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

Day Brown wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> 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
> Thanx Les. Which solves the problem Burton had. 

Only from Sanford, Fl to Virginia :)

>But for maximum 
> acceptance, you need flatcars that are wide enuf to drive on from one 
> side, then drive off from the other. people dont like waiting in line 
> for a car to be unloaded.
>

Depends on how much time and what price. If the destination
is simple enough, the car owners could have the car brought to
them later, with "airport buses" taking them to the actual
destination, to check in, whatnot.

> And, if the flat cars had garage doors on each side and a roof, then 
> owners could either ride in their car, or while enroute, get out and go 
> to passenger cars for dinner, a drink, or a piss.
> 

I think decoupling passengers from autos makes more sense. But
actual onload/offload labor might follow car architecture.

But depending on how often people travel, it might make sense to
simply pool cars, moving them as-needed along the line.

> Finally, what will really make money for investors is if it is high 
> speed. Folks will want to get on at sundown in the snowbelt, and off at 
> sunrise on the gulf coast.
> 

It's not clear to me that trying to compete with air travel
infrastructure makes sense. Laying track is less expensive
than it used to be, but even shipping by air looks
to be a wash with ground, almost - for small enough things.

Right now, we just subsidize heck outta airlines. It's *a*
way.

> Economically, rather than paying for the heat for seniors in northern 
> homes during winter, or AC for them in the south during summer, it'd be 
> cheaper to ship their asses to live in FEMA trailers during that part of

> the year when utility costs would be high. Mite even ship the trailers. 
> For which, again, you need wide track flat cars.
> 

I think that is exactly what we will see as the Baby Boomers
retire. They'll likely be better than FEMA trailers, but expecially
the Gulf Coast could support a rather large set of high end trailer
parks. The Feds could subsidize the developers, ala Section 8, as
a means to keep SS increases down.

Barefoot Bay is such a place:
http://www.barefootbay.net/patwebb/community%20of%20barefoot%20bay.htm

I am assuming the Katrina event is a very severe outlier. I would
be willing to bet that it is, but it's not that hard to 'cane proof
those model trailer homes. The big engineering challenge would be storm
surge.


> Not that this idea is going to go anywhere mind you. Nobody in the 
> political elite with the power to do anything reads what we post.

That's for sure.

--
Les Cargill