# data[].attributes.headline
Is Liberal Arts important in education, and fixing the inequality gap?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Liberal Arts important in education, and fixing the inequality gap?

# data[].attributes.body
Liberal Arts and it's extracurriculars should be considered when discussing education. To add on, it's beneficial towards rectifying inequality within the nation.

# data[].attributes.body
No, Liberal Arts is not as important in comparison to subjects such as math, and science. Inequality cannot be fixed by liberal art classes

# data[].attributes.body
Equality will be obtained through knowledge. Education can affect equality by the information that others can receive and what they allow themselves to do with it.

"Thus an education focused not merely on technical skills,
but also on what I call participatory readiness, provides
a distinct and better way to promote equality through
schooling"(pg. 9).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the US needs to get on track with high-speed rail | Greenbiz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The possibilities for high-speed rail innovation are many, and once the lasting infrastructure is built, the benefits to communities are long-lasting.

# data[].attributes.body
This can help society as a whole by educating the future generation concerning their rights, and the responsibilities they carry to understand political, governance processes that they can participate in.

“If a government fails in its core purposes, it is the job of the citizen to figure this out and decide how to change direction”(Allen, pg.12).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the US needs to get on track with high-speed rail | Greenbiz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The possibilities for high-speed rail innovation are many, and once the lasting infrastructure is built, the benefits to communities are long-lasting.

# data[].attributes.body
Science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine have impacted society and history more than liberal arts could.

"Science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine have done much to create the contemporary condition. Thanks to the industrial, aeronautical, biomedical, and digital revolutions, the world’s population has grown from one

to seven billion in little more than 200 years, a profound historical transformation."pg.12

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
High-speed rail (HSR)-intercity passenger transport with trains that reach max speeds of at least 160 mph-has the attention and enthusiasm of many young, sustainability-minded people. Its supporters believe that HSR, which the US currently lacks, is a climate-friendly alternative to automotive and air transportation. But they are mistaken.

Although HSR is indeed energy-efficient and carbon-clean in its operation, a comprehensive perspective that accounts for construction and maintenance costs paints a more pessimistic picture. With these caveats in mind, other forms of transportation are clearly better for shortening passenger travel times. Further, improving the US' electrical infrastructure would deliver more substantial and immediate carbon savings.

The Costs of Rail Networks in the US

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also known as Amtrak, is a quasi-public corporation that operates intercity rail routes in the US. Private rail companies approximately 70 percent of Amtrak's 21,400-mile operating network, an arrangement that allows Amtrak to avoid many of the high costs associated with rail-line building. Unlike the rest of their network, Amtrak largely owns the NEC between Washington, DC and Boston. Although this corridor is the busiest passenger railroad segment in the US and currently runs at capacity, Amtrak still struggles with its funding and maintenance. Most of Biden's proposed non-HSR spending on rail focuses on resolving the NEC's $45.2 billion state-of-good-repair backlog and resulting delays.

HSR specialized and dedicated infrastructure, so Amtrak will have to build and maintain new lines to support any HSR initiatives. The Cato Institute that cost projections of HSR are consistently overly optimistic. HSR projects have a history of exceeding budget limits in the and . Further, HSR infrastructure will continue to require costly maintenance even after construction. California is currently building an HSR line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, costing $100 million per mile. For comparison, the Interstate Highway System cost only $11 million per mile (adjusted) to build.

In addition to its high construction costs, the Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) at UC Berkeley that the total operating costs of the work-in-progress California line will be, at best, comparable to those of highways and much higher than those associated with air travel. The ITS finds that HSR's only discernible operating benefits will be reduced noise, fewer accidents, and less pollution. However, even while ignoring the pollution resulting from electricity generation, the internal costs of HSR's construction, operation, and maintenance outweigh these external benefits.

