Re: Starving people refuse to eat food aid
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On 15 Dec 2009 03:17:48 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> In article <hg6r9u$d9d$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> Which makes it so much easier to just think of it as "The car cost
>>>> me $10,000 that one year and nothing for the next nine."
>>> If that were true, then if the car is totalled after you've had it for
>>> a year, you've lost nothing.
>> With reasonable insurance that's close to being true.
>
> But he doesn't believe in insurance.
>
>
Keith believes in insurance; he knows it exists.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Dimensional Traveler
planet.
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
Walter Bushell
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
"Do you believe in infant baptism?"
"Of course, I've seen it done."
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Keith F. Lynch
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>> But he doesn't believe in insurance.
>> Keith believes in insurance; he knows it exists.
I'm not averse to getting insurance. But I'm not desparate for it.
If an insurance company offers a product I want for a price I'm
willing to pay, I'll sign up.
> Of course it exists, its a conspiracy. Those _always_ exist on
> Keith's planet.
What *have* you been smoking? I spend much of my time arguing
*against* conspiracy theories. What cosnpiracy theories do you
think I believe in?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Dimensional Traveler
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>> But he doesn't believe in insurance.
>
>>> Keith believes in insurance; he knows it exists.
>
> I'm not averse to getting insurance. But I'm not desparate for it.
> If an insurance company offers a product I want for a price I'm
> willing to pay, I'll sign up.
>
>> Of course it exists, its a conspiracy. Those _always_ exist on
>> Keith's planet.
>
> What *have* you been smoking? I spend much of my time arguing
> *against* conspiracy theories. What cosnpiracy theories do you
> think I believe in?
What do you call your belief that all non-car users are forced to
subsidize the infrastructure for car users without getting any benefit
from it?
David Scheidt
It's quite the case that non-drivers subsidize car users.
--
sig 32
Dimensional Traveler
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>> But he doesn't believe in insurance.
>
>>> Keith believes in insurance; he knows it exists.
>
>I'm not averse to getting insurance. But I'm not desparate for it.
>If an insurance company offers a product I want for a price I'm
>willing to pay, I'll sign up.
We're a little unclear on how you determine that the price is
right.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
How? Be specific.
David Scheidt
:On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:39:34 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
:<dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
:>In alt.folklore.urban Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
:>:Keith F. Lynch wrote:
:>:> What *have* you been smoking? I spend much of my time arguing
:>:> *against* conspiracy theories. What cosnpiracy theories do you
:>:> think I believe in?
:>
:>:What do you call your belief that all non-car users are forced to
:>:subsidize the infrastructure for car users without getting any benefit
:>:from it?
:>
:>It's quite the case that non-drivers subsidize car users.
:How? Be specific.
Are you under the impression that taxes levied on gasoline and the
sale of automobiles come anywhere near covering the money spent on
building and maintaining roads? It's not even the case that gasoline
taxes pay the federal share of road building. There are routine
transfers of general funds money ("income tax" mostly, eh?) into the
supposedly self-financing highway fund. How states, counties and
cities chose to fund their road building varies, but I'm unaware of
anywhere that's actually self supporting. That's just road building
and repair. It doesn't cover snow plowing and such like.
Nor does it include costs of environmental degredation, which are
borne by everyone. Whether the benefits to non car users outweigh
their share of te cost is a political question.
--
sig 51
Don Freeman
> In alt.folklore.urban Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
> :On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:39:34 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
> :>
> :>It's quite the case that non-drivers subsidize car users.
>
> :How? Be specific.
>
<...>
> Whether the benefits to non car users outweigh
> their share of te cost is a political question.
>
Which would need to be answered before determining if "non-drivers
subsidize car users". Which is the assertion that you made.
--
-Don
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
propose distributing those goods and services without said road system?
(Rail already does pretty much all it can). If you can't say "yes" to
the first, or have a reasonable, practical, and affordable answer to the
second, then you have demonstrated that all the money spent on roads is
more than worth it, it is necessary.
David Scheidt
No. It's not. The assertion that I made is that non car users pay
the some of costs of having infrastructure for the use of cars. No
one with any level of clue about how things are funded disagrees with
that. Whether they receive a benefit from the infrastructure for cars
is an entirely seperate question.
--
sig 89
David Scheidt
The answer to that question is undoubtedly "yes".
