# The "Green" New Deal solves HS Rail Travel



## Rover (Feb 7, 2019)

Here's an interesting goal of the Left's Green New Deal... Get ready for this:




> “Build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary”.



Why didn't I think of that !!


https://www.atr.org/green-new-deal-air-travel-stops-becoming-necessary


----------



## Pere Flyer (Feb 7, 2019)

If the US is to be carbon-neutral, air travel via jet fuel must be drastically reduced, if not eliminated.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Feb 7, 2019)

How about a source from a less obviously biased website?


----------



## keelhauled (Feb 7, 2019)

This will never happen, and only serves to diminish the credibility of whoever advocates for it.



chrsjrcj said:


> How about a source from a less obviously biased website?


There is a link to a PDF in the article, which appears to be the talking points the authors plan to use.

Interestingly, the text of the resolution is far less expansive; its points on transportation are "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail."


----------



## chrsjrcj (Feb 7, 2019)

I fail to see how any of that diminishes the credibility of whoever advocates for it. I figured most here would support high speed rail.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 7, 2019)

chrsjrcj said:


> How about a source from a less obviously biased website?


No kidding. We've got some serious strawman-ing happening here.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 7, 2019)

chrsjrcj said:


> How about a source from a less obviously biased website?


Thirded.


----------



## keelhauled (Feb 7, 2019)

chrsjrcj said:


> I fail to see how any of that diminishes the credibility of whoever advocates for it. I figured most here would support high speed rail.


It depends on the execution.  If the goal was to build out high speed rail to point where air travel stops being necessary for itineraries below, I don't know, 500 miles or something, 800 if you want to get ambitious, whatever, that I can get behind.  But the idea that ground transportation is adequate to serve the entirety of a country as large as the United States is foolish.  Air travel will always win out on transcontinental trips, and probably on inter-regional travel as well (Texas to pretty much anywhere, Northeast--Florida/Caribbean, Midwest--West Coast, etc) based on travel time, even in a universe where we had infrastructure capable of supporting 300 mph trains.  And because we don't have that infrastructure, how can it be justified to pour the money and resources into building rail lines that become more costly and resource-intensive as they become longer and less competitive with air?  How many trillions of cubic yards of concrete would it take, how much diesel burned in the construction equipment, how much wildlife destroyed to punch the rails through?  And how in the world do you pay for it?

The goal should be to better integrate America's various modes of transportation in ways that they support each other to make the whole system as efficient as possible.  Rail lines should be anchored by significant population points, with buses or personal vehicles feeding them from outlying areas.  In turn, in addition to serving city centers, rail lines should be laid into major airports to feed trans- and intercontinental flights, replacing inefficient regional aircraft and allowing greater overall passenger capacity through airports as larger aircraft on major long haul routes can take slots used by short haul flights now.  Trying to make a single mode of transport the default doesn't work in a country and travel market as large as the US.  It doesn't work for cars and airplanes, but it also doesn't work for rail.  The idea that rail travel, at any speed, can somehow be a magic bullet that works for everyone is never going to happen, and trying to make it happen is only going to waste unfathomable sums of money and make lots of people very, very unhappy.



Ryan said:


> Thirded.


Am I shouting at the wind here?



keelhauled said:


> Interestingly, the text of the resolution is far less expansive...


----------



## Rover (Feb 7, 2019)

chrsjrcj said:


> How about a source from a less obviously biased website?






keelhauled said:


> This will never happen, and only serves to diminish the credibility of whoever advocates for it.
> 
> There is a link to a PDF in the article, which appears to be the talking points the authors plan to use.
> 
> ...






cpotisch said:


> No kidding. We've got some serious strawman-ing happening here.






Ryan said:


> Thirded.


If you go the .pdf link mentioned in the opening paragraph of the story, https://www.atr.org/sites/default/files/assets/greennewdeal.pdf you will see, if you read, on page 5, this, and I quote:



> Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 7, 2019)

If you read the actual resolution (linked just above yours), the quote isn't there.  Primary sources and all that jazz.  Emphasis mine:

Edit:  Here's a reason that the code editor would be helpful.  These quotes are all horked up with no obvious way to fix them.



