Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[LennStar]

And so does being a negative Nellie about a small improvement just because it’s not a big one :P

That's unfair because there are more effective improvements that are cheaper (and with assorted others benefits).

A small improvement ist better than none, but a big one is clearly better than a small one. Besides, the time for small improvements has ended somewhere around 2010.

[MudPuppy]

Of course there are better ways! But I refuse to let perfect be the enemy of good.

[GuitarStv]

And so does being a negative Nellie about a small improvement just because it’s not a big one :P

Yeah, don't get me wrong.  I wholeheartedly support anything that seems like an improvement - just don't expect small improvements or future magic to save us so find it hard to feel heartened by them.

(I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this.)

My main concern with 'small improvements' is that they have historically taken the place of 'larger necessary change' and it appears that this trend will continue into the future.

[MudPuppy]

Edit: I am withdrawing my statement because it’s not worth getting into this conversation

[JLee]

Pulling subsidies from oil and gas would help.

Indeed. Perhaps at the same time we could stop massively subsidizing driving.

Maybe where you live.  I pay 6.7 cents a mile for my commute in tolls alone.

[PDXTabs]

Pulling subsidies from oil and gas would help.

Indeed. Perhaps at the same time we could stop massively subsidizing driving.

Maybe where you live.  I pay 6.7 cents a mile for my commute in tolls alone.

So your residential street is maintained by user fees? That's great! You must not live in any of the states in the USA that I posted that link about. Maybe next you can get them to pay for police and fire/EMS response for automobile collisions out of those user fees.

[JLee]

Pulling subsidies from oil and gas would help.

Indeed. Perhaps at the same time we could stop massively subsidizing driving.

Maybe where you live.  I pay 6.7 cents a mile for my commute in tolls alone.

So your residential street is maintained by user fees? That's great! You must not live in any of the states in the USA that I posted that link about. Maybe next you can get them to pay for police and fire/EMS response for automobile collisions out of those user fees.

Actually I don't live in 2011, unlike the data you're using.

https://taxfoundation.org/state-infrastructure-spending/

[PDXTabs]

Actually I don't live in 2011, unlike the data you're using.

https://taxfoundation.org/state-infrastructure-spending/

That's awesome! I guess if we stop transferring general funds into the national highway trust fund I will have one less thing to complain about in three states. Also we could stop allowing free parking as a tax free benefit to employees.

[JLee]

Actually I don't live in 2011, unlike the data you're using.

https://taxfoundation.org/state-infrastructure-spending/

That's awesome! I guess if we stop transferring general funds into the national highway trust fund I will have one less thing to complain about in three states. Also we could stop allowing free parking as a tax free benefit to employees.

Your claim was specifically:

massively subsidizing driving

It's absurd for you to consider California at 99.7% as being massively subsidized.  Where is the line for "massive" drawn?

[nereo]

No politician in North America is going to do anything that will significantly help with climate change and continue getting elected.

Ontario has a lot of nuke plants and are seriously looking at the new improved versions.  I figure that's something.

Looks like Biden is trying to get a tax credit for electric cars.  That's kind of significant.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/ev-tax-credit-senate-vote-biden/

So if I buy a brand new car the government will give me $12,500, but if I live car free I get to pay my full tax bill? That's idiotic. It is neither conservative nor progressive in nature. It's just a stupid pork belly give away for the middle class while we continue to run a massive deficit. That's money that we could have spent on public transit or health care or housing or education or bicycles or food assistance for actual poor people.

But for large portions of America, going car free isn’t particularly feasible OR they were never going to be in the car market to begin with. I don’t see anything wrong with incentivizing electric over traditional.

But there are two ways to incentivize electric over conventional. One way is to raise taxes on conventional, the other is to cut taxes on electric. The former has numerous benefits over the latter.

EDITed to fix important typo.

More options than that, some of which would move us towards your goal of disincentivizing individual driving all together.

[Roland of Gilead]

Pulling subsidies from oil and gas would help.

Natural gas accounts for 40% of the US electric grid production.

[JLee]

Pulling subsidies from oil and gas would help.

Natural gas accounts for 40% of the US electric grid production.

Ok?

[nereo]

Pulling subsidies from oil and gas would help.

Natural gas accounts for 40% of the US electric grid production.

Ok?

The tallest smokestacks in the US are at the Homer City Generating Station in Pennsylvania. It is a coal power plant.

[FIPurpose]

Pulling subsidies from oil and gas would help.

Indeed. Perhaps at the same time we could stop massively subsidizing driving.

