I'd like to see an option where you can give up most of your empire to a new computer player (call it a civil war or something) and get a big bonus on your score for doing so. That way you can spend the whole game struggling against superior foes, which is when it is interesting, racking up a huge score if you can split your empire multiple times and still come back.
This is possible in both Victoria and Europa Universalis II from Paradox games. In both, you can release vassals/satellite states which become allied to you (basically your pawns) and can improve your prestige (major score modifier) and reduce your badboy score (give you more options diplomatically).
The aforementioned are a bit more deep than Civ, though, and won't appeal to everyone. Having said that though, I enjoy both Civ and Victoria immensely. If you need some help getting into Victoria (has quite a steep learning curve), remember to (1) patch it and (2) visit VickyWiki.
Not expanding transportation capacity is like saying we should all stay on slow internet connections. Dialup for example. Let's not.
the grass is greener..
Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed:
on
The Super Superhighway
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well public real estate will be used for private purposes. through eminent domain.
also costs of building supporting infrastructure around the road will be substantial.
opportunity cost of 1/4 wide swath of land will be high, esp if it goes through large cities and uses prime real estate.
overall driving may go up as more drivers use roads, then use public roads to get to final destination. more demand for public roads. those costs go up. less demand for (potentially) more efficient public transport systems.
not sure about that dude. if you kill me on property that you own, it's still a criminal penalty. so transgressions on private property can still be enforced by police. and I bet that the private company building the thing doesn't want to provide its own police force (its' costly) so they'll give cops free toll and let them roam.
plus there is some point in speed where utility is maximized, where value of going fast is high and the disutility of accidents, etc, is not so bad. And some drivers are actually afraid of driving on fast freeways here in Southern California. I personally would want to go 140 but it might alienate some of the other parts of the target market.
If you think it is a waste of money, I suggest that you look at other projects where the private sector isn't exactly footing the bill. Like all other highways, pretty much:)
Fiscal conservatives also understand that the CAPITAL costs are different than the OPERATING costs, not to mention the costs of infrastructure SURROUNDING the road which will probably be quite high. expanding public roads serving the private road. sewer/water to new areas. policing. etc.
Toll roads can use dynamic pricing to price basically at what the market is demanding. A whole lot of cars on the road? costs a lot. No cars? costs little, even down to $0. You can see a simpler, discrete version of this on the 91 Toll lanes in Orange County, CA.
This way people who are price sensitive move to different modes, times, or routes. And the people who really need to get there on the road at time x pay for the luxury.
Re:Been involved with this before, on a smaller sc
on
The Super Superhighway
·
· Score: 1
nice post Greg. good to hear from you. Is anyone doing the second point? I am taking a graduate-level Transportation Finance course at Berkeley next semester and it sounds interesting. I can ask my prof. Martin Wachs.
The judgement could very well be that the government seizes land from a few Texans to benefit Many Texans. Many Texans drive and would benefit directly or indirectly from such a project. So a few Texans lose out. Kind of shitty, huh? Somewhat like progressive taxes, actually, except not the rich this time.
Re:And for those who don't think this is so great.
on
The Super Superhighway
·
· Score: 1
I haven't 100% made my mind up on this yet, but the fact that it's a toll road REALLY leaves a bad taste in my mouth, all the new roads being built around here are toll now, and that's a major annoyance of mine.
Dude. Your driving imposes costs upon everyone else. Your car enters the highway. More congestion for everyone else. More pollution for your neighbors. More roads are built (at a loss, tolls don't cover full costs of roads in capital and operating). Fuel consumption drives the need for a secure Middle East for the US. And you ask all taxpayers to pay for your driving. Even your local neighbor who doesn't drive. Has to pay for your roads.
The funding and interest from the public at large simply aren't there.
Unfortunately, city planning doctrine and most transportation policy says that we should build for anticipated demand. So the population of Texas is growing rapidly. That means we should start studying options and building the right networks now, not 20 years later when everybody is stuck in traffic and bitching. Because then the lag time + lost economic benefit is tremendous. Of course, is a 1/4 mile wide stretch of asphalt and transportation the answer? Definitely not the panacea but interesting to study.
