Ummm....the train is major infrastructure ... even more so than paving the roads... as such, it would clearly be the type of project for the government to build. Whether it is a smart move in that particular cause is another question. I generally find high speed trains to be a good idea...but 80mph is not so high speed.

If the train cannot produce a profit, it shouldn't be funded. There is zero chance it will be profitable.

Actually something like a high speed train generates a non tax based revenue stream for the government. So not so bad as long as they don't do anything stupid. However this doesn't sound like a high speed train just the gravy train. I support infrastructure investment probably because my country of origin doesn't and the results aren't pretty.

I'm all for not spending more than you make. I'm not even sure how anyone can think that it's ok. In any situation you basically have two choices and only two, spend less or make more. Other option can only ever end badly. On the other hand a volunteer police department sounds shady.

My best friend back in the States for many years was at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

When we talked about the national debt, he said, "It doesn't matter. We only owe it to ourselves."

When I pointed out that much of it came from foreign investments, from such places as Japan (In those days) he would insist they had no other place to put their money, so they would always leave it here.

This mentality that we could borrow money forever was common in the 80's and 90's. And, I suggest we still have a lot of people in key places that think printing or borrowing money is okay.

And, most people didn't care as long as the paycheck was fat. As I predicted many years ago, when people start getting 'hungry', their liberal views start changing fasts.

It's not high-speed rail if it doesn't go faster than my car.

There's a similar project in the boxes over here; a fast-lane between Montreal and New York. It's not like we don't have the technology to do it (Bombardier got a model of high-speed train) but the whole contraption must rival the airline business. Can a train do the trip in one hour and cost less than 300$US (unsubsidized)?

On a smaller scale, we had the same "White Elephant" project in my neighborhood; a electric tramway. It was supposed to be a tourist magnet. Our Mass-Transit company put a bus line on the place where the tram was supposed to be in service and the busses run empty (literally)!

Talk about a waste of money and pipe-dreams.

There's ways to make a "High-Speed" train run on regular tracks. The Railroad division of Bombardier International own a Jet-Turbine powered train who can do so but with a limit of 160Km/h. We are far of the Japanese bullet trains. Also, the fact that the said train is not electric might offend some Californian sensibilities....

If you can't sell in on the private, the public sector shouldn't buy it.

Hmm. Now, can we get the LAPD to adapt to new reduced budgets--I am sure they would enjoy cooperating with taxi drivers.
And how about OT without OT pay, like in the private sector? It's called working late in the office.

Taxi drivers playing policeman? Private citizens paying for traffic lights and picking up garbage? These are all the exact things that government should be doing. If they can't afford this kind of basic stuff, their system has broken down. They need to increase taxes.

kiske, ever heard of the difference between taxes and revenue?

If I lose my job, you can increase taxes all you want... no income, no pay. If you increase the sales tax, what happens when I don't buy? How much property tax do you get from a foreclosed home?

In a recession, revenue falls suddenly, becasue everyone stops spending, and other things spiral down. Couple that with a number of large buseinesses going south like intel production, and others... and things contract. If there wasn't a huge military presance in the area, the 'Springs would be in far worse shape.

This is wonderful, I only wish this kind of thinking spreads, and quickly. There's absolutely no reason for the government to be spending taxpayer money on many of the "services" it provides, particularly here in NYC. Unfortunately, this brings us back to the problem of entrenched unions. There's no way in hell they're going to let citizens and volunteers - or private industry - take jobs from their due-paying members.

kishke, that's kind of the point. The system IS broken. Government can no longer afford to pay the unrealistic salaries, benefit and pension demands of public sector workers. You can only raise taxes so much before it starts to have the reverse effect intended, revenue-wise (point of diminishing returns). And we're well past that point in a lot of places (see: Millionaires departing Maryland, New York, etc).

If private citizens are willing to perform the functions of paid government workers at a fraction of (or zero) cost, why not let them?

Well thank god the invasion is producing a profit! No point in government building infrastructure like "trains". Who uses that crap, anyway? Backwoods third-worlders like France and Britain and Japan, that's who!
And in case you don't get my meaning, let me be clear: the government should never get involved in anything that has a chance of not working or needing further development, like ARPANET or commercial air travel. I mean, those things just failed completely!

