Why are we not investing in transportation infrastructure?

[Direckshun]

China continues its amazing investment in infrastructure, including this:



A high speed train system, producing trains that travel nearly 200 mph and can get you distances from New York to Key West in 8 hours.

Investments like this make a ton of sense for large countries like China (and us) because (a.) they hire a shit ton of workers (China has said it has hired up to 100k people for it), (b.) they allow for more economic integration and economic prosperity for the parts of the country connected to it, and (c.) in an era where job immobility is at its highest in modern history for Americans, this provides a feasible way to travel great distances for poorer Americans.

But not only do we refuse to invest in this shit, we can't even muster the finances needed to repair the infrastructure we do have, made decades ago, in considerably less-modern ways.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/bu...a.html?hp&_r=0

World's Longest High-Speed Rail Line Opens in China
By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: December 26, 2012

HONG KONG — China began service Wednesday morning on the world’s longest high-speed rail line, covering a distance in eight hours that is about equal to that from New York to Key West, Florida, or from London across Europe to Belgrade.

Bullet trains traveling 300 kilometers an hour, or 186 miles an hour, began regular service between Beijing and Guangzhou, the main metropolis in southeastern China. Older trains still in service on a parallel rail line take 21 hours; Amtrak trains from New York to Miami, a shorter distance, still take nearly 30 hours.

Completion of the Beijing-Guangzhou route is the latest sign that China has resumed rapid construction on one of the world’s largest and most ambitious infrastructure projects, a network of four north-south routes and four east-west routes that span the country.

Lavish spending on the project has helped jump-start the Chinese economy twice: in 2009, during the global financial crisis, and again this autumn, after a brief but sharp economic slowdown over the summer.

The hiring of as many as 100,000 workers per line has kept a lid on unemployment even as private-sector construction has slowed down because of limits on real estate speculation. And the national network has helped reduce toxic air pollution in Chinese cities and curb demand for imported diesel fuel, by freeing up a lot of capacity on older rail lines for goods to be carried by freight trains instead of heavily polluting, costlier trucks.

But the high-speed rail system has also been controversial in China. Debt to finance the construction has reached nearly 4 trillion renminbi, or $640 billion, making it one of the most visible reasons total debt has been surging as a share of economic output in China, and approaching levels in the West.

Each passenger car taken off the older, slower rail lines makes room for three freight cars, because passenger trains have to move so quickly that they force freight trains to stop frequently. But although the high-speed trains have played a big role in allowing sharp increases in freight shipments, the Ministry of Railways has not yet figured out a way to charge large freight shippers, many of them politically influential state-owned enterprises, for part of the cost of the high-speed lines, which haul only passengers.

The high-speed trains are also considerably more expensive than the heavily subsidized older passenger trains. A second-class seat on the new bullet trains from Beijing to Guangzhou costs 865 renminbi, compared with 426 renminbi for the cheapest bunk on one of the older trains, which also have narrow, uncomfortable seats for as little as 251 renminbi.

Worries about the high-speed network peaked in July 2011, when one high-speed train plowed into the back of another near Wenzhou in southeastern China, killing 40 people.

A subsequent investigation blamed flawed signaling equipment for the crash. China had been operating high-speed trains at 350 kilometers an hour, and it cut the top speed to the current rate in response to that crash.

The crash crystallized worries about the haste with which China has built its high-speed rail system. The first line, from Beijing to Tianjin, opened a week before the 2008 Olympics; a little more than four years later, the country now has 9,349 kilometers, or 5,809 miles, of high-speed lines.

China’s aviation system has a good international reputation for safety, and its occasional deadly crashes have not attracted nearly as much attention. Transportation safety experts attribute the public’s fascination with the Wenzhou crash partly to the novelty of the system and partly to a distrust among many Chinese of what is perceived as a homegrown technology, in contrast with the Boeing and Airbus jets flown by Chinese airlines.

Japanese rail executives have complained, however, that the Chinese technology is mostly copied from them, an accusation that Chinese rail executives have strenuously denied.

The main alternative to trains for most Chinese lies in the country’s roads, which have a grim reputation by international standards. Periodic crashes of intercity buses kill dozens of people at a time, while crashes of private cars are frequent in a country where four-fifths of new cars are sold to first-time buyers, often with scant driving experience.

Flights between Beijing and Guangzhou take about three hours and 15 minutes. But air travelers in China need to arrive at least an hour before a flight, compared with 20 minutes for high-speed trains, and the airports tend to be farther from the centers of cities than the high-speed train stations.

Land acquisition is the toughest part of building high-speed rail lines in the West, because the tracks need to be almost perfectly straight, and it has been an issue in China as well. Although local and provincial governments have forced owners to sell land for the tracks themselves, there have been disputes over suddenly valuable land near rail stations, with the result that surprisingly few stores and other commercial venues have sprung up around some high-speed stations through which tens of thousands of travelers move every day.

Zhao Xiangfeng, a farmer in Henan Province, said a plan to build a minimall on his and six other farmers’ land near a station had been shelved indefinitely after he and three of the other farmers refused to lease the land for anything close to what the village leadership offered. He said he worried that local leaders might try strong-arm tactics against the farmers to force them to lease the land and revive the project.