Further, HSR miles generate few positive externalities for other industries. Rail currently low-cost long-distance transportation for heavy freight, which HSR is unlikely to do given its higher costs and the track damage caused by heavy trains. HSR may compete with the domestic air cargo industry, though its historically poor profitability suggests lackluster returns. There thus seems to be no possible arrangement for sharing any significant portion of HSR's infrastructure costs. Highways, however, are used for both freight and passenger transportation; investment into the highway system benefits US firms' logistics and freight operations as well as personal travel.

Intercity Time Savings

In the aftermath of 9/11, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) slowed air travel times by arduous and time-consuming airport security measures. Free from the TSA, rail is much faster to board and deboard, decreasing passengers' total travel times.

However, some HSR proponents take this point too far, drawing questionable conclusions about the marginal time benefit of rail travel. When comparing total rail travel times with air travel times, the Seattle Transit Blog that high-speed trains will travel at an average speed of 350 mph. This assumption, combined with rail terminals's aforementioned time-savings, leads the Seattle Transit Blog to conclude that there is almost no use-case for domestic air travel in the US. However, this conclusion is overly optimistic and founded on unrealistic premises: although a test train in France a record 357 mph once, modern high-speed trains regularly reach speeds of only 220 mph.

Based on existing HSR routes in Europe and Asia and recorded travel times, it is reasonable to conclude that trains servicing cities less than 310 miles away in under three hours be able to oust air travel as the dominant intercity mode of transportation. However, regulatory investment may yield more substantial returns than infrastructure investment. Expediting airport security would improve US intercity travel times without incurring HSR's high construction and maintenance costs. This expediting process could involve increasing TSA capacity, minimizing the amount of security theater, and expanding TSA PreCheck (or similar services).

Carbon Benefit

On top of this, the High Speed Rail Alliance's claims often fail to consider the carbon footprint associated with the construction of new rail networks. A 2019 UIC study on the carbon footprint of rail infrastructure that the new construction of railway lines only begins to reduce total carbon dioxide emissions after one to three decades, depending on ridership estimates. The more pessimistic Cato Institute uses past ridership statistics to that trains tend to be emptier than estimates claim, with Amtrak filling an average of only 51 percent of its seats. Due to these revised estimates and regular maintenance, Cato predicts that the Los Angeles to San Francisco line will need at least seventy years, not ten to thirty, to achieve carbon neutrality. Accurate carbon cost calculations on accurate ridership assumptions as well as emissions information about the construction, maintenance, and use of HSR.

While HSR does boast impressive operating energy efficiency, the carbon costs of infrastructure construction and maintenance make it far less appealing than it initially seems. The confluence of assumptions about ridership and the availability of clean energy reduce the reliability of projected carbon-savings from rail. Reducing emissions from the US electrical system would more effectively and efficiently reduce total emissions.

More Promising Priorities

Taking an all-inclusive view of HSR is crucial to understanding the numerous costs and benefits associated with a US HSR network. HSR is surprisingly fast and can provide high capacity with low operating costs, yet its high infrastructure costs and frequent budget overruns outweigh its advantages. Air travel remains more time-efficient for many US trips and requires far less infrastructure. Reformulated American airport security measures can further reduce air travel times without any technological advances. Further, the carbon costs resulting from HSR's electrical use and infrastructure negate its carbon savings. Any decrease in emissions resulting from HSR projects will only occur decades after construction, if at all, as even those distant carbon savings are dependent on high ridership and an absence of catastrophes causing infrastructure damage.

As our legislators and executives work to future-proof the American economy and invest in infrastructure, they should focus on reducing the carbon costs of electrical generation, improving the service of existing modes of passenger transportation, and investing in low-emission transportation solutions. Accurate emissions calculations must include the carbon costs resulting from the construction and maintenance of any associated infrastructure. Possible carbon-clean solutions include intracity transit, new advances in air travel, and electric vehicles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why High-Speed Rail Shouldn't Be a Priority

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
High-speed rail (HSR)-intercity passenger transport with trains that reach max speeds of at least 160 mph-has the attention and enthusiasm of many young, sustainability-minded people. Its supporters believe that HSR, which the US currently lacks, is a climate-friendly alternative to automotive and air transportation. But they are mistaken.

