading material, thanks!

[BurgundyNGold]

Yep, they should have done this with the stim package, if not tomorrow.
Agreed. They should use it as the management entity for these interstate and municipal infrastructure improvements.

I think that trade off is a good idea. I think it should be combined with repatriation of funds.
I don't think disagree but it's not as clear cut as straight tax cuts, or at least it shouldn't be. There shouldn't be across the board tax rate cuts or credits. They should be talking about tax credits or reduced rates based on incentive. New and small businesses should be getting credits or cuts. Also, companies investing in infrastructure and "new economy" technologies (green, alternative energy, hydrogen economy, the energy grid Internet, etc) and who create American jobs should be getting the rebates. Folks who hire and retool workers should be getting credits. Just cutting corporate tax rates isn't enough to change anything to the degree that the American economy needs. Between big business and oppressive payroll taxes, small businesses cannot compete to a level that makes it worth starting or maintaining a business. And since small business is the real jobs engine, accounting for the vast majority of the American work force), that has to change. No, straight tax cuts for corporations won't change much of anything and won't get the job done as part of any long term plan.

There's billions going to light rail/mass transit already. Business travelers would love this plan, especially if the prices were lower than flying. The problem, imo, with Acela/Amtrak is that it caters to a very narrow clientele and really isn't convenient. If you had a 500 mph bullet train that could get you from Chicago to NYC in 90 minutes, you would bring in the tourist crowds also. You could day trip to another part of the country. You could live in DC and work just about anywhere in the east coast(or vice versa). There's also a lot of support among both parties in the House for this one.
First, there needs to be more going into mass transit. Second, that money would be better spent in converting government vehicles and buildings to alternative energy and, better yet, towards incentives for Americans and American industry to do the same. Finally, I just don't think there is enough evidence to suggest that a $16B investment in long rail would yield enough economic, environmental or any other dividend worth the investment -- let alone $165B.

[BurgundyNGold]

All I know is what I've been reading about it. I haven't done any digging on it, but it would have to be a Maglev train. And the latest ones, that were started a few years back(China and Japan), go around 400 mph.
It is maglev. And if they were going to spend $165B on it, they would do better to put that $$$ into room temperature superconductor research. To get there, it likely wouldn't cost $165B and the boon to every industry under the sun would be enormous. And from an energy efficiency standpoint, you could get well over 95% more efficiency (and far more speed) out of all superconductive electronics. That alone would lead to a new era of American exports that would be worth trillions. Not to mention that the train would be able to go even faster than 400 MPH on far less energy.

[akhhorus]

Agreed. They should use it as the management entity for these interstate and municipal infrastructure improvements.

Not just that, but that would act as a vetting on earmark pork and legislative pork.

I don't think disagree but it's not as clear cut as straight tax cuts, or at least it shouldn't be. There shouldn't be across the board tax rate cuts or credits. They should be talking about tax credits or reduced rates based on incentive. New and small businesses should be getting credits or cuts. Also, companies investing in infrastructure and "new economy" technologies (green, alternative energy, hydrogen economy, the energy grid Internet, etc) and who create American jobs should be getting the rebates. Folks who hire and retool workers should be getting credits. Just cutting corporate tax rates isn't enough to change anything to the degree that the American economy needs. Between big business and oppressive payroll taxes, small businesses cannot compete to a level that makes it worth starting or maintaining a business. And since small business is the real jobs engine, accounting for the vast majority of the American work force), that has to change. No, straight tax cuts for corporations won't change much of anything and won't get the job done as part of any long term plan.


I agree on just cutting the rates, but I think I said that it has/hopefully it will be more than that. Big corporations don't have to pay much taxes, no matter what the rate is, because they have plenty of loopholes to exploit. They should be encouraging small businesses(under 1000 employees), and reducing their rates will help them especially. Tax credits for various technologies have been out there for a long time, I'd like to see that changed to be more tangible incentives(more than just tax credits) for those companies.

First, there needs to be more going into mass transit.

There's already about 10 billion in the stim package for Urban/suburban mass transit.

Second, that money would be better spent in converting government vehicles and buildings to alternative energy and, better yet, towards incentives for Americans and American industry to do the same.

