"Free Lunch" wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 14:11:25 -0600, in misc.trans****t.urban-transit
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> <fqcd9e$5ur$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> 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.[...]
>> Does a 5-axle truck with a gross weight of 80,000 pounds pay 5000 to
>> 10,000 times as much as a sedan in taxes and tolls? If not, the truck
is
>> getting subsidized on how much fatigue damage it causes to the
pavement.
>
> As I understand it, that particular claim has not been shown to be true.
Really? So all the pavement design methods used by engineers in the US
are wrong to a gross extent? That I refuse to believe.
> If the tax needs to be changed, by all means lets make it fair to
> everyone, but that does not excuse the foolishness of our legislatures
> in letting taxes fall so much that we cannot take care of our roads.
Well, in terms of geometric design and traffic through-put, the truck is
only the equal to a few cars which makes the equivalent cost harder to
calculate, but in terms of pavement damage we are talking fact, not made
up numbers.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