# data[].attributes.body
equality will be obtained through the change of government policies

“Achieving an economy with more egalitarian outcomes will require different political choices and economic policies. It will require that we choose different rules to govern labor, housing, and financial markets”(Allen, pg. 9).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
High-speed rail (HSR)-intercity passenger transport with trains that reach max speeds of at least 160 mph-has the attention and enthusiasm of many young, sustainability-minded people. Its supporters believe that HSR, which the US currently lacks, is a climate-friendly alternative to automotive and air transportation. But they are mistaken.

Although HSR is indeed energy-efficient and carbon-clean in its operation, a comprehensive perspective that accounts for construction and maintenance costs paints a more pessimistic picture. With these caveats in mind, other forms of transportation are clearly better for shortening passenger travel times. Further, improving the US' electrical infrastructure would deliver more substantial and immediate carbon savings.

The Costs of Rail Networks in the US

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also known as Amtrak, is a quasi-public corporation that operates intercity rail routes in the US. Private rail companies approximately 70 percent of Amtrak's 21,400-mile operating network, an arrangement that allows Amtrak to avoid many of the high costs associated with rail-line building. Unlike the rest of their network, Amtrak largely owns the NEC between Washington, DC and Boston. Although this corridor is the busiest passenger railroad segment in the US and currently runs at capacity, Amtrak still struggles with its funding and maintenance. Most of Biden's proposed non-HSR spending on rail focuses on resolving the NEC's $45.2 billion state-of-good-repair backlog and resulting delays.

HSR specialized and dedicated infrastructure, so Amtrak will have to build and maintain new lines to support any HSR initiatives. The Cato Institute that cost projections of HSR are consistently overly optimistic. HSR projects have a history of exceeding budget limits in the and . Further, HSR infrastructure will continue to require costly maintenance even after construction. California is currently building an HSR line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, costing $100 million per mile. For comparison, the Interstate Highway System cost only $11 million per mile (adjusted) to build.

In addition to its high construction costs, the Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) at UC Berkeley that the total operating costs of the work-in-progress California line will be, at best, comparable to those of highways and much higher than those associated with air travel. The ITS finds that HSR's only discernible operating benefits will be reduced noise, fewer accidents, and less pollution. However, even while ignoring the pollution resulting from electricity generation, the internal costs of HSR's construction, operation, and maintenance outweigh these external benefits.

Further, HSR miles generate few positive externalities for other industries. Rail currently low-cost long-distance transportation for heavy freight, which HSR is unlikely to do given its higher costs and the track damage caused by heavy trains. HSR may compete with the domestic air cargo industry, though its historically poor profitability suggests lackluster returns. There thus seems to be no possible arrangement for sharing any significant portion of HSR's infrastructure costs. Highways, however, are used for both freight and passenger transportation; investment into the highway system benefits US firms' logistics and freight operations as well as personal travel.

Intercity Time Savings

In the aftermath of 9/11, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) slowed air travel times by arduous and time-consuming airport security measures. Free from the TSA, rail is much faster to board and deboard, decreasing passengers' total travel times.

However, some HSR proponents take this point too far, drawing questionable conclusions about the marginal time benefit of rail travel. When comparing total rail travel times with air travel times, the Seattle Transit Blog that high-speed trains will travel at an average speed of 350 mph. This assumption, combined with rail terminals's aforementioned time-savings, leads the Seattle Transit Blog to conclude that there is almost no use-case for domestic air travel in the US. However, this conclusion is overly optimistic and founded on unrealistic premises: although a test train in France a record 357 mph once, modern high-speed trains regularly reach speeds of only 220 mph.