--
sig 52
Don Freeman
> In alt.folklore.urban Don Freeman <free...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:
> :David Scheidt wrote:
> :> In alt.folklore.urban Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
> :> :On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:39:34 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
>
> :> :>
> :> :>It's quite the case that non-drivers subsidize car users.
> :>
> :> :How? Be specific.
> :>
>
> :<...>
> :> Whether the benefits to non car users outweigh
> :> their share of te cost is a political question.
> :>
>
> :Which would need to be answered before determining if "non-drivers
> :subsidize car users". Which is the assertion that you made.
>
> No. It's not.
So that was another David Scheidt that made the statement I quoted?
--
-Don
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Are you not a resident of the USA? If not, the question's irrelevant.
If you are, I find it VERY hard to believe that you don't ever shop at
any store. Because all stores are supplied via the public roads (trucks,
my boy, trucks. And the trucks cause more wear than the cars; the damage
to the road system is much more due to heavy vehicles, which is why they
have EXTRA fees associated with them).
If you ARE a shining pillar of complete independence (aside from your
electronics, I suppose), well, this makes you even more unusual than
Keith Lynch.
Mac
> > :David Scheidt wrote:
> > :> :On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:39:34 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
> > :>
The extra fees associated with trucks (outside of light delivery
vehicles) are risible when compared to the ratio of actual damage
caused. The ratio of relative damage from a truck to a passenger car
starts around 2,000 to one, and goes up from there to around 10,000
times, for heavier vehicles. (The damage goes up exponentially,
roughly to the 4th power, with increasing weight.)
Leaving the whole question of whether vehicles pay their way at all,
cars pay for roads; trucks wreck 'em.
Anthony "PeeBleepin'Ee" McCafferty
Keith F. Lynch
> (The damage goes up exponentially, roughly to the 4th power, with
> increasing weight.)
Sorry, exponential != polynomial.
Mike Ash
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
> and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
> propose distributing those goods and services without said road system?
> (Rail already does pretty much all it can). If you can't say "yes" to
> the first, or have a reasonable, practical, and affordable answer to the
> second, then you have demonstrated that all the money spent on roads is
> more than worth it, it is necessary.
It may demonstrate that the money is worth it, but it does not
demonstrate that the correct people are forced to pay for the money.
Fairness would have each highway user paying his share, and those who
benefit purely incidentally, by being involved in commerce with highway
users, would pay only indirectly as part of the prices of the goods and
services which they purchase.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Mac
> Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
> > (The damage goes up exponentially, roughly to the 4th power, with
> > increasing weight.)
>
> Sorry, exponential != polynomial.
True. That was loose metaphorical usage, used inappropriately.
Anthony "especially around here" McCafferty
David DeLaney
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
>> > (The damage goes up exponentially, roughly to the 4th power, with
>> > increasing weight.)
>>
>> Sorry, exponential != polynomial.
>
>True. That was loose metaphorical usage, used inappropriately.
So trucks are NP-complete, even though their routes may not be?
>Anthony "especially around here" McCafferty
Dave "if we could just get that Banach-Tarski matter-replicator working..."
DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Thomas Prufer
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
>and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
>propose distributing those goods and services without said road system?
>(Rail already does pretty much all it can). If you can't say "yes" to
>the first, or have a reasonable, practical, and affordable answer to the
>second, then you have demonstrated that all the money spent on roads is
>more than worth it, it is necessary.
I have no horse in this race, as I own a car, live in a walking-friendly city
with the kind of public transportation NYC has, and have a bicycle and bike path
to everywhere, near enough.
However, you are to some extent equating cars for individual transportation with
freight and goods transport, which is not universally and self-evidently true...
Thomas Prufer
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hgu9m7$bl6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
>> and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
>> propose distributing those goods and services without said road system?
>> (Rail already does pretty much all it can). If you can't say "yes" to
>> the first, or have a reasonable, practical, and affordable answer to the
>> second, then you have demonstrated that all the money spent on roads is
>> more than worth it, it is necessary.
>
> It may demonstrate that the money is worth it, but it does not
> demonstrate that the correct people are forced to pay for the money.
