Even with infrastructure improvements you run into other problems. You want an upgraded station while someone else wants a new station. If only one can be done which will it be?
If multiple stations are wanted do you build cheapest one first or most useful ?
CT has less than 100 electric cars, when do you build the infrastructure to support them?
It's easy to appeal to the conservative since they have a nationalistic pride.
You don't want to make a new train station? You like the shitty old one we have? You say this is the best country in the world, but all the things you have are shit. China and all of Europe has better, better, stronger things than you have. The guy next door has a bigger TV than you do also!
GE built a full fledged solar recharging station for electric cars in my town. Presumably, it's available for employees. It looks like a commercial gas station, lacking the office/store portion. There is room for around 20 cars to charge. I've never seen more than 3 or 4 in it, but then, access is not public I assume.
I think they probably built it primarily for tax breaks. Doesn't GE pay basically no federal taxes?
It's easy to appeal to the conservative since they have a nationalistic pride.
You don't want to make a new train station? You like the shitty old one we have? You say this is the best country in the world, but all the things you have are shit. China and all of Europe has better, better, stronger things than you have. The guy next door has a bigger TV than you do also!
These arguments are made all the time and haven't worked so far. Especially w.r.t. healthcare. Public infrastructure of any kind is SOCIALISM!! OOOOOH! BOOGEDY BOOGEDY!!
I'm not saying not to build but how do we prioritize what we build?
Which need is greater renovating an old station or building a new station? Can the old station get by with cosmetic fixes or does it need major rehab?
Do we fix the existing bridge or build a new one to replace it?
At what point do we move an area's mass transit from busses to trains? If we build it will they come?
These are questions that have answers:
1. Cost/benefit analysis would be useful in that decision, as well as an objective study of the area that would determine the cause of disuse leading to failing.
2. Have materials improved enough to warrant a complete rebuild? How old is old, how much use does it get nowadays? We can measure these things and use information to make good decisions.
3. This is a very difficult question to answer, but the two are not really replacements for each other. Trains are useful when there is a lot of Point A to Point B or Point C sort of things. Spoke and hub, that sort of thing. Buses are more useful for ad-hoc networks of transportation. Really depends on the city and usage, but again these are things that can be measured.
The ugly realities of politics will make these things painful, but I think infrastructure improvement (even if improvement = simple maintenance) can pay good dividends and people are willing and able to understand that.
One unfortunate thing we've done in CT is to pave over old freight rail lines and make them into walking trails. On the one hand: yay! walking trails through some really pretty country! On the other: fuck, no more freight lines and way more 18 wheelers on the road burning up gas, smogging up the air, and crushing people in accidents.
Our town is the only town in the area that has refused to pave over its freight lines, because of two long standing businesses (a lumberyard and a propane dealer) that have been using them for decades. If not for them we'd have done it, too. I'm so proud to have those businesses here.
I'm not saying not to build but how do we prioritize what we build?
Which need is greater renovating an old station or building a new station? Can the old station get by with cosmetic fixes or does it need major rehab?
Do we fix the existing bridge or build a new one to replace it?
At what point do we move an area's mass transit from busses to trains? If we build it will they come?
With respect to renovation of replacement of train stations, this pretty much can be determined via engineering studies and statistics. I mean, if the statistics show that the increased traffic through the station can't be handled by it as it currently stands, then it needs to be either renovated/expanded or replaced. An engineering study can determine if a station only needs cosmetic fixes or something more significant. It can also be used to determine if expansion/renovation is possible or cost-effective vs. new construction. I mean, if the existing station is structurally unsound, a skilled engineer (or group of engineers) should be able to come up with estimates on the cost of reinforcing the unsound building vs. building a whole new building. Other factors include whether there is enough space for a larger building on the existing plot of land or if new land needs to be purchased to build a new building, etc. All of this stuff can be determined using quantitative methods with reasonable certainty, using decades (if not centuries) old methods.
The same applies to a bridge. An engineering study can determine the costs of renovation vs. replacement, both short term (i.e it will cost $1 million to renovate vs. $10 million to build new), and long term (the $1 million renovation will only last 5 years, whereas the $10 million replacement will last 75 years). It will also even say if renovation is even possible (i.e. the existing bridge is so dilapidated that a 5 year band-aid repair is either impossible or cost nearly as much as a 75 year replacement). Again, these are all techniques that have been around and been used for a very, very long time.
Population statistics could also be used to determine the point at which we convert mass transit from buses to trains, again, doing proper cost-benefit analysis via statistical and engineering studies.
