The rest of the world is leaving America behind

Superfreak said:
Not when it is heavily subsidized by tax payers. Economic viability should be a key to putting these in place. I agree there are some, like NYC to Boston that would seem to make sense. But according to the AMTRAK study of high speed lines in Europe, only two broke even. The rest lost money.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/high-speed-rail-hardly-an-investment-in-future
Click to expand...


That's hilarious. Compare the "subsidies" for rail to the subsidies for roadways. And if roadways had to break even we wouldn't have very many.

What a joke.
 
Lowaicue said:
Compulsory purchase orders may be considered unfair by the owner sometimes, but there is compensation and there is due process. No one has 'stolen' anything. That was my original point. I'm sure you are as aware as I am of the farm between the east bound and the west bound lanes of the M62.
The original point was made as a 'dig' against their present administration and not about trains at all. Funny how other countries find high speed rail advantageous on so many levels but America doesn't.
Like the mother watching her son march by on the way to war who said, 'Look, all the soldiers are out of step except my liitle Johnny.'
On the question of rabbits in the US I may be wrong (again) but as far as I am aware the US has 'Jack rabbits' which are, in fact, hares. They probably have little fluffy bunnies too now due to the propensity of parents world wide to give pets to their offspring.
A rabbit is not just for Christmas! True. A good big one could last til Boxing Day with some nice roasties and baby sprouts.
Click to expand...

I used to go on the M62 fairly often but not so much now, although I passed that farm the other week when I took my youngest son to Lancaster University with all his stuff. I know it's a working farm but I can't recall ever seeing anybody moving around.

 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Again, incorrect. If they had never chose to build the highway my value would not have dropped. If I am forced to sell I should, at the very least, get that level of compensation rather than the level that is set after the plans devalue my home. And that is the "very least" that a person should receive for being forced to give up their property for the "good of society".
Click to expand...

The value of your property is going to fall whether they pay you to move out or you keep it. While it may not appear fair the other side of the coin is a development may raise the value of your property which happened in my case. Developers moved into the area, bought run-down properties and built luxury condos. Being 1/2 a block from the waterfront, bike paths, metro system and close to downtown property values tripled in five years.

There is a section of town where the government is building a large hospital complex. As soon as the plans were officially sanctioned property values in that area rose. Homes and duplexes in the area will be sought for private doctor's offices, clinics, nurse's residences, health food stores, drug stores, medical equipment stores, etc.

I sympathize with the home owners but they can't stop a road from being built on other property and if that lowers the value of theirs that's just the roll of the dice. One has to consider the benefit to society, now and in the future. I've seen examples on news casts where one or two people will hold out after their neighbors have sold delaying development.

One show was concerning a hospital expansion and a couple of people on TV were complaining about looking out their living room window at a construction wall (plywood, etc). Plans called for a stone wall and shrubbery. The expansion was still going on so the wall would be the last thing to be completed but some folks complained about the value of their home temporarily decreasing due to the view/construction.

People will be inconvenienced, from time to time, due to progress but we can't allow one or two disgruntled folks to disrupt progress.
 
apple0154 said:
The value of your property is going to fall whether they pay you to move out or you keep it. While it may not appear fair the other side of the coin is a development may raise the value of your property which happened in my case. Developers moved into the area, bought run-down properties and built luxury condos. Being 1/2 a block from the waterfront, bike paths, metro system and close to downtown property values tripled in five years.

There is a section of town where the government is building a large hospital complex. As soon as the plans were officially sanctioned property values in that area rose. Homes and duplexes in the area will be sought for private doctor's offices, clinics, nurse's residences, health food stores, drug stores, medical equipment stores, etc.

I sympathize with the home owners but they can't stop a road from being built on other property and if that lowers the value of theirs that's just the roll of the dice. One has to consider the benefit to society, now and in the future. I've seen examples on news casts where one or two people will hold out after their neighbors have sold delaying development.

One show was concerning a hospital expansion and a couple of people on TV were complaining about looking out their living room window at a construction wall (plywood, etc). Plans called for a stone wall and shrubbery. The expansion was still going on so the wall would be the last thing to be completed but some folks complained about the value of their home temporarily decreasing due to the view/construction.