>
So you're against all taxes and want use fees? I can go for that. Good
luck figuring out how to make that work, though. There's a reason I
accept the existence of taxes which are used for stuff I don't agree with.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
To an extent, but the point is the cost of maintaining the road system
-- which would be needed even if you somehow magically got rid of all
private passenger vehicles, due to commercial needs (yes, even to
individual houses, if you want to keep things like the U.S. Mail, FedEx,
UPS, fire service access, etc.). As others have emphasized, the majority
of the wear and tear is from trucks, not passenger cars. Which means,
continuing the thread of thought, that complaining about the cost of
maintaining the roads only makes sense if you want to get rid of TRUCKS
-- the commercial vehicles. So either you (in the generic "someone
arguing against the cost" you) can do completely without the goods and
services from commercial vehicle transportation, or you have a practical
and affordable alternative.
Default User
> Fairness would have each highway user paying his share, and those who
> benefit purely incidentally, by being involved in commerce with
> highway users, would pay only indirectly as part of the prices of the
> goods and services which they purchase.
As mentioned earlier, I've never gotten any use from the public school
system, and very little use from the mass transit system. I do get good
use from the public library, but many others don't. Why should roads be
any different? The tax system has never been "pay for what you use".
That's part of why you have public systems.
Brian
--
Day 325 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Cheryl
Surely every time you benefit from the skills of someone educated in a
public school system, you benefit from the public school system yourself.
--
Cheryl
Default User
> Default User wrote:
> > As mentioned earlier, I've never gotten any use from the public
> > school system, and very little use from the mass transit system. I
> > do get good use from the public library, but many others don't. Why
> > should roads be any different? The tax system has never been "pay
> > for what you use". That's part of why you have public systems.
> >
>
> Surely every time you benefit from the skills of someone educated in
> a public school system, you benefit from the public school system
> yourself.
Possibly. That assumes that there would be no educated people
otherwise. You're missing the point. The tax system doesn't work on the
"I should pay only for those things I use." There are perceived public
benefits for things, so everybody pays. The roads aren't any different.
Some people want somehow except the road system, even though that
probably has much more general effect than something like a public
library.
Brian
--
Day 325 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
erilar
How about making the truck operators pay more of the cost of keeping the
roads usable, then?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Dimensional Traveler
consumer (price hikes). That might not matter much for some things but
the increase in food prices could be a problem.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
This would make sense if you wanted to do away with everything but trucks.
However, given that everything that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE ROAD
eats, wears, plays with, etc., -- and DRIVES -- is almost certainly
delivered on or using a truck, that's not a wise or practical thing to do.
If the truck drivers/companies, and ONLY the truck drivers/companies
paid for the roads, there would be no roads. All die. O the embarrassment.
erilar
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> If the truck drivers/companies, and ONLY the truck drivers/companies
> paid for the roads, there would be no roads. All die. O the embarrassment.
I just said they should pay more because they're harder on the roads,
not that they should pay all the cost. Look closely 8-)
Canth
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
I'm not so sure trucks do that much more damage proportionately. While
axle loads are indeed much greater for trucks than cars, the pressure
per square inch exerted on the road is not so different. Car tyres
seem to vary between 5 & 9 inches in common sizes with about 1-2" on
the road; giving a load bearing surface of 10 - 40 sq in/axle. The big
trucks I've checked out seem to have tyres of around 15 inches width
and about 12 inches flat on the ground giving them a load bearing
surface of around 720 sq in/axle. I can't find the post where axle
weights were mentioned for cars & trucks, but I think the trucks were
10-20 times the weights for a car. Given that the load bearing
surface is also 10-20 times for a truck verses a car, then I see the
pressure on the road as roughly equivalent. Finally, taking into
account vehicle miles driven by each type of vehicle, and I think the
cars might actually do more damage than the trucks.
I will accept that once the road surface is damaged, the impact damage
of a truck tyre should be much greater than the car. So trucks should
break up badly maintained roads much quicker than cars, but the damage
to a well maintained road should be done more by cars than trucks.
AS! ds++:+++ a++ c+++ p++ t+ f-- S+ p+ e++ h++ r++ n++ i+ P+ m++ M
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> I will accept that once the road surface is damaged, the impact damage
> of a truck tyre should be much greater than the car. So trucks should
> break up badly maintained roads much quicker than cars, but the damage
> to a well maintained road should be done more by cars than trucks.
Then there is the "pumping" action of a semi on a concrete slab when the
ground is frozen and therefore the water immediately below the slab
cannot soak into the underlying gravel. This has been a major cause of
pavement damage on interstate highways here in Connecticut.
