Talk:Regional Rail Act (672)
From The Kodiak Republic Wiki
Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP
— 09/23/2024 12:45 AM
Tabled by Minister of Transportation Joseph Dean Fala as a Government bill.
Regional Rail Act (672)
The Purpose is to expand railroads into places not identified by the Ministry of Transportation. Allowing local governments to build regional railroads to connect places of interest and makes it easier for those governments to fund rail projects with Federal assistance.
---
https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Regional_Rail_Act_(672) The Kodiak Republic Wiki Regional Rail Act (672) The Purpose is to expand railroads into places not identified by the Ministry of Transportation. Allowing local governments to build regional railroads to connect places of interest and makes it easier for those governments to fund rail projects with Federal assistance.
Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP
— 09/23/2024 12:46 AM
@Assembly Member The Regional Rail Act (672) is now in debate.
I invite @Joseph Fala (KSDP) to introduce the bill.
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/23/2024 12:54 AM Good Morning Everyone. I present to the assembly this following bill.
This is a companion to the National Rail Act Passed in 668 which was to update existing and make brand new lines connecting many of our cities. During those debates, it was mentioned that Kodiak is still behind when it comes to new rail lines. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I am a representive of Duckburg, all lot of you represent places I have never been to and I don't know how local politics plays out in your necks of the woods. So there are places that do not have rail connection across our nation and I want to give the power and help to local governments who need the funding to build these new rail lines that we at the Ministry of Transportation didn't idenfiy as high priority. This bill also gives power for companies to build there own rail lines to there factories for direct access to our network. This reduces traffic on our roads long term.
It was also brought up in debate that the Military actually would appreciate more of these new rail lines as it allows them to mobalise quicker in emergency situations. Improving efficiency in the long term is a Ministry of Transportation goal across our nation.
I look forward to your questions.
Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette)
pinned
a message
to this channel. See all
pinned messages .
— 09/23/2024 12:56 AM
Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 1:11 AM An expenditure travesty, I say. The absurd amount of money that all of us taxpayers are expected to give up just to fund more railroads which are not the priority, and wouldn't recover the amount of money spent on them until decades if not centuries later is outrageous. Moreover, the funding is expected to be used to fund any project that the provinces suggest, without an actual rentability or demand control, and there is no mention as to where the funding would go if not everything is spent, making it a possible loophole to take away the people's money.
This bill doesn't need a major change, it should be removed from the assembly. Not even with fixing the errors it posesses will it become a good bill.
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:00 AM I'll only support this bill if it takes some of my proposals from the advancing Kodiak transportation bill that was shot down
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:13 AM The one that checks notes promoted the research and construction of outdated and environmentally destructive transportation methods?
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:16 AM I’m beginning to think all communists cannot grasp that modern form of transportation arent just as harmful
LTG Adnan Cordova, TAPS (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:17 AM I'm beginning to think this administration doesn't understand that money isn't infinite
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:19 AM Modern forms of transportation have the benefit of being potentially more efficient with their fuel. Using coal power to fire up steam engines which cannot exert as much force as modern trains seems woefully idiotic.
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:21 AM Oh so the environment being destroyed only matters if it’s fuel efficient
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:24 AM You misunderstand. Efficiency means less environmentally damaging fuel being used. A coal steamer that burns 2.5 tons of coal per hour is going to be vastly more inefficient than a diesel locomotive using less than 10 gallons of fuel an hour. Are both damaging to the environment? Yes. Does the more fuel efficient engine do just as much damage as the less fuel efficient one? No!
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:26 AM That’s why we use planes then because it’s way less efficient but get you there faster So convenience is more affordable now I understand
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:26 AM And coal engines are just so well known for being faster than electric or diesel engines.
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:30 AM So burning coal for efficient electric trains and gasoline for efficient diesel trains is the goal of the environmentally concerned communists
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:31 AM No. But refusing to burn coal for inefficient steam engines? Yes, that is a goal. Coal steam engines will join other forms of fossil fuel-burning engines on the dump-heap of capitalist gluttony. No matter their... quaintness.
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:32 AM Then you agree that this bill needs to not be passed then for the sake that we will burn more coal because we will need more trains
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:32 AM I agree that this bill should be modified to include environmental concerns.
