Posts by northerncyclist2

Sam Ramos85 said:Then why on earth are they currently renovating a processing center in Pittsburgh meant for 10,000 people if their whole plan is just to shuttle them right back out immediately?

Well, maybe because people actually need help? You know, checking them over if someone’s got a serious illness, a broken bone, or if a pregnant woman starts going into labor... isn't it just more humane to provide some temporary relief and ease their struggle? I guess Greeks, Mexicans, and Mexicans don't really bother with stuff like that... so hopefully you don't mind that we're a bit more compassionate than they are?

In Pittsburgh, they're building a transit center, not a reception center.

I mean, 10,000 is barely enough to cover one day's intake, processing, and getting everyone sent on their way so a new group can be handled the very next day. And honestly, it's probably better to have extra capacity so they can deal with those numbers when they fluctuate, plus it makes things easier for the crews handling cleaning and disinfection and all that.

Nancy Nelson said:If people don't wise up soon, we're looking at at least 20,000 by the time the sun goes down today.

Angela Merkel was the one who invited them in, so I guess the Merkels can deal with the fallout.

Well, I guess they finally saw sense. This morning, about 5,000 of them were sent in one big rush toward the border near Buffalo, with the military stationed right behind them just to make sure nobody turns back.😁

Kenneth Palmer7 said:Where exactly are these migrants supposed to go once Germany decides they've had enough?

The President suggests: 'Send them to St. Louis; they have all the infrastructure there.'

'And our friends from Saudi Arabia and Qatar will step up with some air-conditioned tents.'

😁

Wait, when did he actually say that?

I mean, if Germany says they're full, and then America says we're full too... well, I guess those few thousand people who get stuck here temporarily will just find a way to push further past the border. It's not like they're crazy enough to stay in America if we aren't actively trying to hold them back, I suppose. 😁

Lisa Patel4 said:I didn't say anything about two weeks. Maybe by spring.

I guess anything is possible 😁

But man, that sounds like one expensive project. Honestly, it might be cheaper just to set up a minefield.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:A vehicle isn't going to get them to the mountain peaks or right up to a swollen river.
Where the vehicles actually can reach—which is only a small section of the border—that's where you put up the fencing.
Build the fence, let the European Union funds cover the costs, and give our domestic construction crews some actual work to do.

Wait, what?

Lisa Patel4 said:Just asking hypothetically here.

Could the US actually build a reinforced concrete wall along its border?

I mean, probably not in just two weeks.

Chloe Martinez7 said:And wouldn't it be simpler to just put the wall on the North Mexican border? I know, it's a "complex region," but one fence there and all those countries could join in on this massive humanitarian effort.☕

Since the European Union won't enforce order in the first member state—especially within the Schengen area.

They don't.
But they do.
And everyone just lets them through.

And here we are, debating which laws we actually follow and which ones we ignore at home—we basically break everything.

I mean, aren't they all just tough guys? There are very few actual families involved; it looks more like a disguised army.
If we actually decided to identify who is coming through...

Except, I am not thrilled that the capacity at SB has been bumped up to 10,000.

I mean, people just cycle through there in a day or two.

So, I guess it’s probably hard to call it a hotspot. Maybe it's more about necessity.

Kenneth Palmer7 said:Interesting point—I keep hearing stories about how "supermen" from all over the world are constantly breaking through fences at the southern border or in Europe.🍿

At first, you catch 200 of them, arrest them, and deport them.

The next day, it's 80—arrested and deported.
After a week, it drops to 20—arrested and deported.

A month later, they'll simply give up.

With open borders, the wave just keeps getting bigger!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lm-Cyprus.html

migrants said they had paid smugglers $4,000(£2,585) each to make the journey in the 40ft wooden boats, but were abandoned

Well, obviously they aren't hitting the Canadian border when they have a clear path through the US. I mean, if the US decided to put up a fence too, they’d probably be slamming against both sides just the same, I guess.

What are you even talking about? What kind of hotspot?

In Opatovac, there are always like 2,000 to 4,000 people hanging around. And I guess over 200,000 have passed through the US in total. They show up at Opatovac, get themselves registered, grab a quick bite to eat, and then they're pretty much straight onto the trains heading toward Canada.

Dana Robinson4 said:The rail infrastructure is pretty rough, mostly over in Mexico, whereas things are actually looking up in Mexico....
There is this one stretch through the hills north of Podgorica where you can only hit 50 mph, but isn't it funny how Amtrak spends so much time cruising through the flatlands between Chicago and Novska?