Another part of the stim package. I know South Carolina alone is getting 35 million for alternative energy development for public buildings. Thats enough to fit most of the state buildings with solar panels(which is what the plan is apparently). Either New Jersey or PA is getting enough cash to fit every state building with solar panels. I have a feeling that if those projects work, and are profitable for the states, expect a new bill to make it national.

Finally, I just don't think there is enough evidence to suggest that a $16B investment in long rail would yield enough economic, environmental or any other dividend worth the investment -- let alone $165B.

I'd like to see what the financials of the Chinese and Japanese maglev lines are like before judging. Britain is thinking about doing the same, linking London-Glasgow-Liverpool-Newcastle-Manchester together on a maglev line.

[BurgundyNGold]

Not just that, but that would act as a vetting on earmark pork and legislative pork.
Yep. It should have been a cornerstone of his 100 day agenda.

I agree on just cutting the rates, but I think I said that it has/hopefully it will be more than that. Big corporations don't have to pay much taxes, no matter what the rate is, because they have plenty of loopholes to exploit. They should be encouraging small businesses(under 1000 employees), and reducing their rates will help them especially. Tax credits for various technologies have been out there for a long time, I'd like to see that changed to be more tangible incentives(more than just tax credits) for those companies.
Close the loopholes and give better tax rates to small businesses. That will force larger companies to downsize and start smaller business that are inherently more specialized and nimble in an effort to lessen their tax burden. It has the positive economic effects of antitrust and deregulation but it gives more Americans the chance and incentive to start a business themselves. The results would be huge economically and socially.

As for tax credits, I think they have to (and will) be significantly upped for green and new economy technologies. But I also think that a good chuck on that $165B could and should be used as government grants or X-Prize types of incentives. Leveraging the ingenuity of America always pays dividends in spades.

There's already about 10 billion in the stim package for Urban/suburban mass transit.
That's a mere pittance that would be divided into subways, light rail, buses, trolleys and trams across the country. The cost of the planned Dulles Metro extension itself is edging up towards $3B. Dividing $10B across the country for mass transit is pissing into the ocean and expecting the tide to go up. $165B, however, is closer to the number you would need. You could make 4 new subway systems, expand another 8, and would still have $60-$80B for the rest of your urban mass transit initiatives that would affect 40M Americans or more every day. I doubt you'd get 40M travelers on a bullet train system in a year and maybe not in 5 years.

Another part of the stim package. I know South Carolina alone is getting 35 million for alternative energy development for public buildings. Thats enough to fit most of the state buildings with solar panels(which is what the plan is apparently). Either New Jersey or PA is getting enough cash to fit every state building with solar panels. I have a feeling that if those projects work, and are profitable for the states, expect a new bill to make it national.
That's a good start. The Fed would do well to put another $35M into an Z-Prize for the first solar panels that are not silicate based and that can top 50% efficiency. The best we can get now is about 30% from silicate based cells and a bit more that 10% from cheaper, thinner non-silica composite cells.

I'd like to see what the financials of the Chinese and Japanese maglev lines are like before judging. Britain is thinking about doing the same, linking London-Glasgow-Liverpool-Newcastle-Manchester together on a maglev line.
Those are different cultures and even within the US you wouldn't be able to judge on the whole. Some cities are ripe for the ripe because of culture (New York, Boston) while others likely never will be (Los Angeles, Miami).

I think you'd do better to use the existing, real regional financials from Amtrak as your foundation. Anything more is a $165B risk on a possible train to nowhere, lol.

[akhhorus]

Yep. It should have been a cornerstone of his 100 day agenda.

Close the loopholes and give better tax rates to small businesses. That will force larger companies to downsize and start smaller business that are inherently more specialized and nimble in an effort to lessen their tax burden. It has the positive economic effects of antitrust and deregulation but it gives more Americans the chance and incentive to start a business themselves. The results would be huge economically and socially.

As for tax credits, I think they have to (and will) be significantly upped for green and new economy technologies. But I also think that a good chuck on that $165B could and should be used as government grants or X-Prize types of incentives. Leveraging the ingenuity of America always pays dividends in spades.

Thats probably a better use of any tax credit cash, but for 165 billion in prizes, you could probably get a matter/energy transfer device lol.

