May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Brent on 18 Oct 2009 01:19 On 2009-10-18, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Dave C." <noway(a)nohow.never> said: > >>Not taking sides here, but I haven't actually seen a road not suitable >>for a heavy truck in the last forty years of driving. > > Sure, and because our tax money pays for all those nice roads the > Truckers get to drive on them for next to nothing. But I wonder how > competitive the trucking industry would be if they had to build and > maintain their own "truck" roads, as railroads do and have always > done? It wasn't always that way. The railroads got considerable taxpayer money in the 19th century. It was a big part of Lincoln being elected. Much of the reason for the southern states leaving the union was they were sick of paying taxes that the federal government used to fund the railroads and other northern companies. Lincoln was big on subsidizing rail and didn't mind slavery. > And if the trucking industry had to build its own roads, how > many trucking roads would they build out into BuFu Egypt? > The fact is, trucking has an advantage due solely to government > subsidies. And the fact that the vast majority of people want to drive their own cars. If driving was just something rich people did for fun it would be much more difficult for the government to get the tax revenue required to build the roads. > Take away those subsidies, force the trucking industry to > shoulder the full, true costs, and that advantage evaporates. As does > the whole "rails don't go where the shippers are" argument; if > trucking had to pay for its own roads, the truck roads wouldn't go to > those places, either. Until the government forced them to and had a charge added so anyone who used shipping service funded it. (like is done for other infrastructure and services in rural areas where it's just too expensive to provide service because of low population density)
From: Miles Bader on 18 Oct 2009 02:20 Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> writes: > The reason it will probably be less is because when > private industry is in charge, there is a strong financial incentive > to maximize efficiency - an incentive that simply does not exist when > the government is in charge of roads. > > In a truly free market, on a truly level field of competition, most > cost-effective mode of transport will will. That's not necessarily true. It's common for them to get stuck in local minima. Government intervention can help such situations (though of course it doesn't always do so). -Miles -- XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it.
From: Miles Bader on 18 Oct 2009 02:23 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> The fact is, trucking has an advantage due solely to government >> subsidies. > > And the fact that the vast majority of people want to drive their own > cars. .... in an environment where driving cars is the only reasonable option -- due in no small part to massive government subsidies that pushed things (both transportation infrastructure, and over the long term, the actual structure of communities) in that direction. -Miles -- Congratulation, n. The civility of envy.
From: Dave C. on 17 Oct 2009 21:13 On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:26:53 +0000 (UTC) Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-17, Dave C. <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote: > > > >> > >> I am simply pointing out that the vast majority of the goods that > >> need moving long distance don't need to be moved by trucks just > >> because someone out in the middle of nowhere has a load every now > >> and then that has to go to some place else out in the middle of > >> some other nowhere. > > > There are very few loads moving anywhere in the U.S. by any mode of > > transport where both the shipper and consignee are near a > > railhead. > > I think 'near' needs to be defined. Fair enough. Let's say within 50 miles "as a crow flies". Keeping in mind that driving distance is probably farther, I think that's a fair definition of near. If we define near that way, 99% of loads of cargo moving in the U.S. is not fit for rail. > > >> And you didn't address the problem of roads suitible for heavy > >> trucks out in the middle of nowhere. > > > Not taking sides here, but I haven't actually seen a road not > > suitable for a heavy truck in the last forty years of driving. > > Some roads are posted to prohibit truck traffic, but that's just a > > bullshit political NIMBY move that has nothing to do with the > > road's suitability for heavy trucks. > > LOL. I've seen major routes (as in US highways and local arterial > roads) where the pavement has been destroyed by heavy truck traffic. The only roads I've seen crumbling badly are roads that haven't been maintained since the 60's or so. And these are usually roads with very little truck traffic. So if it was "destroyed" it was destroyed by a combination of car traffic and neglect (especially neglect), and I'm sure an occasional truck passing through didn't help much, either. -Dave
From: Dave C. on 17 Oct 2009 21:21
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:02:31 -0700 (PDT) "rshersh(a)gmail.com" <rshersh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The short > > way was through residential streets and the last block or so > > included the bridge. That's why I think it was NIMBYism, to keep > > the trucks out of the residential area. The bridge is fine, BTW. > > It definitely holds up to 78,000 pounds just FINE. > > > > and you and your company financed a thorough engineering study of the > bridge after you got thru with it > > or do we just have your not so experienced word that "it was just > fine" > > > imho it was unfortunate that law enforcement was not able to see and > record your violation and fined the hell out of you It honestly wouldn't have bothered me. I was in the right seat at the time. > > in addition, confiscated your truck Again, not my problem. We were pretty near a bus terminal at the time, so I actually would have got an unexpected vacation / trip home out of the deal. > > that would be a well deserved penalty Possibly, but it wouldn't have been my headache. > > or do you always believe you are above the law???? > Me personally? I would have gone the long way. But as I clearly stated earlier...I wasn't driving. -Dave |