I'm in favor of doubling the federal gas tax. But it would be 100% infeasible with this Senate. Gotta win the political battle first.

[PDXTabs]

Your claim was specifically:

massively subsidizing driving

It's absurd for you to consider California at 99.7% as being massively subsidized.  Where is the line for "massive" drawn?

Well, off the top of my head:
1. The data that you linked to "reflect only the share of the spending that state and localities are responsible for." Which is to say that it does not take into account the continued transfers from the general fund into the national highway trust fund totaling at least $140 billion over the last 13 years. This is why the trust fund has been able to pay out $3.5B even though it has only taken in $0.8B for the year (because we haven't raised the federal gas tax since 1993).
2. We keep giving tax credits to people who buy electric cars (maybe this made sense at some point in the past, maybe)
3. We keep handing out tax credits to oil companies. Further reading: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/it-is-time-to-phase-out-9-unnecessary-oil-and-gas-tax-breaks/
4. We keep giving free military escorts to oil tankers.
5. My boss can give me an unlimited amount of free parking, they get to deduct it as a business expense and I don't have to pay any taxes on that benefit. Meanwhile parking lots reduce property tax revenues and increase costs for storm-water runoff.

[PDXTabs]

More options than that, some of which would move us towards your goal of disincentivizing individual driving all together.

Well, I personally think that taxing the hell out of it would do a good job of disincentivizing it.

[JLee]

Your claim was specifically:

massively subsidizing driving

It's absurd for you to consider California at 99.7% as being massively subsidized.  Where is the line for "massive" drawn?

Well, off the top of my head:
1. The data that you linked to "reflect only the share of the spending that state and localities are responsible for." Which is to say that it does not take into account the continued transfers from the general fund into the national highway trust fund totaling at least $140 billion over the last 13 years. This is why the trust fund has been able to pay out $3.5B even though it has only taken in $0.8B for the year (because we haven't raised the federal gas tax since 1993).
2. We keep giving tax credits to people who buy electric cars (maybe this made sense at some point in the past, maybe)
3. We keep handing out tax credits to oil companies. Further reading: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/it-is-time-to-phase-out-9-unnecessary-oil-and-gas-tax-breaks/
4. We keep giving free military escorts to oil tankers.
5. My boss can give me an unlimited amount of free parking, they get to deduct it as a business expense and I don't have to pay any taxes on that benefit. Meanwhile parking lots reduce property tax revenues and increase costs for storm-water runoff.

That’s great and all, but you failed to answer the question.

[PDXTabs]

That’s great and all, but you failed to answer the question.

That’s great and all, but no I didn't. I made a statement about subsidies for driving in a thread on national politics. Then I pointed out all the ways that California drivers are still subsidized that I could think of off the top of my head. And I didn't even get into the more technical argument of how parking minimums subsidize drivers.

[JLee]

That’s great and all, but you failed to answer the question.

That’s great and all, but no I didn't. I made a statement about subsidies for driving in a thread on national politics. Then I pointed out all the ways that California drivers are still subsidized that I could think of off the top of my head.

If you recall, you claimed we were "massively subsidizing driving" and I want to know what you consider "massive."  Let's recap:

Pulling subsidies from oil and gas would help.

Indeed. Perhaps at the same time we could stop massively subsidizing driving.

Where is the line for "massive" drawn?

Well, off the top of my head:
1. The data that you linked to "reflect only the share of the spending that state and localities are responsible for." Which is to say that it does not take into account the continued transfers from the general fund into the national highway trust fund totaling at least $140 billion over the last 13 years. This is why the trust fund has been able to pay out $3.5B even though it has only taken in $0.8B for the year (because we haven't raised the federal gas tax since 1993).
2. We keep giving tax credits to people who buy electric cars (maybe this made sense at some point in the past, maybe)
3. We keep handing out tax credits to oil companies. Further reading: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/it-is-time-to-phase-out-9-unnecessary-oil-and-gas-tax-breaks/
4. We keep giving free military escorts to oil tankers.
5. My boss can give me an unlimited amount of free parking, they get to deduct it as a business expense and I don't have to pay any taxes on that benefit. Meanwhile parking lots reduce property tax revenues and increase costs for storm-water runoff.

1) According to your link, raising the federal gas tax by one cent per gallon would enable the highway trust fund to remain solvent.  Are you considering one cent per gallon a massive subsidy?
2) To a point.  Tesla hasn't been getting federal tax credits for quite some time.
3) You say this like you're trying to prove something?
4) You say this like you're trying to prove something?
5) Parking lots are taxed.  How much monetary value is one parking space at your place of work?

