One place the Acela nails pricing is the $80-100 up charge for first class. At that amount, it sells put almost every train. Contrast planes that might have to upgrade half the first class seats do they don't sit empty (which still means empty seats on the plane).
What does 1st class get you on a train? The lower-class train seats I've been in were always pretty comfortable compared to airline coach seats.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
One place the Acela nails pricing is the $80-100 up charge for first class. At that amount, it sells put almost every train. Contrast planes that might have to upgrade half the first class seats do they don't sit empty (which still means empty seats on the plane).
What does 1st class get you on a train? The lower-class train seats I've been in were always pretty comfortable compared to airline coach seats.
The seats are a little wider and one whole aisle is single seaters, but Acela seats are all amazing, so that isn't a big deal. The big thing is they have a full open bar and serve you a meal.
the problem with the Acela is it is way too expensive. to get from dc to New York, it costs $300 round trip per person and takes 3 hours each way. I can drive it in 4, and only use one tank of gas for $50 round trip in my car.
Let's take the most common Acela scenario: the same day business meeting.
Your 4 hour drive becomes a 5 hour drive, due to rush hour traffic, and costs $40 for NYC parking. Roundtrip, you just spent 10 hours driving in one day. That's 10 hours wasted that could've been spent prepping for the meeting, or spend on followup actions post meeting. Note that followups still need to be done, no matter what, so you have 2 hours of work waiting for you, even after driving home. Assume 6 hours in NYC, and that's an 18 hour day.
Acela is 2 hr 45 min one way, plus 15 min for your spouse to drop you off, so 6 hours total roundtrip, and you can do actual work during the trip, because Acela has nice seats, tables, and wifi. All told, it's a 12 hour day.
Basically, you save 6 hours (4 in travel, 2 in homework) at the cost of only $210. Completely worth it.
One place the Acela nails pricing is the $80-100 up charge for first class. At that amount, it sells put almost every train. Contrast planes that might have to upgrade half the first class seats do they don't sit empty (which still means empty seats on the plane).
What does 1st class get you on a train? The lower-class train seats I've been in were always pretty comfortable compared to airline coach seats.
The seats are a little wider and one whole aisle is single seaters, but Acela seats are all amazing, so that isn't a big deal. The big thing is they have a full open bar and serve you a meal.
Hmmm.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Im just annoyed that ACES route from NYC to Atlantic City collapsed. They priced that too goddamn high though. IIRC correctly it was $60 each way and took as long as the bus.
I'd love to see some actual high speed rail in this country. Even the Acela isn't really high speed. If I remember correctly, the Acela doesn't even get to its max speed on most of its route, right?
It's a slow train by modern standards, but the fastest in America, it just can't get to doped because it doesn't have dedicated track. But it's so civilized, especially first class. The hot towel service actually just came around.
My understanding of Acela is that Amtrak owns the right of way (or it is shared with municipal transit authorities, but that's nearly the same thing since we aren't talking about timetabling around freight trains with property rights) however that right of way uses track routes that are nearly a century old in some places and as such aren't really all that straight and so aren't amenable to high speed standards. It averages over ~90 mph, which is easily better than driving and slightly better than flying when taking security and transportation from the airport to downtown into account, but still practically half the speed we would be capable of achieving with off the shelf parts if we ever felt like investing in nice things.
the problem with the Acela is it is way too expensive. to get from dc to New York, it costs $300 round trip per person and takes 3 hours each way. I can drive it in 4, and only use one tank of gas for $50 round trip in my car.
If I were making that trip, I'd probably spend the extra to get there faster and be able to do things while in transit instead of having to concentrate on driving the whole way.
Interstate driving is boring and exhausting.
That is not worth an extra $550. And JetBlue regularly runs sales for $59 per person. If train travel wants to catch on mainstream, it needs to get cheaper.
the problem with the Acela is it is way too expensive. to get from dc to New York, it costs $300 round trip per person and takes 3 hours each way. I can drive it in 4, and only use one tank of gas for $50 round trip in my car.
Let's take the most common Acela scenario: the same day business meeting.