The southern segment of the new high-speed rail line, from Guangzhou as far as Wuhan, has been open for nearly three years and already suffers from heavy congestion, which could limit the number of seats available for travel all the way to Beijing during peak hours. Regular travelers on the route said in interviews that the 800-seat trains are often sold out as many as 10 trains in advance on Monday mornings and Friday afternoons, even though the trains travel as often as every four minutes, and even lunchtime trains at midweek are often full as well.

[BucEyedPea]

The govt went broke in 2008 as were the banks. ( which are being re-capitalized with money printing for the next bubble) Oh, and I didn't get that from "faux" news either. I don't watch it much anyway these days just certain times along with switching back and forth to CNN.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Stadiums are locally funded. If the locals want to blow their money that isn't any business of mine.

Why should I, living in South Dakota, pay for a train in Florida or somewhere that is going to lose money and I'll never ride?

Again, especially when we're this far in debt and it's going to get worse this is a stupid idea.

You're not answering the question even though you kind of did. You think stadiums are blowing money because they take a long time to pay off? It's exactly this mentality that drives me crazy.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

You're not answering the question even though you kind of did. You think stadiums are blowing money because they take a long time to pay off? It's exactly this mentality that drives me crazy.

I think he answered you very clearly~

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Whoosh, most of my points went over your head: For one, if such projects have any merit or value private enterprise would have already done it. The original RR projects were heavily govt subsidized and many of them were built with shoddy workmanship, waste and with routes that were not efficient to satisfy political constituencies who subsidized them or had a vested interest. On the other hand there was a private RR line soley done by a private businessman which was higher quality, and more efficient.

This is mercantilist economics in play here. The very corporatist set-up that the left cries about, but who enables them.



Well, you're wrong because I covered this one when I was first here. There are non-statist Republicans that don't support these, that agreed. However, these are also not Federal govt projects either. They're locally funded.

Oh, and most of your positions are big govt left-leaning. You're a Democrat.

I don't doubt that government will find a way to muck it up. That's a fair argument.

As for private funding vs local vs federal funding... This is a interstate project so the bureaucracy of getting all states within the line to agree would be a nightmare. And this is a project that is typically jointly funded by private and public. Bigredchief already pointed to Disney willing to help fund a Florida rail and republicans turned it down. But it also helps boost publicly funded projects, like public stadiums and convention centers.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

I think he answered you very clearly~

No, it wasn't. I am talking about measuring spending by profit versus ROI. The private sector doesn't decide whether to invest in a plant based on how much money the project will make today and if they can afford to spend it. They calculate based on all direct AND indirect cash flows over the length of the project. Even struggling companies invest in positive ROI projects even if that means heavily levering with debt to do it.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

No, it wasn't. I am talking about measuring spending by profit versus ROI. The private sector doesn't decide whether to invest in a plant based on how much money the project will make today and if they can afford to spend it. They calculate based on all direct AND indirect cash flows over the length of the project. Even struggling companies invest in positive ROI projects even if that means heavily levering with debt to do it.

Would this train ever turn a profit? What I'm saying is I don't think it will. To me that's throwing money into a fire pit. My money.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Would this train ever turn a profit? What I'm saying is I don't think it will. To me that's throwing money into a fire pit. My money.

If its jointly funded between private and public there is a lower ROI threshold. And again... Please stop using the word profit. We should be considering ROI, not profit.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by stevieray

oh look, the whiny bitch from FW is back.

lol at someone who dresses up and wears make up having the nerve to call someone bitch.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Huffing and puffing again go ahead and meltdown. I am bored watching you troll is good entertainment~

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

I thought you were going to explain how the government is not broke?

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

If we are lucky our chubby little troll is going to teach us a thing or two about debt~

It's not about debt. The government can still levy and collect taxes. It can also print money. The world still lends us money at ridiculously low interest rates.

Our government is far from broke. Once again you demonstrate that you don't know anything.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by KC native

It's not about debt. The government can still levy and collect taxes. It can also print money. The world still lends us money at ridiculously low interest rates.

Our government is far from broke. Once again you demonstrate that you don't know anything.

Taxes nowhere close to the spending....and printing money and taking on more loans??? you are a ****ing genius. You are my favorite troll~

[KC native]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Taxes nowhere close to the spending....and printing money and taking on more loans??? you are a ****ing genius. You are my favorite troll~

You are ****ing dumb. Where did I say they should do those things? With those options on the table, our government isn't broke.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

If its jointly funded between private and public there is a lower ROI threshold. And again... Please stop using the word profit. We should be considering ROI, not profit.

Unless the thing can run at a profit your ROI is shit. Bad. So bad no private entities will invest.

If this made sense we'd already be doing it.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by KC native

You are ****ing dumb. Where did I say they should do those things? With those options on the table, our government isn't broke.

You amusingly full of shit, carry on

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

And this is a project that is typically jointly funded by private and public. Bigredchief already pointed to Disney willing to help fund a Florida rail and republicans turned it down. But it also helps boost publicly funded projects, like public stadiums and convention centers...

If its jointly funded between private and public there is a lower ROI threshold. And again... Please stop using the word profit. We should be considering ROI, not profit.

That's the corporatist aka fascist model—a mix of private and govt. Of course the mercantilists love this set up.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's the corporatist aka fascist model—a mix of private and govt. Of course the mercantilists love this set up.

Oh give me a break.

ROI isn't a fascist model. It's common sense.