Comments on: How to create a resilient infrastructure in 20 years for 1 trillion dollars, create millions of jobs, transition to green transportation, and do all of this at no cost to government. http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/02/23/how-to-create-a-resilient-infrastructure-in-20-years-for-1-trillion-dollars-create-millions-of-jobs-transition-to-green-transportation-and-do-all-of-this-at-no-cost-to-government/ News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security today. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:07:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Homeland Security Watch » End dependency on fossil fuels by driving on solar panels http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/02/23/how-to-create-a-resilient-infrastructure-in-20-years-for-1-trillion-dollars-create-millions-of-jobs-transition-to-green-transportation-and-do-all-of-this-at-no-cost-to-government/comment-page-1/#comment-140164 Homeland Security Watch » End dependency on fossil fuels by driving on solar panels Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:11:57 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8351#comment-140164 [...] In February, I wrote about a colleagues idea in a post titled “How to create a resilient infrastructure in 20 years for 1 trillion dollars, create millions of jobs, transition to green transportation, and do all of this at no cost to government.” That post is here. [...] [...] In February, I wrote about a colleagues idea in a post titled “How to create a resilient infrastructure in 20 years for 1 trillion dollars, create millions of jobs, transition to green transportation, and do all of this at no cost to government.” That post is here. [...]

]]> By: Ted Lewis http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/02/23/how-to-create-a-resilient-infrastructure-in-20-years-for-1-trillion-dollars-create-millions-of-jobs-transition-to-green-transportation-and-do-all-of-this-at-no-cost-to-government/comment-page-1/#comment-138149 Ted Lewis Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:34:09 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8351#comment-138149 Wow! These comments are great! Thanks. May I make a couple of replies: 1. This is big, but not as big as the original Interstate Highway proposal or Kennedy's Moon Shot idea. Have we lost our will? 2. Engineering problems abund, but probably not as far-out as the Moon Shot, which even in hindsight, seems fantastic. 3. I am a free-market kind of guy, so I DO NOT propose taxation as a way to pay for it. Look at Option 2. I analyzed taxation as a means of showing how cheap it is relative to the 40-cents/gallon tax we are now paying. But my proposal is essentially a toll road, so it can be paid for my usage fees, not taxes. 4. It is a partnership because government has to legalize the right-of-way, promote standards, and lead. The private sector has to realized there is money to be made by being able to send an electron generated in the desert to a home in New York. I don't think that will take much convincing. Wow! These comments are great! Thanks. May I make a couple of replies:
1. This is big, but not as big as the original Interstate Highway proposal or Kennedy’s Moon Shot idea. Have we lost our will?

2. Engineering problems abund, but probably not as far-out as the Moon Shot, which even in hindsight, seems fantastic.

3. I am a free-market kind of guy, so I DO NOT propose taxation as a way to pay for it. Look at Option 2. I analyzed taxation as a means of showing how cheap it is relative to the 40-cents/gallon tax we are now paying. But my proposal is essentially a toll road, so it can be paid for my usage fees, not taxes.

4. It is a partnership because government has to legalize the right-of-way, promote standards, and lead. The private sector has to realized there is money to be made by being able to send an electron generated in the desert to a home in New York. I don’t think that will take much convincing.