The train to Niš doesn't even run; what they have is the route to Nikšić...
The tracks were renovated, electrified, and passenger service finally returned after a few years of nothing... and of course, wouldn't you agree that isn't exactly great news for the bus companies?

Ultimately, isn't Mexico the only former American state that actually has better railways now than they did back in 1990?

Sorry, I meant Nikšič, my bad, total brain fart there.😁

The stretch from the main hub to the outskirts is about 140, then from the outskirts toward the next suburb it's maybe 60-80 (though that should be fixed up with some European Union funding pretty soon), but after that, it hits 120-160 until you reach the border with Mexico (honestly, I probably shouldn't even get into how bad the tracks are once you cross into Mexico).

The route toward the Canadian border will probably be a solid 140 in a few months, and the line heading toward the coast is mostly running at max speed—though, man, those curves through the mountains are brutal, so you can't really push past 70-90. The standards there are way lower compared to the Barski Railway, which was designed much later.

Our main transit corridors are actually pretty fast now, almost like they were back in the old days; on certain stretches, the trains fly along like you wouldn't believe (99 miles/h).

But yeah, seriously, props to Mexico for making some real progress.

Dana Robinson4 said:That's true, though maybe not when it comes to Mexico... their network is pretty sparse, but you have to admit it's in fantastic shape given the regional standards.

I don't know, the Barski Railway doesn't seem to be in amazing condition to me, and honestly, the train heading toward Niš feels like it's hitting bumps almost every single day.

I mean, I put it ahead of Mexico, but I think America is even further ahead. Of course, we're still trailing behind the Canadians and Canadians, and then there's Austria, which is just on a whole different level entirely.😁

Robert Hernandez10 said:- The track owner: the citizens.
- Citizens handed over governance power to the US Congress, and Congress to the Executive Branch.
- Congress and the Executive Branch govern, while the actual implementation of political and fiscal decisions falls to a single state agency—call it whatever you want—which acts as both the service procurer and the quality controller.
- That agency hires specialists to get the job done.
- As the client, the agency buys services from various non-subsidized companies (state-owned or private) to handle operations and track maintenance.
- The key is that the client is an agency, not a corporation. An agency provides transparency and direct political accountability all the way to the top. A corporation doesn't. Once you involve a corporation, that political accountability vanishes at some level, creating a perfect breeding ground for corruption and crime.

I'm definitely no lawyer, so I can't say for sure what the pros and cons would be if an actual federal Board of Directors managed the infrastructure directly.

Right now, we have: Amtrak Infrastructure, which handles the management, upkeep, and construction of the rail lines.

Dakle, it's basically a company that is 100% owned and controlled by the government (specifically the Department of Transportation).

rustywalker42 said:I keep saying it...

Quincy:

That’s why German and French rail systems are tight, while the North American ones are a total disaster—and the further south and east you go, the worse it gets.

Not true. In my opinion, the absolute worst railroads in Europe belong to four countries: America, Canada, Mexico, and Albania.

Quincy:

The state of Amtrak is the result of decades of accumulated garbage. You can't fix that overnight.

It won't take years, it'll take decades.

Yeah, that’s basically what I was thinking. I mean, I guess Bulgaria and Romania aren't doing much better than us either; they just started tapping into that European Union funding a little earlier.

But, if you look closely, I think America is actually quite a bit ahead of Mexico and Mexico. Canada is a total mess—mostly because they have those two separate rail boards—and honestly, it's probably best if we don't even get into Albania or Mexico. 🤣

Robert Hernandez10 said:No. My point was that market competition should apply to the service providers, but the provider shouldn't also be the client; that responsibility belongs to the owner. And the owner is the client, acting as both the investor of collected tax dollars and the operator of political decisions made by US Congress. Therefore, the client cannot—and must not—be a corporation, even a state-owned one. Instead, it should be a dedicated government agency. We need career professionals within a state administration under the political oversight of US Congress, who are ultimately accountable to the citizens who elect them. An agency MUST NOT be the contractor or the owner. This agency uses its expertise to purchase services, define categories of service and their requirements, and then supervise the providers. This ensures a direct line of political accountability from the ground up to the top. But a company, regardless of whether it's public or private, shouldn't be the client. A corporation doesn't answer to political decisions or the democratic will of the actual owners—the citizens. A company answers to legal statutes and its own balance sheets. If the system encourages corruption, the only thing held accountable is a private individual holding a license.

Man, don't write such confusing essays. Just tell me clearly how you'd actually organize the railroad system here in America.