SwissArmyD: Well, I meant to say that they need to raise more money (revenue), and if the only way to do it is through taxes, that's what they need to do. I agree that government shouldn't be providing extras when money is tight. But police, traffic lights and sanitation are not extras. They are the core responsibility of local government. If libertarianism means that these services are no longer the responsibility of government, I'm not interested.

Jim: I agree, if they can't afford whatever benefits they owe, they need to do what's needed to make it affordable; renegotiate contracts, layoffs, extra hours, raise taxes, whatever.

I would object to my township passing off fundamental responsibilities to volunteers, who have no obligation to perform the service. Sanitation, policing, traffic control, are too important to be placed in the hands of people who are free to decide on any given day that they're not in the mood.

the point I was failing to make, Kishke, is that when individuals drastically cut back in a recession, there is no money changing hands that you could tax. EVEN IF you decide to raise it. For property taxes... when home values crash, actually getting the tax money is a problem. How are you going to get them to pay taxes on a $160K house, when it's now values at $60K? Or what happens when they just got foreclosed on? You think they are going to pay property taxes on that?

Property taxes pay for POLICE, SCHOOLS, STREELIGHTS and most of the services you are discussing.

when those taxes Contract... you have to cut services back... because there is no one you can tax to cover it.

So, Gog_Magog? How many place in the US actually have the density of users that would pay for rail-lines? If they were everywhere, Amtrak wouldn't be loosing money would it?

How can you compare Japan with 130M people in an area roughly the same size as Montana [377,944 sq. km] of which only about 30% is livable land... to anywhere in the US? The straight density is 337peeps / sq km... but as I mentioned, only 30% of the land is actually livable, so that figure is misleading...

The only places that come close to being dense enough are on the east coast. And hey, they have something called Acela Express, which is sorta kinda high speed, and actually turns a profit more or less.

Everywhere else in the country simply doesn't have the density, and Moving People enough to make such projects practical. How many people ACTUALLY move between places enough to make a train work.

The combination between being the right amount of distance for the right amount of time FOR THE RIGHT PRICE, are astonishingly important.

Who needs to go back and forth from SF to LA every day? How MANY are there? Does it take less time to go by train? Is it cheaper?

Another important note about Japan?

The governement doesn't own the trains. Private Companies do. Hence the interest in actually turing a profit. Added to the fact that most speed limits on Japanese roads are what we would call slow... top speed on anything is 100kph [62mph], and on most highways is actually 60-80 KPH, not MPH... try taking a road trip sometime where you are going 40 for 200 miles, and you'll want to take Shinkanshen pretty quick.

Another interesting argument to make about all the high speed rail places is that they were decimated by WWII and the rebuilding process took place in a modern era, but just before commercial air travel as we know it today. The difference in mindset in re-building, and having things grow organically over a long period is an interesting thing to look at.

finally? All of theose countrys are SMALL. Rail is pretty good for less than 400 miles or so... after that planes make more sense... but how many large cities are actually that close? And then, how many people continually move between them?

There is the possibility that we don't have large scale rail travel because it just doesn't make sense. Y'know, maybe?

Yeah, SwissAD, I hear you; if there's no money, there's no money. My point is, though, that this is not some triumph of libertarianism, which is how Amy seems to be spinning it. When local govt can't provide basic services, it's a breakdown.

"So, Gog_Magog? How many place in the US actually have the density of users that would pay for rail-lines? If they were everywhere, Amtrak wouldn't be loosing money would it?"

You have to remember that nothing ever changes. What you see around you today is exactly how the world will be tomorrow. Act accordingly.

The problem with high speed rail is what is your start and end points?

I recently took a trip from San Luis Obispo, CA to LA, CA via Amtrak. It had at least five-seven stops in between. With us having to go to a siding to allow a northbound to go past. It was about 4.5 hours.

So if you have an bullet train from LA to SF, does it stop in between, and where? Do you have to go an hour north to go three hours south to LA?

What is the stop between the two? What are the legal ramifications for building out SLO instead of Pismo Beach or Lompoc?