Given you started off with simple percentages of how much cost is carried by drivers and how much is subsidized and used that as your argument for "massive subsidies," I thought it'd be an easy answer for you.

[Roland of Gilead]

2) To a point.  Tesla hasn't been getting federal tax credits for quite some time.

Er, what are these?

"Tesla raked in $518 million in revenue from sales of regulatory credits in the first quarter of the year (2021), helping the U.S. electric vehicle maker post another quarter of profit."

Or is "quite some time" more recent, like the last week or something?

[PDXTabs]

According to your link, raising the federal gas tax by one cent per gallon would enable the highway trust fund to remain solvent.  Are you considering one cent per gallon a massive subsidy?

The second link clearly shows that in 2021 for every dollar that went into the national highway trust fund four dollars left.

Given you started off with simple percentages of how much cost is carried by drivers and how much is subsidized and used that as your argument for "massive subsidies," I thought it'd be an easy answer for you.

I'm sorry if my original post was misleading. Me linking to taxpayer funding from state revenues for highways and roads was never meant to imply that it was the only subsidy for cars in this country that I was complaining about.

[PDXTabs]

Parking lots are taxed.  How much monetary value is one parking space at your place of work?

Okay, you asked for it. Let's say that you and I work at a burger shop together in McVanilla USA. The burger shop was recently transitioned from some other use so the developer had to update the parking to comply with the ITE parking minimum generation rate like most Vanilla towns in the USA with minimum parking requirements. So before the first burger was even sold a huge capital expenditure took place to add a bunch of off street parking even though our fictitious developer never wanted it and the customer and employees never asked for it. Also, fun fact, that ITE parking generation rate is set so that parking is always free! You don't get a free burger or free beer but the city government has decided that you get free parking. This is the norm in the USA, most people don't even question it so you will be excused if you never questioned it either.

So, before our first workday, to open a burger joint:
1. A minimum parking requirement had to be met.
2. A capital expenditure had to be made to meet that minimum parking requirement (possibly demolishing an existing productive structure or farmland in the process).

But this business obviously has to make enough money to service its debt and attempt to make a profit, so what does that mean? It means that the burger prices have to be set high enough to pay for all the free parking. Which means that diners that didn't park are subsidizing diners that did. And all of that is reducing property tax revenue because parking lots don't actually have much value when assessed (why would they, it's supply and demand and we have so much supply that parking is free). But also, you as a diner already paid for the parking so you may as well drive. It's basically fucking Gosplan but the USA version because there is no free market to be seen.

So yea, perhaps there isn't much monetary value in a parking space at my work, because the government fucked with supply and demand flooding the supply side driving down prices.

[JLee]

2) To a point.  Tesla hasn't been getting federal tax credits for quite some time.

Er, what are these?

"Tesla raked in $518 million in revenue from sales of regulatory credits in the first quarter of the year (2021), helping the U.S. electric vehicle maker post another quarter of profit."

Or is "quite some time" more recent, like the last week or something?

Let's go back and see what exactly you said:

2. We keep giving tax credits to people who buy electric cars (maybe this made sense at some point in the past, maybe)

I see you have moved the goalposts once again.  I'm done.

[Roland of Gilead]

That was me not PDX.  I didn't see that you were talking about personal tax credits.

I thought you were saying Tesla is no longer getting any federal subsidy.

[PDXTabs]

Pulling subsidies from oil and gas would help.

Indeed. Perhaps at the same time we could stop massively subsidizing driving.

I'm in favor of doubling the federal gas tax. But it would be 100% infeasible with this Senate. Gotta win the political battle first.

While it might be infeasible today to double the federal gas tax isn't not infeasible to stop adding general funds revenue to highway trust fund. Either the house or senate or executive could block the next bill that tries to do that. As to perhaps why it keeps happening and some other things here is an interview with Beth Osborne executive director of Transportation for America who also happens to be a former US DOT employee, former house staffer, and former senate staffer.

[LennStar]

Parking in public spaces is a HUGE subsidy to car drivers.
At some inner cities in the US, half of the space is filled with parking. Just imagine that would be used for housing! Or parks. Or...

And it also has secondary effects - it necessitates bigger streets, taking away more space. It also necessitates more oil etc. stuff to be produced. What a waste (and often subsidized, too).

And do not forget, all this produces illnesses - fumes, noise, sedentery... very very costly!

[PDXTabs]

And it also has secondary effects - it necessitates bigger streets, taking away more space.