> Quote
> overhauling transportation systems in
> 
> the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector _*as much as is technologically feasible*_, including through investment in—
> ...


----------



## Rover (Feb 7, 2019)

Okay, the part I was quoting was from the Resolution Summary. Regardless of what the Bill says, this Summary is a statement of what they want, however unlikely it is they could get that to happen.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 8, 2019)

It’s not a bill, it’s a resolution, and it’s a pretty poor summary if it includes things that aren’t in the actual resolution.


----------



## jis (Feb 8, 2019)

AFAICS the resolution has merit. The article is a poorly written clickbait red meat thrown at you know what type [emoji57] worthy of being disposed in a trashbin. Just IMHO of course.

BTW, too bad no mention of railway electrification.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 8, 2019)

Ryan said:


> It’s not a bill, it’s a resolution, and it’s a pretty poor summary if it includes things that aren’t in the actual resolution.


It's a resolution from which to build several "bills".


----------



## Ryan (Feb 8, 2019)

I'm well aware of that, and never claimed otherwise.

Have any of the bills been written?  No.

Do any of the unwritten bills have the end of air travel in them?  See above.

I'll avoid the partisan hype and evaluate this on what's actually written down, not what people say about it.


----------



## Rover (Feb 9, 2019)

jis said:


> AFAICS the resolution has merit. The article is a poorly written clickbait red meat thrown at you know what type
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just so I know, what unpartisan source do you recommend for bringing forth a topic that people will take sides on??


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 9, 2019)

Rover said:


> Just so I know, what unpartisan source do you recommend for bringing forth a topic that people will take sides on??


Just because a topic is partisan doesn't mean that all sources are equally partisan. ATR is a highly biased source that makes no clear effort to mitigate its biases.

Look for an actual news/journalism outlet, not advocacy groups with a clear agenda.


----------



## jis (Feb 9, 2019)

Rover said:


> Just so I know, what unpartisan source do you recommend for bringing forth a topic that people will take sides on??


The actual resolution would be most appropriate. Let people decide based on the original text instead of being fed someone else’s opinion about it with random occasionally outrageous extensions that has little to do with the original resolution.

I thought this should have been elementarily obvious, but I guess not. [emoji57]


----------



## Rover (Feb 9, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Just because a topic is partisan doesn't mean that all sources are equally partisan. ATR is a highly biased source that makes no clear effort to mitigate its biases.
> 
> Look for an actual news/journalism outlet, not advocacy groups with a clear agenda.






jis said:


> The actual resolution would be most appropriate. Let people decide based on the original text instead of being fed someone else’s opinion about it with random occasionally outrageous extensions that has little to do with the original resolution.
> 
> I thought this should have been elementarily obvious, but I guess not.


Okay, I get what you're saying. I'll do better next time. I was lazy, and just went with the first news article that came up.


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 10, 2019)

chrsjrcj said:


> How about a source from a less obviously biased website?


Still a column, but at least appearing in recognized media:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-socialist-that-could-11549583738?shareToken=stabaf68e3df124de095dde6ef8e7e2f09&amp;ref=article_email_share

Fair Use:



> And that might be the easy part. According to an accompanying fact sheet, the Green New Deal would also get rid of combustion engines, “build charging stations everywhere,” “upgrade or replace every building in U.S.,” do the same with all “infrastructure,” and crisscross the nation with “high-speed rail


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 10, 2019)

GBNorman said:


> Still a column, but at least appearing in recognized media:
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-socialist-that-could-11549583738?shareToken=stabaf68e3df124de095dde6ef8e7e2f09&amp;ref=article_email_share
> 
> Fair Use:


That is an opinion piece written by a woman known to be very right-wing (Kimberley Strassel), and once again, we have a serious straw man happening. I don't see why it's so hard to post an actual article or primary source, and not a column or op-ed with an agenda.

So here is the actual, official resolution, which objectively shows what is being suggested. Take from it what you wish.


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 10, 2019)

Potisch, because I was unable to locate such in my weekly stack of Times and Journals. The first thing I could locate was Ms. Strassel's column, which  I have to believe you must acknowledge appeared within recognized media.