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:33 AM Perfect then we can add the sections of my bill that were more environmentally friendly than modern versions
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:37 AM I will not, simultaneously, ensure that the workers of Kodiak are unnecessarily burdened with additional hard, back-breaking labor by hobbling them by encouraging hand-carts. There is a middle road. Clean energy production, sustainable e-vehicle design, and the like.
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:39 AM Thats why you support back-breaking labor like coal mining Got it
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:40 AM I support coal mining just as much as you support burning ancient artifacts. ((Take that))
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:41 AM I guess we can all rest easy knowing communists are looking for a no one needs to work state! Wait, is coal just another version of ancient artifacts....
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:42 AM Scientifically? Yes.
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:43 AM Certainly it predates society itself, making it the ultimate artifact
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:43 AM Coal is the product of compressing ancient plants and wood into carbon. Burning it is tantamount to burning ancient artifacts of our global history. ((I found the hack)) Same with crude oil products.
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:44 AM That's it a global ban on all coal mining, it shall all be excavated and put into museums ((Bones is absolutely mind blasted))
Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 3:45 AM For the sake of everyone it better just be a one time thing
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:45 AM If you propose a ban on coal burning and allocate funding to alternative, clean energy, perhaps I will support a modest grant to create the Bones Museum of Coal.
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 3:45 AM ((Like I said, found the hack))
Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 09/23/2024 3:46 AM ((I love how Brown still has a sense of humor))
Dakota Bones (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:48 AM I will be working on this immediately. The argument of this bill is moot! How can we fund a system which destroys such historical artifacts!
Redmin P. Apple (SHRIMP) — 09/23/2024 3:49 AM Even though I am a part of this ministry I must agree with my party mates. The goal set by me was to lower expenses not make them bigger.
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/23/2024 6:30 AM I want to point out that the National Rail Service is one of the few governmental agencies that actually makes a profit that goes back into the general fund because people actually use it. Railroad is expensive to build on the front end but is cheaper long term to maintain then roads. The National Rail Act passed a few years ago costed more money but we did it without raising taxes because it was self funded by the railroads and the bill costed about 5 billion florins. for less then a quarter of that per year to fund long term regional systems as a perminate expenditure for the railway. This is a long term investment to build railroads across our nation This bill will also bring new jobs to our communities to maintain our railway Places across this nation that are rural will be able to have a chance to build a rail line to there area. Aston Upon Lum for example to actract young people to live in there town now that they will have easier access to the city
J.F. Sassoon [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 7:32 AM I cannot support this as it presently stands, Madame President. As Mr Rufián said, it is an expenditure travesty.
Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 7:32 AM You made it a one time payment, right? And this is a permanent (for as long as it's not repealed) annual expenditure on our already strained budget while things such as the military or economic development are left behind. And you expect to build thousands of kilometers of railroad without having the demand to expand it to that level?
Viktor Adler [PSV] — 09/23/2024 7:33 AM Did you miss the whole part where the NRS generates a profit
Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 7:36 AM It generates a profit because it currently meets the demand Did you miss the whole part where the demand won't go up just because the offer does? Or was basic economy lessons all you could strive for?
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 7:44 AM According to the laws of capitalism, if there is more supply, there is more demand. Unless Mr. Rufian no longer believes the rules of capitalism. And, coming from a man who whines on about "efficiency" and "lessening the burden" of the national coffers, you are in quite a hurry to ensure that one of the most profitable government services is not expanded.
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/23/2024 8:30 AM Government is not a business, It is made to surve the people. If we use the Money that the NRS makes to fund a long term transportation plan, that is simply money that its using to improve the system overall without raising taxes. The NRS is still making a profit even with these changes. It makes about 6 billion per year in Profit. And with these changes it will still make a profit. We will be fine I get SHRIMP doesn't want to spend money where there is no demand for Rail Service but in government departments where its about serving people, You serve people and not where they have money. Under that type of logic, you might as well cut mail service to people in rural areas because there isn't that much demand.
Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 9:31 AM The money is meant to serve the people, not steal them for every dumb project that comes ti mind. You've made the point of profitability, not me, so don't come up with this. The money as mentioned in the bill is meant to be spent on new lines, lines decided by petition of the regions without any concern about the economic or civilian need. The fact the NRS makes 6 billion per year doesn't mean the total budget is not gonna feel this. It is simply unreasonable to expect an indefinite number of users of this service. Again, you push the line of profitability being unnecessary, claim that it's profitable enough and assure it will become even more profitable, and repeat. This much of an expense for something that's not as important as many other things that actually need more expenditure is nothing but a waste of money and a mismanagement of public funds.