I just wanted to add that if the state/county/city uses eminent domain to widen a street it is actually:
1. Buying private property with taxpayer money.
2. Reducing property tax revenue because public streets don't pay property tax.
3. Committing itself to the long term expense of maintaining that street with taxpayer funds.

[Roland of Gilead]

Parking in public spaces is a HUGE subsidy to car drivers.
At some inner cities in the US, half of the space is filled with parking. Just imagine that would be used for housing! Or parks. Or...

And it also has secondary effects - it necessitates bigger streets, taking away more space. It also necessitates more oil etc. stuff to be produced. What a waste (and often subsidized, too).

And do not forget, all this produces illnesses - fumes, noise, sedentery... very very costly!

Is it really a subsidy to car drivers?  Usually the places that are most desirable to park are near private businesses who get revenue from those drivers parking and coming to spend money in their place of business.  Those businesses then pay tax to the city.   Often there are no public spaces and private companies have pay lots.

Public transportation now, that does get a huge subsidy.  There is no way that a bus running with a couple of passengers paying maybe $2 to $3 is generating a profit much less break even when you count the cost of the bus, maintenance, fuel, and paying the driver.

[PDXTabs]

Is it really a subsidy to car drivers?  Usually the places that are most desirable to park are near private businesses who get revenue from those drivers parking and coming to spend money in their place of business.  Those businesses then pay tax to the city.   Often there are no public spaces and private companies have pay lots.

If we got rid of legal parking minimums and companies still offered free parking that would be their decision. I wouldn't complain about that. That is not how most cities in the USA operate.

Public transportation now, that does get a huge subsidy.  There is no way that a bus running with a couple of passengers paying maybe $2 to $3 is generating a profit much less break even when you count the cost of the bus, maintenance, fuel, and paying the driver.

Indeed. But you can't subsidize car travel and then complain that bus travel needs to be subsidized. Speaking of which, "public" transportation used to be a profitable enterprise. Perhaps it would be again if we eliminated car subsidies.

[LennStar]

Is it really a subsidy to car drivers?  Usually the places that are most desirable to park are near private businesses who get revenue from those drivers parking and coming to spend money in their place of business.  Those businesses then pay tax to the city.   

Parking spaces actually lower the amount of shopping done. In places where businesses know that (like the Netherlands) shop owners actually protest when their street it NOT made car-free.

Regarding public transit: You can pay for an awful lot of it if you take the money that people take today for private transport aka cars.
btw. a huge cunk of the cost is the driver. Driverless busses and trams could get rid of that.

[Travis]

3. Committing itself to the long term expense of maintaining that street with taxpayer funds.

And fuel taxes which are supposed to pay for road/highway maintenance never keep up meaning roads aren't fixed, or the repair bill is taken out of general funds to make up the difference. You could call that a subsidy, or at the very least a hidden cost.

[Shane]

Nothing in life is actually free, including parking. Don Shoup literally wrote an entire book on it: The High Cost of Free Parking

[pecunia]

Bit of rambling here,.......Don't worry I'm harmless.

When they build a new freeway out into the hinterlands, the developers are there.  They may have housing projects complete even before the freeway is finished.  They build these houses because the freeway is to be there enabling a conduit for commerce.

So, I wonder if just pumping some money in to fix roads does the same thing.  Will good roads into an old neighborhood enhance the chances of people and business moving there?  I think it has some effect. 

I also think having good mass transit will do the same thing.  I used to live in Minnesota North West of Minneapolis.  They built a light rail system out to the town I used to live in.  the population has quadrupled in the town I used to live in.

I just think that spending money on public services is kind of like the Keynesian economics thing.  It primes the pump.  It makes development where there would otherwise be none.  It is as good as the confluence of rivers.  It's like the old railroad hubs in the old Westerns.  It's a bit like bringing water to a thirsty desert for crops.  Expecting everything from user fees may have a bit of a stifling effect and not cause the flowering development that you may see otherwise.

Now I'm no fan of Red China and they've made some horrific economic mistakes as of late, but the development thing they have done has done their people a lot of good.  They changed their status quo.  I just think in these times of rapid technological development, you can't sit on the status quo.  Maybe 60 year old freeways need to be augmented with other transportation systems.  Maybe the insides of big cities need to be rebuilt like changing the engine on a jet plane.

It's probably better than putting so many eggs into the war basket.  You've got to have the people making the bread with their plows, before you can buy the swords.

Enough rambling.  You've got stuff to do.

[American GenX]

Good news.

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin said Sunday he can no longer support President Biden's Build Back Better massive spending bill because of soaring inflation and other concerns.