Be it noted, however, that I carefully reported the material was a column.

However, with that said, I thank you for locating a source document, and to which I will add _REPORTING _by the two major national print news sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/climate/green-new-deal.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/green-new-deal-democrats-position-climate-change-as-central-issue-in-2020-11549630802?shareToken=st02ae8ddc386948c988d9214df35130f0&amp;ref=article_email_share


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 12, 2019)

Ryan said:


> I'll avoid the partisan hype and evaluate this on what's actually written down, not what people say about it.


Its creation was hyper-political.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 12, 2019)

VentureForth said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I'll avoid the partisan hype and evaluate this on what's actually written down, not what people say about it.
> ...


Sure, but that still doesn't mean we should be basing our own opinions on this from extremely right wing sources. Conclude yourself what its merits are and are not from what is actually being proposed. Can you give me any reason why we should be basing our opinions on this deal off of someone else's obviously biased opinion?


----------



## Ryan (Feb 12, 2019)

It’s easy to base you opinions on someone else’s biased opinion when you agree with that biased opinion.


----------



## cocojacoby (Feb 12, 2019)

Yup, yup, yup . . . easy peasy.   Just remember how well the NEC Futures Plan to build a high-speed bypass through Liberal Connecticut went.


----------



## daybeers (Feb 12, 2019)

cocojacoby said:


> Yup, yup, yup . . . easy peasy.   Just remember how well the NEC Futures Plan to build a high-speed bypass through Liberal Connecticut went.


Even if Connecticut were mostly conservative, it still wouldn't have happened. The proposal was to bulldoze dozens of homes in high population areas. Not to mention the cost, especially considering the property values in Fairfield County.


----------



## cocojacoby (Feb 12, 2019)

daybeers said:


> Even if Connecticut were mostly conservative, it still wouldn't have happened. The proposal was to bulldoze dozens of homes in high population areas. Not to mention the cost, especially considering the property values in Fairfield County.


Exactly.  And how else are you going to build these new rail routes?  It's probably easier to create a flying train . . . oh wait!


----------



## sttom (Feb 12, 2019)

I like the idea of high speed trains and a Green New Deal in general, but AOC is a gaff machine. A high speed train would take 16 hours to cross the country from Penn Station to the Transbay Terminal.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 12, 2019)

What does it matter how long that takes? People that need to get there in a reasonable time frame will still fly.


----------



## sttom (Feb 12, 2019)

Not if we abolish airlines and cows   A cross country train taking that long would likely make it into a overnight train. And probably not carry a lot of people.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Feb 12, 2019)

sttom said:


> I like the idea of high speed trains and a Green New Deal in general, but *AOC is a gaff machine.* A high speed train would take 16 hours to cross the country from Penn Station to the Transbay Terminal.


As opposed to their current POTUS. Both have a very strong base of support, and I'd expect the GND to receive consideration 10 years down the road especially as her generation (which actually favors this stuff, because they actually care about the future they'll be living in) becomes a larger portion of the electorate.


----------



## jebr (Feb 12, 2019)

sttom said:


> Not if we abolish airlines and cows   A cross country train taking that long would likely make it into a overnight train. And probably not carry a lot of people.


If we're abolishing airlines, there'd be a lot of people that would take a 16-hour cross-country train because it'd become the fastest option.

There's a lot of non-cross-country trips that could be very well served by high-speed rail. Measuring the success or failure of high-speed rail based on how long a cross-country trip takes is making it compete in a ballpark where it never should be competing in. High speed rail can do a lot to move the share of medium-distance trips from air to rail (and to move short-distance air traffic to rail as well.) Depending on how we account for the effect of air travel on our climate and environment, we could also make the train the more economical option to cross the country, when a passenger's priority is cost more than speed.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 12, 2019)

sttom said:


> Not if we abolish airlines and cows   A cross country train taking that long would likely make it into a overnight train. And probably not carry a lot of people.


Fortunately, nobody is proposing that.