In an ideal world, the prioritization would be based purely on these quantitative methods, with the most desperate cases of lack of capacity and/or dilapidation being worked on first. Of course, with all the pork and other crap that gets shoved through the sausage grinder that is the political system, things don't always work out the way that cold, hard numbers and facts dictate they should.
They are considerably more environmentally friendly than 18 wheelers, though. They do hall more tonnage of cargo (when operated at or near max capacity) per gallon of fuel than trucks do.
I'm cheap but even I know that when a brake line leaks you don't fix it with duct tape, you replace the line!!
I'm thinking this is a knowingly false analogy. Bridges are not like brakes where they either break or not. We have been very good about building bridges for a long time, and spectacular failures of all but a few ancient bridges are rare.
Instead, when a bridge needs replacing is when the actual steel used in construction has started to fail. This can be measured, if the steel is visible, very easily (look at it with a microscope, basically). If not, you have to be a bit more creative.
Also, something interesting about bridges and roads is that usually they are replaced for capacity and routing reasons rather than simply being broken.
Another interesting thing is that roads are built using materials that have a lifespan of about a decade. There is longer lasting and tougher material out there, but it's pointedly not used.
Why? A couple good reasons.
1. Cost. It's cheaper to put in. 2. Ease of repair. It's easier to repair things like potholes. 3. Planned Obsolesence. A road is supposed to be redesigned (at least investigated) around every ten years or so. This way, if the city has grown massively, by about the time the road needs major work they'll be ready to reroute it or widen it anyway. If not, it's still cheaper to renovate.
Unfortunately, what's happened is that they remembered the first two reasons but the budget generally isn't there for revamping roads as per part three. Traffic Engineers would try to push for better materials because of this, but it's hard to upsell the government.
Well, if you live in an area with a lot of ice, sometimes it's best to use the cheaper materials because of the ease of repair, especially since the ice may not give that much of a longevity advantage to more expensive materials. That's why you'll usually find asphalt in northern areas of the country but the much more durable concrete in the south. Concrete may last longer with normal traffic wear and tear, but ice will mess it up just as easily as it does asphalt and asphalt is much cheaper to repair.
There's more than just engineering studies. There is also the intangible element. Lots of people remodel their kitchens. Sure, newer appliances might increase efficiency, but the old cabinets held pots just as well. They do it because people enjoy being in certain kinds of places. You can't put a numerical value on that.
The Grand Central Terminal renovation is a great example. They left exactly one dirty spot on the ceiling to show people how it used to be. How much value do you put on the feelings experienced by the thousands who go into that station every day?
There are lot of things we should upgrade even if it's not worth it on paper because the quantifiable value of "having nice things" puts it over the top. We always complain that this is why we can't have nice things. Well, let's fucking have some nice things.
There's more than just engineering studies. There is also the intangible element. Lots of people remodel their kitchens. Sure, newer appliances might increase efficiency, but the old cabinets held pots just as well. They do it because people enjoy being in certain kinds of places. You can't put a numerical value on that.
The Grand Central Terminal renovation is a great example. They left exactly one dirty spot on the ceiling to show people how it used to be. How much value do you put on the feelings experienced by the thousands who go into that station every day?
There are lot of things we should upgrade even if it's not worth it on paper because the quantifiable value of "having nice things" puts it over the top. We always complain that this is why we can't have nice things. Well, let's fucking have some nice things.
We are going to remodel our kitchen, but it is purely for practical reasons. We need more counter space. We also need to be able to use the room more effectively, and be able to use the "breakfast nook".
Everything can be viewed in cold, objective facts and numbers.
There's more than just engineering studies. There is also the intangible element. Lots of people remodel their kitchens. Sure, newer appliances might increase efficiency, but the old cabinets held pots just as well. They do it because people enjoy being in certain kinds of places. You can't put a numerical value on that.
The Grand Central Terminal renovation is a great example. They left exactly one dirty spot on the ceiling to show people how it used to be. How much value do you put on the feelings experienced by the thousands who go into that station every day?
There are lot of things we should upgrade even if it's not worth it on paper because the quantifiable value of "having nice things" puts it over the top. We always complain that this is why we can't have nice things. Well, let's fucking have some nice things.
We are going to remodel our kitchen, but it is purely for practical reasons. We need more counter space. We also need to be able to use the room more effectively, and be able to use the "breakfast nook".
Everything can be viewed in cold, objective facts and numbers.
Can be, but shouldn't be. There's no reason to limit things to objective economic benefits. Aesthetics are important to society or we wouldn't have art. It's OK for tax money to be spent on subjective things.
