Just in time to influence the November election, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has granted $2.5 billion for high-speed rail to several states, including California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan. Underscoring the political nature of the grants, the announcements were not made by the Federal Railroad Administration, which doesn’t mention them on its web site.
Instead, LaHood phoned major politicians (all Democrats), who then announced the grants to the media. A formal announcement is expected on Thursday. Until then, announcements indicate that:
- California received $902 million
- Florida $808 million.
- Iowa and Illinois received $230 million for a conventional-speed Amtrak line between Iowa City and Chicago.
- Michigan received $150 million for a high-speed rail line on the vital Dearborn-to-Kalamazoo corridor.
- Connecticut received $121 million to improve rail speeds between New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield, MA.
- Virginia received $45 million to plan a high-speed rail line from Washington to Richmond.
- Minnesota received $40 million to renovate the St. Paul Union Depot.
- New York received $18 million for rail upgrades in the Syracuse area.
Never switch to some other drug by your own without proper consultation from the doctor. cialis generico mastercard Here we are talking about some natural methods for recovery of damaged skin cells and enhanced tissue repair To learn and benefit from natural anti-inflammatory remedies, follow blog series “Nature’s Best Anti-inflammatory Herbs” and “Natural Cures For Chronic Inflammatory Conditions”. buy uk viagra People using see these guys professional viagra cheap shilajit anti aging herbal pills as per the correct dosage level helps in curing nervine diseases like paralysis and hemiplegia. Always put in mind that no one can achieve orgasm and provide each other complete pleasure, without necessarily having to have a strong erection and also having penetrative lovemaking session. buy sildenafil online
Smaller grants were given to several states for planning new rail routes.
- Oregon received $9 million to plan high-speed rail from Eugene to Portland, plus $4 million to renovate Portland’s Union Station.
- Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina shared $4 million to plan high-speed rail from Atlanta to Charlotte.
- New Hampshire received $2 million to study high-speed rail from Boston to Nashua.
All of these announcements were made by Democratic members of Congress from the respective states. This contrasts with previous rounds of high-speed rail grants, which were all closely guarded secrets until being announced by Secretary LaHood or the Federal Railroad Administration. The above funds add up to about $2.2 billion, but supposedly $2.5 billion will be given out on Thursday. If so, either I missed some of the grants or they will be made to states that have no Democratic incumbents.
In any case, it is now more clear than ever that high-speed rail is simply a form of political pork barrel. At least four Republican candidates for governor–in California, Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin–have announced their opposition to high-speed rail. We may find out in a couple of weeks if these grants helped or hurt Democratic and Republican campaigns.
“We may find out in a couple of weeks if these grants helped or hurt Democratic and Republican campaigns.”
Unfortunately transportation spending is a minor blip on most radars, with the exception of those who frequent this blog.
Be honest Bennett, HSR is as viable as freeways.
Couldn’t resist, it’s right from Highwayman’s 3rd grade playbook!
Is it just me or has the quality of discourse on this blog faded in the last few weeks?
There never really was any quality of discourse, for the most part. Dan & Highwayman are central planning trolls that come in here to attack anything they can. If they occasionally sound like respectful humans engaged in earnest debate, this is entirely a coincidence. Their only real goal is to undermine the Antiplanner in any way they can. They are arrogant individuals who view their opponents with contempt.
“There never really was any quality of discourse…”
I totally disagree. I have many “opponents” here that have engaged me fervently, yet always contributed to the conversation at hand. While I may not always agree with C.P, Frank and others there is a least a conversation with a morsel of substance to be had. I also find myself defending Dan a lot. While his tone and logic are hard for some to take, his comments always pertain to the days post. The same cannot be said for many on both sides of the antiplanning/planning debate here (including me on occasion).
“They are arrogant individuals who view their opponents with contempt.”
Then what are you?
Yes, the discussion does miss some of Dan’s comments. A majority of Dan’s comments did not contain any substance, but when they were civil and contained substance, they added a lot to the discussion. But he also often led the discussion down troll rabbit holes.
Dan is nothing but a troll. He’s not interested in real debate. He’s interested in saving face and defending his profession, ie, planning. If he was interested in other people’s opinions, he wouldn’t have become a planner.
I think this website needs planners defending their profession. If they act professional or even semi-professional, the I would like to hear what they say. The “Antiplanner” is clear about his bias and planners often make good points about what he leaves out. I think planners are welcome to match his level of argument, but I tune out when it devolves into something far beyond that.
I think this website needs planners defending their profession
The typical planner’s defense is pretending we are too stupid to understand their plans. This is Dan’s line too. Outward appearances aside, the average planner is a monster who craves the control he exercises over thousands of hapless subjects.
I have argued with Dan but I find that, after some back and forth, I agree with him on some issues and appreciate his comments. I think berating him in this comment thread says more about the commenter than Dan.
I have no reason to go easy on planners. Indeed, the average person would benefit if they questioned the planners more often. Thanks to planners (like Dan), I am stuck in traffic, drive from red light to red light (all cleverly synchronized to this sort of malicious behavior), and get to see my gas tax money flushed down the light rail/streetcar/high density toilet. No, thank you.
“I think this website needs planners defending their profession.”
I think we do a decent job of defending the profession when the profession is being attacked. Fact is, most posts by Mr. O’Toole are critical of political decisions that are being labeled planning. I can’t defend that.