Right now there's a semi-revolt brewing over plans to turn highways previously constructed and paid for with bond money into toll roads. (I'm all for making new highways toll roads to pay for their construction, but screw double taxation.) I don't see the double taxtation here. The reality is that general funds and sales taxes (including but not limited to fuel taxes) cover millions and billions of capital and OPERATING costs of highways. And while capital projects like the TTC are nice and sexy, toll roads help pay for the unsexy part that often gets underfunded: operations and management. In fact, at least in California, toll roads have come nowhere near paying for the actual road. The tolls that you mention will probably help reduce the taxpayer burden because actual users will pay the bill, not the taxpayers that don't drive the freeway or drive a low amount. You'd be surprised as to how many people are not car accessible in America (about 1/3 IIRC from transportation class)
yes pr is spin. but let me see if I can provide more insight here.
* Transportation routes for hazardous materials must avoid population centers whenever possible. Like... Um... A major highway? The proposed route passes through the heart of the most populated areas
Can't say much about this. In fact I would think rail is a safer way to transport goods. (website was referring to rail going through city centers)
* TTC will help... allowing faster, safer and more reliable movement of people and goods... To Mexico? creating jobs and attracting businesses that benefit by having access to an efficient transportation network... To be closer to the hazardous waste routes?
Trade generates jobs dude. Even if the trade just goes through your state, think about how the service industry around the freeway will absolutely boom. And if you think about it, Texas's competitive advantage is probably NOT in manufacturing anyways. And it seems like if any state in the Union is well positioned to take advantage of being close to Mexico, Texas is one of them.
Plus being near a prime transportation route definitely attracts businesses. Consider the case of businesses in Silicon Valley or Seattle moving AWAY because of horrendous local traffic.
* The estimated total cost for the system ranges from $145.2 billion to $183.5 billion. Public-private partnerships, which bring funding resources from the private sector, will play a key role in constructing and financing the system. Other options include leasing right of way, toll revenues, and state and federal funds. Leased right of way? Tolls? The Profit Superhighway. Think of who's friends will land those building contracts...
Of course there will be a bunch of pork. But have you considered the alternative? I have a feeling that Texans won't just give up their single-occupancy cars tomorrow. Demand will still exist for freeways. The alternative that governments currently pursue in the US (regretfully) is to build FREE highways at taxpayer expense. And shit. Tolls charge people for the true cost of driving. Driving is highly subsidized in the US. Tolls might encourage people to pick their trips better and take the train in the middle of the superhighway, if a real and efficient network truly develops (holding out hope for this)
* Will other projects suffer if the Trans-Texas Corridor becomes the top priority?... Maintaining the current highway system will continue to be our top priority. Those are from two seprate things in the FAQ. Incredibly, they are not related. In context, the seem to contradict. I'm betting two seperate people wrote these parts using "priority" as a buzzword. "Need" also has a prominant place in the FAQ.
I think that you know and I know that getting elected is sadly the political priority. You know and I know that the politicians are trying to use the TTC for political buzz. Yet it does seem unlikely that the government will stop maintaining and trying to improve the carrying capacity of current highways. My guess is that the top priority of the Texas DOT will be to maintain the current infrastructure, but the top priority of the governor will be the TTC.
* The TTC will serve as a new delivery system to many communities across the state. For goods from Mexico? For immigrants from mexico?
Yes. Interestingly, Mexicans are people too. And mobility will be greatly increased between cities. See the earlier poster who drives frequently between large Texas cities. This makes Texas comparatively more attractive for businesses. Even having the option to do so is nice.
Dude. Every project I can think of has some deadweight loss. The Internet, Interstate Highway System, fuck even healthcare. Tons of money for the private sector.