Your 4 hour drive becomes a 5 hour drive, due to rush hour traffic, and costs $40 for NYC parking. Roundtrip, you just spent 10 hours driving in one day. That's 10 hours wasted that could've been spent prepping for the meeting, or spend on followup actions post meeting. Note that followups still need to be done, no matter what, so you have 2 hours of work waiting for you, even after driving home. Assume 6 hours in NYC, and that's an 18 hour day.
Acela is 2 hr 45 min one way, plus 15 min for your spouse to drop you off, so 6 hours total roundtrip, and you can do actual work during the trip, because Acela has nice seats, tables, and wifi. All told, it's a 12 hour day.
Basically, you save 6 hours (4 in travel, 2 in homework) at the cost of only $210. Completely worth it.
Sure, it's worth it for a same day business meeting where your company is reimbursing you. But how often does this realistically happen? Joe Schmo is not spending $600 for him and his wife to go to NY for a weekend.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Man I missed the boat on news today. Did the president give a big speech about trains? I like trains, they're neat. I wanted to be a conductor for a period as a child, before I realized I didn't live in 1875.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Man I missed the boat on news today. Did the president give a big speech about trains? I like trains, they're neat. I wanted to be a conductor for a period as a child, before I realized I didn't live in 1875.
Conductors are still around surprisingly.
And I've looked at rail jobs as a possibility now that I'm getting out of the military. Modern trains are pretty kickass, and there's just something awesome (to me anyway) about going through all those old routes in the back country that you can't see from the highway.
Obama seriously needs to upgrade our national rail system... at the very least we need a few high speed transcontinental routes for cargo and shipment.
Man I missed the boat on news today. Did the president give a big speech about trains? I like trains, they're neat. I wanted to be a conductor for a period as a child, before I realized I didn't live in 1875.
He announced the appointment of a new, pro-train Secretary of Transportation:
Basically, an executive order was issued to replace all forms of transit in America with:
The reaction from existing train owners was. . . less than enthusiastic:
Edit:
Industrious people in other lines of transportation are already coming up with loopholes to the new "all modes of transportation must be cat trains" requirement though:
spacekungfuman on
+11
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Keystone basically has neither a positive nor a negative long term impact.
Unless it explodes or leaks or something.
It sort of just is.
Primarily because it's not our oil and it's going to be shipped off to China.
Really? Are we getting anything out of this outside of an opportunity for a giant tar sands related disaster?
Essentially nothing
We get to buy the price at the oil speculators think we should pay.
So there's that.
So much pain.
The oil is getting processed in the US.
So the oil workers continue to be payed crazy salaries and contributes to one of the last blue collar bastions in the US.
If you want to work with your hands for a company Petroleum is one of the last big industries in the US.
The oil is moving through the US and each state get's what is essentially a toll per barrel.
About a 1000 Jobs for a couple of years in constructions.
As far as directly from the pipeline ain't nothing, but it's true it isn't a lot.
---
The oil on the other hand is another story.
It is big business, in both the sense that oil companies are huge multinational conglomerates and also in the sense that it hires and pay very well a whole lot of people in the US.
that Nordic socialist paradise recently loved in this thread -> oil economy
the south american socials hell whole recently decried in this forum -> oil economy
---
Today Oil is the cheapest, simplest, safest medium for storing and transporting energy (primary effects).
It's hugely important to the global economy.
And a crazy dangerous environmental, social, religious, national disaster (secondary effects).
---
Until someone ponies up the 200 million for a commercial grade net-power pollywell. The West will pretty much always be dependent on oil.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm normally pragmatic when it comes to this kind of thing, but in this case, I hope he keeps on this issue for the rest of his term. Even if we can't get any real movement, maybe he can at least help to make inroads in how people think.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
In case anyone doubted that trains are on topic in the Catbama thread, just Monday, the following story ran:
In a recent news segment, CNN raised serious doubts about the viability of a high-speed rail network, charging that “four years and $12 billion after [Obama's] pledge to bring high-speed rail across America, the slow trains are just moving a little faster.” The program has so far created 134 “scattered projects” across the country that seem far from achieving the goals laid out in 2009.