That's a mere pittance that would be divided into subways, light rail, buses, trolleys and trams across the country. The cost of the planned Dulles Metro extension itself is edging up towards $3B. Dividing $10B across the country for mass transit is pissing into the ocean and expecting the tide to go up.

Its only being split up among NYC, DC, Chicago, and LA for now(NYC and DC are getting 2 billion in specific unless they changed it). There's individual grants of cash for suburban mass transit I believe.

$165B, however, is closer to the number you would need. You could make 4 new subway systems, expand another 8, and would still have $60-$80B for the rest of your urban mass transit initiatives that would affect 40M Americans or more every day. I doubt you'd get 40M travelers on a bullet train system in a year and maybe not in 5 years.


Depends on where it goes to, but business travelers would easily make up 40 million rides on it yearly if you're connecting Chicago with the East Coast and Atlanta/Charlotte with the northeast.

Those are different cultures and even within the US you wouldn't be able to judge on the whole.

No, but you would have a basis for comparison. China's spending about 2 billion on each specific maglev line(Shanghai to Beijing and other connections). I don't see why thats a good idea and connecting NYC and Chicago isn't.

Some cities are ripe for the ripe because of culture (New York, Boston) while others likely never will be (Los Angeles, Miami).


Miami's too far for it to make sense as opposed to flying, same for LA(an inter-Westcoast line connected to someone in the midwest like Dallas might make sense).

[BurgundyNGold]

Thats probably a better use of any tax credit cash, but for 165 billion in prizes, you could probably get a matter/energy transfer device lol.
Not $165B in prizes, lol. Maybe $1-3B in prizes.

Its only being split up among NYC, DC, Chicago, and LA for now(NYC and DC are getting 2 billion in specific unless they changed it). There's individual grants of cash for suburban mass transit I believe.
I still think it's not the best use of the money. They'd do better to invest in superconductor research and then use the technology to build the train later for huge savings in costs to build and maintain.

Depends on where it goes to, but business travelers would easily make up 40 million rides on it yearly if you're connecting Chicago with the East Coast or Atlanta/Charlotte with the northeast.
The whole northeast corridor of Amtrak (Acela included) gets 750K passengers per business day. Assuming that each trip is half of a round trip (at some point) that's about 375K passengers a day for the entirety of the northeast (about 1700 trains). There is no way that there will be 1700 bullet trains so there is no way that they could expect numbers even close to these. I would expect 20 - 50K passengers a day, maybe as many as 100K if the project was wildly successful. That would take 400 business days to reach 40M riderships. There is no way in blazing hell that those numbers deserve $165B dollars. And it adds nothing to the economy that isn't being served already sufficiently and somewhat inexpensively by regional rail and air transit.

No, but you would have a basis for comparison. China's spending about 2 billion on each specific maglev line(Shanghai to Beijing and other connections). I don't see why thats a good idea and connecting NYC and Chicago isn't.
If they wanted to spend $2B to connect NYC and CHI, I would be begrudgingly OK with that since there are alternative transit means. But $165B for an unnecessary transit system that, in the face of the Internet, teleconferencing, VOIP, WebEx, VPN, remote desktop and air travel, provides relatively little economic value is borderline obscene when we have so many real problems.

Miami's too far for it to make sense as opposed to flying, same for LA(an inter-Westcoast line connected to someone in the midwest like Dallas might make sense).
Miami, Naples, Sarasota, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville could all be hit in a single loop. I actually think that would make sense for new commuter rail. Right now, to fly between these is like 25 minutes but to drive it is anywhere from 90 minutes to 5 hours. A bullet train could make it in about 20-60 minutes without the airport hassle.

[akhhorus]

Not $165B in prizes, lol. Maybe $1-3B in prizes.


I was about to say....lol

I still think it's not the best use of the money. They'd do better to invest in superconductor research and then use the technology to build the train later for huge savings in costs to build and maintain.

