The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Matthew Russotto on 20 Nov 2009 21:50 In article <o63nf59dnq0ulavsfh5glhcecjl6i7hul6(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Last time on rec.autos.driving, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew >Russotto) said: > >>>Heh - you call sitting in a traffic jam "freedom of movement?" >> >>What an idiotic straw man. > >No more idiotic than trying to claim that automobiles provide freedom >of movement to go anywhere at any time. Car drivers are as much a >slave to other peoples' schedules as transit riders. No. Car drivers are not unaffected by other people's schedules, but they are less controlled by them. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 20 Nov 2009 22:05 In article <hdhau8$c85$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >I don't think anyone argued it doesn't work for some people. The >opposite exists for other people. Where they had some nightmarish >transit commute that took much longer than it did by driving. The transit commute that takes longer than driving is the rule, not the exception. Scott has managed to find himself a one-seat ride which manages to beat driving, and generalizes that experience to everything else. Lately I've been commuting to another location than my usual office (I'm doing consulting). It's 51 miles; takes just about an hour door to door by car. SEPTA suggests minimum of 3hr 8 min, a four seat ride (bus, train, train, bus). -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 20 Nov 2009 22:29 In article <12f607f6-8ac5-47a7-8f3c-47c53ddc0e79(a)d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, rshersh(a)gmail.com <rshersh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >why so oyu suppose that state gas tax stays as low as it does???? Asked and answered. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 20 Nov 2009 22:59 In article <nasadowsk-F1305C.23124718112009(a)news.optonline.net>, Philip Nasadowski <nasadowsk(a)usermale.com> wrote: >In article <he1vei$qrh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote: > >> More precisely, intermodal freight cannot currently compete at distances >> under 700mi due to trucking subsidies. If shipping by truck included >> the full cost, rail would be able to compete at much shorter distances, >> and the vast majority of ton-miles would be by rail, with only short >> legs at the end via truck. > >Uh huh. > >And what about those of us, i.e., most businesses, who want their stuff >shipped in less than one month's time and arrive in one piece? And >aren't ordering in dozen-container quantities? There is such a thing as less-than-containerload (LCL). But yeah, not until the freight on rails travels when its convenient for the shipper and not when it is convenient for the rail line will it be competitive for most goods it isn't currently used for. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: jim on 21 Nov 2009 08:24
Matthew Russotto wrote: > > In article <nasadowsk-F1305C.23124718112009(a)news.optonline.net>, > Philip Nasadowski <nasadowsk(a)usermale.com> wrote: > >In article <he1vei$qrh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote: > > > >> More precisely, intermodal freight cannot currently compete at distances > >> under 700mi due to trucking subsidies. If shipping by truck included > >> the full cost, rail would be able to compete at much shorter distances, > >> and the vast majority of ton-miles would be by rail, with only short > >> legs at the end via truck. > > > >Uh huh. > > > >And what about those of us, i.e., most businesses, who want their stuff > >shipped in less than one month's time and arrive in one piece? And > >aren't ordering in dozen-container quantities? > > There is such a thing as less-than-containerload (LCL). But yeah, > not until the freight on rails travels when its convenient for the shipper > and not when it is convenient for the rail line will it be competitive > for most goods it isn't currently used for. Your appeal to preserving the status quo does make sense if you look at it strictly from a historical perspective. The reality is that the current transportation and economic model that the government funds works well when the price of oil is stable and low. Currently the inflation adjusted price of oil is approximately the same as in the 60's and it is arguable that for the moment the system is adequate. At the current oil price and supply level the system appears to work effectively. But anyone who has been paying attention will have observed that when the price of oil goes up the system grinds to a halt. The question thus becomes how many recession or depressions are people going to be willing to endure before they realize the status quo is not suitable for the existing reality going into the future. > -- > The problem with socialism is there's always > someone with less ability and more need. The current transportation system is socialized and that is a fact that is extremely unlikely to change. The people who think it should be privatized instead are the idiots and they should rightly be ignored. For the remaining 99% of the population the question is what form will the socialized transportation system take in the future. |