For example, Washington state received $800 million from the federal government to improve the trip between Seattle and Portland. But that investment has only made the three-hour forty-minute ride 10 minutes shorter. Washington’s trains max out at 79 mph and average in the low 50s. In a January report in the same series, CNN found that $52 million spent on tracks in Vermont only shaved 28 minutes off of Amtrak schedules — not a great return on investment, considering the amount of public funding devoted to these projects.
However, Paula Hammond, former secretary of transportation for Washington state, argues that there are other benefits from the project, such as expanded routes and more reliable scheduling. She explained that the state never intended to build a system like the famous “bullet trains” of Japan and Europe. Notwithstanding grandiose D.C. promises, in the Northwest region, said Hammond, “we want the ability of our communities to be connected so that we can provide travel, a daily business trip between Seattle and Portland, and the opportunity not to have to fight traffic.”
CNN correspondent Anderson Cooper complained that it seems “misleading” to bill these federal expenditures as “high-speed rail” funding when they’re really just being used to make slow trains move a little faster.
For now, the most ambitious plan for a high-speed bullet train is a California project that would connect Los Angeles to San Francisco and run trains at speeds of 200 mph. However, the expected cost of the California project mushroomed from $34 billion when first approved in 2008 to $98-$118 billion in May 2012, with no track laid thus far. The high projected cost has led California to scale back its plans, and the project remains unpopular among California citizens.
. . .
Any long-term high-speed rail development is more likely to be a “multi-generational effort.” And, contrary to CNN’s implied message, high-speed rail is already operating in the U.S., with rail ridership growing by 49 percent since 2000. “Imagine how many people would flock to trains if they were fast, elegant, and on time,” Streetsblog argues.
Moreover, construction and support of a high-speed rail network may become a national priority if the U.S. hopes to maintain a competitive advantage within the global economy. By comparison, countries in Western Europe have had an advanced high-speed rail system for decades.
China, the U.S.’s main economic competitor, has already completed more than 5,800 kilometers of high-speed railway, according to Singularity Hub. In the next two years, China intends to double that amount to connect its most densely populated regions with its busiest manufacturing centers, and plans to hit 31,000 miles by 2020.
Of course, strategies that work in China wouldn’t necessarily succeed in the U.S., but rail advocates think America’s failure to keep up with high-speed rail development will work against its ability to provide a favorable and efficient environment for business activity.
So much pain.
The oil on the other hand is another story.
It is big business, in both the sense that oil companies are huge multinational conglomerates and also in the sense that it hires and pay very well a whole lot of people in the US. that Nordic socialist paradise recently loved in this thread -> oil economy
the south american socials hell whole recently decried in this forum -> oil economy
Actually there is only one Nordic Country that's a oil economy -> Norway.
The other countries Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland are explicitly not oil rich countries. Even Norway pays for most of its welfare programs through its regular economy and saves its oil wealth in its sovereign wealth fund.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
In an article published Wednesday on the conservative website RedState, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus blasted Democrats for supporting Planned Parenthood, while floating the damning suggestion that the likes of President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) support infanticide.
“The President, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Democratic Leader, and the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (in whose home state this hearing occurred) made funding Planned Parenthood an issue in the 2012 campaign,” Priebus wrote. “They should now all be held to account for that outspoken support. If the media won’t, then voters must ask the pressing questions: Do these Democrats also believe a newborn has no rights? Do they also endorse infanticide?”
and the project remains unpopular among California citizens.
This makes me so sad. All because no one in the states can look past their own god damn nose anymore, if they could they would see the crazy long term benefits such a rail could provide.
Everyone wants the results now, and high speed rail just isn't going to work on that timetable (har har), it's going to a long time and gobs of money.
In an article published Wednesday on the conservative website RedState, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus blasted Democrats for supporting Planned Parenthood, while floating the damning suggestion that the likes of President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) support infanticide.
“The President, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Democratic Leader, and the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (in whose home state this hearing occurred) made funding Planned Parenthood an issue in the 2012 campaign,” Priebus wrote. “They should now all be held to account for that outspoken support. If the media won’t, then voters must ask the pressing questions: Do these Democrats also believe a newborn has no rights? Do they also endorse infanticide?”
