Re: BEFORE Trying To Simply Hike the Fuel Tax . . .

daestrom wrote:
> 
> <BurtonUrny@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:8ef602b0-d0d7-40a8-bf09-2aeb7cac863d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 3, 5:40 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> HarryNadds wrote:
>> > What "more efficient" ways are you referring to? Rail? ****p? Carrier
>> > pidgeon? You think long haul trucks are part of the problem?? You
>> > willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??
>>
>> What would make more sense would be to nationalize the railroad right
of
>> way so that it would be owned and maintained by the government the same
>> as the highways, waterways, and air****ts.
>>
>> Then- permit investors to go into business with the running gear in an
>> open, and competitive free market rather than the regulated system the
>> massive rail cor****ations now have.
>>
>> Moreover, convert the rails to a new wide track design that could go
>> much faster and carry loads wider than a box car. In this case, they
>> could piggie back truck trailers or freighter containers side by side
on
>> flat cars, or use the flat cars to carry your car, at high speed, cross
>> country. You could drive on a flatcar at the station, with the driver's
>> side facing the front of the train, then drive off at your destination.
> 
> Widing the rails isn't really going to be practical.  There are 
> literally thousands of tunnels and millions of bridges both large and 
> small that would *not* accept wider rolling stock.
> 
> And to do as you suggest, it isn't really necessary.  'Trailer-Trains' 
> have been around for decades and they allow driving tractor trailers 
> right on to specially designed flat-bed cars that have short ramps that 
> can be lowered to connect the cars together.  Trucks are driven on 
> backward from one end and can drive the length of the train until 
> reaching the desired flat-car. This was in the mid 70's.  These 
> 'Trailer-Trains' can be off/on loaded with a minimal of facilities.  
> Just need a ramp that leads up to the right elevation at the end of a 
> railroad spur.
> 
> The more common version now that replaces 'Trailer-Trains' is the 
> inter-modal container.  Standardized containers are off-loaded from 
> ****ps and put onto semi-tractor trailers -or- train cars directly.  But 
> these require overhead container-cranes to lift and load the containers 
> (sometimes referred to as 'sea-vans' IIRC).
I'm not always as clear as I hope. But you need a flat car that you can 
drive onto that is wide enuf for your car. Then when you get to the 
station, just pull on ahead to drive off the other side.

And as far as high speed goes, its a lot more than just tunnels. Be a 
good idea to elevate the tracks so you dont have road crossing crashes 
at 200 mph. However, you dont need to start the system where the terrain 
and population density make it hard, but start on the high plains 
running for hundreds of miles East over flat mostly empty farmland.

the result would be that the drivers and truckers could pull on east of 
Denver, then *sleep* for the next several hours while the train moves
them.

Granted that there are infrastructure costs, but we have these already 
with heavy trucks tearing up the freeways. Get that weight running on 
Steel rails, and when *YOU* drive on the freeway, it wont have truck 
traffic, it'll be gonzo safer, and you wont be held up with either pot 
holes or the repair crews.

Is is by definition "liberal" to be innovative? Have you ever driven 
coast to coast? Have any idea how much money a *BUSINESS* could make by 
moving your car at high speed in the direction you want to go while you 
sleep, rather than having it sit in a rest area? WTF?