Saka Dakota ( SHRIMP ) — 09/23/2024 10:04 AM unlike my party I actually somewhat like this project. The idea of increasing general mobility of the citizens is a good idea, however I am concerned with the amount spent. Maybe a more appropriate amount is 500 million Florins a year? It still allows for greater funding in public transportation and funding economic mobility without overspending on it. Another way we could encourage railroad growth is to encourage private companies to operate on rail lines to compete with the stated owned entities with pricing to allow for a slow privatization of some rail lines, to decrease our costs and to still increase mobility which is the end goal. This is my opinion on the matter
Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 10:22 AM That amount I could somewhat agree, although I'd also like to suggest something to be added in the act: A priority list, in which rail lines connecting main cities take the top priority, then main cities with normal cities, then only normal cities and finally if ever done, rail lines connecting towns with the closest cities. This way we would ensure that the use of this transportation focuses mostly on the biggest source of users of this service.
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/23/2024 10:27 AM 500 million per year is very little money to be supporting the whole country with. Let me put this in prospective. The National Rail Act costed 4.81 to build and rebuild and build 9 railways. That was a 1 time cost. 500 million per year would boil down to 125 million per quarter which when you have all of the country competing for money when they apply for funding every quarter, we would only be able to fund possibly up to 1 or 2 rail projects per quarter. The current amount of money now would allow us to fund 5 or 6 projects per quarter. We are behind when it comes to other countries military capabilities when it comes to rail infrastructure and showing this down when we have been in wars every few years is kind of a national secerity risk. We need to go as reasonably fast as we can to fund these projects so we can catch up.
Another thing, you mentioned Private Rail Lines. I want to talk about that real quick. On paper its a good idea because government doesn't have to put any money into railroad infrastructure work. Unfortunatly, its actually a bad idea. If you have 1 rail line going through a town and its run by a private company, sure its a good thing for the town, but that also means that its the only option to use rail and the company would have an automatic monopoly for that one town but not just that town alone, many towns. Effectivly it would cost a lot more for citizens for them to use the rail if it cost more and there is no competition. So they would drive and overtime, thats bad for the envirement. The government's job is to make sure that all companies and people have a level playing field.
Saka Dakota ( SHRIMP ) — 09/23/2024 10:29 AM ((Opinion invalid, spelling mistake))
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/23/2024 10:32 AM Excuse me, I misspoke a little, When I talking about 1 or 2 projects per quarter, I ment double that and that includes 5 or 6 so its really 10 or 12 projects per quarter because that in the law the Ministry of Transport will award up to 50% of project cost The other 50% if funded through local governments including provincial and city authorities
Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 10:39 AM I'm seriously questioning how you expect to make the people think spending more on transport than what we currently do on social services is a smart idea, like at all. It's not been two decades since the nation almost collapsed economically and only half of a decade since we've seen the civil war end. This amount of expenditure in this is, again, unreasonable, and if we can only pay up for a few lines, then so be it, but we can't just act like we have an infinite budget, it's insane. If there's no issue because half of it would be funded by local governments, then there shouldn't be an issue with lowering the funds for this plan.
Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 10:41 AM The laws of supply and demand depend on every factor that affects the marker and won't always go the same direction. Stop acting like a preschooler, Brown.
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 10:42 AM So he does know something of economics! I had thought not.
Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 10:42 AM It is profitable to an extent, then after that it stops being profitable and it becomes more of a huge investment with low returns.
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 10:42 AM And you know this with such certainty how, exactly? You claim to know an awful lot about the future operations of our economy without seeming to grasp the danger you would put our nation in. You cry about disastrous economic situations without studying what made that disaster occur.
Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 10:50 AM The only customer we'd have in these rail lines are civilians who wish to travel from one place to another. There's not enough business presence so that the private sector could even start using the rail lines. And the amount of terrain that each line would cover from the region capitals would already make most of the returns. We, once again, have bigger things to spend on rather than only this. We have other ways to improve the economy than just expecting the NRS to pay for everything in the budget by building enough lines, there's other sorts of transport investments that could be spent on with a far smaller cost and would be highly appreciated by the people, there are many other things we could spend the 1.25 billion on, instead of only building railways. The returns will never be increasing exponentially the more you build, this isn't a maths function, it's knowing how big the customer base is and when does the profit start to slow down.
Tiberius Brown — 09/23/2024 10:52 AM I will not debate the merits of this bill because I do not wish to seem to defend it. I will also not debate these... questionable economic myths in this forum, as it is not the appropriate time nor place.
Antonio Recio Rufián [SHRIMP] — 09/23/2024 10:53 AM However big our population is, once we start building railways between towns, or between small cities that already have the demand for public transport covered by other means like bus transport, the money spent on the railways will have been wasted.
Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP
— 09/23/2024 11:03 AM
Just sliding in with a question but can we get some examples on what plans would be considered feasible by the Ministry?
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/23/2024 11:25 AM Feasible in Engineering Terms is technically something we do for every project that is done in the nation. It basically ask the question of what the projects cost are, what are the net benefits? Is it worth it? All local governments already do this for all projects.
For example, lets say we have a town of 1000 people that want a train station and the local government wants to put up 50 million florins to do that. They are required under the law to put together a report for us at the Ministry to review. In the report they list an estimated amount of people that would use the line and how much it would cost per passinger. If the study finds that not a lot of people would use the line to go to the town or for people who live there to use it, the station or line is not feasable. Now if we where to have a line that is proposed that not just connect this town of 1000 but then the next town over is 10,000 people where 30% would consider using transit. Then the line becomes feasible as its cheaper per passenger at that point.
I'm not saying that a town of 1000 can't get transit, if later it gets a popular tourist spot there then a station becomes feasable as well. If there is a high amount of people of a town of 1000 that doesn't have cars to get around and uses the bus then it also becomes feasable
Billy-Club Barber (PSV) — 09/24/2024 11:19 AM Honestly I do ask if still more increased funding is necessary when we're facing an economic downturn. Why aren't we putting this money into training, education, or increasing social support. It's hard to say no to advancing a public works project but this feels like a vanity project more than a government policy.
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/24/2024 12:01 PM In a early debate about Railroads in this very assembly, it was pointed out that our Military finds these rail lines beneficial to improving efficiency in getting equipment from one side of the country to another. With that railroad bill's passage, we where able to expand the amount of railroads that cross the mountains from 2 to 5. But the Military also pointed out that it's not enough and there is still a lot of improvement we need to make sure we cover more of the country.
Expanding our railway doesn't just help our military but also allows for cargo faster, allows better access to social service as I'm sure not every town in Kodiak has a doctor. Allows better access to educational services as I'm sure not every school can provide services for people with disabilities, and allows better access to training facilities as not everyone knows how to drive.
Billy-Club Barber (PSV) — 09/24/2024 12:04 PM I don't find supporting the indoctrination and death of our youth by the imperialist military industrial complex to be as persuasive an argument as the Social Democrats it seems. The rest of these comments are merely back of hand comments with no meaningful evidence. There is no reason to believe expanded interregional freight service will do anything to support intracity travel, and certainly nothing to suggest cheaper alternatives are inappropriate
Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP
— 09/24/2024 9:30 PM
Thanks for your explanation on what the Ministry determines is feasible. I'm unsure if feasible is enough in terms of definition, and may or may not mean that what is feasible changes on the whim of the Ministry of the day.
After further thought I'd like to ask the Minister: What is the expected cost for a feasible rail build? Given that the bill proposed allocates 1.25 billion florins per year, and guarantees 50% funding. A quick search suggests something like ($2 million USD per mile, flat rural areas: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/22149/chapter/5#24). So a 20 mile line would cost us (~40 million USD -> a lot more florins). If such an assessment is accurate, of course that assessment is based on a foreign country's capabilities and would not account for Kodiak's capabilities, material supply, and terrain.
Is it expected that there will not be many projects in a calendar/financial year? Is it additionally expected that proposals are backlogged until funding is available?