Ah, I saw the original occurrence of this. The original video is just some committee members asking a planned parenthood representative if a fetus that survives abortion should then be cared for as if it was a newborn child. The rep. never answered the question directly and resorted to saying it's up to the healthcare giver and the parents. So, like everything else (R), a completely fabricated story.
the problem with the Acela is it is way too expensive. to get from dc to New York, it costs $300 round trip per person and takes 3 hours each way. I can drive it in 4, and only use one tank of gas for $50 round trip in my car.
Let's take the most common Acela scenario: the same day business meeting.
Your 4 hour drive becomes a 5 hour drive, due to rush hour traffic, and costs $40 for NYC parking. Roundtrip, you just spent 10 hours driving in one day. That's 10 hours wasted that could've been spent prepping for the meeting, or spend on followup actions post meeting. Note that followups still need to be done, no matter what, so you have 2 hours of work waiting for you, even after driving home. Assume 6 hours in NYC, and that's an 18 hour day.
Acela is 2 hr 45 min one way, plus 15 min for your spouse to drop you off, so 6 hours total roundtrip, and you can do actual work during the trip, because Acela has nice seats, tables, and wifi. All told, it's a 12 hour day.
Basically, you save 6 hours (4 in travel, 2 in homework) at the cost of only $210. Completely worth it.
Sure, it's worth it for a same day business meeting where your company is reimbursing you. But how often does this realistically happen? Joe Schmo is not spending $600 for him and his wife to go to NY for a weekend.
No, but clearly there are plenty of customers at this price point since Amtrak is running as many trains as they can jam through the Hudson tubes, they sell out basically every Acela that isn't leaving at like 5AM and the Acela turns a profit. So I would say it realistically happens hundreds of times every single day.
Their customer is not you. Just as airline first-class customers are not you. The Northeast Regional is also pretty fast from DC to NYC (competitive with driving/bus if you are going into the city) and is much cheaper than Acela ($50 each way if you book 6 weeks ahead) and way more comfortable than driving or taking the bus.
Cost is a thing that I imagine would scale pretty reasonably, too. Like OK, yeah that's pretty expensive for a short-distance trip like that, but wouldn't longer trips be cheaper on a per-mile (or whatever) basis? It seems that way, but I am not a train expert.
I'd love to see some actual high speed rail in this country. Even the Acela isn't really high speed. If I remember correctly, the Acela doesn't even get to its max speed on most of its route, right?
It's a slow train by modern standards, but the fastest in America, it just can't get to doped because it doesn't have dedicated track. But it's so civilized, especially first class. The hot towel service actually just came around.
My understanding of Acela is that Amtrak owns the right of way (or it is shared with municipal transit authorities, but that's nearly the same thing since we aren't talking about timetabling around freight trains with property rights) however that right of way uses track routes that are nearly a century old in some places and as such aren't really all that straight and so aren't amenable to high speed standards. It averages over ~90 mph, which is easily better than driving and slightly better than flying when taking security and transportation from the airport to downtown into account, but still practically half the speed we would be capable of achieving with off the shelf parts if we ever felt like investing in nice things.
the problem with the Acela is it is way too expensive. to get from dc to New York, it costs $300 round trip per person and takes 3 hours each way. I can drive it in 4, and only use one tank of gas for $50 round trip in my car.
Where on earth are you getting your numbers? I just put in a return trip on their website for a date a couple weeks from now and am getting $200 round trip total for both people.
Which will include free wifi, comfortable seating, and access to a cafe with bar. And no hold ups at security that people flying will have to deal with. And all of my time spent doing whatever I want at my leisure for three hours opposed to having to focus on driving, an activity I don't enjoy the slightest and can't imagine would any more in NYC, for four.
I'd love to see some actual high speed rail in this country. Even the Acela isn't really high speed. If I remember correctly, the Acela doesn't even get to its max speed on most of its route, right?
It's a slow train by modern standards, but the fastest in America, it just can't get to doped because it doesn't have dedicated track. But it's so civilized, especially first class. The hot towel service actually just came around.