Just as a point of clarification, it is *some* of the street lights that have been turned off. None of the traffic lights are turned off, as a commenter had implied.

I've not heard or read anything about taxi drivers working as as second set of eyes, but I'd be very interested if someone could point me to a source.

We are starting to see some community partnerships, and that is a very good thing. Perhaps this sprawling town will start to create some community if people are working together within it.

"You have to remember that nothing ever changes. What you see around you today is exactly how the world will be tomorrow. Act accordingly." Gog_Magog

If I'm reading you right, I'll toss that quote back at you. Why are you beholden to a several century old, infrastructure intesive way of moving people, when it has already been supplanted by other more tailored methods like air- travel and automobile?

Just because it is theoretically cleaner? I don't see how it would be cheaper, since the automobile and air carriers are reliant on individual ownership, and not state ownership of the vehicle. The roadways that cars travel on would be required in any case, and are already existant. So state ownership of them is already built in. So if the taxation, or usage fees on them aren't spread well enough, you can simply change how the fees are collected, or spread. You don't have to go off and build something, that may or may not be used.

And? In terms of pollution and/or resource allocation for use with cars/jets... The amount of cleaner they have gotten over time, points to a continuing direction, ESP. if we take in to account how electric may supplant the local stuff and how air travel has been cleaning up it's efficiency as well.

By the time you build Acela Califorina... 20 years from now, because it takes a while, presumably independant forms of transport will keep improving. Drawn by people's interest in having better modes for themselves to buy.

Importantly it won't mean a solution based on densities that will never exist, based on people movement that may or may not still be needed.

Imagine if suddenly, everyone that could work from home... started to? Imagine if people who could due telecons, and vidcons, started to. Sending your image and thoughts is astonishingly cheaper than sending your body.

And as each succeeding generation gets comfortable with such innovations and technology, they are less resistant to using. Less resistant to the idea that a virtual team can work, IFF you have an environment and prceedures the foster it. {it's hard now, because we are used doing things face to face, but my younger compatriots seem to have little problem with vidcon}

Start talking about foreward thinking like that, and suddenly paying a Trillion dollars for a high speed train that may never be utilized, seems counter productive.

We have likely already moved past the need for it.

All done by individuals, responding to individual signals, and what works well for them. How libertarian is that?

Ever wonder if the members of colorado springs government considered cutting their salaires before looking to raise taxes?

Or cutting usless and pointless programs?

And why do we need street ligths at all? Any kids playing in a dark street deserve to die. Incedentally its alot harder to commit crimes when you dont have free light illuminating the street for your home invasion.

None of the traffic lights are turned off, as a commenter had implied.

That was me. I read "street lights" and assumed "traffic lights." Sorry.

I think kishke might want to read up on Libertarianism. The whole point is that if it's important to you, you'll pay for it. For example, if you want street lights, maybe you and your neighbors get together, pony up the money, and get them installed. You want your trash picked up, you pay the guy who was enterprising enough to start a trash hauling company. The only thing the government should really be spending money on is police, fire, and national security. Everything else can be dealt with either through private companies or on an individual basis. And it would work better.

Start here: http://www.lp.org/issues

Being a Colorado native myself, I would hardly call Colorado Springs libertarian; quite the contrary.

Libertarian? Small government? Personal freedom? You find outright contempt for those ideas in Colorado Springs. Military government spending is the lifeline of Colorado Spring's depressed economy, so don't tell me about government mistrust. And personal freedom? If it weren't for Colorado Springs, Colorado's civil union voter initiative would have passed.

Residents of Colorado Springs are fine with entrepreneurship, as long as you aren't starting a business they disagree with, like an adult book store, a high-term Internet company, a bar, or a medical marijuana dispensary. And while the right to own a gun is well-respect in Colorado Springs, you won't find any tolerance of Jews, gays, or atheists.

Colorado Springs did have libertarian roots 30 years ago before James Dobson moved in with the Christian Supremacists. But today The Springs, the laughing stock of Colorado, is a hotbed of moralism, nanny statism, and fascism that's literally a blight on Colorado.

Yeah, in The Springs they want a government just small enough to fit in your bedroom, in your body, and in your thoughts.