"I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation. I just can't. I've tried everything humanly possible. I can't get there," Manchin told "Fox News Sunday."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-manchin-build-back-better-act-biden/

https://youtu.be/Lg2J4mGKuiw

[4tify]

Good news.

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin said Sunday he can no longer support President Biden's Build Back Better massive spending bill because of soaring inflation and other concerns.

"I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation. I just can't. I've tried everything humanly possible. I can't get there," Manchin told "Fox News Sunday."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-manchin-build-back-better-act-biden/

https://youtu.be/Lg2J4mGKuiw

Manchin’s issues with the bill include loyalty to fossil fuel tax credits. Interesting that he’s also behind hydrogen. Is that the direction the oil corps are moving?

https://static.politico.com/1e/ef/159cabd547868585f9b1a8f06388/july-28-2021.pdf

[FIPurpose]

Good news.

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin said Sunday he can no longer support President Biden's Build Back Better massive spending bill because of soaring inflation and other concerns.

"I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation. I just can't. I've tried everything humanly possible. I can't get there," Manchin told "Fox News Sunday."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-manchin-build-back-better-act-biden/

https://youtu.be/Lg2J4mGKuiw

Good news? Despite all signs showing that the BBB would have no impact on inflation, that most spending from the bill would be years from now, and that if anything most economic indicators show that this would be a net positive for economy?

No, Manchin killed this because it expands clean energy and he would personally lose millions from his coal holdings becoming worthless. It's not any harder than that.

But there ya go. The progressive caucus caved and Manchin just decided that his promise to vote for a reconciliation bill goes right out the window. He played his last card with that caucus. He won't be getting anything else.

[pecunia]

Yeh Good News - one of the world's biggest contributors to the Global Warming thing is just going to sit on their keester and let it happen.

The right wing propaganda that has pummeled the people of the US for the last 40 years has triumphed again.

Oh Well - I'm still retired.

[American GenX]

Good news.

Yeah, very good news.  I was definitely happier to hear that this morning.

I know the Biden administration says it will help inflation because it will reduce the cost of child care.   Some people might buy into that line of thinking.  Well, just because you are shifting the cost of child care to tax payers, doesn't really mean you're reducing inflation.  And many of us don't need child care, and our costs are just going to soar even higher as the government gives tax dollar to more people, creating even more demand for less goods when these government chosen recipients of this windfall have a lot more dough to spend.  The stimulus bills we had earlier in the pandemic were bad enough, and this would just be piling on.

Anyway, I hope that's the end of it and that they don't try to push threw any more massive spending bills or handouts to people who chose to have kids and that can still work at these jobs that are paying higher wages.   We have bigger concerns to deal with, like providing for seniors on underfunded SS and Medicare who can't go back to work and are seeing their increases in SS totally absorbed by their increased Medicare costs while their expenses are shooting up and savings accounts are dwindling in true purchasing power due to skyrocketing inflation, which we need to get under control also.

Let's hope they don't resurrect any of the big spending components of this bill for more handouts for young healthy people with kids.  Yes, there were a few things in the bill I actually liked, although one of those had already been stripped out, so there wasn't much left in it that I was in favor of.

[PDXTabs]

Anyway, I hope that's the end of it and that they don't try to push threw any more massive spending bills...

If it is infrastructure or money for poor people I hope they do, and I hope that it is actually massive and not this piddling $100B/yr bullshit.

[American GenX]

Yeh Good News - one of the world's biggest contributors to the Global Warming thing is just going to sit on their keester and let it happen. The right wing propaganda that has pummeled the people of the US for the last 40 years has triumphed again.

Manchin is a democrat.   Democrats could have pushed this threw without any Republican votes, but they couldn't do it.  That's a pretty good sign it's not a good bill.

[American GenX]

Anyway, I hope that's the end of it and that they don't try to push threw any more massive spending bills...

If it is infrastructure or money for poor people I hope they do, and I hope that it is actually massive and not this piddling $100B/yr bullshit.

The devil is in the details.  But they did already pass an infrastructure deal.   Thank goodness they didn't hold that up any longer with the condition this bill needed to pass.

[PDXTabs]

Anyway, I hope that's the end of it and that they don't try to push threw any more massive spending bills...

If it is infrastructure or money for poor people I hope they do, and I hope that it is actually massive and not this piddling $100B/yr bullshit.

The devil is in the details.  But they did already pass an infrastructure deal.   Thank goodness they didn't hold that up any longer with the condition this bill needed to pass.

They already passed one of the infrastructure bills. Not everything in the second infrastructure bill was "human" infrastructure. In particular 15% of it was devoted to power plants AFAIK.

Mr. Manchin, who has personal financial ties to the coal industry, had initially intended to write the details of the program as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Mr. Manchin was considering a clean electricity program that would reward utilities for switching from coal to natural gas, which is less polluting but still emits carbon dioxide and can leak methane, another greenhouse gas. Mr. Manchin’s home state, West Virginia, is one of the nation’s top producers of coal and gas.

But in recent days Mr. Manchin indicated to the administration that he was now completely opposed to a clean energy program, people familiar with the discussions said. - Key to Biden’s Climate Agenda Likely to Be Cut Because of Manchin Opposition

But honestly I haven't seen any good reporting on what was in the final bill. If anyone has a good source for that I would be interested.

[JLee]

Yeh Good News - one of the world's biggest contributors to the Global Warming thing is just going to sit on their keester and let it happen. The right wing propaganda that has pummeled the people of the US for the last 40 years has triumphed again.

Manchin is a democrat.   Democrats could have pushed this threw without any Republican votes, but they couldn't do it.  That's a pretty good sign it's not a good bill.

Or he loves coal/oil money more than most.

[Roland of Gilead]

It is hard to not be hypocritical on coal and natural gas when 60% of the US power grid uses those two fuels.  I am typing this from a warm house (it is 19 degrees and snowing outside) and likely a good portion of the electricity being used to power my laptop and heat our home is coming from coal or natural gas.

Admittedly it is a 1 bedroom apartment and we keep the heat at 65 F but still....I am consuming those fuels so not going to throw too many stones here.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

First of all, the Caltrain corridor was just one example of potential compromises being made that will slow down transit. I misremembered the top speed, which may be 110mph (not 125mph, which seems to be a theoretical possibility in some sort of Phase 2 refit of that segment of the network) on this stretch of rail based on the evil LA Times. But the second problem is negotiating right-of-way with the existing Caltrain network since higher speeds would require HSR to pass Caltrain with limited opportunity (which may require the slower regional trains to stop and wait).

The new Caltrains commuter trains will also travel at 110mph.  Significant stretches will be triple-tracked and the whole thing will be sequenced so that HSR will travel at full speed between San Jose and SFO with priority over Caltrains.  The speed between SFO and 4th/Kings will be slower.

A huge amount of study has been put into the scheduling in this area so as to minimize gate closings.  The strategy is to have trains traveling in opposite directions cross the major grade crossings at the same time, so as to create a single gate closing sequence rather than have the gates open for 30 seconds and then immediately close. 

Palo Alto, Mountainview, etc., have nobody to blame but themselves for fighting the elevated track option that would have eliminated all grade crossings. They also fought having a station near Stanford.  They're effing idiots. 

But besides the Caltrain issue, there is also the engineering of the line over two mountain ranges (instead of one, thanks to the jog out to Lancaster) where exact planning was uncertain last I checked but the cost-saving solutions are unlikely to be able to theoretically achieve 220mph.

They always want to have an earlier train entirely clear a tunnel before the next one enters.  The Pacheco Pass tunnel between Gilroy and Merced will be about 8-10 miles long, so the exact distance between two trains traveling at 220mph.  They are leaning toward doing a super-long tunnel between Palmdale and Burbank that might require a slower speed in order to reduce the stopping distance since there will be two trains in the tunnel at the same time. 

Third, there will be something that slows train speed down below 220mph in the central valley: stops. In Europe, HSR effectively averages 120mph due in part to stops, while Japan achieves 145mph average speed on some routes. Assuming speeds in that range for CAHSR, LA-SF trips would take 3-3.7 hours if they match these peers even despite all of the other challenges in this particular line.

Express trains are not going to stop at the local stations in the Central Valley. They're all being built with four tracks.  See one of them u/c at 45:45:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwWKcdSltck

All express trains will stop at SF Transbay, SFO, San Jose, Burbank, and LA Union Station.  So just three stops between LA and San Francisco.

Sounds encouraging compared to what I had been hearing. Still ridiculous how long the project is taking, but I guess there is some hope it will be viable. Thank for the added info!

[FIPurpose]

It is hard to not be hypocritical on coal and natural gas when 60% of the US power grid uses those two fuels.  I am typing this from a warm house (it is 19 degrees and snowing outside) and likely a good portion of the electricity being used to power my laptop and heat our home is coming from coal or natural gas.

Admittedly it is a 1 bedroom apartment and we keep the heat at 65 F but still....I am consuming those fuels so not going to throw too many stones here.

What? No one that I know of is calling Manchin a hypocrite. Just highly biased.