My understanding of Acela is that Amtrak owns the right of way (or it is shared with municipal transit authorities, but that's nearly the same thing since we aren't talking about timetabling around freight trains with property rights) however that right of way uses track routes that are nearly a century old in some places and as such aren't really all that straight and so aren't amenable to high speed standards. It averages over ~90 mph, which is easily better than driving and slightly better than flying when taking security and transportation from the airport to downtown into account, but still practically half the speed we would be capable of achieving with off the shelf parts if we ever felt like investing in nice things.
the problem with the Acela is it is way too expensive. to get from dc to New York, it costs $300 round trip per person and takes 3 hours each way. I can drive it in 4, and only use one tank of gas for $50 round trip in my car.
Where on earth are you getting your numbers? I just put in a return trip on their website for a date a couple weeks from now and am getting $200 round trip total for both people.
Which will include free wifi, comfortable seating, and access to a cafe with bar. And no hold ups at security that people flying will have to deal with. And all of my time spent doing whatever I want at my leisure for three hours opposed to having to focus on driving, an activity I don't enjoy the slightest and can't imagine would any more in NYC, for four.
The Amtrak website is confusing and lists prices for one way at a time. At least when I tried for this weekend a couple hours ago it was over $300.
Cost is a thing that I imagine would scale pretty reasonably, too. Like OK, yeah that's pretty expensive for a short-distance trip like that, but wouldn't longer trips be cheaper on a per-mile (or whatever) basis? It seems that way, but I am not a train expert.
The issue at long distances is that the train becomes even in cost with flying and is significantly slower even accounting for security.
I'd love to see some actual high speed rail in this country. Even the Acela isn't really high speed. If I remember correctly, the Acela doesn't even get to its max speed on most of its route, right?
It's a slow train by modern standards, but the fastest in America, it just can't get to doped because it doesn't have dedicated track. But it's so civilized, especially first class. The hot towel service actually just came around.
My understanding of Acela is that Amtrak owns the right of way (or it is shared with municipal transit authorities, but that's nearly the same thing since we aren't talking about timetabling around freight trains with property rights) however that right of way uses track routes that are nearly a century old in some places and as such aren't really all that straight and so aren't amenable to high speed standards. It averages over ~90 mph, which is easily better than driving and slightly better than flying when taking security and transportation from the airport to downtown into account, but still practically half the speed we would be capable of achieving with off the shelf parts if we ever felt like investing in nice things.
the problem with the Acela is it is way too expensive. to get from dc to New York, it costs $300 round trip per person and takes 3 hours each way. I can drive it in 4, and only use one tank of gas for $50 round trip in my car.
Where on earth are you getting your numbers? I just put in a return trip on their website for a date a couple weeks from now and am getting $200 round trip total for both people.
Which will include free wifi, comfortable seating, and access to a cafe with bar. And no hold ups at security that people flying will have to deal with. And all of my time spent doing whatever I want at my leisure for three hours opposed to having to focus on driving, an activity I don't enjoy the slightest and can't imagine would any more in NYC, for four.
The Amtrak website is confusing and lists prices for one way at a time. At least when I tried for this weekend a couple hours ago it was over $300.
Yeah the price can kick up really fast if you want to take business/first class or travel in the afternoon but those are luxuries anyway. Meanwhile a flight will take nearly as long for much more unless you luck in to a deal or reserve much earlier in advance.
Quite simply the price for the service is awesome and I'm supremely annoyed I can't get it anywhere in the US.
That's not Acela, it's the cheaper, slower, not as nice train. I haven't actually been on either so I'm not sure if the Acela is worth the difference in price.
Cost is a thing that I imagine would scale pretty reasonably, too. Like OK, yeah that's pretty expensive for a short-distance trip like that, but wouldn't longer trips be cheaper on a per-mile (or whatever) basis? It seems that way, but I am not a train expert.
The issue at long distances is that the train becomes even in cost with flying and is significantly slower even accounting for security.
I think if the price stayed reasonably low, it would be a viable alternative to air travel over fairly long distances.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
So much pain.
The oil on the other hand is another story.
It is big business, in both the sense that oil companies are huge multinational conglomerates and also in the sense that it hires and pay very well a whole lot of people in the US. that Nordic socialist paradise recently loved in this thread -> oil economy
the south american socials hell whole recently decried in this forum -> oil economy
Actually there is only one Nordic Country that's a oil economy -> Norway.
The other countries Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland are explicitly not oil rich countries. Even Norway pays for most of its welfare programs through its regular economy and saves its oil wealth in its sovereign wealth fund.
