Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

I don't see any particular reason to support or oppose an American SST or American high speed rail - projects like that should either earn their way into the infrastructure based on their merits or not. Sometimes those sorts of projects may need a kick start to develop the initial technology, which is a fine and appropriate role for government to play, but I wouldn't see any particular reason to be proud of an American SST or high speed rail that required massive subsidies to sustain its operating costs on an ongoing basis.

So there should be no reason for the government to subsidize road travel on an ongoing basis. Roads should all be privatized and any revenue should go to repair and upkeep on the roads. Let the road system earn its way into the infrastructure on its own merits. Interesting idea.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Since when does an SST have an impact equivalent to our highway system? Would you use an SST to get to work every morning? To travel less than a few thousand miles when you could do that much cheaper on a regular jetliner or in your automobile?

Another SST would be just like the Concorde - subsidized luxury transportation for those who could afford the $10,000 one-way ticket. Let's not even start on the noise issue.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

So there should be no reason for the government to subsidize road travel on an ongoing basis. Roads should all be privatized and any revenue should go to repair and upkeep on the roads. Let the road system earn its way into the infrastructure on its own merits. Interesting idea.

I assume you must also oppose continuing federal funding for every big city mass transit authority, not a single one of which has ever or will ever break even, let alone turn a profit. You know ". . .massive subsidies to sustain its operating costs on an ongoing basis."

You both make the same fundamental mistake - thinking too small. Obviously no public road ever "pays for itself" directly - after all, its use is free by definition. And a mass transit system may well never turn a profit. Yet, in the big picture, both may provide significant economic benefits (positive externalities, if you like) that make their development or operation very worthwhile endeavors - those external benefits are what earn them their existence. I have absolutely no qualms about public financing or subsidy of those types of projects. I think it strains credulity to suggest that an SST or high speed rail project could ever hope to meet even my rather relaxed definition of "worthwhile."

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Since when does an SST have an impact equivalent to our highway system? Would you use an SST to get to work every morning? To travel less than a few thousand miles when you could do that much cheaper on a regular jetliner or in your automobile?

Another SST would be just like the Concorde - subsidized luxury transportation for those who could afford the $10,000 one-way ticket. Let's not even start on the noise issue.

Yet millios of Americans who neither fly nor drive wind up subsidizing highways (federal, state, county) and airports and various related facilities. The SST I referred to was proposed 40 years ago, try to keep up. Now research is underway on hypersonic aircraft capable of many times the speed of sound. Who knows where that research will lead? There are no guaranteed payoffs. Absent that, should we not invest in these technologies?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

You both make the same fundamental mistake - thinking too small. Obviously no public road ever "pays for itself" directly - after all, its use is free by definition. And a mass transit system may well never turn a profit. Yet, in the big picture, both may provide significant economic benefits (positive externalities, if you like) that make their development or operation very worthwhile endeavors - those external benefits are what earn them their existence. I have absolutely no qualms about public financing or subsidy of those types of projects. I think it strains credulity to suggest that an SST or high speed rail project could ever hope to meet even my rather relaxed definition of "worthwhile."

I understand: "It's different (he whined)" Yes, they are different. My view is your "one size fits all" analysis is flawed as a result. For instance, unlike any other mode of transportation, railroads own their rights of way. Grayhound doesn't own the highways. And United doesn't own the sky. I have no idea whether the trillions of dollars we've pumped into mass transit in this country are "worth" it or not. Even under your "relaxed" standards. The only chance mass transit has of ever breaking even is to convince people who don't have to ride, to ride. In NYC and to a lesser extent Chicago, many people use mass transit who have the means to get to work on their own.

So continue comparing apples to oranges if it pleases you, but that doesn't make you right.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Yet millios of Americans who neither fly nor drive wind up subsidizing highways (federal, state, county) and airports and various related facilities. The SST I referred to was proposed 40 years ago, try to keep up. Now research is underway on hypersonic aircraft capable of many times the speed of sound. Who knows where that research will lead? There are no guaranteed payoffs. Absent that, should we not invest in these technologies?

If private industry wants to invest, they should. I think if Boeing realized any value in such a project, they'd have already initiated it, and probably asked the gov't for partial funding. Instead, both Boeing and the EU shell corp called Airbus have realized that it's presently about fuel efficiency and helping airlines reduce the total cost of transporting one passenger for each flight segment.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Yet millios of Americans who neither fly nor drive wind up subsidizing highways (federal, state, county) and airports and various related facilities. The SST I referred to was proposed 40 years ago, try to keep up. Now research is underway on hypersonic aircraft capable of many times the speed of sound. Who knows where that research will lead? There are no guaranteed payoffs. Absent that, should we not invest in these technologies?