]]> By: James W Warren http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/02/23/how-to-create-a-resilient-infrastructure-in-20-years-for-1-trillion-dollars-create-millions-of-jobs-transition-to-green-transportation-and-do-all-of-this-at-no-cost-to-government/comment-page-1/#comment-138148 James W Warren Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:18:59 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8351#comment-138148 Three points: 1) Having worked in the construction industry for several years, it may appear most interstates have wide expanses of useful right-of-way, but that's a gross over simplification of a very complicated issue. In some cases the existing right-of-way can be used, but there would be numerous drainage issues that would have to be addressed. In some cases, the existing right-of-way are simply un-usable due to the fact that conventional construction methods could not be used in many places (e.g. excessive slopes, unstable ground, bridge & over passes,etc...). I can just imagine the engineering consultants that are salivating over the thought of the fees that would roll in if the policy mentioned were implemented. 2) One of the most expensive parts of construction is digging the trench the utility is to be placed in. One sand or dirt, this is no problem. But rock excavation is an entirely different matter. and 3)Comparing an institution after the Macs (Freddie, Fannie, & Sallie) is probably not a good idea (due to corruption & insolvency). In my opinion, a far better example would be the Tennessee Valley Authority. Three points:
1) Having worked in the construction industry for several years, it may appear most interstates have wide expanses of useful right-of-way, but that’s a gross over simplification of a very complicated issue. In some cases the existing right-of-way can be used, but there would be numerous drainage issues that would have to be addressed. In some cases, the existing right-of-way are simply un-usable due to the fact that conventional construction methods could not be used in many places (e.g. excessive slopes, unstable ground, bridge & over passes,etc…). I can just imagine the engineering consultants that are salivating over the thought of the fees that would roll in if the policy mentioned were implemented.
2) One of the most expensive parts of construction is digging the trench the utility is to be placed in. One sand or dirt, this is no problem. But rock excavation is an entirely different matter. and
3)Comparing an institution after the Macs (Freddie, Fannie, & Sallie) is probably not a good idea (due to corruption & insolvency). In my opinion, a far better example would be the Tennessee Valley Authority.

]]> By: Pat Longstaff http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/02/23/how-to-create-a-resilient-infrastructure-in-20-years-for-1-trillion-dollars-create-millions-of-jobs-transition-to-green-transportation-and-do-all-of-this-at-no-cost-to-government/comment-page-1/#comment-138145 Pat Longstaff Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:46:58 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8351#comment-138145 I am not seeing how this is resilient. If the lines are all along very obvious routes aren't they open to damage from people with bad motives? You don't have to dig them up to damage them. To isolate a critical geographic or economic sector you just incapacitate all the lines going in there. What am I missing? I am not seeing how this is resilient. If the lines are all along very obvious routes aren’t they open to damage from people with bad motives? You don’t have to dig them up to damage them. To isolate a critical geographic or economic sector you just incapacitate all the lines going in there. What am I missing?

]]> By: Andrew William http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/02/23/how-to-create-a-resilient-infrastructure-in-20-years-for-1-trillion-dollars-create-millions-of-jobs-transition-to-green-transportation-and-do-all-of-this-at-no-cost-to-government/comment-page-1/#comment-138144 Andrew William Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:32:12 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8351#comment-138144 Andersen has it right on this one - the plan has too high of costs in the short run for "the masses" to want this. A .40 cent gas tax will never pass - they've been trying to pass a gas tax for clean energy for years, and even .05 cent increases are voted down strongly. Additionally, with all the huge projects (healthcare, stimulus bills, and the horizon holds this new jobs bill...)the current administration is tackling, the political environment is just not right for this project. Instead of focusing on pipe dreams (har har), its much more plausable to start thinking small scale projects within reason that could actually gain legislative approval. Andersen has it right on this one – the plan has too high of costs in the short run for “the masses” to want this.

A .40 cent gas tax will never pass – they’ve been trying to pass a gas tax for clean energy for years, and even .05 cent increases are voted down strongly.

Additionally, with all the huge projects (healthcare, stimulus bills, and the horizon holds this new jobs bill…)the current administration is tackling, the political environment is just not right for this project.

Instead of focusing on pipe dreams (har har), its much more plausable to start thinking small scale projects within reason that could actually gain legislative approval.

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/02/23/how-to-create-a-resilient-infrastructure-in-20-years-for-1-trillion-dollars-create-millions-of-jobs-transition-to-green-transportation-and-do-all-of-this-at-no-cost-to-government/comment-page-1/#comment-138142 William R. Cumming Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:15:13 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8351#comment-138142 Reference Dan's comment. Even when constructed and opened WTC Bldgs one and two did not make ecomonmic sense which is one reason occuppied by government offices including STATE and LOCAL EM ops centers. Hey at least the idea in the post makes targeting more not less difficult as opposed to say location of new DHS headquarters on promontory overlooking the rest of DC. Perfect for tactical missle launch or even SLBM! Reference Dan’s comment. Even when constructed and opened WTC Bldgs one and two did not make ecomonmic sense which is one reason occuppied by government offices including STATE and LOCAL EM ops centers.