Which was exactly the country mentioned so there's that.
Also Norwegian Government Petroleum exports account for slightly above 10% of Norways GDP -> so IDK where you're going with that.
Edit: which does not include petroleum sector employment or private sector Petrol Company investment.
Is your argument that Petroleum is not big business?
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
That's not Acela, it's the cheaper, slower, not as nice train. I haven't actually been on either so I'm not sure if the Acela is worth the difference in price.
Cost is a thing that I imagine would scale pretty reasonably, too. Like OK, yeah that's pretty expensive for a short-distance trip like that, but wouldn't longer trips be cheaper on a per-mile (or whatever) basis? It seems that way, but I am not a train expert.
The issue at long distances is that the train becomes even in cost with flying and is significantly slower even accounting for security.
I think if the price stayed reasonably low, it would be a viable alternative to air travel over fairly long distances.
Not really. NY-LAX is about 6 hours by plane. The same trip in a train would be measured in days.
Again, the old joke - "the difference between the US and the UK is that the US thinks that 100 years is a long time, while the UK thinks that 100 miles is a long distance."
From what I understand, Mr. Becker uses date from the March 18th unemployment rates by state and a Gallop poll to come to a conclusion that conservative leaning states tend to have lower unemployment; therefore, conservative policies are better. I'm mostly concerned about all the qualifiers he uses to get his numbers, like this
In order to hedge against all gainsaying of how conservative or liberal people are (after all, the Democrats won another national election), only those states that are considered below the average 17.7 ‘conservative advantage’ score shall be considered ‘more liberal.
and this
we will just break the states down into those with below 7.7% unemployment, and those above 7.7%
Just smell a bit fishy to me although I can't explain exactly why. Other issues I find is that he easily slides "leaning conservative" to "conservative" outright, and then there's this
Interestingly, there is a high correspondence between Ideology and Party Dominance.
which I'm just, how is that interesting? It sounds pretty reasonable. I'm just trying to be a little prepared for when some people use it as a source against Obama's policies.
So much pain.
The oil on the other hand is another story.
It is big business, in both the sense that oil companies are huge multinational conglomerates and also in the sense that it hires and pay very well a whole lot of people in the US. that Nordic socialist paradise recently loved in this thread -> oil economy
the south american socials hell whole recently decried in this forum -> oil economy
Actually there is only one Nordic Country that's a oil economy -> Norway.
The other countries Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland are explicitly not oil rich countries. Even Norway pays for most of its welfare programs through its regular economy and saves its oil wealth in its sovereign wealth fund.
Which was exactly the country mentioned so there's that.
Also Norwegian Government Petroleum exports account for slightly above 10% of Norways GDP -> so IDK where you're going with that.
Edit: which does not include petroleum sector employment or private sector Petrol Company investment.
Is your argument that Petroleum is not big business?
My argument is that despite Norways vast oil wealth, it doesn't actually impact the economy as you think it does. Most of the oil wealth is siphoned off the sovereign wealth fund. It has never been spent on anything, much less welfare. The mainland economy is the one that actually pays for most of the welfare, up to 90% of the government budget comes from regular industry and income.
That is not an Oil Economy where the government hands out welfare largesse by selling natural resources on the global market. Its a normal Nordic economy.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
From what I understand, Mr. Becker uses date from the March 18th unemployment rates by state and a Gallop poll to come to a conclusion that conservative leaning states tend to have lower unemployment; therefore, conservative policies are better. I'm mostly concerned about all the qualifiers he uses to get his numbers, like this
In order to hedge against all gainsaying of how conservative or liberal people are (after all, the Democrats won another national election), only those states that are considered below the average 17.7 ‘conservative advantage’ score shall be considered ‘more liberal.
and this
we will just break the states down into those with below 7.7% unemployment, and those above 7.7%
Just smell a bit fishy to me although I can't explain exactly why. Other issues I find is that he easily slides "leaning conservative" to "conservative" outright, and then there's this
Interestingly, there is a high correspondence between Ideology and Party Dominance.
which I'm just, how is that interesting? It sounds pretty reasonable. I'm just trying to be a little prepared for when some people use it as a source against Obama's policies.