Do you apply this same "let's fund every pie-in-the-sky" philosophy to green energy projects, too? Or would you "whine" that those are somehow different?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

If private industry wants to invest, they should. I think if Boeing realized any value in such a project, they'd have already initiated it, and probably asked the gov't for partial funding. Instead, both Boeing and the EU shell corp called Airbus have realized that it's presently about fuel efficiency and helping airlines reduce the total cost of transporting one passenger for each flight segment.

Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, you're prescient. Boeing had orders for over 100 of their proposed SST's before Congress withdrew it's support. As I say, the plane they had designed would have been more efficient and more cost effective to operate. Not to mention tens of thousands of jobs (George Meaney was a big supporter). Since you seem to be obtuse on this question: I'm not proposing a 1971 SST for today. Got it? So all of your profound 40 year old arguments are really not on point. But here's what hasn't changed: if they prevail, those arguments can only make certain the US and many of its workers lose out on the development of future technologies. For instance, I don't hold it against the Obama administration looking to invest in new technologies. I hold it against the administration for apparantly making cronyism a key requirement for the federal largesse.

Since at least the New Deal (and before) Uncle Sam has been assisting in the development of technology in the private sector. Or in some instances, doing all of the R & D. No major leap in technology is possible these days without government help. The days of Edison tinkering in his work shop in New Jersey are gone.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, you're prescient. Boeing had orders for over 100 of their proposed SST's before Congress withdrew it's support. As I say, the plane they had designed would have been more efficient and more cost effective to operate. Not to mention tens of thousands of jobs (George Meaney was a big supporter). Since you seem to be obtuse on this question: I'm not proposing a 1971 SST for today. Got it? So all of your profound 40 year old arguments are really not on point.

As opposed to your excellent argument that we should have funded Boeing's project 40 years ago, for which there was no clear market purpose, just because, "hey - you never know!" Why stop there - why not have the government invest in lottery tickets, too?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

As opposed to your excellent argument that we should have funded Boeing's project 40 years ago, for which there was no clear market purpose, just because, "hey - you never know!" Why stop there - why not have the government invest in lottery tickets, too?

Is that what I said? You're not aware that the Concorde flew for decades? This is news to you? I'll say it again, since you evidently didn't process the information: Boeing had orders for well over 100 of the planes. That's miles awy from "hey - you never know." My guess is, that they would have delivered even more once the word got out how good the plane was.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

I wouldn't dismiss high speed rail projects so quickly.

Frequently big game changing infrastructure projects include upfront pain...but have huge long term benefits. From national park system to the TVA to the interstate system to projects like the Eisenhower tunnel. Locally I can tell you our light rail has turned out it be a great success and...independent studies by Accounting giant McGladrey confirmed that our Metrodome used $33M public funds in '82 and to date has generated an estimated $319M in incremental tax revenue alone (which says nothing of other tangential benefits).

In the end, need to prioritize and correctly set the budget.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

As opposed to your excellent argument that we should have funded Boeing's project 40 years ago, for which there was no clear market purpose, just because, "hey - you never know!" Why stop there - why not have the government invest in lottery tickets, too?

When did I make that argument?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Is that what I said? You're not aware that the Concorde flew for decades? This is news to you? I'll say it again, since you evidently didn't process the information: Boeing had orders for well over 100 of the planes. That's miles awy from "hey - you never know." My guess is, that they would have delivered even more once the word got out how good the plane was.

You're trying to lecture an aerospace engineer about Concorde or SST? Too funny. Guess how many orders BA/Aerospatiale had for Concorde before it was built? Yep - around 100. Concorde flew for decades and was a huge money pit that in no way generated enough economic benefits to justify the cost that the British and French governments ended up sinking into it. Boeing's offering would have turned out no differently but they had the wisdom to cut their losses and not build the thing out of sheer stubborn pride.

But hey, whenever anyone advocates that we should pump billions of taxpayer dollars into the aerospace industry, who am I to argue?

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Since you seem to be obtuse on this question: I'm not proposing a 1971 SST for today. Got it? So all of your profound 40 year old arguments are really not on point.

