re: Trump's 2018 Budget revealed

I thought he was investing in infrastructure, but i thought that would fall under transportation though? Maybe i am mistaken. Anyone know?

quote:

---

If I'm not mistaken, a lot of those projects (high speed rail for example) are seeking a cooperative with private industry. That would more than likely come next cycle.

---

Thank you for clarifying. So like a toll road, but with rail?

quote:

---

I am hoping for high speed rail here, I would even give 2% of my income for up to 10 years to make it happen.

---

I wish more people here had that mentality. We couldn't pass bonds to get our rail extended. No one in Texas, not even Austin, wants to pay MORE real estate taxes to make it happen.

I moved out of the city. I am not sitting in that shite storm of traffic come 2020.

quote:

---

Thank you for clarifying. So like a toll road, but with rail

---

Yes, of course. It's a taxpayer investment, but the costs would be much cheaper than flying due to that. I feel it would also be beneficial in freeing up interstate traffic and continual maintenance there due to fewer vehicles.

quote:

---

I wish more people here had that mentality. We couldn't pass bonds to get our rail extended. No one in Texas, not even Austin, wants to pay MORE real estate taxes to make it happen.

---

They would if it were framed in the right dimensions. Just as global warming became this political frickery, it could have been easily avoided with terming it as "cleaner air". Everyone likes clean air, not everyone believes man is solely responsible for climate change.

Regardless, with high speed rail, you sell it as half the cost of a flight, no TSA, high speed internet and satellite TV while you travel, opportunities to exit early, you're grounded at all times, weather has little effect on travel times, you get to see the country..

I mean the marketing opportunities are endless here. It's really a no brainer.

quote:

---

And I can't help but wonder with technology, specifically the possibilities of driverless cars, if the value is less than a decade or two ago

---

Until vehicles are almost frictionless, there is immense value when considering interstate maintenance costs, vehicle upkeep, emergency responders for interstate accidents, etc. Then you also have to insure your vehicle after you purchase it and supply it with fuel.

Couple in the fact high speed rail allows for socialization and a wide variety of activities while traveling, I don't think a driverless cars can offer the same options.

quote:

---

I agree, but if their intentional and probably self-serving limitations on treatment options is driving costs,

---

Well no shite. It's a government program. That's all of our's future healthcare until we get government out of it completely btw.

quote:

---

Then you also have to insure your vehicle

---

So I've been curious about this with driverless cars. If you get in to an accident is the blame on you, assuming the car's "intelligence" malfunctions? Seems like, from this standpoint, lawsuits would be a big issue.

If I'm not in control of the car, and it decides to swerve or change lanes without my authority and i hit someone who pays for it? The manufacturer or the driver?

No doubt, there is a huge liability on the part of manufacturers for driverless cars, which means they are going to ridiculously expensive to cover those costs. Essentially, we'll pay their insurance premium during the purchase. It has to be that way, lest the insurance company of the car owner is always fighting with car manufacturers to compensate them.

With that said, over time I am sure accidents will drop to near zero fault in terms of technology in the vehicles and the costs will lower.

All those cuts won't make up for the $52B increase in defense spending. Tell me why we need to increase defense budget by so much? This is nothing but white collar entitlement for the military industrial complex.

quote:

---

Until vehicles are almost frictionless, there is immense value when considering interstate maintenance costs, vehicle upkeep, emergency responders for interstate accidents, etc. Then you also have to insure your vehicle after you purchase it and supply it with fuel.

---

But many of those costs aren't going to go away. Even we had mass transit I would still have a vehicle. Most places after like New York, where it's easy to not have one, and it's space is so limited that the costs can be ridiculous.

But the thing is that these projects take a long time to complete. Not only because of the planning and construction, but there are legal considerations and delays since eminent domain is likely.

So if we're going to create a transportation system that's expensive, and time consuming, then we better consider the future value of it in a rapidly changing society.

quote:

---

Couple in the fact high speed rail allows for socialization and a wide variety of activities while traveling, I don't think a driverless cars can offer the same options.

---

Socialization, sure. But many people don't prefer to socialize, especially on their commute. But I don't know what activities you could do on a rail system, that you couldn't so in a driverless car (read, computer work, play games on phone, etc.).

So really the additional opportunity to socialize is a trivial benefit, since it's not something universally used or valued, and that can be attained elsewhere.

Yes. That's my biggest concern too. I would like to see something revenue neutral instead of increasing spending overall.