There's more than just engineering studies. There is also the intangible element. Lots of people remodel their kitchens. Sure, newer appliances might increase efficiency, but the old cabinets held pots just as well. They do it because people enjoy being in certain kinds of places. You can't put a numerical value on that.
The Grand Central Terminal renovation is a great example. They left exactly one dirty spot on the ceiling to show people how it used to be. How much value do you put on the feelings experienced by the thousands who go into that station every day?
There are lot of things we should upgrade even if it's not worth it on paper because the quantifiable value of "having nice things" puts it over the top. We always complain that this is why we can't have nice things. Well, let's fucking have some nice things.
We are going to remodel our kitchen, but it is purely for practical reasons. We need more counter space. We also need to be able to use the room more effectively, and be able to use the "breakfast nook".
Everything can be viewed in cold, objective facts and numbers.
Just get some old cabinets and counters instead of new ones. If you go based just on the facts and figures that's what you would do. But you aren't, are you? You're going to spend extra to get new ones because they are nicer.
Nope, we will probably replace like with like, actually. If we replace the counter top it will likely simply be a modern equivalent to what is already there because it would cost more money to find older stuff.
We are remodeling by removing some cabinets that are in the way, too.
True, there is nothing wrong with some tax money to be spent to "prettify" things like Grand Central station or whatever. However, if I have $1 million to spend and I can only choose to spend it to make Grand Central look nicer or to repair Deathtrap Memorial Bridge that looks to be about a year away from collapsing, I'm choosing to repair Deathtrap Memorial Bridge first. Spend first on things that are actually dangerous and/or non-functional. Once those are taken care of, then we can spend to make things that are otherwise perfectly safe and functional look nicer. On the flip side, if I have $1 million to spend, but all my bridges appear to be perfectly safe and functional, then yeah, I'll use it to make Grand Central look nicer.
True, there is nothing wrong with some tax money to be spent to "prettify" things like Grand Central station or whatever. However, if I have $1 million to spend and I can only choose to spend it to make Grand Central look nicer or to repair Deathtrap Memorial Bridge that looks to be about a year away from collapsing, I'm choosing to repair Deathtrap Memorial Bridge first. Spend first on things that are actually dangerous and/or non-functional. Once those are taken care of, then we can spend to make things that are otherwise perfectly safe and functional look nicer. On the flip side, if I have $1 million to spend, but all my bridges appear to be perfectly safe and functional, then yeah, I'll use it to make Grand Central look nicer.
Obviously. But we're talking here about a solution to guarantee jobs to anyone. That means hiring and training lots of people and spending lots of money. We're also going to keep this going forever. Within some years we'll have all the firgurative deathtrap bridges fixed. Since we are replacing them with modern bridges, they will last for a very long time. We will run out of things that need upgrades on paper, and will have to build new things or prettify old things.
Obviously. But we're talking here about a solution to guarantee jobs to anyone. That means hiring and training lots of people and spending lots of money. We're also going to keep this going forever. Within some years we'll have all the firgurative deathtrap bridges fixed. Since we are replacing them with modern bridges, they will last for a very long time. We will run out of things that need upgrades on paper, and will have to build new things or prettify old things.
Oh, I agree with this completely. However, the United States right now is in a state where we have a lot of figurative deathtrap bridges that need to be fixed. Once all those are fixed and/or replaced, I'm perfectly fine with using maintenance budgets that otherwise wouldn't be used to prettify old things so long as we don't need new things to deal with changing capacity requirements. I'd even go along with the idea if we have $1 million to replace a deathtrap bridge and get 2 competing offers for it, one which costs $900k and replaces the bridge with a perfectly safe and functional, but ugly, bridge and another which costs the full $1 million for equal functionality and durability but is an aesthetically pleasing bridge, I'd cough up the full $1 million and go with the nicer looking bridge.
Jobs programs are socialism and we will never have them again until we bomb all the red states out of existence and drive Republicans out of the blue ones like rats.
I think the bulk of the Republican base will disagree with you. The government paying anybody who's not a major corporation for anything is socialism according to them at this point. The Right has demonized the entire of concept of social programs past the point of no return with a subset of the population who will never be swayed back.
Well, how many of these infrastructure programs are actually performed by government employees? Usually what happens is that the government puts a call out to private contractors, big and small, to offer proposals and price estimates to build a bridge, for example. The various contractors then do their own leg work to figure out how much it would cost them to build said bridge and then give the estimates to the government. The government then evaluates all the proposals and chooses one (usually the lowest bidder, but it depends) to perform the work. That private contractor then does the work, using existing staff they employ and hiring additional staff, if necessary, to complete it.