Charles
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hh0pis$cbu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> If the truck drivers/companies, and ONLY the truck drivers/companies
>> paid for the roads, there would be no roads. All die. O the embarrassment.
>
> I just said they should pay more because they're harder on the roads,
> not that they should pay all the cost. Look closely 8-)
>
And they DO pay more. As was mentioned more than once, previously.
But not the equivalent of the wear they do.
And if they did, the result is what I said.
Look closely.
John Francis
Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>I'm not so sure trucks do that much more damage proportionately. While
>axle loads are indeed much greater for trucks than cars, the pressure
>per square inch exerted on the road is not so different. Car tyres
>seem to vary between 5 & 9 inches in common sizes with about 1-2" on
>the road; giving a load bearing surface of 10 - 40 sq in/axle. The big
>trucks I've checked out seem to have tyres of around 15 inches width
>and about 12 inches flat on the ground giving them a load bearing
>surface of around 720 sq in/axle. I can't find the post where axle
>weights were mentioned for cars & trucks, but I think the trucks were
>10-20 times the weights for a car. Given that the load bearing
>surface is also 10-20 times for a truck verses a car, then I see the
>pressure on the road as roughly equivalent. Finally, taking into
>account vehicle miles driven by each type of vehicle, and I think the
>cars might actually do more damage than the trucks.
Your calculations are flawed.
A simple point; car tyres (or tires) are inflated to maybe 30-40psi;
trucks two or three times that. Inflation pressure is pretty close
to what the load per square inch on the road is. So trucks put at
least two or three times the load onto the road per square inch, over
many, many more square inches.
Mike Ash
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
All I'm saying is that the "you benefit from it indirectly, thus you
should pay for it" argument is stupid.
I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for roads. Just that the justifications
being floated make no sense. You should pay for roads because they're a
public good and paying for them privately would be massively
inefficient. Not because they make your local grocery store prices
cheaper.
David Scheidt
:On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:18:48 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
:<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
You might think that. Reality, of course, doesn't care what you
think. Damage done to the road surface is very rarrely caused by
insufficent pavement strength, where the the pavement breaks under the
point load. It's caused by a complicated set of factors, mostly
involving movement. Damage to the fourth power of axle loading is the
basic rule of thumb, but it's very complicated, and it depends on the
both the road surface and the subsurface.
--
sig 103
Mike Ash
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Mike Ash wrote:
> > In article <hgu9m7$bl6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
> >> and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
> >> propose distributing those goods and services without said road system?
> >> (Rail already does pretty much all it can). If you can't say "yes" to
> >> the first, or have a reasonable, practical, and affordable answer to the
> >> second, then you have demonstrated that all the money spent on roads is
> >> more than worth it, it is necessary.
> >
> > It may demonstrate that the money is worth it, but it does not
> > demonstrate that the correct people are forced to pay for the money.
>
> So you're against all taxes and want use fees? I can go for that. Good
> luck figuring out how to make that work, though. There's a reason I
> accept the existence of taxes which are used for stuff I don't agree with.
Sigh.
No, I'm against ILLOGIC.
I'm just pointing out the flawed argument. It so happens that I agree
with the conclusion that roads should be publicly funded. I just
disagree with how everybody is reaching that conclusion.
Wayne Throop
: I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for roads. Just that the
: justifications being floated make no sense. You should pay for roads
: because they're a public good and paying for them privately would be
: massively inefficient. Not because they make your local grocery store
: prices cheaper.
Yes, OK, but isn't the fact that (among many other things) grocery store
prices are lower what *make* them a public good instead of a public bad?
More or less? That is, "people in general benefit, like schools and
streetlights and fire departments". The claim that "I get no benefit
out of a fire department, because I haven't had a fire and am careful to
have my home built out of non-flamable materials rather than awood-frame
construction deathtrap" is akin to "I get no benefit out of the highway
system, because I'm careful to stay away from those deathtrap cars,
which have a fatality for every hundred million miles of transport".
I get no kick in a plane
Flying too high
With some guy in the sky
Is my idea of nothing to do
Yet i get a kick out of you
--- Cole Porter "I Get a Kick Out of You"
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Mike Ash
wrote:
> : Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
> : I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for roads. Just that the
> : justifications being floated make no sense. You should pay for roads
> : because they're a public good and paying for them privately would be
> : massively inefficient. Not because they make your local grocery store
> : prices cheaper.