Long term, thats a good idea, but its not "stimulating" enough lol

The whole northeast corridor of Amtrak (Acela included) gets 750K passengers per business day. Assuming that each trip is half of a round trip (at some point) that's about 375K passengers a day for the entirety of the northeast (about 1700 trains). There is no way that there will be 1700 bullet trains so there is no way that they could expect numbers even close to these. I would expect 20 - 50K passengers a day, maybe as many as 100K if the project was wildly successful. That would take 400 business days to reach 40M riderships. There is no way in blazing hell that those numbers deserve $165B dollars. And it adds nothing to the economy that isn't being served already sufficiently and somewhat inexpensively by regional rail and air transit.



The problem with the comparison is that there's no reason to take Acela if you're going from DC to NYC unless you have a fear of flying(or you share Joe Biden's train fetish). I can fly from DC to Newark for 60 bucks on JetBlue. It costs twice as much on Acela. And the plane ride takes half the time that Acela does.

If you could get a bullet train that would take you from Union Station to...
..Grand Central in 60 minutes for under 100 bucks each way..
..philly in 30 minutes for less than 50 bucks...
..chicago in 90-120 minutes for less than 150 bucks..
..Atlanta in 120-150 minutes for less than 150 bucks
..charlotte in 90 minutes for less than 125 bucks..

You couldn't have enough train cars running between those cities. You would get to 40 million riders quickly.

If they wanted to spend $2B to connect NYC and CHI, I would be begrudgingly OK with that since there are alternative transit means. But $165B for an unnecessary transit system that, in the face of the Internet, teleconferencing, VOIP, WebEx, VPN, remote desktop and air travel, provides relatively little economic value is borderline obscene when we have so many real problems.


Thats the key, the bullet train would have to be as fast as a plane, for cheaper for it to be cost effective. You would find a market for business travelers if you could allow them to commute home to Chicago or DC or wherever if they had to work in NYC(and I know of plenty of people who do this very thing, especially lawyers, bankers and consultants).

Miami, Naples, Sarasota, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville could all be hit in a single loop. I actually think that would make sense for new commuter rail. Right now, to fly between these is like 25 minutes but to drive it is anywhere from 90 minutes to 5 hours. A bullet train could make it in about 20-60 minutes without the airport hassle.

Connect those cities with Atlanta and the midsouth, and thats another good idea.

[BurgundyNGold]

Long term, thats a good idea, but its not "stimulating" enough lol
We won't see a bullet train to anywhere within 5 years at the earliest. That's not very stimulating either, as it is. And the cost is just too high. I could deal with $2B, $5B or maybe, maybe even $8B but $165B for an unproven, unnecessary transit system is money that could be spent far better in other places.

The problem with the comparison is that there's no reason to take Acela if you're going from DC to NYC unless you have a fear of flying(or you share Joe Biden's train fetish). I can fly from DC to Newark for 60 bucks on JetBlue. It costs twice as much on Acela. And the plane ride takes half the time that Acela does.

If you could get a bullet train that would take you from Union Station to...
..Grand Central in 60 minutes for under 100 bucks each way..
..philly in 30 minutes for less than 50 bucks...
..chicago in 90-120 minutes for less than 150 bucks..
..Atlanta in 120-150 minutes for less than 150 bucks
..charlotte in 90 minutes for less than 125 bucks..

You couldn't have enough train cars running between those cities. You would get to 40 million riders quickly.
You'd probably pull some air ridership but I don't see how they can afford those prices when it costs more than that just to get from DC to NY or Boston. And at those rates, you'd be looking at decades before the system broke even on development costs. The train would be obsolete by then. I just don't see how this can be considered a good investment when you factor that in and...

Thats the key, the bullet train would have to be as fast as a plane, for cheaper for it to be cost effective. You would find a market for business travelers if you could allow them to commute home to Chicago or DC or wherever if they had to work in NYC(and I know of plenty of people who do this very thing, especially lawyers, bankers and consultants).
... the fact that business travel is way down and going down even further. The Internet, remoting and telecommuting have made travel almost unnecessary in many cases. I used to travel to Florida alone twice a month for business. Now, I have more customers in that region than I did then and I travel there maybe 3 or 4 times a year.

Plus, the whole concept of the new green economy is to not have to travel at all. Using the Internet has a much smaller carbon footprint and is far more cost effective. When you do travel, the idea is to use mass (preferably clean) transit as much as possible. If we're looking to do that, we would get far, far, FAR more bang for that buck in $165B worth of new municipal mass transit systems and upgrades to existing systems. Furthermore, it would behoove the Fed and the country to stimulate Boeing to build their single wing commercial aircraft they've had on the drawing boards. It's more efficient, has nearly no sound pollution and would create jobs and revenue in its manufacture.