Is it feasible at all for the Government's budget to guarantee 50% of funding? What if a province proposes (feasible) multiple rail lines? Is that something the Ministry has considered and has a plan on dealing with that, are there limitations? How will it prioritise each provinces (potentially many) proposals? Provinces are large and provinces could potentially have many locations for rail expansion. ((OOC: I was lazy and only briefly googled so if a better source for costs is available, go for ahead, it's just me finding it interesting to think about))
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/24/2024 9:32 PM ((Holy clap I didn't expect a complex question like that, give me time to give you an integent answer))
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/24/2024 9:58 PM So what is required based off of our analysis of our own national railway. The Provential Government or Local Government would be responsible for determining where rail lines go based off the standards that the Ministry of Transportation sets for our own railways. The current standards is to design railroads to Standard Gauge at least. The National Railroad Act did require the Railroad to electrify all lines in which it is still in the process of doing now. But at this point, the Ministry of Transportation will not be requiring regional built rail lines at this point to follow our lead on that matter as it will be up to them to decide if they want to do that. Diesel Trains are higher in efficiency then cars by a mile, its impressive so we will still be reducing our carbon footprint in the long run even if not every Provence decides to electrify. So that will save some money on the back end right there.
Off of that tho, Our currency has larger purchasing power within Kodiak then anywhere else in the world. So I think it would be cheaper for us to buy Kodiak steel then Wintercrest Steel.
Another thing to keep in mind with the 50% funding is that the Provential and Local Governments must come up with the rest of the money so that is a limit upon itself. A Local Government may propose its own rail lines but we do not expect that they would submit all of them all at once. If they did, we would probably reject as unfeesable that if they try and build all lines at once as that is a huge project that not every city can manage.
Funding is allocated overtime in the Construction world. As stuff gets done and is inspected for quality, contractors get paid after that in small amounts. Considering the fact that we build a warchest over the year, not everything gets allocated at once. This is true in Construction Engineering everywhere no matter where you go.
So I trust that we can moderate what projects can get through. But I don't expect we would be too backlogged on the matter. I don't expect many projects this year as this program is just now being introduced but may ramp up in the coming years.
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/26/2024 4:33 AM I motion to vote
Redmin P. Apple (SHRIMP) — 09/26/2024 4:34 AM I second
Coleman Ryle — 09/26/2024 5:52 AM I’d like at least one more day to be able to truly research the costs.
Coleman Ryle — 09/26/2024 12:00 PM After some research, this is a massive case of overfunding for little to no gain. You would have us spend millions of taxpayer Florins to make the train to Nowheresville run five minutes faster? The government’s pocket is not endless; this funding would benefit the people much more if applied elsewhere. That being said, it does not appear likely that Fala is willing to compromise, so I would like to vote, if only to reject this insane bill.
Billy-Club Barber (PSV) — 09/26/2024 12:01 PM hear hear. agreed
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/26/2024 1:34 PM I have decided after consulting others to lower the amount of funding to 1 billion per year or 250 million quarterly. Change was made in the bill
Joseph Fala (KSDP) — 09/27/2024 12:05 AM @Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) I'm ok with going to a vote at this point so that other bill can be considered
Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP
— 09/27/2024 12:24 AM
Thank you. Any seconds/motions or objections (as amendments have been made)? I do believe that the major points of debate have already been raised and debated - vigorously. So do only object if you have new points.
Jack Benjamin (KSDP) — 09/27/2024 12:29 AM I second the motion
Arnold Malcolm (KSDP) — 09/27/2024 1:00 PM I third the motion to vote.
EasyPoll APP
— 09/27/2024 1:06 PM
Question Does the General Assembly approve the Regional Rail Act (672)?
Choices
- letter_a: Aye
- letter_b: Nay
- letter_c: Abstain
Final Result
- letter_a: ▓▓▓░░░░░░░ [9 • 31%]
- letter_b: ▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░ [18 • 62%]
- letter_c: ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 7%]
29 votes from 29 users
Settings
- stopwatch: Poll already ended (3 hours ago)
- anonymous: Anonymous Poll
- one: allowed choice
- lock: No other votes allowed
Poll ID: 205bfa3f
Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP
— 09/27/2024 1:07 PM
@Assembly Member Vote is now open for the Regional Rail Act (672). Ensure you review the act before you vote.
Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) OP
— Today at 4:03 PM
The proposed act has been rejected, with 9 Ayes, 18 Nays, and 2 Abstains.
This debate will be archived within the next 24 hours.