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

Day Brown wrote:
> 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.
> 

Amtrak offers "Auto train" service now.

http://on-track-on-line.com/autotrain-tips.shtml

> 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?

--
Les Cargill