On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:06:54 -0500, in misc.trans****t.urban-transit
"George Conklin" <nil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
<13sjiq6rsc1al89@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:mgbjs3hpc2tmtvovndhnvooniitj17u9mi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:46:58 +0900, in misc.trans****t.urban-transit
>> Miles Bader <miles@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in <87tzjq46zh.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>> >Jym Dyer <jym@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> >> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that
>> >> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with
>> >> rail in the first place, but rising oil costs are starting to
>> >> make some things undeniable.
>> >
>> >There's also the massive subsidies to maintain the highway system in
the
>> >first place -- you constantly see complaints that trucking is
>> >responsible for 90% of road wear, but pays very little of thath cost.
>>
>> Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do
>> have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want to
>> share, except through contract, so they have to pay for their own
>> dedicated routes. Tough for them. We would be much better off if rail
>> had competitive carriers on all trackage and the tracks were run by a
>> utility.
>
>It would raise costs.
>
I wouldn't have expected any other response from you.
Please explain how it is cheaper to have one monopoly carrier or two
competing carriers with separate tracks. Show your work.
|