Saying what future funding should go towards different power sources has nothing to do with today's power generation.

[PDXTabs]

It is hard to not be hypocritical on coal and natural gas when 60% of the US power grid uses those two fuels.  I am typing this from a warm house (it is 19 degrees and snowing outside) and likely a good portion of the electricity being used to power my laptop and heat our home is coming from coal or natural gas.

Admittedly it is a 1 bedroom apartment and we keep the heat at 65 F but still....I am consuming those fuels so not going to throw too many stones here.

What? No one that I know of is calling Manchin a hypocrite. Just highly biased.

But also, arguably, whatever we eventually do to curtail coal will be a worse deal for West Virginia. According to the WSJ the White House basically told Manchin that he could have whatever he wanted to help the workers in West Virginia who would be impacted and he turned them down. In the short term that might be good for those workers, in the long term they might never see another deal this good:

The White House set up a special program to focus on coal communities. It steered money into developing how to extract rare earths from coal waste, coal waste that is very prevalent in West Virginia. It has told him that the government will invest a lot of money in something called carbon capture and sequestration technology, which would allow the emissions from coal fired power plants to be captured and buried underground. So in other words, paying lip service to this idea that you can still continue to have coal and gas fired electricity plants. It's offered him every inducement it can. It has made his wife the chairperson of an Appalachian commission focused on business development, basically, in the area. Democrats included in its tax plan money that would specifically go to coal communities like West Virginia. It's thrown everything at him and at some point it's clear that the promises people are making to Joe Manchin that West Virginia will have a place on the clean energy future these arguments are not working. - WSJ: Biden's Climate Ambitions Die in the Senate

To me that just smacks of short-termism.

[pecunia]

It is hard to not be hypocritical on coal and natural gas when 60% of the US power grid uses those two fuels.  I am typing this from a warm house (it is 19 degrees and snowing outside) and likely a good portion of the electricity being used to power my laptop and heat our home is coming from coal or natural gas.

Admittedly it is a 1 bedroom apartment and we keep the heat at 65 F but still....I am consuming those fuels so not going to throw too many stones here.

What? No one that I know of is calling Manchin a hypocrite. Just highly biased.

But also, arguably, whatever we eventually do to curtail coal will be a worse deal for West Virginia. According to the WSJ the White House basically told Manchin that he could have whatever he wanted to help the workers in West Virginia who would be impacted and he turned them down. In the short term that might be good for those workers, in the long term they might never see another deal this good:

The White House set up a special program to focus on coal communities. It steered money into developing how to extract rare earths from coal waste, coal waste that is very prevalent in West Virginia. It has told him that the government will invest a lot of money in something called carbon capture and sequestration technology, which would allow the emissions from coal fired power plants to be captured and buried underground. So in other words, paying lip service to this idea that you can still continue to have coal and gas fired electricity plants. It's offered him every inducement it can. It has made his wife the chairperson of an Appalachian commission focused on business development, basically, in the area. Democrats included in its tax plan money that would specifically go to coal communities like West Virginia. It's thrown everything at him and at some point it's clear that the promises people are making to Joe Manchin that West Virginia will have a place on the clean energy future these arguments are not working. - WSJ: Biden's Climate Ambitions Die in the Senate

To me that just smacks of short-termism.

Did Joe Manchin do his thing for money or for the folks in West Virginia?

 In 2020, 11,418 people were working in West Virginia's coal industry in total. Of that number, 80 percent of the employees worked in underground coal mines.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/215786/coal-mining-employment-in-west-virginia/

West Virginia has 1.8 million people.

I grew up in an iron mining town.  It was always the nature of mining that it was somewhat volatile.   

I wonder if those 11,418 people would have considered Biden's offer.  I figure some of them may have liked to avoid the black lung.

Coal power plants have been closing like dominoes without the bill.  I'm sure the miners have seen that.

[sailinlight]

It is hard to not be hypocritical on coal and natural gas when 60% of the US power grid uses those two fuels.  I am typing this from a warm house (it is 19 degrees and snowing outside) and likely a good portion of the electricity being used to power my laptop and heat our home is coming from coal or natural gas.

Admittedly it is a 1 bedroom apartment and we keep the heat at 65 F but still....I am consuming those fuels so not going to throw too many stones here.

What? No one that I know of is calling Manchin a hypocrite. Just highly biased.