Without looking into it too hard, conservative states have a lot fewer people and a lot more extraction industries.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Cost is a thing that I imagine would scale pretty reasonably, too. Like OK, yeah that's pretty expensive for a short-distance trip like that, but wouldn't longer trips be cheaper on a per-mile (or whatever) basis? It seems that way, but I am not a train expert.
The issue at long distances is that the train becomes even in cost with flying and is significantly slower even accounting for security.
I think if the price stayed reasonably low, it would be a viable alternative to air travel over fairly long distances.
Not really. NY-LAX is about 6 hours by plane. The same trip in a train would be measured in days.
Posts
What does 1st class get you on a train? The lower-class train seats I've been in were always pretty comfortable compared to airline coach seats.
The seats are a little wider and one whole aisle is single seaters, but Acela seats are all amazing, so that isn't a big deal. The big thing is they have a full open bar and serve you a meal.
Your 4 hour drive becomes a 5 hour drive, due to rush hour traffic, and costs $40 for NYC parking. Roundtrip, you just spent 10 hours driving in one day. That's 10 hours wasted that could've been spent prepping for the meeting, or spend on followup actions post meeting. Note that followups still need to be done, no matter what, so you have 2 hours of work waiting for you, even after driving home. Assume 6 hours in NYC, and that's an 18 hour day.
Acela is 2 hr 45 min one way, plus 15 min for your spouse to drop you off, so 6 hours total roundtrip, and you can do actual work during the trip, because Acela has nice seats, tables, and wifi. All told, it's a 12 hour day.
Basically, you save 6 hours (4 in travel, 2 in homework) at the cost of only $210. Completely worth it.
Hmmm.
That is not worth an extra $550. And JetBlue regularly runs sales for $59 per person. If train travel wants to catch on mainstream, it needs to get cheaper.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Sure, it's worth it for a same day business meeting where your company is reimbursing you. But how often does this realistically happen? Joe Schmo is not spending $600 for him and his wife to go to NY for a weekend.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Conductors are still around surprisingly.
And I've looked at rail jobs as a possibility now that I'm getting out of the military. Modern trains are pretty kickass, and there's just something awesome (to me anyway) about going through all those old routes in the back country that you can't see from the highway.
Obama seriously needs to upgrade our national rail system... at the very least we need a few high speed transcontinental routes for cargo and shipment.
He announced the appointment of a new, pro-train Secretary of Transportation:
Basically, an executive order was issued to replace all forms of transit in America with:
The reaction from existing train owners was. . . less than enthusiastic:
Edit:
Industrious people in other lines of transportation are already coming up with loopholes to the new "all modes of transportation must be cat trains" requirement though:
Dude, according to my parents Obama is the all-controlling dictator of the Christian States of Americaland.
You callin my parents liars?
If the dragon hoard fits. . .
Nice double shot.
So much pain.
The oil is getting processed in the US.
So the oil workers continue to be payed crazy salaries and contributes to one of the last blue collar bastions in the US.
If you want to work with your hands for a company Petroleum is one of the last big industries in the US.
The oil is moving through the US and each state get's what is essentially a toll per barrel.
About a 1000 Jobs for a couple of years in constructions.
As far as directly from the pipeline ain't nothing, but it's true it isn't a lot.
---
The oil on the other hand is another story.
It is big business, in both the sense that oil companies are huge multinational conglomerates and also in the sense that it hires and pay very well a whole lot of people in the US.
that Nordic socialist paradise recently loved in this thread -> oil economy
the south american socials hell whole recently decried in this forum -> oil economy
---
Today Oil is the cheapest, simplest, safest medium for storing and transporting energy (primary effects).
It's hugely important to the global economy.
And a crazy dangerous environmental, social, religious, national disaster (secondary effects).
---
Until someone ponies up the 200 million for a commercial grade net-power pollywell. The West will pretty much always be dependent on oil.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
I'm normally pragmatic when it comes to this kind of thing, but in this case, I hope he keeps on this issue for the rest of his term. Even if we can't get any real movement, maybe he can at least help to make inroads in how people think.
Actually there is only one Nordic Country that's a oil economy -> Norway.