>
> Yes, OK, but isn't the fact that (among many other things) grocery store
> prices are lower what *make* them a public good instead of a public bad?
> More or less? That is, "people in general benefit, like schools and
> streetlights and fire departments". The claim that "I get no benefit
> out of a fire department, because I haven't had a fire and am careful to
> have my home built out of non-flamable materials rather than awood-frame
> construction deathtrap" is akin to "I get no benefit out of the highway
> system, because I'm careful to stay away from those deathtrap cars,
> which have a fatality for every hundred million miles of transport".
It's the difference between "people in general benefit" and "you,
personally, benefit". People have been arguing the latter. "Public good"
means the former.
Wayne Throop
: It's the difference between "people in general benefit" and "you,
: means the former.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that citing where specific
people benefit is one way to demonstrate that there is general benefit,
especially if the method of benefit is either generic or nigh-universal.
And while it's true that, "you should do it because you personally save
cash money" is bogus, still a claim of "I, personally, don't benefit at
all" can be refuted that way, can't it? That is by citing ways that
general individuals benefit, demonstrates that any randomly chosen
individual would tend to benefit from the general social good?
Hm? Yes? No? Maybe?
Mike Ash
> : Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
> : It's the difference between "people in general benefit" and "you,
> : personally, benefit". People have been arguing the latter. "Public good"
> : means the former.
>
> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that citing where specific
> people benefit is one way to demonstrate that there is general benefit,
> especially if the method of benefit is either generic or nigh-universal.
It *could* be a small demonstration, but it's not very significant. And
that's not how I see it being used here. The argument here is going
straight from "you get an indirect benefit" to "therefore, you should
pay". The sensible argument, in my opinion, goes, "you get an indirect
benefit, which is an example of how everybody gets an indirect benefit,
this benefit is much greater when the good is paid publicly, therefore
we should all pay, and that includes you".
> And while it's true that, "you should do it because you personally save
> cash money" is bogus, still a claim of "I, personally, don't benefit at
> all" can be refuted that way, can't it? That is by citing ways that
> general individuals benefit, demonstrates that any randomly chosen
> individual would tend to benefit from the general social good?
> Hm? Yes? No? Maybe?
I disagree that "you benefit indirectly" is a reasonable refutation of
"I don't personally benefit". Unless you live in a shack in the woods
and are completely self-sufficient, we *all* benefit from *all* positive
human activity in an indirect manner. That doesn't translate into it
being sensible to tax everybody to pay for all of it.
As I see it, there are two reasons you should pay for something:
1) You benefit *directly*. Bob provides a service to me, I pay Bob. Not,
Bob provides a service to Joe, Joe provides a service to me using it, I
pay Bob.
2) *Everybody* benefits indirectly, and it's too inefficient to collect
only from those who benefit directly.
Hatunen
Throop) wrote:
>: Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
>: I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for roads. Just that the
>: justifications being floated make no sense. You should pay for roads
>: because they're a public good and paying for them privately would be
>: massively inefficient. Not because they make your local grocery store
>: prices cheaper.
>
>Yes, OK, but isn't the fact that (among many other things) grocery store
>prices are lower what *make* them a public good instead of a public bad?
>More or less? That is, "people in general benefit, like schools and
>streetlights and fire departments". The claim that "I get no benefit
>out of a fire department, because I haven't had a fire and am careful to
>have my home built out of non-flamable materials rather than awood-frame
>construction deathtrap" is akin to "I get no benefit out of the highway
>system, because I'm careful to stay away from those deathtrap cars,
>which have a fatality for every hundred million miles of transport".
Some large suburban areas around Tucson are served by private
profit-making fire protection companies. Homeowners have to
subscribe to the service to have the fire company come put out a
home fire. Otherwise, the owner gets charged the full cost of the
fire suppression.
I think osmeone ocne told me that if you weren't a subscriber
they wouldn't put out your fire unless yousigned an agreement
while the fire was burning, but surely that can't be right.
http://www.rmfire.com/Services/fireEms.asp
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Thomas Prufer
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> To an extent, but the point is the cost of maintaining the road system
>-- which would be needed even if you somehow magically got rid of all
>private passenger vehicles, due to commercial needs (yes, even to
>individual houses, if you want to keep things like the U.S. Mail, FedEx,
>UPS, fire service access, etc.). As others have emphasized, the majority
>of the wear and tear is from trucks, not passenger cars.