Hey at least the idea in the post makes targeting more not less difficult as opposed to say location of new DHS headquarters on promontory overlooking the rest of DC. Perfect for tactical missle launch or even SLBM!

]]> By: Dan O'Connor http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/02/23/how-to-create-a-resilient-infrastructure-in-20-years-for-1-trillion-dollars-create-millions-of-jobs-transition-to-green-transportation-and-do-all-of-this-at-no-cost-to-government/comment-page-1/#comment-138139 Dan O'Connor Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:39:49 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8351#comment-138139 Well done Sir. There is elegance to your plan as well as concrete critical thinking and an over the horizon strategy. Some additional thoughts; Although I would not consider myself a cynic, there are some constraints that come to mind to ensure this does not become debt ad infinitum... Legislation and enforcement would be necessary to ensure the funding and revenue were placed directly against the project. The downside of this is injecting bureaucracy that terminally jacks up the price. Also, exceptional leadership would be required to make this happen and not become some hybrid gerrymandering tool to meet needs of Congress. Wonderful, breath taking ideas can become just that; ideas. There is a very large gap between idea people and executors. I use the World Trade Center rebuild as case in point number #1. The plan to replace the towers was an amazing feat of architecture and planning. It was also to be complete by September, 2011. That project is woefully over budget and decades behind schedule. From a sociological point of view, do we currently have “the right stuff” to undertake a project of this magnitude? It’s a real question that I believe must be asked. Hoover dam, the Interstate system, the Empire State building and ALCAN highway all were grand projects done very quickly and effectively. Can we name any significant infrastructure improvement to this Nation in the last several decades that compares favorably? The effort and zeal to complete this undertaking would be vast. I hate posing the question, but one can make the case that the kind of can do attitude and work ethic required for a project of this scope and magnitude is perhaps wanting. Hence, leadership again becomes an essential component. One of the key components of a successful project is on time and under budget. Its been a while since these principles have been held to, at least by Federal Government Standards. Perhaps I am overstating or inflating some of the friction points. What an opportunity nonetheless. Would you also have to comply with current and potentially emerging environmental laws and eminent domain laws? Do you also think geologists would be concerned with current plate tectonic data? Probably a little deep in the weeds, but it has such breadth that I’d imagine there’d be quite a bit of discussion. From another point of view, would you try to include a more robust and efficient National mass transit system as part of the program? Would you even consider it as an auxiliary or supplemental critical infrastructure? Is there a market for that or do you stand by the premise that the individual identity of Americans is to get in their car and go? Would you capture, re route, and treat rainwater as part of your plan as a means of irrigation redistribution or simply let nature run its course? Also, would wind play a part in supplemental or surge capacity in your plan? It is an excellent plan and demonstrates the kind of thinking required to meet our energy and telecommunication needs as continue into the 21st century. thanks for taking the time to prepare it. Really very well done. Well done Sir. There is elegance to your plan as well as concrete critical thinking and an over the horizon strategy.

Some additional thoughts; Although I would not consider myself a cynic, there are some constraints that come to mind to ensure this does not become debt ad infinitum… Legislation and enforcement would be necessary to ensure the funding and revenue were placed directly against the project. The downside of this is injecting bureaucracy that terminally jacks up the price.

Also, exceptional leadership would be required to make this happen and not become some hybrid gerrymandering tool to meet needs of Congress. Wonderful, breath taking ideas can become just that; ideas. There is a very large gap between idea people and executors. I use the World Trade Center rebuild as case in point number #1. The plan to replace the towers was an amazing feat of architecture and planning. It was also to be complete by September, 2011. That project is woefully over budget and decades behind schedule.

