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

On May 4, 3:38 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> 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?

Very interesting idea.

I've been trying to find rates for trans****t by rail.  I'm getting
rates of 2.50 to 8.90 per hundred pounds for a two hundred mile trip.
At a rate of $2.50, with a car weighing around 2500 lbs, it would cost
about 65 dollars.  Not bad.