Well, as long as the topic is rail-related in a legitimate manner, i.e., NOT advertising a porn site by showing some obscene act on the open, rear platform of an observation car, this sort of ad/post is acceptable, IMO.
It wasn’t until the last paragraph, when combined with the poster’s screen name, that I took the piece to be any more than an op-ed item.
The rest just seems to be someone’s opinion of HSR, garnished with some real or hypothetical facts.
If the OP had used a relatively neutral screen name, and left the last paragraph off, I wouldn’t have seen it as an ad.
I have no basis for stating any of these things ‘authoritatively’ and I apologize for using language that conveyed that. I would argue that it is not ‘mere’ opinion but relatively well-informed opinion derived from a wide variety of historical sources and evidence, but I don’t have either a proper citation list or preferences for you, so won’t argue the point further in semantics.
(1) ‘socioeconomic range’ in, for example, China, would really only be relevant in the United States if we had a range of services comparable to those provided by the rather massive Chinese HSR project, with only the alternative modes of transport provided there, cost incentives, etc. I think even you will agree that financing such a thing here is far beyond even Chinese ability or will. Instead, I chose to look – I think, realistically – at the actual range of socioeconomic classes that would be riding HSR projects (and by this, again, I mean “HSR” by generally-accepted speeds, which really start around 150mph and not 125mph) in the United States.
As noted, I’d be delighted to see a wider mix of people using HSR once it has been built. And, in a sense, that was what your comment reflected (at least with regard to China) but I still fail to see the relevance when discussing how to pay for the initial buildout of hypothesizing that some similar range of socioeconomic participation will be observed during the early years of the built-out project’s operation (where I strongly suspect the fares charged will either be priced out of most socioeconomic classes’ range, or be subsidized to the necessarily meaningful extent by governments radically unlike any we have in thi
Forums supposedly have standards. They should be enforced, or they are meaningless. I supposed you could call that a form of policing. I see it as upholding the standards.
The moderators have stated on several occasions that they don’t have time to monitor the site every minute of every hour of every day. So notifying the forum “cops” is just that. It says take a look. The participants don’t have any authority to police the site.
It is a bit like speeding in my neighborhood. If I talk to my council person about it, little is likely to be done to fix the problem. But if many of my neighbors raise the issue, the council person is more likely to listen. That is why I suggested notifying the moderator if you - meaning the participants - believe the post was inappropriate.
Let’s suppose that a thread on containers shipped by rail is opened. Would it be OK for the UP, CSX, JB Hunt, Schneider, Warner, Swift, etc., to post what in effect is an ad to the thread?
FWIW, the article about Brightpoint struck a positive chord with me. Seems like the right way things should be done.
One of the axes I have to grind with the more typical pie-in-the-sky solicitations for public cooperation is that promoters are frequently mum about any financial commitment they are willing to make. Most often coming across as little more than a fishing expedition, flaunting artist renderings and hoping to leverage those into a sizable public commitment, up front. Which once that commitment is made the plans inevitably get scaled back from the spectacular, with the promoter suddenly fiscally aware and hiding behind explanations that the drawings were “just conceptual”.
If the tables were turned, and the promoter’s speil was something more like “I have secured $600 million that I’m willing to commit, contingent upon the public paying an equivalent amount” …I’d be far more at ease.
What usually happens around here is the promoters look for what kind of tax deal they can get, and for how long. Most of the time they get some sort of “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOT) agreement. They’re still paying taxes, but at a fixed rate, instead of facing increasing assessments and increases in municipal budgets.
That, and hitting up the industrial development corporations for some cash to help the process along.
If nobody is willing to cut a tax deal or pony up some cash, these businesses tend to wander on to their next victim…
Larry,
We did pretty much that about 25 years ago. Tried to build a plactics plant in upstate NY. We needed that tax abatement/deferment to get ‘over the hump’ on startup. Would have employed 50 - 75 people in the Victor area but couldn’t get the EDC/IDC people to go along as we weren’t “high tech”, just trash bags and stretch film. So we tried elsewhere, Ohio and Michigan. We weren’t looking for a victim, we were looking for assistance at startup and willing to pay later.
edit: To bring it back to rail, We needed rail for resin - HSR wouldn’t have helped.
Some of these businesses do get going, and keep going. Others seem to disappear as soon as the tax breaks disappear - sometimes still owing money on their IDC loan. It was those to whom the “victim” comment applies.