Yes this is not ideal but let's focus on the benefit to the general public, ok? To strike down a project because it benefits some corporation is somewhat naive in America today. On other other hand, striking down a project that exclusively benefits corporations and I'll join you happily (DMCA)
Actually transportation is a need that government fills even more essentially than schools. And if better transportation routes save Texans an hour a day; even a year, then the economic benefit is tremendous.
And if the road is cost-neutral to government (capital, yes, operating, probably not), and will give the public good things, then what's the problem?
As an aside, I looked at it as being really stupid at first but I wonder how the rail will be handled. If it is handled well (and toll roads are good because they charge people for the costs they incur) then this could be Very Interesting in a good way.
hey I think this is a great idea. I'd like to hear a little bit more and maybe do it here at school. if you'd be willing, please write me at ralph at the domain that is berkeley {dot} edu
Mind/Machine Interface The Warrior's bland acronym, MMI, obscures the true horror of this monstrosity. Its inventors promise a new era of genius, but meanwhile unscrupulous power brokers use its forcible installation to violate the sanctity of unwilling human minds. They are creating their own private army of demons. Commissioner Pravin Lal, "Report on Human Rights"
"I think, and my thoughts cross the barrier into the synapses of the machine, just as the good doctor intended. But what I cannot shake, and what hints at things to come, is that thoughts cross back. In my dreams, the sensibility of the machine invades the periphery of my consciousness: dark, rigid, cold, alien. Evolution is at work here, but just what is evolving remains to be seen." -- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "Man and Machine"
My thought: spend less time worrying about college and spend more time developing yourself. If that means interning and having job skills, great. If that means soul-searching and taking a semester to travel, great. Because unless the theory really excites you, the college you went to for your CS degree will be pretty moot esp. if you want to be an engineer.
Slashdot Mirror
He said 4 hours a day 3-4 hours a week. That's 16 hours. You have 168 hours in a week.
168
-40 (work)
-10 (commute)
-14 (eating)
-49 (sleep)
leaves you 55 hours of free time a week.
Hell I watch 16 hours of TV a week, does that make me hardcore?
PS: Admittedly if you spend 16 hours a week in WoW you won't be uber-sauce, but you can do okay.
well met.
not everyone is quiet about it. see donald trump, jack welch, larry ellison, etc.
and what are your alternatives to slashdot? really?
This is possible in both Victoria and Europa Universalis II from Paradox games. In both, you can release vassals/satellite states which become allied to you (basically your pawns) and can improve your prestige (major score modifier) and reduce your badboy score (give you more options diplomatically).
The aforementioned are a bit more deep than Civ, though, and won't appeal to everyone. Having said that though, I enjoy both Civ and Victoria immensely. If you need some help getting into Victoria (has quite a steep learning curve), remember to (1) patch it and (2) visit VickyWiki.
maybe the hardware costs are significantly higher because not all boxes were sold? hmm?
interesting...though kind of off topic :)
Not expanding transportation capacity is like saying we should all stay on slow internet connections. Dialup for example. Let's not.
the grass is greener..
Well public real estate will be used for private purposes. through eminent domain.
also costs of building supporting infrastructure around the road will be substantial.
opportunity cost of 1/4 wide swath of land will be high, esp if it goes through large cities and uses prime real estate.
overall driving may go up as more drivers use roads, then use public roads to get to final destination. more demand for public roads. those costs go up. less demand for (potentially) more efficient public transport systems.
more and more indirect costs..
not sure about that dude. if you kill me on property that you own, it's still a criminal penalty. so transgressions on private property can still be enforced by police. and I bet that the private company building the thing doesn't want to provide its own police force (its' costly) so they'll give cops free toll and let them roam.
plus there is some point in speed where utility is maximized, where value of going fast is high and the disutility of accidents, etc, is not so bad. And some drivers are actually afraid of driving on fast freeways here in Southern California. I personally would want to go 140 but it might alienate some of the other parts of the target market.
If you think it is a waste of money, I suggest that you look at other projects where the private sector isn't exactly footing the bill. Like all other highways, pretty much :)
Fiscal conservatives also understand that the CAPITAL costs are different than the OPERATING costs, not to mention the costs of infrastructure SURROUNDING the road which will probably be quite high. expanding public roads serving the private road. sewer/water to new areas. policing. etc.
I disagree with your binary assumption.
Toll roads can use dynamic pricing to price basically at what the market is demanding. A whole lot of cars on the road? costs a lot. No cars? costs little, even down to $0. You can see a simpler, discrete version of this on the 91 Toll lanes in Orange County, CA.
This way people who are price sensitive move to different modes, times, or routes. And the people who really need to get there on the road at time x pay for the luxury.
nice post Greg. good to hear from you. Is anyone doing the second point? I am taking a graduate-level Transportation Finance course at Berkeley next semester and it sounds interesting. I can ask my prof. Martin Wachs.
The judgement could very well be that the government seizes land from a few Texans to benefit Many Texans. Many Texans drive and would benefit directly or indirectly from such a project. So a few Texans lose out. Kind of shitty, huh? Somewhat like progressive taxes, actually, except not the rich this time.
I haven't 100% made my mind up on this yet, but the fact that it's a toll road REALLY leaves a bad taste in my mouth, all the new roads being built around here are toll now, and that's a major annoyance of mine.
Dude. Your driving imposes costs upon everyone else. Your car enters the highway. More congestion for everyone else. More pollution for your neighbors. More roads are built (at a loss, tolls don't cover full costs of roads in capital and operating). Fuel consumption drives the need for a secure Middle East for the US. And you ask all taxpayers to pay for your driving. Even your local neighbor who doesn't drive. Has to pay for your roads.
Two comments.
The funding and interest from the public at large simply aren't there.
Unfortunately, city planning doctrine and most transportation policy says that we should build for anticipated demand. So the population of Texas is growing rapidly. That means we should start studying options and building the right networks now, not 20 years later when everybody is stuck in traffic and bitching. Because then the lag time + lost economic benefit is tremendous. Of course, is a 1/4 mile wide stretch of asphalt and transportation the answer? Definitely not the panacea but interesting to study.
Right now there's a semi-revolt brewing over plans to turn highways previously constructed and paid for with bond money into toll roads. (I'm all for making new highways toll roads to pay for their construction, but screw double taxation.)
I don't see the double taxtation here. The reality is that general funds and sales taxes (including but not limited to fuel taxes) cover millions and billions of capital and OPERATING costs of highways. And while capital projects like the TTC are nice and sexy, toll roads help pay for the unsexy part that often gets underfunded: operations and management. In fact, at least in California, toll roads have come nowhere near paying for the actual road. The tolls that you mention will probably help reduce the taxpayer burden because actual users will pay the bill, not the taxpayers that don't drive the freeway or drive a low amount. You'd be surprised as to how many people are not car accessible in America (about 1/3 IIRC from transportation class)
yes pr is spin. but let me see if I can provide more insight here.
... To be closer to the hazardous waste routes?
* Transportation routes for hazardous materials must avoid population centers whenever possible. Like... Um... A major highway? The proposed route passes through the heart of the most populated areas
Can't say much about this. In fact I would think rail is a safer way to transport goods. (website was referring to rail going through city centers)
* TTC will help... allowing faster, safer and more reliable movement of people and goods... To Mexico? creating jobs and attracting businesses that benefit by having access to an efficient transportation network
Trade generates jobs dude. Even if the trade just goes through your state, think about how the service industry around the freeway will absolutely boom. And if you think about it, Texas's competitive advantage is probably NOT in manufacturing anyways. And it seems like if any state in the Union is well positioned to take advantage of being close to Mexico, Texas is one of them.
Plus being near a prime transportation route definitely attracts businesses. Consider the case of businesses in Silicon Valley or Seattle moving AWAY because of horrendous local traffic.
