Re: adding tolls to existing interstates

On Nov 23, 4:44 pm, "Luxury Yacht" <Throatwarb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"pigsty1...@xxxxxxxxx" <rshe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:40ff3164-71b6-4005-b725-3122e9aeb19b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Nov 23, 3:24 pm, "Luxury Yacht" <Throatwarb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"pigsty1...@xxxxxxxxx" <rshe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:448ce059-e435-4c6b-88e2-bed330713ae9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If we are going to have a fitting transportation system for the 21st
c
the transportation taxes that companies like W-M pay on its trucks
have to become realistic.

But what are the trucking liens going to do with those icnreased
frieght
rates? They aren't going to absorb them. Where is that money going
to
come
from?

Did I say anything about that? Oil is headed up over $100 a barrel,
who absorbs that? Like everything else, guess who? The consumer.

But who absorbs a very inefficient and crumbling transportation
system, that is only going to get worse.

Take a look at any STIP and see the huge number of unfunded projects.
And please don't say anything about diversions from gas tax funding.
That is the function of the elected legislature.

Short airline hops 300-500 miles are just too expensive in terms of
the national air traffic system. There are way too many planes in
the
air and the air traffic control system is falling apart. Those hops
take up valuable takeoff and landing space at crowded airports.

We are going to have to develop a viable passenger rail system that
can replace those 300-500 mile hops at a much cheaper cost. It does
not have to be the sort of high speed rail in Japan or Europe.

Conventional pssgr rail equipment using improved trackage and signal
systems could easily do 80-100 mph. They should be express trains
with inter city busses supplanting it in intermediate stops.

Yes it will have to be subsidized but most of the legacy airlines
would be long gone were it not for billions in federal bailouts.

And what does the current broken down air traffic control system
cost?

Like I said I'd have to study your idea of replacing planes with
trains
idea. As for comparing the US with Europe and Japan remember that the
US
has for miles to cover. Look at how many airline flights run between
Paris
and Berlin or Tokyo and Osaka. Those are shorter hops than 500 miles.
Now
I'll grant you there's more people in those cities than say Midland to
Dallas or Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. But to a certain extent you're
comparing apples and oranges.

--

I don't think so. I think if you compare the sheer numbers of short
hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan.
Furthermore they have an extensive rail system that in many instances
precludes flying.

Take a look at the size of the land mass of the US versus Europe or Japan
and you'll have your answer

I know what the distances are in the US. I said 300-500 miles, not
even 500-1000 miles. The bulk of the flights that are clogging up the
US air traffic control system, and clogging up airports are from
300-500 miles that should be eliminated and replaced with a viable
passenger rail system.

So you believe that rail is viable , but small aircraft aren't?
Obviously
the DOT disagrees with you.

That is nice. The FAA is just so well managed that I am surprised
that nothing ever goes wrong with the aviation system at any time.

I guess huge delays due to a collapsing air traffic control system
just are bad luck, nothing else.

And there is no problem with too many planes in too small an air
space.

And that collapsing air traffic system is a symptom of the same problem as
the collapsing highway system. The government has too many things to spend
money on and not enough money is reaching them.







http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role_files/smallcommunity.htm

And since have a lot more sources of information and more panels of
experts
that you do how is it you feel your position is more informed than teirs?

Uhh, huh. Panels of experts, and you believe everything they say.
Not with standing they want to sell someone something. Billions of
ATC equipment, or aircraft. Critical thinking now comes into play.

Contrary to what you may think not everyone has an agenda that is driven by
pet projects and keeping their ox from getting gored. The airlines would
probably be happier if they never had to buy another piece of equipment, and
could get their flights to run on time and not pay penalties for late
arrivals. They want to make money, not pay fines.



So we should continue to pay billions for a disaster that is the air
traffic control system. How are flights supposed supposed to take off
on time when the airlines sched them for hundreds of take offs at the
same time. The airlines do the scheds, you know that don't you.

With fuel costs, they will NEVER make money.

I think the only two that make money are Southwest and Jet Blue. All
of the others are losers. I just heard Delta and United are talking
merger to try to save them both.



Let the airlines do what they do best, long

haul flights.

What are you basing that assessment on?

It is better to have hundreds and hundreds of small planes clogging up
airports like EWR, LAG, JFK, ATL, ORD, and so on. And we will never
ever have bad weather again. The experts at USDOT and the FAA have
decreed it.

There will never be a need to fly a 747 into a middle sized market like a
Sacramento or a Buffalo. Economically and passenger load wise it doesn't
make sense. But those cities deserve serice, just the same. There is enough
demand to maintain a viable commercial service.

If that is true why is US Air and the rest of them losing billions,
have to be propped up by the govt? Even with small planes? Or do you
believe that air service to these places should be subsidised?


And where did this about 747 service come from?



So then the logical
conclusion to your comment would be that we need to build MORE airports in
NYC and Los Angeles so that people in the smaller markets can get to a major
facility and then transfer to the marports like EWR or JFK or LAX. Then
you'd have to build the structure to be able to transfer the passengers.
Where is the money supposed to come from to build all that?


Nope, cut the number of flights and start with a viable subsidised
rail system that does not require billions for air traffic control, is
pretty much immune to weather, and let the airlines fly sched that go
thousands of miles in large planes, not hundreds of miles in hundreds
of small planes that clog up airspace.

And lets not forget the idiocy and huge expense of the TSA.

The big jetliners are designed for super efficient long haul service.
That is where the airlines excel, not short hops that should be
operated by rail that can move hundreds of people very efficiently.





And you failed to answer what you base your 'airlines do long runs best'
comment on. Congestion at airports is not from the length of the flights.
Rather it's a problem with the number of planes. And since airports are run
by government agencies rather than the airlines there's no correlation how
well and airline handles a flight and the flight's length.


The number of planes, that is what has to be reduced and the sooner
the better. The govt agencies do not determine the scheds.









But I am nothing, and they are experts. My first question always is
what are you trying to sell. Second question is who is paying you.

Just because someone has a different perspective than you doesn't mean
they're trying to sell anything. Differences of opinion are not allowed?


These experts are being paid by someone, they are shills, it is NOT a
difference of opinion.





Randy

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: adding tolls to existing interstates
    ... Those are shorter hops than 500 miles. ... hop flights in the US it is much higher then Europe or Japan. ... and clogging up airports are from ... Let the airlines do what they do best, ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • For mileage programs, the worst is yet to come
    ... There has been plenty of bad news for members of the airlines' mileage ... Australian carrier Qantas will cut flights by 5 percent. ... translate into a 10 percent reduction in award seats. ... Meanwhile, on the demand side of the equation, the trillions of miles ...
    (rec.travel.air)
  • Re: OT: American gun nuts score a classic own goal
    ... US airlines take 7 out of the first 10 safest rankings. ... out of 21 North American Airlines have never had fatal accidents. ... You said "Many millions more miles travelled is why." ... is based on FLIGHTS not MILES. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: American gun nuts score a classic own goal
    ... US airlines take 7 out of the first 10 safest rankings. ... FIFTEEN out of 24 European airlines have never had fatal accidents. ... You said "Many millions more miles travelled is why." ... is based on FLIGHTS not MILES. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: GA NOT TO BLAME FOR DELAYS
    ... Small Jets, More Trips ... FAA Likes Bigger Craft ... Over the next hour, 41 flights were ... you might think that airlines would use big ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)