But the majority of the congestion is by passenger cars, the rush hour and
commuter stuff, and that bogs down the commercial traffic as well. And, in lots
of places, the answer to congestion is to build more lanes, though this often
means that the bottle neck is just moved upstream, or that traffic reroutes to
the newly-widened roads until they are just as unattractive as the other routes.
>Which means,
>continuing the thread of thought, that complaining about the cost of
>maintaining the roads only makes sense if you want to get rid of TRUCKS
>-- the commercial vehicles. So either you (in the generic "someone
>arguing against the cost" you) can do completely without the goods and
>services from commercial vehicle transportation, or you have a practical
>and affordable alternative.
Or, a bit less black-and-white, to say that the cost of maintaining roads should
be carried directly by those that cause it, in the proportion they cause it.
This would make the cost of freight go up, sure, but it would mean less money
need indirectly go to pay for road maintenance.
In effect the cost would be on the table, clear to see, rather than indirectly
borne. Neither way is inherently better, but there's a good case to be made for
that, particularly as the cost of maintaining a road can be easily related to
axle load, while relating the common good to the education of children is not
something quantifiable with any hope of consensus.
Thomas Prufer
Joy Beeson
Francis) wrote:
> A simple point; car tyres (or tires) are inflated to maybe 30-40psi;
> trucks two or three times that. Inflation pressure is pretty close
> to what the load per square inch on the road is. So trucks put at
> least two or three times the load onto the road per square inch, over
> many, many more square inches.
And road-bike tires start at 90 pounds and go up from there. When we
had the driveway paved, the contractor was most emphatic about keeping
my bicycle off it until it had had time to set.
I've seen asphalt roads where I *left tracks*. Since it was a very
hot day and I was riding uphill, I was not at all happy about that.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Keith F. Lynch
> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that citing where specific
> people benefit is one way to demonstrate that there is general
> benefit, especially if the method of benefit is either generic or
> nigh-universal.
Even if everyone gets *some* benefit, that doesn't mean that the total
benefit exceeds the total cost. The way to ensure that is to have the
user pay. If road users were to pay the full cost of their road usage
directly, that will cause trucked products to become more expensive as
truckers pass on their extra costs to their customers. In the unlikely
event that the current amount of trucking is optimal, people will break
even, as taxes go down by the same amount as trucked goods increase in
price. More likely, it will cause the amount of trucking to go down
and more efficient modes of transportation (trains, ships) or more
local production to go up. Then the benefits will exceed the costs.
Yes, I'm aware that stores are not typically directly on rail lines or
docks. Trucks would still be used for the last few miles, but perhaps
not for thousands of miles.
Also, as Internet shipping from large warehouses increases, warehouses
can be relocated to be directly on rail lines or next to docks, if
that means a net savings for consumers.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
>> How about making the truck operators pay more of the cost of
>> keeping the roads usable, then?
> This would make sense if you wanted to do away with everything
> but trucks.
> However, given that everything that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE ROAD
> eats, wears, plays with, etc., -- and DRIVES -- is almost certainly
> delivered on or using a truck, that's not a wise or practical thing
> to do.
The question isn't whether trucks should be abolished, but whether
it makes more financial sense for them to carry things thousands of
miles, or only the last few miles from the nearest railhead or dock.
If everyone was required to pay large amounts of money to build
and maintain vast networks of canals, which ships could then use
inexpensively, most goods would delivered by ships on canals, and
you'd probably be arguing that we should all keep paying since we
all benefit -- even though this system would probably be even more
expensive and inefficient than the current system.
> If the truck drivers/companies, and ONLY the truck drivers/companies
> paid for the roads, there would be no roads.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that. Trucks may cause much more
road wear than cars, but the reason why roads are as *wide* as they
are is because of cars, not trucks. Also, car congestion often causes
trucks to go slower than the speed limit, thus imposing costs on
truckers. So car drivers should also pay.
People who don't directly use roads at all shouldn't directly pay
at all. They indirectly pay when buying goods that were carried by
truck, of course.
Walter Bushell
David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
> In alt.folklore.urban Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
> :On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:39:34 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
> :<dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> :>In alt.folklore.urban Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> :>:Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> :>:> What *have* you been smoking? I spend much of my time arguing
> :>:> *against* conspiracy theories. What cosnpiracy theories do you
> :>:> think I believe in?