* The estimated total cost for the system ranges from $145.2 billion to $183.5 billion. Public-private partnerships, which bring funding resources from the private sector, will play a key role in constructing and financing the system. Other options include leasing right of way, toll revenues, and state and federal funds. Leased right of way? Tolls? The Profit Superhighway. Think of who's friends will land those building contracts...
Of course there will be a bunch of pork. But have you considered the alternative? I have a feeling that Texans won't just give up their single-occupancy cars tomorrow. Demand will still exist for freeways. The alternative that governments currently pursue in the US (regretfully) is to build FREE highways at taxpayer expense. And shit. Tolls charge people for the true cost of driving. Driving is highly subsidized in the US. Tolls might encourage people to pick their trips better and take the train in the middle of the superhighway, if a real and efficient network truly develops (holding out hope for this)
* Will other projects suffer if the Trans-Texas Corridor becomes the top priority?... Maintaining the current highway system will continue to be our top priority. Those are from two seprate things in the FAQ. Incredibly, they are not related. In context, the seem to contradict. I'm betting two seperate people wrote these parts using "priority" as a buzzword. "Need" also has a prominant place in the FAQ.
I think that you know and I know that getting elected is sadly the political priority. You know and I know that the politicians are trying to use the TTC for political buzz. Yet it does seem unlikely that the government will stop maintaining and trying to improve the carrying capacity of current highways. My guess is that the top priority of the Texas DOT will be to maintain the current infrastructure, but the top priority of the governor will be the TTC.
* The TTC will serve as a new delivery system to many communities across the state. For goods from Mexico? For immigrants from mexico?
Yes. Interestingly, Mexicans are people too. And mobility will be greatly increased between cities. See the earlier poster who drives frequently between large Texas cities. This makes Texas comparatively more attractive for businesses. Even having the option to do so is nice.
Dude. Every project I can think of has some deadweight loss. The Internet, Interstate Highway System, fuck even healthcare. Tons of money for the private sector.
Yes this is not ideal but let's focus on the benefit to the general public, ok? To strike down a project because it benefits some corporation is somewhat naive in America today. On other other hand, striking down a project that exclusively benefits corporations and I'll join you happily (DMCA)
Actually transportation is a need that government fills even more essentially than schools. And if better transportation routes save Texans an hour a day; even a year, then the economic benefit is tremendous.
And if the road is cost-neutral to government (capital, yes, operating, probably not), and will give the public good things, then what's the problem?
As an aside, I looked at it as being really stupid at first but I wonder how the rail will be handled. If it is handled well (and toll roads are good because they charge people for the costs they incur) then this could be Very Interesting in a good way.
hey I think this is a great idea. I'd like to hear a little bit more and maybe do it here at school. if you'd be willing, please write me at ralph at the domain that is berkeley {dot} edu
no worries dude. different strokes for different folks. for example some of these pop stars, no I woudln't want to do them...
so the biggest part of success is the ability to overcome obstacles and setbacks.
whew, wish I learned that in school.
Mind/Machine Interface
The Warrior's bland acronym, MMI, obscures the true horror of this monstrosity. Its inventors promise a new era of genius, but meanwhile unscrupulous power brokers use its forcible installation to violate the sanctity of unwilling human minds. They are creating their own private army of demons.
Commissioner Pravin Lal, "Report on Human Rights"
"I think, and my thoughts cross the barrier into the synapses of the machine, just as the good doctor intended. But what I cannot shake, and what hints at things to come, is that thoughts cross back. In my dreams, the sensibility of the machine invades the periphery of my consciousness: dark, rigid, cold, alien. Evolution is at work here,
but just what is evolving remains to be seen."
-- Commissioner Pravin Lal,
"Man and Machine"
My thought: spend less time worrying about college and spend more time developing yourself. If that means interning and having job skills, great. If that means soul-searching and taking a semester to travel, great. Because unless the theory really excites you, the college you went to for your CS degree will be pretty moot esp. if you want to be an engineer.
-from UC Berkeley
good call. studying TOD in class now...