The Ghost of John Kneiling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> orange line Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It is interesting how dictators can implement
> long term projects (China).
>
> I value my freedom and not having to live in a
> police state (hopefully for a few more years) a
> lot more than being able to ride and photograph
> high-speed trains. In China, unless you're a
> model citizen, the police state doesn't allow you
> to ride the high speed trains. No thank you.

Franklin once said after the Constitution was first presented to the public: "You have a Republic madame, if you can keep it..." Most dictatorships of all political ideologies function primarily as kleptocracies stealing by an imposed totalitarian or authoritarian system, in the name of the "people", or just in the name of the "great leader" for whatever Soprano's style state sanctioned crime syndicate splits to the take.

I hope we never let that happen here. Autocratic totalitarian systems usually end up producing a very poor outcome for too many folks who are forced to suffer from that form of governance. The mad man Mussolini "promised" while pandering to his adoring supporters that he would make the "trains run on time", while robbing Italy and running amok unchecked with his cronies. He didn't even make the trains run on time, and his corruption and unchecked power ultimately destroyed him, but his narcissistic delusions had by then killed hundreds of thousands of Italians leaving Italy a wreck.

>
> [sp.rmbl.ws]
>
> > But our 4-year political cycle stifles progress
> on big federal projects.
>
> It depends on what the project is. How did JFK
> convince both sides of the aisle to fund the
> project to send a man to the moon? How did Pat
> Brown arrange the funding for the California
> Aqueduct?
>
Assuming that Congress continues to do authorizations and appropriations of public monies under our constitutional system of "checks and balances", then the political processes that often bring about compromises and balance local and national interests of various stakeholders will reach effective compromises. And likely will then fund what are hopefully some of our higher priority public infrastructure needs. And I have worked for plenty of folks like Ken Calvert who wanted the money for their district's new freeway widening or the Corona station improvements for Metrolink who worked with plenty of folks like Schiff who wanted the grade separation project in Glendale.

> > My worry: Trump picks a dinosaur who only widens
> freeways. Argh!
>
> What if that's what the majority of the citizenry
> want? Not everyone is a railfan who wants an
> expansion of passenger train service.

What the majority can want is to be born wealthy, live in an ice cream shop, eat free ice cream, and never put on weight, or at least expect free Ozempic to take it off, if given that choice by half of the politicians who pander to them.

Leadership and adult governance require adults to act like adults and instead of pandering to the "peoples" "wants" or "fantasies" or "delusions", and make sure that our "needs" take an "adult" priority, over our wants.

As to trains versus more freeways, it's easy.

Which investments are more cost effective for the kind of travel needs we have in the future? Maybe we should be used to prioritize our transportation projects like we do in our family budgets by placing our "needs" ahead of our "wants"? This broad cost effectiveness criteria approach was laid down by folks like Senator Moynihan years ago, when passing many of the project "purpose and needs" vetting requirements that most Federally funded highway, transit, and now many rail projects should have to go through.

Cost per "butt mile" of travel, fully allocated (inclusive of all operational, maintenance, and capital costs), using cost-benefit analysis, makes a high level of service rail investment projects from Coachella into LA is pennies on the dollar compared to the costs of urban freeways expansions. And if that kind of approach is used properly, rail investments will do fine.

Things we were promised like 70 mph. trips on free flowing "freeways" by politicians once upon a time, in my distant past, are now the parking lots that are running at half of design capacity half of the day because of the 25 mph. stop and go traffic, on our often five-hour Saturday morning trips from LA to San Diego on the I-5. And now it will cost another 25 to 30+ billion dollars and another 30 years of construction to build the next extra lane each way in today's urban construction costs.

And maybe even the "public", even after being pandered to by politicians, with easy promises like "more freeways", has at least a minimal adult learning curve?

>
> [images.cartoonstock.com]
> preview.webp