Hell yes, has money been continually wasted. It even seems that the Porkulus Package was engineered to NOT create value. Much was for political payback and generate ditch digging & filling jobs. How can $800 billion be spent (really about 75% of that, now) and NOT produce much?
People forget about that money being taken from the private sector. Waste! Look, gov is about 44% of GDP. Just 3 years ago, it was 39%. About 9 years ago it was 33%. That has been continued growth in waste, and political pandering to gain votes; RINOs did too.
Bush increased size & regs, & was not conservative. Don’t forget, Dems had both Houses since 1/2007.
If gov was not taking that much of GDP, private production & spending would be larger, there would be less need for gov programs, and GDP would even be larger. Wasted opportunity.
Another way to look at it is to view “productivity” & “results”.
Compare the output of the gov vs. private.
Spending, by $ or %, of private, is 50% more than gov, but the private sector has many multiples (2-5? times) of higher value. That shows tremendous waste in gov.
The general commentary on these threads is full of waste (shit), filler, non-sequitors, nonsense, irrelevancies, trying to defend gov-waste:
There has not been evidence or substance, showing the advantages of big-gov or redistribution & coercion.
Even simple items, such as taxpayers being forced to provide for huge wasteful transit projects, have not shown big pluses or the cost-benefit analysis.
Even though there are disagreements in econ, many principles cannot be avoided, in reality, such as in physics. Attributing cause to the outcomes of market processes is often wrong
How can so much history be neglected: USSR, Cuba, & now the way the EU is going? Plenty of waste there.
Many fallacies have been used in attempts to support, but mostly in the negative way, attacking. In other words, not much in favor of big-gov, but disfavor shown towards the anti-big-gov sentiment & ideology.
Examples:
False binary choice–for “this” program or for anarchy.
The chaos comparison is getting old. The gov as 44% of GDP is too big, but 0% is not proposed; maybe gov as 28% of GDP.
Choice: Limiting options is more. WTF!??? The claim is to have policy for developers to build more high-density & less low-density, is offering more choice. If people wanted that, they would not have moved away from cores or it would already be offered more in suburbs. Also, people tend to like & move to low density, without transit & the claim is made that they don’t have choice for transit; transit is hardly viable @<5,000 ppl/sq.mi.
Misrepresentation: The "free market"; has not existed, when in actuality, the gov & regs are heavily involved.
Mislabeling: Any type of gov infrastructure, used by all, is socialism (sidewalks, roads, police, fire), then claiming that special programs (transit), used by very few are okay.
Generalization: Giving one example on some error for a source, group, person or whatever (mistakes happen), and then claiming that all is wrong by them.
Money motivator: About funding, these businesses, create products that all use & enjoy, and people could hardly do without. There is this lefty, anti-business mentality, but people get most of their products, services & employment from business. All businesses get almost all money from consumers (a few exceptions for real subsidies & similar).
Avoiding: Neglecting to see certain principles discussed (ie low supply leads to higher price). Asking for specific data, to distract. For housing prices, I have pointed to numerous examples, such as metro market vacancy rates; national was 9% & restrictive markets (ie SF-SJ, LA, NYC) were <6%. The Phoenix & Las Vegas had a few different conditions that held back supply, such as limits on land for sale (BLM).
I'm not sure if these big-gov type really even know of their flaws & invalidity in their non-content, or just don't really think things through or understand. Combination.
There are many more ways of the lefty-statists supposedly trying to substantiate their agenda, without valid points.
Is your brain a wasteland? Should a point be made & have a base? Bias can be a bitch. So too can misconceptions, immorality (ie theft via taxing), & the want to impose own desires on others.
Bennett said:
Fact is, most posts by Mr. O’Toole are critical of political decisions that are being labeled planning.
That is a good point, Bennett. You should continue to make it.
In the ideal world, planners are analysts who do not push one view or another, and they should not be tarred with the ultimate political decision.
In the ideal world, planners are analysts who do not push one view or another, and they should not be tarred with the ultimate political decision.
Do you also think that when the Soviet Union and Germany “planned” the murder of millions, those decisions were not “tarred” by political considerations?
Planning is fraught with political scheming. In fact, one could say that the planners are largely the arm of the government tasked with lending an air of credibility to the crazy schemes cooked up by politicians.
Great post, btw, Scott, but it’s falling largely on deaf ears. People like Dan (planners) think it’s their way or the highway (pun intended). They’re not open to criticism, or even the intervention of reality, for that matter.
Scott wrote:The “free market”; has not existed, when in actuality, the gov & regs are heavily involved.
THWM: Well the ultra rich(like Koch) will lobby for regulations that suit them.
For a true “free market” to exist there has to be total anarchy, a free for all with no laws or rules of any kind.
If there are no rules or laws (nobody is advocating that), nobody can be free.
What regs are there for the rich?
Although there are many regs for crony-capitalism, favors, mainly in limiting competition.
Oh, Highman, I see part of your problem, in continually being wrong & not understanding things. You are making up your own definitions. You see free market as anarchy. That has not existed & is not wanted. Therefore, you cannot be a part of any discussion about free market or just about any other subject, because your terms are different & you view reality through clouded spectacles. It’s like you are speaking another language.