----------



## sttom (Feb 12, 2019)

Her initial post mentioned abolishing cow farts. I agree with the need for a Green New Deal and support one, but that doesn't mean AOC is going to get away not getting mocked for her gaffs. I am well aware of how feasible high speed trains are and want them, but they aren't putting the airlines under for 1500+ mile trips. To put it bluntly I agree with the policy, but am mocking the messenger. As much as I agree with her, that doesn't mean she shot the prospect in the foot.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 12, 2019)

I'm worried that AOC is going to "solve" this for us by making it politically radioactive.  Right now she's on my list of least favorite people in DC.

I'd also note that having this drop a few days before CAHSR got slashed back massively is just bad optics.

Swinging around to what HSR _can_ do, let's presume a maximum speed of 220 MPH (yes, I know there's some faster stuff out there, but this feels like a safe place to start) and an average endpoint speed of 150-160 MPH (remember, inevitably there will be portions of the route that you can't keep the needle on 220 because geography is still a thing).  That gets NYC-Chicago down to about six hours, maybe a little bit less depending on the routing (via Albany/Buffalo sits at 960 miles; IIRC via Philly/Pittsburgh is a bit less...the Pennsy logged it as 907, but that also skipped Cleveland).  You can pick up some traffic at the endpoints (notably, even on a midnight-to-0500/0600 shutdown, you can leave NYC after work and get to Chicago before the line closes), but the real answer is in your major intermediate markets, most of which start falling into that up-to-four-hours range that tends to be viable in many parts of the world.

By the way, that doesn't get NYC-Chicago-Los Angeles to 16 hours, it gets it to 17.5-19 hours (maybe as much as 20 if you follow a slightly less direct routing to hit SLC/Las Vegas or Phoenix en route).  So the Japanese "no bullet trains at night" model isn't going to get you coast-to-coast without a forced overnight, which is a problem.  Arguably if the system was broad enough you could do some things with overnight trains that would allow some routes to be shut down (e.g. alternating which nights an overnight train from Chicago to LA runs via SLC vs Phoenix) or punching in 90-120 minutes of relative "slow orders" for overnight services to allow single-tracking for work (and passing the work zones at safe speeds), but that's going to require building a _lot_ of expensive partial redundancy into the system or other management that isn't generally part of the model.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 13, 2019)

California Governor abandons HSR:

https://mol.im/a/6694231


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 13, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Sure, but that still doesn't mean we should be basing our own opinions on this from extremely right wing sources. Conclude yourself what its merits are and are not from what is actually being proposed. Can you give me any reason why we should be basing our opinions on this deal off of someone else's obviously biased opinion?


Well, the opinions are based not on the resolution itself, but rather on FAQs generated by the exact same representative who wrote the resolution.

To be fair (and balanced), AOC's office claims the FAQ was a draft and should not have been released. It's in these FAQs that the reference to being unable eliminate farting cows and airplanes in 10 years is mentioned.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 13, 2019)

Ryan said:


> What does it matter how long that takes? People that need to get there in a reasonable time frame will still fly.


The question though is, what percentage of all overall air trips are from Philadelphia to San Francisco, versus journeys that could reasonably be made by HSR.

I'm not claiming to know the statistic, but picking the most unreasonable example and somehow using that to project onto everything else is not really helpful.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I would guesstimate that well over 90% of air trips (mostly for work actually) I made over the last 5 years were 2 hours or less.

Could a train be competitive in such scenarios?


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 13, 2019)

VentureForth said:


> Well, the opinions are based not on the resolution itself, but rather on FAQs generated by the exact same representative who wrote the resolution.
> 
> To be fair (and balanced), AOC's office claims the FAQ was a draft and should not have been released. It's in these FAQs that the reference to being unable eliminate farting cows and airplanes in 10 years is mentioned.


Point still stands that the page Rover posted was a column on the website of a very conservative advocacy group, and the page GBN linked to was an op-ed by a very right wing author and journalist. Those are not reliable sources and therefore are not a good place for us to build our opinions off of.