Connect those cities with Atlanta and the midsouth, and thats another good idea.
Agreed. I'm not against maglev or bullet trains. I just don't want to spend $165B on it or to spend too much money building using maglev when such a train and we, as a country, stand to benefit far more by investing for 5-10 years in superconductor research. We're literally that close to getting it solved. The biggest problem is the research money to push us over the top on that. Superconductors will make bullet trains a no brainer.

[akhhorus]

We won't see a bullet train to anywhere within 5 years at the earliest. That's not very stimulating either, as it is. And the cost is just too high. I could deal with $2B, $5B or maybe, maybe even $8B but $165B for an unproven, unnecessary transit system is money that could be spent far better in other places.

Thats just one congressman's estimate. I have a feeling it would be less. I'd like to see the cost per mile rates.

You'd probably pull some air ridership but I don't see how they can afford those prices when it costs more than that just to get from DC to NY or Boston. And at those rates, you'd be looking at decades before the system broke even on development costs. The train would be obsolete by then. I just don't see how this can be considered a good investment when you factor that in and...


If you pulled in 30-50 million rides a year at an average cost of 100 dollar a ride, you'll be making a profit, and with the airline travel issues(delays especially), i think you would have a built in market for more than that.

... the fact that business travel is way down and going down even further. The Internet, remoting and telecommuting have made travel almost unnecessary in many cases. I used to travel to Florida alone twice a month for business. Now, I have more customers in that region than I did then and I travel there maybe 3 or 4 times a year.


For high tech, yes. For lawyers, bankers, consultants, media, etc..people who have to be there in the flesh, you would have a built in market. I have relatives who commute from Chicago to NYC, NYC to Charlotte, and NYC to atlanta every monday and fly back on thursday. They all say that their planes are full of people who do the same thing each week. There is a built in market for this service right now.

Plus, the whole concept of the new green economy is to not have to travel at all. Using the Internet has a much smaller carbon footprint and is far more cost effective. When you do travel, the idea is to use mass (preferably clean) transit as much as possible.

And for high tech/internet jobs, they don't have to be in person(most of the time). For a majority of white collars jobs, they do.

If we're looking to do that, we would get far, far, FAR more bang for that buck in $165B worth of new municipal mass transit systems and upgrades to existing systems. Furthermore, it would behoove the Fed and the country to stimulate Boeing to build their single wing commercial aircraft they've had on the drawing boards. It's more efficient, has nearly no sound pollution and would create jobs and revenue in its manufacture.


Meh. Boeing(and Airbus) have been promising very efficient/fast passenger planes for years now, and they can't even get their prototypes right. We shouldn't wait another 10 years while they give up on their current green planes for an entirely new project to develop.

Agreed. I'm not against maglev or bullet trains. I just don't want to spend $165B on it or to spend too much money building using maglev when such a train and we, as a country, stand to benefit far more by investing for 5-10 years in superconductor research. We're literally that close to getting it solved. The biggest problem is the research money to push us over the top on that. Superconductors will make bullet trains a no brainer.

You probably will be able to retro-fit the maglev lines with new magnet technology in the future, thats why if you're going to do a national maglev line, do it now, then upgrade.

[BurgundyNGold]

Thats just one congressman's estimate. I have a feeling it would be less. I'd like to see the cost per mile rates.
I hope that estimate is overblown by about $155B lol. That's not chump change.

If you pulled in 30-50 million rides a year at an average cost of 100 dollar a ride, you'll be making a profit, and with the airline travel issues(delays especially), i think you would have a built in market for more than that.
If you got 50M riders @ $100/ticket, that's only $5B in gross revenue. When you consider the cost of operation, you'd be lucky to clear $500M to $1B. At that rate, you'd have to operate the train for 165-330 years to break even. That's an overwhelmingly bad investment.