I can see an argument where if the work is performed by government employees, it's socialism. However, if the government is hiring private contractors to do the work, then it's not socialism.
Comments
If multiple stations are wanted do you build cheapest one first or most useful ?
CT has less than 100 electric cars, when do you build the infrastructure to support them?
You don't want to make a new train station? You like the shitty old one we have? You say this is the best country in the world, but all the things you have are shit. China and all of Europe has better, better, stronger things than you have. The guy next door has a bigger TV than you do also!
I think they probably built it primarily for tax breaks. Doesn't GE pay basically no federal taxes? These arguments are made all the time and haven't worked so far. Especially w.r.t. healthcare. Public infrastructure of any kind is SOCIALISM!! OOOOOH! BOOGEDY BOOGEDY!!
Which need is greater renovating an old station or building a new station? Can the old station get by with cosmetic fixes or does it need major rehab?
Do we fix the existing bridge or build a new one to replace it?
At what point do we move an area's mass transit from busses to trains? If we build it will they come?
1. Cost/benefit analysis would be useful in that decision, as well as an objective study of the area that would determine the cause of disuse leading to failing.
2. Have materials improved enough to warrant a complete rebuild? How old is old, how much use does it get nowadays? We can measure these things and use information to make good decisions.
3. This is a very difficult question to answer, but the two are not really replacements for each other. Trains are useful when there is a lot of Point A to Point B or Point C sort of things. Spoke and hub, that sort of thing. Buses are more useful for ad-hoc networks of transportation. Really depends on the city and usage, but again these are things that can be measured.
The ugly realities of politics will make these things painful, but I think infrastructure improvement (even if improvement = simple maintenance) can pay good dividends and people are willing and able to understand that.
Our town is the only town in the area that has refused to pave over its freight lines, because of two long standing businesses (a lumberyard and a propane dealer) that have been using them for decades. If not for them we'd have done it, too. I'm so proud to have those businesses here.
The same applies to a bridge. An engineering study can determine the costs of renovation vs. replacement, both short term (i.e it will cost $1 million to renovate vs. $10 million to build new), and long term (the $1 million renovation will only last 5 years, whereas the $10 million replacement will last 75 years). It will also even say if renovation is even possible (i.e. the existing bridge is so dilapidated that a 5 year band-aid repair is either impossible or cost nearly as much as a 75 year replacement). Again, these are all techniques that have been around and been used for a very, very long time.
Population statistics could also be used to determine the point at which we convert mass transit from buses to trains, again, doing proper cost-benefit analysis via statistical and engineering studies.
In an ideal world, the prioritization would be based purely on these quantitative methods, with the most desperate cases of lack of capacity and/or dilapidation being worked on first. Of course, with all the pork and other crap that gets shoved through the sausage grinder that is the political system, things don't always work out the way that cold, hard numbers and facts dictate they should.
Instead, when a bridge needs replacing is when the actual steel used in construction has started to fail. This can be measured, if the steel is visible, very easily (look at it with a microscope, basically). If not, you have to be a bit more creative.
Also, something interesting about bridges and roads is that usually they are replaced for capacity and routing reasons rather than simply being broken.
Another interesting thing is that roads are built using materials that have a lifespan of about a decade. There is longer lasting and tougher material out there, but it's pointedly not used.
Why? A couple good reasons.
1. Cost. It's cheaper to put in.
2. Ease of repair. It's easier to repair things like potholes.
3. Planned Obsolesence. A road is supposed to be redesigned (at least investigated) around every ten years or so. This way, if the city has grown massively, by about the time the road needs major work they'll be ready to reroute it or widen it anyway. If not, it's still cheaper to renovate.
Unfortunately, what's happened is that they remembered the first two reasons but the budget generally isn't there for revamping roads as per part three. Traffic Engineers would try to push for better materials because of this, but it's hard to upsell the government.
The Grand Central Terminal renovation is a great example. They left exactly one dirty spot on the ceiling to show people how it used to be. How much value do you put on the feelings experienced by the thousands who go into that station every day?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jblough/238020162/
There are lot of things we should upgrade even if it's not worth it on paper because the quantifiable value of "having nice things" puts it over the top. We always complain that this is why we can't have nice things. Well, let's fucking have some nice things.
Everything can be viewed in cold, objective facts and numbers.
We are remodeling by removing some cabinets that are in the way, too.
It's a big problem when people choose to evaluate government programs in black and white rather than evaluating each on its own merits.
I can see an argument where if the work is performed by government employees, it's socialism. However, if the government is hiring private contractors to do the work, then it's not socialism.