People will be inconvenienced, from time to time, due to progress but we can't allow one or two disgruntled folks to disrupt progress.
Click to expand...
So the concept of liberalism, to protect the rights of those who are unable to do so themselves, can easily be thrown under the bus in the name of progress? Of which said progress inevitably is going to enrich the 1% that liberals are claiming to be selfish and not doing their fair share? Sounds like liberalism is a philosophy of hypocrisy.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
So the concept of liberalism, to protect the rights of those who are unable to do so themselves, can easily be thrown under the bus in the name of progress? Of which said progress inevitably is going to enrich the 1% that liberals are claiming to be selfish and not doing their fair share? Sounds like liberalism is a philosophy of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

It's going to help the 99%. Do you think the 1% are driving down that road? Actually doing the driving navigating curves? Of all the traffic on any particular road how many of the 1% are there?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I used to go on the M62 fairly often but not so much now, although I passed that farm the other week when I took my youngest son to Lancaster University with all his stuff. I know it's a working farm but I can't recall ever seeing anybody moving around.

Click to expand...

a far as I remember there are tunnels beneath the motorway with most of the farm land being outsede the confines of the road. It is quite a sight in mid winter when the snow drifts across the highway feet thick despite the fact that the M62 is supposed to be an all-weather road.
I only travelled the M62 once or twice a month and in winter when the 'Cat and Fiddle' was a white-out.
It was so nice to drive in HK without the need for a shovel and a blanket in the boot.
 
apple0154 said:
It's going to help the 99%. Do you think the 1% are driving down that road? Actually doing the driving navigating curves? Of all the traffic on any particular road how many of the 1% are there?
Click to expand...
the contracts to build these rails, develop the land, build the engines and cars will all go to multi billion dollar companies like haliburton, in other words the 1%
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the contracts to build these rails, develop the land, build the engines and cars will all go to multi billion dollar companies like haliburton, in other words the 1%
Click to expand...

So the companies that build public works projects don't create jobs?
 
Lowaicue said:
a far as I remember there are tunnels beneath the motorway with most of the farm land being outsede the confines of the road. It is quite a sight in mid winter when the snow drifts across the highway feet thick despite the fact that the M62 is supposed to be an all-weather road.
I only travelled the M62 once or twice a month and in winter when the 'Cat and Fiddle' was a white-out.
It was so nice to drive in HK without the need for a shovel and a blanket in the boot.
Click to expand...

Stott Hall Farm straddles the centre of the M62 motorway high in the West Yorkshire hills. A myth dictates that the motorway splits as the owners of the farm refused to sell up. The true reason is because of the geology of the land in the area, meaning the motorway could not be built in the normal way due to potential engineering problems.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the contracts to build these rails, develop the land, build the engines and cars will all go to multi billion dollar companies like haliburton, in other words the 1%
Click to expand...

Would you award a multi-million dollar infrastructure contract to two guys with a ladder and a hammer?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Stott Hall Farm straddles the centre of the M62 motorway high in the West Yorkshire hills. A myth dictates that the motorway splits as the owners of the farm refused to sell up. The true reason is because of the geology of the land in the area, meaning the motorway could not be built in the normal way due to potential engineering problems.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we have the occasional problem that needs surmounting: (quite apart from the fact that I cannot get pictures to display!)

images

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFwqUGws9iWjvEwmqIpAR79KYcHS-eMnUJd40IzzAfBN2-bNvrrA
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYf5kmwWhJ_fAtz6WtFgw4CviSSM4FgvIhhQaFfEtUzG00IGq2

Why does the image thing keep telling me the url is invalid when it's bloody not?!
 
Lowaicue said:
Yeah, we have the occasional problem that needs surmounting: (quite apart from the fact that I cannot get pictures to display!)

images

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFwqUGws9iWjvEwmqIpAR79KYcHS-eMnUJd40IzzAfBN2-bNvrrA
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYf5kmwWhJ_fAtz6WtFgw4CviSSM4FgvIhhQaFfEtUzG00IGq2

Why does the image thing keep telling me the url is invalid when it's bloody not?!
Click to expand...

Yes, that way doesn't seem to work very well. It's easier just to use the following
where the url is the image location address.

images


images
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top