But also, arguably, whatever we eventually do to curtail coal will be a worse deal for West Virginia. According to the WSJ the White House basically told Manchin that he could have whatever he wanted to help the workers in West Virginia who would be impacted and he turned them down. In the short term that might be good for those workers, in the long term they might never see another deal this good:

The White House set up a special program to focus on coal communities. It steered money into developing how to extract rare earths from coal waste, coal waste that is very prevalent in West Virginia. It has told him that the government will invest a lot of money in something called carbon capture and sequestration technology, which would allow the emissions from coal fired power plants to be captured and buried underground. So in other words, paying lip service to this idea that you can still continue to have coal and gas fired electricity plants. It's offered him every inducement it can. It has made his wife the chairperson of an Appalachian commission focused on business development, basically, in the area. Democrats included in its tax plan money that would specifically go to coal communities like West Virginia. It's thrown everything at him and at some point it's clear that the promises people are making to Joe Manchin that West Virginia will have a place on the clean energy future these arguments are not working. - WSJ: Biden's Climate Ambitions Die in the Senate

To me that just smacks of short-termism.

Did Joe Manchin do his thing for money or for the folks in West Virginia?

 In 2020, 11,418 people were working in West Virginia's coal industry in total. Of that number, 80 percent of the employees worked in underground coal mines.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/215786/coal-mining-employment-in-west-virginia/

West Virginia has 1.8 million people.

I grew up in an iron mining town.  It was always the nature of mining that it was somewhat volatile.   

I wonder if those 11,418 people would have considered Biden's offer.  I figure some of them may have liked to avoid the black lung.

Coal power plants have been closing like dominoes without the bill.  I'm sure the miners have seen that.

He's never mentioned coal. I think he did it because the people in rural America are very concerned about inflation. You guys might believe those fancy econ professors in suits saying it won't increase inflation, but people who are living paycheck to paycheck know that when the government pumps another trillion into the economy after the last few, it's going to get worse. Giving them a few extra dollars to send their kids to a public daycare isn't going to help many people at all.

[FIPurpose]

It is hard to not be hypocritical on coal and natural gas when 60% of the US power grid uses those two fuels.  I am typing this from a warm house (it is 19 degrees and snowing outside) and likely a good portion of the electricity being used to power my laptop and heat our home is coming from coal or natural gas.

Admittedly it is a 1 bedroom apartment and we keep the heat at 65 F but still....I am consuming those fuels so not going to throw too many stones here.

What? No one that I know of is calling Manchin a hypocrite. Just highly biased.

But also, arguably, whatever we eventually do to curtail coal will be a worse deal for West Virginia. According to the WSJ the White House basically told Manchin that he could have whatever he wanted to help the workers in West Virginia who would be impacted and he turned them down. In the short term that might be good for those workers, in the long term they might never see another deal this good:

The White House set up a special program to focus on coal communities. It steered money into developing how to extract rare earths from coal waste, coal waste that is very prevalent in West Virginia. It has told him that the government will invest a lot of money in something called carbon capture and sequestration technology, which would allow the emissions from coal fired power plants to be captured and buried underground. So in other words, paying lip service to this idea that you can still continue to have coal and gas fired electricity plants. It's offered him every inducement it can. It has made his wife the chairperson of an Appalachian commission focused on business development, basically, in the area. Democrats included in its tax plan money that would specifically go to coal communities like West Virginia. It's thrown everything at him and at some point it's clear that the promises people are making to Joe Manchin that West Virginia will have a place on the clean energy future these arguments are not working. - WSJ: Biden's Climate Ambitions Die in the Senate

To me that just smacks of short-termism.

Did Joe Manchin do his thing for money or for the folks in West Virginia?

 In 2020, 11,418 people were working in West Virginia's coal industry in total. Of that number, 80 percent of the employees worked in underground coal mines.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/215786/coal-mining-employment-in-west-virginia/

West Virginia has 1.8 million people.

I grew up in an iron mining town.  It was always the nature of mining that it was somewhat volatile.   

I wonder if those 11,418 people would have considered Biden's offer.  I figure some of them may have liked to avoid the black lung.

Coal power plants have been closing like dominoes without the bill.  I'm sure the miners have seen that.

He's never mentioned coal. I think he did it because the people in rural America are very concerned about inflation. You guys might believe those fancy econ professors in suits saying it won't increase inflation, but people who are living paycheck to paycheck know that when the government pumps another trillion into the economy after the last few, it's going to get worse. Giving them a few extra dollars to send their kids to a public daycare isn't going to help many people at all.

Oh get out of here with that Heritage Foundation talk. Wages have been growing faster than inflation, almost double. Manchin's talk of inflation was always a smoke screen for dumping the BBB. It was an obvious ruse from the start.