Based on existing HSR routes in Europe and Asia and recorded travel times, it is reasonable to conclude that trains servicing cities less than 310 miles away in under three hours be able to oust air travel as the dominant intercity mode of transportation. However, regulatory investment may yield more substantial returns than infrastructure investment. Expediting airport security would improve US intercity travel times without incurring HSR's high construction and maintenance costs. This expediting process could involve increasing TSA capacity, minimizing the amount of security theater, and expanding TSA PreCheck (or similar services).

Carbon Benefit

On top of this, the High Speed Rail Alliance's claims often fail to consider the carbon footprint associated with the construction of new rail networks. A 2019 UIC study on the carbon footprint of rail infrastructure that the new construction of railway lines only begins to reduce total carbon dioxide emissions after one to three decades, depending on ridership estimates. The more pessimistic Cato Institute uses past ridership statistics to that trains tend to be emptier than estimates claim, with Amtrak filling an average of only 51 percent of its seats. Due to these revised estimates and regular maintenance, Cato predicts that the Los Angeles to San Francisco line will need at least seventy years, not ten to thirty, to achieve carbon neutrality. Accurate carbon cost calculations on accurate ridership assumptions as well as emissions information about the construction, maintenance, and use of HSR.

While HSR does boast impressive operating energy efficiency, the carbon costs of infrastructure construction and maintenance make it far less appealing than it initially seems. The confluence of assumptions about ridership and the availability of clean energy reduce the reliability of projected carbon-savings from rail. Reducing emissions from the US electrical system would more effectively and efficiently reduce total emissions.

More Promising Priorities

Taking an all-inclusive view of HSR is crucial to understanding the numerous costs and benefits associated with a US HSR network. HSR is surprisingly fast and can provide high capacity with low operating costs, yet its high infrastructure costs and frequent budget overruns outweigh its advantages. Air travel remains more time-efficient for many US trips and requires far less infrastructure. Reformulated American airport security measures can further reduce air travel times without any technological advances. Further, the carbon costs resulting from HSR's electrical use and infrastructure negate its carbon savings. Any decrease in emissions resulting from HSR projects will only occur decades after construction, if at all, as even those distant carbon savings are dependent on high ridership and an absence of catastrophes causing infrastructure damage.

As our legislators and executives work to future-proof the American economy and invest in infrastructure, they should focus on reducing the carbon costs of electrical generation, improving the service of existing modes of passenger transportation, and investing in low-emission transportation solutions. Accurate emissions calculations must include the carbon costs resulting from the construction and maintenance of any associated infrastructure. Possible carbon-clean solutions include intracity transit, new advances in air travel, and electric vehicles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why High-Speed Rail Shouldn't Be a Priority

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
High-speed rail (HSR)-intercity passenger transport with trains that reach max speeds of at least 160 mph-has the attention and enthusiasm of many young, sustainability-minded people. Its supporters believe that HSR, which the US currently lacks, is a climate-friendly alternative to automotive and air transportation. But they are mistaken.

# data[].attributes.body
Liberal Arts has made a big impact in history as well. The formation of democracy, and creation of empires throughout the world have been build on a basis of ideologies, philosophy, and literature. It has influenced multiple political figures, enlightenment movements and even revolutions.

"But if the STEM fields gave us the mass in “mass democracy,’ ’the humanities and social sciences gave us the democracy. The Europeans and American colonists who designed systems of representative democracy capable of achieving continental scale—while employing genocidal techniques in the process—were broadly and deeply educated in history, geography, philosophy, literature, and art."(Pg.  12)

# data[].attributes.body
Therefore education can gradually resolve the major issue that is inequality that plagues our nation. To add on, liberal arts is as equally important as math, science, engineering, technology, and medicine.

# data[].attributes.body
Usually the inequality gap derives from the amount of education that is received. It proceeds to bleed into job occupations, and it's incomes.

"Historical experience suggests that the principal mechanism for convergence [of incomes and wealth] at the international as well as the domestic level is the diffusion
of knowledge. In other words, the poor catch up with the rich to the extent that they achieve the same level of technological know-how, skill, and education."(pg. 10)