From a sociological point of view, do we currently have “the right stuff” to undertake a project of this magnitude? It’s a real question that I believe must be asked. Hoover dam, the Interstate system, the Empire State building and ALCAN highway all were grand projects done very quickly and effectively. Can we name any significant infrastructure improvement to this Nation in the last several decades that compares favorably? The effort and zeal to complete this undertaking would be vast.
I hate posing the question, but one can make the case that the kind of can do attitude and work ethic required for a project of this scope and magnitude is perhaps wanting. Hence, leadership again becomes an essential component. One of the key components of a successful project is on time and under budget. Its been a while since these principles have been held to, at least by Federal Government Standards. Perhaps I am overstating or inflating some of the friction points. What an opportunity nonetheless.

Would you also have to comply with current and potentially emerging environmental laws and eminent domain laws? Do you also think geologists would be concerned with current plate tectonic data? Probably a little deep in the weeds, but it has such breadth that I’d imagine there’d be quite a bit of discussion.

From another point of view, would you try to include a more robust and efficient National mass transit system as part of the program? Would you even consider it as an auxiliary or supplemental critical infrastructure? Is there a market for that or do you stand by the premise that the individual identity of Americans is to get in their car and go? Would you capture, re route, and treat rainwater as part of your plan as a means of irrigation redistribution or simply let nature run its course? Also, would wind play a part in supplemental or surge capacity in your plan?

It is an excellent plan and demonstrates the kind of thinking required to meet our energy and telecommunication needs as continue into the 21st century. thanks for taking the time to prepare it.

Really very well done.

]]> By: Clinton J. Andersen http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/02/23/how-to-create-a-resilient-infrastructure-in-20-years-for-1-trillion-dollars-create-millions-of-jobs-transition-to-green-transportation-and-do-all-of-this-at-no-cost-to-government/comment-page-1/#comment-138137 Clinton J. Andersen Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:25:01 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8351#comment-138137 I don't think the cost is that simple. If the ultimate goal is to upset Americans, for a period of years, and go green, then sure, why not. But the 'pay-as-you-go' system will affect more than drivers. It'll affect the economy as a whole. All the goods and products that are transported and have to pay the fee will pass on that fee to the consumers. Not only that, but what happens when the NSRI faces a major corruption scandal like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Would the highway remain sustainable? And finally, in order to accomplish this the politicians are going to have to upset their constituents. The people aren't going to sign off on a 40 cent tax nor are they going to sign off on a trillion dollar project that is just going to continue to cost them in the long run. Therefore, the policy makers would have to take action without the majority approval, and thus upset the people. Besides that, I think it has potential. :) I don’t think the cost is that simple. If the ultimate goal is to upset Americans, for a period of years, and go green, then sure, why not. But the ‘pay-as-you-go’ system will affect more than drivers. It’ll affect the economy as a whole. All the goods and products that are transported and have to pay the fee will pass on that fee to the consumers.

Not only that, but what happens when the NSRI faces a major corruption scandal like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Would the highway remain sustainable?

And finally, in order to accomplish this the politicians are going to have to upset their constituents. The people aren’t going to sign off on a 40 cent tax nor are they going to sign off on a trillion dollar project that is just going to continue to cost them in the long run. Therefore, the policy makers would have to take action without the majority approval, and thus upset the people.

Besides that, I think it has potential. :)

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2010/02/23/how-to-create-a-resilient-infrastructure-in-20-years-for-1-trillion-dollars-create-millions-of-jobs-transition-to-green-transportation-and-do-all-of-this-at-no-cost-to-government/comment-page-1/#comment-138136 William R. Cumming Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:23:44 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=8351#comment-138136 Sounds like a great idea but there always are devils lurking in the details. Hey Mexico could build a sea-level canal too. Sounds like a great idea but there always are devils lurking in the details. Hey Mexico could build a sea-level canal too.

]]>