From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <4_CdnTBJZuCr6pXWnZ2dnUVZ_qhi4p2d(a)bright.net>,
jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>> In article <VIudnXn0CNy4d5rWnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d(a)bright.net>,
>> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote:
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> Really? I must have missed all those products failing to be shipped
>> by truck in 2008.
>
>OK so that makes you not someone who is paying attention.

One of us is living in an alternate reality, that's for sure.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Brent on
On 2009-11-22, Bolwerk <bolwerk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2009-11-21, Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> Ask someone from NYC or a non-US major world city like London or Paris,
>>> though, and you'll get an entirely different answer. Why would they
>>> want to deal with the hassle of owning a car, driving in congested
>>> traffic, trying to find (extremely expensive) parking, etc. when the
>>> subway is faster, cheaper, and more convenient?
>>
>> However that transit is subsidized by lots of people who don't use it.
>> That's how it becomes "cheap".
>
> The same way most roads become cheap, or free, rather, in many cases.
> All transportation, save perhaps freight rail, is subsidized by "lots of
> people who don't use it."

I've been over this before. The number of people who don't use roads and
who don't drive at all is vanishingly small. You can refund every last
penny in tax they pay for roads directly or indirectly and it wouldn't
change a thing.

>> And even in cities like London a lot of
>> people still drive because even with the crushing costs and congestion
>> it's still works better for them. In a big city I would live close
>> enough to walk or bike most if not all year to avoid the hassles of
>> driving and transit.

> Even in NYC, there are plenty of examples of low-subsidy or even
> slightly profitable transit. MTA Bus, IIRC, turned a slight profit last
> year.

Profit defined how?

> The Subway system in 2007 covered its own operating costs to the tune of
> around ~68%, which is similar to the highway system. With fare hikes,
> it should be closer to around 85% until labor costs catch up.

A private business would be out of business like that.

> The egregious problems with U.S. public transportation come mostly from
> intractable labor/union problems or poor regulation, which is why high
> ridership/low frequency commuter rail still tend to be amongst the most
> subsidized forms of public transportation.

Considering that most pro-transit types are also pro-labor-union for
private companies this strikes me as amusing.


From: jim on


Brent wrote:

>
> I've been over this before. The number of people who don't use roads and
> who don't drive at all is vanishingly small. You can refund every last
> penny in tax they pay for roads directly or indirectly and it wouldn't
> change a thing.


So lets get this straight. Your reasoning works like this:

That 95% of taxpayers drive and use roads and therefore 95% of taxes
should be used for road construction. And since 95% of taxes are not
spent on roads it is your belief that tx money is being illegally
diverted to other purposes.

Is that about right?

-jim


> >> And even in cities like London a lot of
> >> people still drive because even with the crushing costs and congestion
> >> it's still works better for them. In a big city I would live close
> >> enough to walk or bike most if not all year to avoid the hassles of
> >> driving and transit.
>
> > Even in NYC, there are plenty of examples of low-subsidy or even
> > slightly profitable transit. MTA Bus, IIRC, turned a slight profit last
> > year.
>
> Profit defined how?
>
> > The Subway system in 2007 covered its own operating costs to the tune of
> > around ~68%, which is similar to the highway system. With fare hikes,
> > it should be closer to around 85% until labor costs catch up.
>
> A private business would be out of business like that.
>
> > The egregious problems with U.S. public transportation come mostly from
> > intractable labor/union problems or poor regulation, which is why high
> > ridership/low frequency commuter rail still tend to be amongst the most
> > subsidized forms of public transportation.
>
> Considering that most pro-transit types are also pro-labor-union for
> private companies this strikes me as amusing.
From: Brent on
On 2009-11-22, Matthew Russotto <russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> In article <he9pbg$ppf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote:
>>
>>For instance, imagine that item X costs $1 if made in China or $8 if
>>made in the US. Imagine that item X costs $5 to transport from China
>>and $1 within the US. The vast majority of consumers are going to buy
>>the Chinese one because the total cost is lower. However, double the
>>transportation costs for both and customer buying will shift to the
>>American one, resulting in less transportation demand, lower total
>>transportation costs, less pollution, more American jobs, a lower trade
>>imbalance, etc.
>
> Since the stuff gets to the US by ship and not by truck, doubling
> trucking costs will make the item $10 for the US item and $7 for the
> Chinese item, not helping you.

How much are the ports subsidized? I found this article:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941230&slug=1949890

But it's 15 years old.

From: 1100GS_rider on
Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote:

> Trucking a container
> from LA to NYC makes no sense when you could put the container on a
> train from LA to New Jersey and then truck it the last few miles into
> NYC.

Yes it does, when the train delivery time cannot be relied on.