May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: hancock4 on 18 Oct 2009 14:23 On Oct 18, 1:19 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The railroads got considerable taxpayer money in the 19th century. Not true. A _few_ railroads got land grants--worthless land--so that they would build out into undeveloped areas, which they did. In return for those grants the railroads had to give the govt big discounts. During WW II, when the land grant railroads were hauling enormous amounts of war materiel and troops, they were forced to do it below cost. Not a healthy way to run a business, and as a result after WW II US railroads were in lousy shape. > 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. The majority of people want to move by the most expeditious way possible. Perhaps the car, but perhaps not. In any event, the private automobile has been extensively subsidized. One of the biggest road builder and advocate, Robert Moses, wrote about this in his books.
From: hancock4 on 18 Oct 2009 14:28 On Oct 17, 8:58 pm, "Dave C." <no...(a)nohow.never> wrote: > Careful. I just read an article stating that fuel taxes from big > trucks equate to about 200% of what it takes to maintain the roads. The Philadelphia Inquirer, in writing about an expressway interchange reconstruction project, quoted PennDOT engineers describing the extra amount of work and materiel required in the roadways to support trucks, at a huge cost. If the roadway were to support cars only, it would cost much less. Trucks didn't pay their cost of support. Other recent articles, mentioned on this newsgroup on they came out, was that motor vehicle usage taxes pay only a portion of road expenses and general taxpayer funds were required to make up the difference. (IIRC, the amounts ranged from as low as 60% to 85%). Right now roads are getting stimulus money, big article in the Inqr today. > What's the point of speculating? Without paying fuel taxes, trucking > companies would have enough money to build their own roads. (assuming > they had the discipline to spend that money only on building roads) The > problem would be, they wouldn't be allowed to. Think about it. There are > already roads everywhere. If you are going to add a parallel road to > every existing road, where (exactly) are you going to put that? They wouldn't be allowed to build private roads? There used to be a big network of private toll roads, but they were taken over by the govt and made free. Some private roads and bridges still exist. The private sector seemed to show no interest in building modern turnpikes or bridges.
From: hancock4 on 18 Oct 2009 14:33 On Oct 18, 1:06 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Just too late inventory systems are simply nonense that shifts the cost > around and create stress where none should be. The idea was for the > company doing the final assembly to decrease inventory costs. However, > the suppliers making the parts often end up inventorying them anyway > because of their own production capacities. The cost of that inventory > is then passed on in the part cost. So true. A US Steel Co. mill had parts and support providers (independent companies) located nearby. USS changed to "just in time", that is, it expected the providers to rush over a part exactly when it was needed; USS would not longer stock spare parts in its facility. All that meant was the cost of carrying inventory was moved to the smaller businesses, it did not go away. (Nor did it save the mill from shutting down.)
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 18 Oct 2009 15:09 "Larry Sheldon" <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7k1522F36mirbU2(a)mid.individual.net... > Miles Bader wrote: >> 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. > > There is that nonsense again. > Sorry, but it's not nonsense. Driving motor vehicles is the only sensible option. How long would it take to walk 20 miles? Bike 20 miles? Compare/contrast vs. driving on the interstate or even surface streets 20 miles. Motor vehicles are definitely faster and much more efficient. How many communities don't even have bus stops? Sometimes it can be well over a half mile walk to the nearest stop. Bike to the bus stop? Most buses only accommodate up to two bikes and most light rail trains max out at 3 to 4 bikes. Transit vehicle can't hold any more bikes, plan on taking the next vehicle. Using public transit on a regular basis? Not ever a viable option except for those without a working motor vehicle, it's the only option vs. no mobility and being stuck at home. The best possible service is 15 minute frequency, 30 minutes or even hourly service is much more common. Light rail isn't even effective enough because it still often requires at least one bus transfer to get to the destination. It can also take up to three transit vehicles, and also add layover time at transit centers for a missed connection, to travel the same 20 miles by motor vehicle. Forget about longer trips--a one hour trip by motor vehicle easily takes three or more hours using transit, except for possibly during peak commute hours with the few express buses or trains that run. Then there is the additional hassle of getting home from a destination, making all connections and definitely not missing a last bus home. Now add to all that, does a specified route only have weekday service? If so, then there isn't available transit on weekends for that route, period. Then add to all of that--be ready for periodic schedule changes including time adjustments or even reductions in service based on ridership and/or funding. Therefore, the only sensible solution--regardless of traffic conditions--that allows for total freedom of getting to and from a destination at any time of day is driving a motor vehicle. Even being stuck in a one hour traffic jam, despite transit having designated lanes and such, still gives one the freedom of alternate routes and they still can plan to get to the destination earlier and/or leave their destination later (if necessary).
From: Larry Sheldon on 18 Oct 2009 16:58
Scott in SoCal wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> > said: > >> Miles Bader wrote: >>> ... 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. >> I am so tired of that nonsense! >> >> I life in a place where the next _house_ might be a mile or more away. > >> Look and see where the nearest store is. Look where I have to to buy >> feed and hay. You going to build a subway that will let me haul 2 bales >> of hay and 200 pounds of feed home from the feed store (for me, at 90th >> and Fort, approximately). > > The only "nonsense" here is the ridiculous notion that everybody has > the God-given right to live like a king out in some country estate. > Such a lifestyle is ridiculous and completely unsustainable. Imagine > if every one of the 5+ BILLION people on this planet had their own > multi-acre estate! You don't want any more corn, soybeans, or beef? That's most of the estates around here do for a living. But the simple fact is you are too deranged and hateful to mess with anymore. > There was a time when only the very wealthy could afford to live like > Larry does. Ordinary people lived in cities, villages, or other such > settlements where they could pool their resources. Only people who > could afford the transportation costs of being far away from > everything actually lived like that. No, actually, ordinary people klived on farms--theirs, or somebody else's. > The automobile and subsidized roads changed all of that. People like > Larry, who in another time or place would be living in a village like > everybody else, can now "afford" to live out in the boondocks with > neighbors a mile or more away. He can afford this because THE REST OF > US HELP PAY THE ADDED COSTS of his regal lifestyle. I'm out, but before I go, my regal life stye is funded by a number of years of hard work. The house I live in is way too big for my needs, but the California asshats created a problem for me. When we sold the little bitty tract house in Sunnyvale we got a grossly inflated price for it because of the bizarre California notions. When we bought here we had to buy way more than we needed (or can continue to maintain) to avoid some huge huge capital gains losses--the fact that the inflated dollars weren't worth very much is of no interest. So At 70+ I'm going to have to move again to someplace that doesn't need a toy train to anywhere if we can find one. At the moment, the best price we can hope for is way less than we owe, so it isn't clear how we are going to pull it off. [uninformed drivel bagged and tagged for disposal] |