For high tech, yes. For lawyers, bankers, consultants, media, etc..people who have to be there in the flesh, you would have a built in market. I have relatives who commute from Chicago to NYC, NYC to Charlotte, and NYC to atlanta every monday and fly back on thursday. They all say that their planes are full of people who do the same thing each week. There is a built in market for this service right now.
These people are the extreme minority. I doubt more than 2% of Americans could even consider doing that. And as for other industries, most don't need to commute that far. Bankers can do almost everything electronically and retail banking is local by its very nature. Lawyers do need to travel, but most law firms are not licensed to practice in more than 1 or 2 jurisdictions. And of the ones that are, Lexus Nexus and the like allow them to do almost all of their research on the Internet.

And for high tech/internet jobs, they don't have to be in person(most of the time). For a majority of white collars jobs, they do.
Sales, for sure. Management and cubicle workers -- who make up most of an organization -- don't really have to travel on such a regular basis.

Meh. Boeing(and Airbus) have been promising very efficient/fast passenger planes for years now, and they can't even get their prototypes right. We shouldn't wait another 10 years while they give up on their current green planes for an entirely new project to develop.
You can't export a bullet train but you can export airplanes at millions a pop. Boeing is a huge technology and employment hub. It would benefit us to assist firms like theirs in helping the US get back into the lead with these types of technologies. As for Airbus, they're a European company, so let the Frenchies finance them (even more) lol.

You probably will be able to retro-fit the maglev lines with new magnet technology in the future, thats why if you're going to do a national maglev line, do it now, then upgrade.
You're correct, but I still don't see it being financially viable large scale. Plus, there are environmental concerns about the EM fields caused by the magnets. Maybe we should do 1 or 2 highly traveled lines (say NYC/CHI and CHI/LA) to start.

[akhhorus]

I hope that estimate is overblown by about $155B lol. That's not chump change.

If you got 50M riders @ $100/ticket, that's only $5B in gross revenue. When you consider the cost of operation, you'd be lucky to clear $500M to $1B. At that rate, you'd have to operate the train for 165-330 years to break even. That's an overwhelmingly bad investment.

Pull a Ryan Air and sell ad space inside the train lol. You can find way to increase revenue(1st class tickets, etc). I also think that ridership would increase year by year.

These people are the extreme minority. I doubt more than 2% of Americans could even consider doing that. And as for other industries, most don't need to commute that far. Bankers can do almost everything electronically and retail banking is local by its very nature. Lawyers do need to travel, but most law firms are not licensed to practice in more than 1 or 2 jurisdictions. And of the ones that are, Lexus Nexus and the like allow them to do almost all of their research on the Internet.


side note: Lexus Nexus is awful as a research tool.

The point is that you have a base market, and if you have a relatively cheap travel method that isn't subject to employee boobery or delays for any of a thousand reasons, it'll restructure how business is done in this country. If you can base employees just about anywhere east of the Mississippi and send them on a day trip to just about major metro area on the east coast knowing that they could be home by 6.30-7, the market would create itself in that event.

Sales, for sure. Management and cubicle workers -- who make up most of an organization -- don't really have to travel on such a regular basis.

I disagree with that. With vertical integration, you can have managers overseeing multiple locations across a geographic area with such transportation. And with supply/labor chains now spread out, having fast transport like that would increase efficiency.

You can't export a bullet train but you can export airplanes at millions a pop. Boeing is a huge technology and employment hub. It would benefit us to assist firms like theirs in helping the US get back into the lead with these types of technologies. As for Airbus, they're a European company, so let the Frenchies finance them (even more) lol.


So, have Boeing work on long distance(cross country, inter-continental travel). They've been working on the Dreamliner, the super efficient/fast passenger plane, for almost 20 years and its still not anywhere close to production. Hell, it hasn't even flown yet I think. How long will they need for a radical design change to the basic passenger plane concept? 40? 50? lol

You're correct, but I still don't see it being financially viable large scale. Plus, there are environmental concerns about the EM fields caused by the magnets. Maybe we should do 1 or 2 highly traveled lines (say NYC/CHI and CHI/LA) to start.

I'd start with 3 lines:
Chicago-DC-NYC
Charlotte-DC-NYC
Boston-Philly-DC-Atlanta

Have DC be the Hub effectively and see how it works. That would link up the banking/trading centers with government/media