I was referring to the present lack of interest by both major airplane manufacturers in the development of a new SST - to me, this indicates there is little-to-no market for such a product, and taking the economic risk of produce airplanes for which there is no reasonable market is a terrible business model in the present aircraft/airline industry. If the interest from the airlines is not there, why would it be in their interest to invest the R&D money? I'm fairly confident that if a couple of the bigger airlines were to come to one or both of the manufacturers and say, "Yes, we're interested in a modern SST for our Pacific and Atlantic routes, and we can assure you firm orders of 25-50 to start, with options on another 25-50", then the R&D money would be allocated and government funding sought.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

I was referring to the present lack of interest by both major airplane manufacturers in the development of a new SST - to me, this indicates there is little-to-no market for such a product, and taking the economic risk of produce airplanes for which there is no reasonable market is a terrible business model in the present aircraft/airline industry. If the interest from the airlines is not there, why would it be in their interest to invest the R&D money? I'm fairly confident that if a couple of the bigger airlines were to come to one or both of the manufacturers and say, "Yes, we're interested in a modern SST for our Pacific and Atlantic routes, and we can assure you firm orders of 25-50 to start, with options on another 25-50", then the R&D money would be allocated and government funding sought.

Google reveals numerous articles about research into hypersonic transports, much (most?) of it by European and other foreign interests. I don't think that is indicative of a "present lack of interest." Actually, it sets up another scenario where we get our a*s handed to us for lack of vision. You continue to refer to an SST. Nobody is suggesting that. I'm still not convinced you understand what I'm talking about here. I'm optimistic because some sort of hypersonice vehicle figures to be the delivery system in Prompt Global Strike and DOD generally gets what DOD wants.

We have dropped the ball with space exploration. Let's not make that mistake again. As i said earlier, in the abstract, I have no problem with high speed rail and what it can mean for the future of transportation in this country. It's just that right now, California doesn't strike me as the place to start. This is a state choking on its own vomit. And this project doesn't strike me as the appropriate starting point either. Hypersonic transport strikes me as something in our future and we can either lead or follow. I prefer to lead.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

You're trying to lecture an aerospace engineer about Concorde or SST? Too funny. Guess how many orders BA/Aerospatiale had for Concorde before it was built? Yep - around 100. Concorde flew for decades and was a huge money pit that in no way generated enough economic benefits to justify the cost that the British and French governments ended up sinking into it. Boeing's offering would have turned out no differently but they had the wisdom to cut their losses and not build the thing out of sheer stubborn pride.

But hey, whenever anyone advocates that we should pump billions of taxpayer dollars into the aerospace industry, who am I to argue?

I'm not lecturing anybody about anything. i don't know who's an aerospace engineer or who's a honey dipper (although I have my suspicions). I do know that part of what has made America great is being the world leader in technology. And we shouldn't voluntarily give up that position. Or start wearing Jimmy Carter cardigans again. I know that since the Great Society, we've spent trillions of dollars trying to help the less fortunate. And what has it gotten us? If we were to apply the same standards used to allocate those funds and "pump billions of dollars into the aerosspace industry," I'm guessing we'd be better off. I know that Texas idiot Sheila Jackson Lee is proposing federal "anti-bullying" funds. If that camel's nose ever gets under the tent, how many billions of dollars will be thrown down that rat hole?

And the politicization of the funding for the American SST by Congress was or was not "sheer stubborn pride?" Another poster who thinks hindsight make him prescient. FWIW at the time the project was cancelled, Wiki says Boeing had 115orders from 25 airlines, the Concorde 75 orders from 16 airlines.

 

[joecct]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

Any comments on government support for space travel? Was the old model (NASA alone)better than the new model (a mix)?

Edit: Let's cut senior benefits- UK style. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18778359

 

[pirate]

ROTFLMAO. That's a good one.

So, nobody was Influenced by the Palin choice? Quayle? Even Biden had an impact...if Obama had picked somebody with no foreign policy experience it would have hurt him.

While it becomes trite, they are literally one second from being President.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

So there should be no reason for the government to subsidize road travel on an ongoing basis. Roads should all be privatized and any revenue should go to repair and upkeep on the roads. Let the road system earn its way into the infrastructure on its own merits. Interesting idea.

i believe his post was SST or HiSpeed rail. you notice you do that a lot?? ignore the point or question and throw something obvious out there that nobody was talking about?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!

i believe his post was SST or HiSpeed rail. you notice you do that a lot?? ignore the point or question and throw something obvious out there that nobody was talking about?

No, I point out fallacies in the argument by extending the argument to other examples. For instance, while he was pointing out that high speed rail (I never mentioned SST) should "earn its way" he apparently forgot that roads and bridges get plenty of money from the government (read: a subsidy). So it makes sense that if you don't want the government providing a subsidy for rail, you would be against providing a subsidy for roads...unless of course, you're a hypocrite....and I'm sure no one on this board is a hypocrite!