----------



## jis (Feb 13, 2019)

Let me throw this into the pot, without comments...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/13/why-united-states-will-never-have-high-speed-rail/?utm_term=.756c48d88c38


----------



## bretton88 (Feb 13, 2019)

jis said:


> Let me throw this into the pot, without comments...
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/13/why-united-states-will-never-have-high-speed-rail/?utm_term=.756c48d88c38


He's not wrong, though some of that can be overcome. I do think HSR will eventually come, most likely in the slightly flawed Texas Central project. But TC has also run across a lot of roadblocks (lobbies and legal action), so I could also see them giving up on it too.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 14, 2019)

bretton88 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Let me throw this into the pot, without comments...
> ...


I haven't read Jis's article because of a paywall, but I don't believe Texas Central is necessarily scalable. there may be a handful of other corridors where that model might just about work.  But t is an illusion to believe a contguous national network will ever come to be without government money (*). So the question is, when, and under what set of circumstances will that happen? 

(*) or even a non contiguous network, as I don't believe a transcontinental line will ever make sense, except maybe as a 1,000 mph maglev or something like that in the far distant future.But I mean contiguous in the sense that there will be locally contiguous networks around the areas that have the potential to support them. So say, East Coast, West Coast, Chicago area, Texas, and that airline bridges exist between these networks, but that means high speed lines serving airports directly ...


----------



## Ryan (Feb 14, 2019)

cpotisch said:


> Point still stands that the page Rover posted was a column on the website of a very conservative advocacy group, and the page GBN linked to was an op-ed by a very right wing author and journalist. Those are not reliable sources and therefore are not a good place for us to build our opinions off of.


Nor are documents other than the resolution that have been withdrawn and publicly Disavowed by the author. Doubly so when there a bunch of copies of it that have been altered floating around.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 14, 2019)

VentureForth said:


> California Governor abandons HSR:
> 
> https://mol.im/a/6694231


That's a gross mischaracterization of his remarks.  He literally said the opposite:  "For those who want to walk away from this whole endeavor, I offer you this:  Abandoning high speed rail entirely means we will have wasted billions of dollars with nothing but broken promises and lawsuits to show for it."

Here's the full text of his remarks on HSR, excerpted from his speech.  It sounds like a very reasonable focusing of efforts on an initial section to ensure trains actually start running, while completing environmental reviews for the entire project.



> Next, let’s level about high speed rail.  I have nothing but respect for Governor Brown’s and Governor Schwarzenegger’s ambitious vision. I share it. And there’s no doubt that our state’s economy and quality of life depend on improving transportation.
> 
> But let’s be real. The project, as currently planned, would cost too much and take too long. There’s been too little oversight and not enough transparency.
> 
> ...


----------



## cirdan (Feb 14, 2019)

Ryan said:


> That's a gross mischaracterization of his remarks.  He literally said the opposite:  "For those who want to walk away from this whole endeavor, I offer you this:  Abandoning high speed rail entirely means we will have wasted billions of dollars with nothing but broken promises and lawsuits to show for it."


Well, basically he's saying, let's finish the bit that's already under construction and that we can't meaningfully pull out of, giving us some sort of accelerated San Joaquin service, and postpone the other bits to some undefined point in the far distant future with no commitment.

That sounds very much like abandoning to me.


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 14, 2019)

The Journal has editorialized in a predictable manner regarding the scaling back of CAHSR to the Fresno-Bakersfield segment under construction:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/death-of-a-california-dream-11550101090?shareToken=st4d57d54e4aa44345a9e39afc3a255f1c&amp;ref=article_email_share

Fair Use:



> ...The new Governor is thus proposing to finish the initial planned route from Merced to Bakersfield, now with the stated goal of revitalizing rural areas that have been parched due to water rationing. Lo, high-speed rail is “about economic transformation and unlocking the enormous potential of the Valley,” which is “hungry for investment” and “good jobs.” Mr. Newsom in his speech also pared back a project championed by Mr. Brown to deliver more water to farmers.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2019)

cirdan said:


> Well, basically he's saying, let's finish the bit that's already under construction and that we can't meaningfully pull out of, giving us some sort of accelerated San Joaquin service, and postpone the other bits to some undefined point in the far distant future with no commitment.
> 
> That sounds very much like abandoning to me.