> :>
> :>:What do you call your belief that all non-car users are forced to
> :>:subsidize the infrastructure for car users without getting any benefit
> :>:from it?
> :>
> :>It's quite the case that non-drivers subsidize car users.
>
> :How? Be specific.
>
> Are you under the impression that taxes levied on gasoline and the
> sale of automobiles come anywhere near covering the money spent on
> building and maintaining roads? It's not even the case that gasoline
> taxes pay the federal share of road building. There are routine
> transfers of general funds money ("income tax" mostly, eh?) into the
> supposedly self-financing highway fund. How states, counties and
> cities chose to fund their road building varies, but I'm unaware of
> anywhere that's actually self supporting. That's just road building
> and repair. It doesn't cover snow plowing and such like.
>
> Nor does it include costs of environmental degredation, which are
> borne by everyone. Whether the benefits to non car users outweigh
> their share of te cost is a political question.
And the cost of wars to secure sources of oil.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Richard Casady
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>If everyone was required to pay large amounts of money to build
>and maintain vast networks of canals
Amsterdam
Casady
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> If everyone was required to pay large amounts of money to build and
>> maintain vast networks of canals
> Amsterdam
Not Venice? Anyhow, I was thinking of a *vast* network. Say, one
covering the whole of the US. Yes, it would need lots of locks
because of the variation in altitude. And in some areas, the water
itself would be scarce and expensive. But anyone who criticized
this trillion-dollar boondoggle would be told that without it, goods
wouldn't get to us and everyone would starve and freeze naked outdoors
in the dark. So everyone should be forced to pay for it.
And anyone who attempted to start a more rational transportation
system would have to pay its full cost, rather than having it paid for
by taxpayers, ensuring that they couldn't compete.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Even if everyone gets *some* benefit, that doesn't mean that the total
>benefit exceeds the total cost. The way to ensure that is to have the
>user pay. If road users were to pay the full cost of their road usage
>directly, that will cause trucked products to become more expensive as
>truckers pass on their extra costs to their customers.
I'd love to see how you propose to fairly divide up the specific
costs for the wide variety of vehicles using the roads.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> erilar wrote:
>>> How about making the truck operators pay more of the cost of
>>> keeping the roads usable, then?
>
>> This would make sense if you wanted to do away with everything
>> but trucks.
>
>> However, given that everything that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE ROAD
>> eats, wears, plays with, etc., -- and DRIVES -- is almost certainly
>> delivered on or using a truck, that's not a wise or practical thing
>> to do.
>
>The question isn't whether trucks should be abolished, but whether
>it makes more financial sense for them to carry things thousands of
>miles, or only the last few miles from the nearest railhead or dock.
It's a fair point but, generally, every time you have to tranfer
cargo from one mode of tranport to another it adds to the cost.
It's a snap with containers of course, but then you have to keep
track of the containers. A lot of empty containers have to be
sent back.
>If everyone was required to pay large amounts of money to build
>and maintain vast networks of canals, which ships could then use
>inexpensively, most goods would delivered by ships on canals, and
>you'd probably be arguing that we should all keep paying since we
>all benefit -- even though this system would probably be even more
>expensive and inefficient than the current system.
The US did have an extensive system of canals in the 19th
century. See, e.g.,
http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~lstevens/canal/canalmap.html The
railroads operated cheaply enough to drive them out of business.
Also the railroads could get to and from places that the canals
couldn't. Canals large enough to carry large ocean going ships
are another matter.
The railroads have trouble competing with trucking for freight,
trucking being generally less expensive and far more versatile.
Where once the railroads carried a great deal of freight of all
kinds, nowadays it seems to be mostly containers directly
offloaded from ships (which will be transferred to trucks near
the ultimate destination), bulk cargos like coal or ore where the
destination usually has a spur for direct delivery, and
automobiles in those enclosed car carriers. It's been a long time
since I've seen an actual boxcar on the transcontinental railroad
that passes through Tucson.
>> If the truck drivers/companies, and ONLY the truck drivers/companies
>> paid for the roads, there would be no roads.
>
>I don't think anyone's suggesting that. Trucks may cause much more
>road wear than cars, but the reason why roads are as *wide* as they
>are is because of cars, not trucks. Also, car congestion often causes
>trucks to go slower than the speed limit, thus imposing costs on
>truckers. So car drivers should also pay.