The other countries Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland are explicitly not oil rich countries. Even Norway pays for most of its welfare programs through its regular economy and saves its oil wealth in its sovereign wealth fund.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
This makes me so sad. All because no one in the states can look past their own god damn nose anymore, if they could they would see the crazy long term benefits such a rail could provide.
Everyone wants the results now, and high speed rail just isn't going to work on that timetable (har har), it's going to a long time and gobs of money.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/apr/03/hagel-warns-of-deep-new-spending-cuts/
I dont know why Hagel sticks with the burden of the R next to his name, when he is clearly not a Republican.
Ah, I saw the original occurrence of this. The original video is just some committee members asking a planned parenthood representative if a fetus that survives abortion should then be cared for as if it was a newborn child. The rep. never answered the question directly and resorted to saying it's up to the healthcare giver and the parents. So, like everything else (R), a completely fabricated story.
No, but clearly there are plenty of customers at this price point since Amtrak is running as many trains as they can jam through the Hudson tubes, they sell out basically every Acela that isn't leaving at like 5AM and the Acela turns a profit. So I would say it realistically happens hundreds of times every single day.
Their customer is not you. Just as airline first-class customers are not you. The Northeast Regional is also pretty fast from DC to NYC (competitive with driving/bus if you are going into the city) and is much cheaper than Acela ($50 each way if you book 6 weeks ahead) and way more comfortable than driving or taking the bus.
Where on earth are you getting your numbers? I just put in a return trip on their website for a date a couple weeks from now and am getting $200 round trip total for both people.
Which will include free wifi, comfortable seating, and access to a cafe with bar. And no hold ups at security that people flying will have to deal with. And all of my time spent doing whatever I want at my leisure for three hours opposed to having to focus on driving, an activity I don't enjoy the slightest and can't imagine would any more in NYC, for four.
The Amtrak website is confusing and lists prices for one way at a time. At least when I tried for this weekend a couple hours ago it was over $300.
The issue at long distances is that the train becomes even in cost with flying and is significantly slower even accounting for security.
This is what I got.
Yeah the price can kick up really fast if you want to take business/first class or travel in the afternoon but those are luxuries anyway. Meanwhile a flight will take nearly as long for much more unless you luck in to a deal or reserve much earlier in advance.
Quite simply the price for the service is awesome and I'm supremely annoyed I can't get it anywhere in the US.
I think if the price stayed reasonably low, it would be a viable alternative to air travel over fairly long distances.
Which was exactly the country mentioned so there's that.
Also Norwegian Government Petroleum exports account for slightly above 10% of Norways GDP -> so IDK where you're going with that.
Edit: which does not include petroleum sector employment or private sector Petrol Company investment.
Is your argument that Petroleum is not big business?
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Whoops! My mistake.
Trains are still awesome for travel.
Not really. NY-LAX is about 6 hours by plane. The same trip in a train would be measured in days.
Again, the old joke - "the difference between the US and the UK is that the US thinks that 100 years is a long time, while the UK thinks that 100 miles is a long distance."
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/04/44766-conservatives-dominate-states-with-lowest-unemployment/
From what I understand, Mr. Becker uses date from the March 18th unemployment rates by state and a Gallop poll to come to a conclusion that conservative leaning states tend to have lower unemployment; therefore, conservative policies are better. I'm mostly concerned about all the qualifiers he uses to get his numbers, like this
and this
Just smell a bit fishy to me although I can't explain exactly why. Other issues I find is that he easily slides "leaning conservative" to "conservative" outright, and then there's this
which I'm just, how is that interesting? It sounds pretty reasonable. I'm just trying to be a little prepared for when some people use it as a source against Obama's policies.
My argument is that despite Norways vast oil wealth, it doesn't actually impact the economy as you think it does. Most of the oil wealth is siphoned off the sovereign wealth fund. It has never been spent on anything, much less welfare. The mainland economy is the one that actually pays for most of the welfare, up to 90% of the government budget comes from regular industry and income.
That is not an Oil Economy where the government hands out welfare largesse by selling natural resources on the global market. Its a normal Nordic economy.
Without looking into it too hard, conservative states have a lot fewer people and a lot more extraction industries.
Yes. Almost one of them.