Since I had not seen any specific completion date for anything beyond the first phase in the Valley, I think people may be over-reading and over-analyzing this one. This is similar to the amount of commitment that even the French had for the Tours - Bordeaux segment of LGV when the LGV Atlantique was built. There was a high level vision plan and nothing beyond that. People who wish to think that is abandoning, have a case, as do people who think it is merely stating the obvious reality of staging construction. So one of those case where both could potentially be right or wrong. :unsure:

Anyway, bringing this back to the original subject .... here is CNN's take on what it is all about:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/green-new-deal-proposal-breakdown/index.html?utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=fbCNNp&amp;utm_content=2019-02-14T14%3A04%3A56&amp;utm_term=link

It still bugs me that there is no specific mention of railway electrification, though it is generically covered under efficient non-polluting transport. But I don;t think HSR will succeed in general in areas where the last mile or the last 50 mile problem does not have an efficient and convenient  solution. Almost at every place where HSR has succeeded there is a relatively robust local public transport system. OTOH, when stations have been built in boondocks with parking lots, they have not really done that well.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 14, 2019)

I'll just say that the legal problems (especially with _intrastate_ projects, such as...er...the cores of all three of the major projects that have been in the mix in the last decade) are probably the biggest problem here.  You can make a case that once federal benefits get entangled (tax free bond status, etc.) there's a "federal interest", but "federal interest(s)" have crept to the point that I cannot help but remember a candidate for Governor in Virginia noting the EPA's tendency to refer to cows as "point sources for water pollution" or somesuch.

If you want to see someone twitch, ask AOC if she'd be willing to punch a hole in NEPA and the Clean Water Act (it _might_ be safe from the Clean Air Act) for HSR.

Edit: [email protected][/USER] I think you can make a case for integrating the East Coast, Midwest, and Chicago areas with one another.  The net benefit of plugging the hole between Pittsburgh/Buffalo and Cleveland is probably substantial.  The West Coast is probably always going to be isolated, however...you have too many miles with too few people.  Even Denver-Omaha is a stretch at HSR speeds.


----------



## neroden (Feb 24, 2019)

GBNorman said:


> Potisch, because I was unable to locate such in my weekly stack of Times and Journals. The first thing I could locate was Ms. Strassel's column, which  I have to believe you must acknowledge appeared within recognized media.
> 
> Be it noted, however, that I carefully reported the material was a column.




WSJ is, indeed, recognized as *dishonest, lying* media.  The editorial page in particular has a *long, long* track record of *outright lies*.  Columbia Journalism Review and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting both did detailed pieces condemning them in the *1990s*, and they've only gotten *worse*.

In short, nothing from a WSJ column can ever be trusted.  This has been the case since at least the 1960s.  I am a professional investor, and  I wish it weren't so, but for financial news, I have to go to Bloomberg or the FT because WSJ is simply dishonest.


----------



## neroden (Feb 24, 2019)

Anderson said:


> I'm worried that AOC is going to "solve" this for us by making it politically radioactive.  Right now she's on my list of least favorite people in DC.




She's the most competent politician in the US since FDR, and I say that having spent a *lot* of time studying politics and political history.  Don't underestimate her and do NOT get on her bad side.  If you know how to read polls, you'll realize that anything she *opposes* becomes politically radioactive.

She's got extremely high skill/talent at all three of the major components of being a politician: policy mastery, PR, and horse-trading/log-rolling.  This is *extremely* rare.


----------



## neroden (Feb 24, 2019)

jis said:


> Let me throw this into the pot, without comments...
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/13/why-united-states-will-never-have-high-speed-rail/?utm_term=.756c48d88c38


It's McMegan; she's a fool and I never read her nonsense.  She consistently spouts off without any knowledge of anything and usually uses cherrypicked or faked facts to come to bogus conclusions.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 25, 2019)

I can agree that she has a handle on the media side of things.  I think her skills at either policy mastery or horse-trading/log-rolling have yet to be determined; thus far, I will grant that she's made a lot of noise but the ultimate impact of said noise is necessarily TBD.

(I'm not going to entirely fault her for the messy rollout of the GND...I understand that at least one tampered-with version of her release was published.  Let's face it, there's stuff you can't control out there.)


----------