>
>People who don't directly use roads at all shouldn't directly pay
>at all. They indirectly pay when buying goods that were carried by
>truck, of course.
Don't forget that the trade carried by trucks also leads to
greater employment. In these times that's not to be sneered at,
but it would be very hard to figure out teh benefit to the
consumer. More employment meands more local taxes, more housing
paying the taxes that support schools....
Trucks carry many goods that the consumer never sees, such as
machine tools for manufacturing, ingredients for food plants,
usw. It would be very difficult to apportion these costs and the
benefits that they bring.
Mac
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:09:51 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >Even if everyone gets *some* benefit, that doesn't mean that the total
> >benefit exceeds the total cost. The way to ensure that is to have the
> >user pay. If road users were to pay the full cost of their road usage
> >directly, that will cause trucked products to become more expensive as
> >truckers pass on their extra costs to their customers.
>
> I'd love to see how you propose to fairly divide up the specific
> costs for the wide variety of vehicles using the roads.
Weight, axle weight, and HP would give a short, quick and dirty
approximation, and since the actually allocated costs probably rise
with the fourth power, it'd be pretty straight forward to simply allow
people and businesses using vehicles smaller than a certain point to
apply for rebate, or to have untaxed sources of fuel. I don't
actually see this a difficult to structure. The politics of it is
another kettle of fish.
Anthony "Make mine fish chowder" McCafferty
Keith F. Lynch
> Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I'd love to see how you propose to fairly divide up the specific
>> costs for the wide variety of vehicles using the roads.
> Weight, axle weight, and HP would give a short, quick and dirty
> approximation, and since the actually allocated costs probably rise
> with the fourth power, it'd be pretty straight forward to simply
> allow people and businesses using vehicles smaller than a certain
> point to apply for rebate, or to have untaxed sources of fuel.
That counts the road-damage cost of vehicles, but not the congestion
cost. Or the need for more and wider roads to handle all the traffic,
most of which is cars, not trucks. Or the risks they impose on
pedestrians and cyclists. Or the negative effects of global warming,
if that turns out to be real.
David Scheidt
:<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Well, certain classes of freight. If trucks paid their share of
highway taxes (which would put diesel fuel at something like 60 bucks
a gallon) rail would whoop the pants of nearly all long haul trucking.
It tells you something about the ineffeciency of long-haul trucking
that even with the billions in subsidies they get every year, there
are all sorts of markets they can't compete in.
--
sig 36
Hatunen
It wouldn't be difficult to structure but you're already letting
small vehicles off the hook. I'm not so clear on how that's
FAIRLY divided.
How about roads that ban trucks?
Hatunen
Did you snip the part just after where I said...
"Where once the railroads carried a great deal of freight of all
kinds, nowadays it seems to be mostly containers directly
offloaded from ships (which will be transferred to trucks near
the ultimate destination), bulk cargos like coal or ore where the
destination usually has a spur for direct delivery, and
automobiles in those enclosed car carriers. It's been a long time
since I've seen an actual boxcar on the transcontinental railroad
that passes through Tucson.
...just so you could make it look like I didn't know that?
David Scheidt
:<dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
:>In alt.folklore.urban Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
:>:The railroads have trouble competing with trucking for freight,
:>
:>Well, certain classes of freight. If trucks paid their share of
:>highway taxes (which would put diesel fuel at something like 60 bucks
:>a gallon) rail would whoop the pants of nearly all long haul trucking.
:Did you snip the part just after where I said...
:"Where once the railroads carried a great deal of freight of all
:kinds, nowadays it seems to be mostly containers directly
:offloaded from ships (which will be transferred to trucks near
:the ultimate destination), bulk cargos like coal or ore where the
:destination usually has a spur for direct delivery, and
:automobiles in those enclosed car carriers. It's been a long time
:since I've seen an actual boxcar on the transcontinental railroad
:that passes through Tucson.
:...just so you could make it look like I didn't know that?
And you put it back, so you could avoid my point?
Oh, boxcars aren't much used because they're harder to load and
unload, and there are specialized cars for most things, not just bulk
cargos, but nearly everything that moves in carloads. And intermodal
containers work just as well on trains as on ships or trucks.
--
sig 35
R H Draney
"Our trains can move a ton of freight 436 miles on one gallon of fuel"
-- recent radio campaign by CSX
R H "they couldn't say it if it weren't true" Draney
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?