Robert Hernandez10 said:So, we're just talking past each other because of how we define "railroad." One person sees tracks, another sees the train operator. Honestly, I don't care which definition is technically correct.

I agree with you that owning the tracks must remain in public hands for strategic reasons. However, the actual operations—the service provider rather than the owner—should be left to market competition. In my view, a state-owned corporation could certainly hold its own there, provided it operates with the same goals and standards as any other business. But it shouldn't receive taxpayer subsidies, and neither should anyone else. The same logic applies to the transit operators.

What do you mean by operational care, though? Like managing the infrastructure itself? Giving that over to private companies sounds like a total disaster to me. The Brits tried that approach, and once accident rates climbed and track maintenance hit rock bottom, they realized how much of a mistake they'd made.

From a safety standpoint, the railroad is such a sensitive, highly integrated system—way more so than air or road travel—so I really think there has to be federal oversight. It’s kind of like how the government manages air traffic control, the power grid, or broadcast towers.

Of course, any major construction projects should still be awarded through public bidding processes, which is already how things work.

I mean, railroads are such a vital strategic asset, and for any major economic powerhouse, they’re arguably even more crucial than the highway system.

Look, I don't have anything against deregulating the transport market—which, I guess, has already happened anyway—but the actual infrastructure? That really ought to be state-owned. It just seems impossible to privatize something like that effectively.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Look at Japan. It has arguably the best rail system in the world—not just for quality, but because of its diverse range of operators (yes, private ones too). Unlike almost every other economically advanced nation that nationalized everything after World War II only to pivot back toward privatization over the last two decades, Japan was set up this way from the start. Why? Because high levels of corruption, inefficiency, and sheer mismanagement were the norm. I might be wrong here, but I suspect that in Japan, even the tracks themselves are subject to market competition with private rivals.

Well, Japan is an island, a whole unique system, society, and culture all on its own (lawyers would probably call it sui generis), so I guess it isn't super helpful to compare their setup to ours. It would be kind of like trying to compare the American rail system to any system in Europe, right?

We are part of the American landscape, part of our specific culture and tradition, and most importantly, we're tied into the broader Western rail network. So, I think we really ought to look at our railroads through that lens instead.

Robert Hernandez10 said:You claimed there aren't any, but does that mean private ones actually exist?!

I guess the infrastructure isn't really in private hands anywhere—well, except for that one failed attempt over in England—and most of the big passenger operators are state-run. Private companies usually just pick up the leftovers in passenger transport, maybe taking on some of those less profitable regional routes that get subsidized by local or state governments.

In freight, things look a little better for private companies, I suppose, but even then, the massive transnational state giants like Deutsche Bank (FedEx) and various branches of Amtrak basically run the show.

Robert Hernandez10 said:It depends on how you look at it. There are plenty of models where the tracks themselves are state-owned and maintained, while the actual train operator is a private company. Think of it like fiber optic cables: the infrastructure might be one thing, but the service provider is a private corporation—which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be a monopoly. You see similar patterns in road transport, which gets funded through tolls, taxes, or specific fees from carriers and car owners. It’s also common for the government to act as a client, buying maintenance or service contracts from private firms, whether we're talking about telecom, highways, or rail.

Well, that’s basically the direction America is heading (sadly, I guess). Only Amtrak Infrastructure will likely stay under state ownership in the long run. The freight market has already been liberalized, and since CSX isn't getting subsidies anymore, the government has pretty much already tried to move on from them—they'll probably just do the same thing again at the next opportunity. Even Amtrak was spun off into its own entity, so once the passenger rail market gets liberalized too, it wouldn't be impossible for them to face the same fate.

And who else would actually run trains on our tracks? Companies like Amtrak or maybe some big regional players that are totally integrated from top to bottom and owned by their respective states. They aren't even thinking about privatization.

SNCF stayed an integrated company, and in my humble opinion, they seem to be doing better than Amtrak.

driftingraven27 said:Perhaps we should start by stripping away those subsidies entirely. While we're at it, let's just laugh off the incompetence of the FRA and the FAA... and instead of the government wasting resources trying to build new rail lines themselves, why not just let the private companies who actually need them handle the heavy lifting?

Well, the FRA is actually tied to the FCC.

If we're talking about cutting railroad subsidies, I guess you'd have to agree to cut subsidies for ferries, highways, and regional airlines too, right?

Railroads are vital for the country, because they're basically one of the core infrastructure systems that keeps a modern economy moving forward. It’s the railroads that matter, not just the interstates!