Depends on how fast you want it [:P]
[quote user=“RME”]
schlimm
Cutting to the chase, I would ask why so to all three paragraphs. What is your basis for stating so authoritatively what appears to be mere opinion. I also notice you did not actually answer my prior questions of you.
I have no basis for stating any of these things ‘authoritatively’ and I apologize for using language that conveyed that. I would argue that it is not ‘mere’ opinion but relatively well-informed opinion derived from a wide variety of historical sources and evidence, but I don’t have either a proper citation list or preferences for you, so won’t argue the point further in semantics.
(1) ‘socioeconomic range’ in, for example, China, would really only be relevant in the United States if we had a range of services comparable to those provided by the rather massive Chinese HSR project, with only the alternative modes of transport provided there, cost incentives, etc. I think even you will agree that financing such a thing here is far beyond even Chinese ability or will. Instead, I chose to look – I think, realistically – at the actual range of socioeconomic classes that would be riding HSR projects (and by this, again, I mean “HSR” by generally-accepted speeds, which really start around 150mph and not 125mph) in the United States.
As noted, I’d be delighted to see a wider mix of people using HSR once it has been built. And, in a sense, that was what your comment reflected (at least with regard to China) but I still fail to see the relevance when discussing how to pay for the initial buildout of hypothesizing that some similar range of socioeconomic participation will be observed during the early years of the built-out project’s operation (
Ever stop to consider that as the original poster’s first post, the thread had to clear moderator review just to make it up on the board? (that “probationary” thingie)
I applaud the moderators for permitting this thread to continue in spite of your complaint. Really tired of just a few squeaky wheels trying to decide what the rest of us are allowed to discuss
[soapbox]
[quote user=“tree68”]
BOB WITHORN
We weren’t looking for a victim, we were looking for assistance at startup and willing to pay later.
Some of these businesses do get going, and keep going. Others seem to disappear as soon as the tax breaks disappear - sometimes still owing money on their IDC loan. It was those to whom the “victim” comment applies.
Understood, wasn’t defending, just referencing an experience. I agree with you on this. We were just one of those that tried to follow the rules but didn’t offer enough “bling” for the ‘officials’ I guess.
Bob
… or, it might have something to do with a potential advertising account…[:-,]
I noticed the OP had a blue background on the left pane, the Mods have green
AGICO has engaged in producing rail fasteners for more than 50 years, we have professional team for developing and manufacturing rail fasteners such as rail joint, rail clip, rail fastening system, rail spike, rail tie plate, rail pad, rail clamp, rail nut, etc. We have our own quality inspection center and a full set of inspecting facilities for rail fastener before shipment to our clients.
- Our rail products occupy more than 70% market share in China railroad industry.
- Win the first in China State Railway Accessories Production System Competition.
- Hold ISO9001-2000 certificate and be granted as the appointed rail fastener supplier both in China and abroad.
- Different standard rail fasteners such as BS, UIC, DIN and AREMA are available, and nonstandard rail product can also be produced with the sample and drawing o f customers.
- All of the rail products all pass strict quality inspection by the testing facilities.
Naturally on this forum, some members are more interested in who posted or in acting as junior moderators rather than examining any aspects of the content of the post. The post was obviously by a commercial rail equioment supplier. Most of us knew that at once. But here again is Bucky, now posting the OP’s website description. Really useful, but who knows, maybe he’ll start another obsessive argument with himself, this time about a Chinese conspiracy?
The original LGV (TGV line) was a rational solution to a problem. The existing main line from Paris to the south of France was posing a capacity constraint and a new line was needed anyway. The distances between the major population centres was optimal for high speed trains. The country through which the LGV was routed was largely sparsely populated but very hilly. By designing the line for the exclusive use of light trains with high installed power grades up to 4% could be tolerated.
The rational for the earlier Shinkansen in Japan was also based on objective capacity needs.
Many more recent HSR schemes, however, seem to be “politicians’ projects”, (covertly) designed to provide a politician with a lasting monument to himself /herself. A good example is the HS2 in England. This will link London and Birmingham, around 100 miles apart. The country between these places has many towns and villages, which means that there is considerable opposition to the scheme. Extensive tunnelling will be needed (expensive, and tunnels and very high speeds don’t go well together for aerodynamic reasons). The maximum speed needed to achieve the rather modest journey time savings proposed is 225 mph. If capacity is the problem, HS2 is like trying to use a supersonic airliner to do the job of a Jumbo Jet.