From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Cost of public vs. private transportation
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:10:04 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.212219.7463@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <4580@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:
>:It has often been noted that more than a quarter of our economy is directly
>:dependent on cars, I find it quite plausible that $26.9 billion could come
>:from all of the above sources, and more.  More that is pure profit, taken
>:from cars and spent on causes dear to the hearts of social engineers.

>	But what of the other 75%?

What ABOUT the other 75%?  It's that part of the economy that is not directly
related to auto manufacture which enjoys a tax break because so much of the
tax tab is absorbed by the 25% which *is* related.

>	And why this bashing of "social engineers"? Who are they? And
>do they include the planners of highway systems?

I define a "social engineer" as anyone who wishes to change some facet of
society for their own purposes piggybacks his social requirements on top
those of other, more mainstream, social pressures or requirements. For example,
a closet Marxist with tendencies toward income redistributions and outright
socialism in the classic sense, who piously claims these reforms are needed
to "protect the environment" absent any evidence they will do so, and directly
contrary to demonstrable fact.  I would have less of a problem with an out-and-
out Marxists who simply wants to end my personal liberty "for my own good",
it's the hypocrisy that does the real damage.

>::Unfortunately, the argument requires that ALL highway user-fees go just to
>::highway maintenence and construction.  The accounting becomes complex when
>::highway fees pay for mass transit, and mass transit fees pay for highways

Then simplify the accounting.  All such accounting should be simplified as a
matter of public accountability and fairness, the problem is that if such
accounting is made simple and obvious it will simply be obvious what we are
getting and how much it costs and that will cost a LOT of politicians their
cushy jobs.

>	The most that this chain of argument has demonstrated is that
>car drivers are subsidizing truckers. If we could only get all those
>trucks off the road...

Not practical, but it *is* practical to begin to separate these transport
systems, to dedicate certain high-capacity roads to trucks and to tie them
into the rail system for long-distance transport, while restricting trucks
from large sections of the current highway system.  Such a system would even-
tually allow separate accounting, and would be cheaper to implement than
upgrading the entire current system to handle 30 to 50 ton trucks.  The new
bridges going up over Rt 3 look like they are designed to withstand low-yield
nuclear weapons, yet the average car weight has declined almost 50% since the
nineteen fifties.

In the meantime, studies have already been done to determine the real cost of
trucking and reliable estimates and methods for a fair taxation system have
already been identified.  The gov't lacks the spine to implement them in the
face of the strong Teamster's lobby.  Which is yet another reason to not trust
gov't so far.

>	This is yet another good excuse for revitalizing America's
>railroads; they could be used for even more of the long-distance
>shipments than they are today. Some train cars are designed to carry
>truck trailers and there is already a sizable business in carrying
>truck trailers by train. Expanding this business would save a lot of
>wear and tear on our intercity highways, though trucks would still be
>neede for relatively local deliveries and deliveries to out-of-the-way
>places.

I concur 100%.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment