one problem with an otherwise good idea. everything we consume is brought to the market in a truck, raise the tax on the eighteen wheelers and we will pay higher costs on those goods thus negating our savings.
A good point except for the fact that I am already way ahead of him!
I would ban trucks from being able to cross more than one state line in a 48 hour period. This would force the overwhelming majority of shipping that is done by truck to be moved to the railroad.
I am sure that this would not make the truck drivers and their unions happy but I don’t care. There is no reason, other than to provide truck drivers with jobs, for the amount of shipping that is done on our roadways as opposed to the rail network.
Here are some facts about rail shipping:
• Railroads are three times more fuel-efficient than trucks. If just 10 percent of the freight moved by highway were diverted to rail, the nation could save as much as 200 million gallons of fuel each year.
• Railroad fuel efficiency has increased by 72 percent since 1980.
• The EPA estimates that for every ton-mile, a typical truck emits roughly three times more nitrogen oxides and particulates than a locomotive.
• According to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, if ten percent of intercity freight now moving by highway were shifted to rail, 2.5 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted into the air annually.
Moving freight from the roads to rails for long distance shipping is not just cheaper and more efficient. It would also make our roadways much safer by removing the need for the majority of the oversized vehicles that currently clog our highway and interstate system.
Trucks would still be necessary to transports goods from the rail hub to the final destination.
On July 15, the day after Bastille Day, Parisians will wake up to discover thousands of low-cost rental bikes at hundreds of high-tech bicycle stations scattered throughout the city, an ambitious program to cut traffic, reduce pollution, improve parking and enhance the city’s image as a greener, quieter, more relaxed place.
We have tried this around the Twin Cities but I don’t think we have the urban density that would make a program like this successful here.
This issue has less to do with the safety of the airplane and more to do with the integrity of the ground based mobile phone networks.
Do you know how many people forget to turn their phones off on airplanes every day? And how many problems are there? Zero.
It’s the mobie carriers inability to accurately charge for those calls made by air (if you are even lucky to connect in the first place) that is the real issue.
Last week’s spirited discussion got me thinking of some specific things that I would do to change how we generate and burn energy is this country. I will detail some of these ideas over the course of the coming week.
One of the ideas ideas that I have pondered over the last few years has been to revamp the gasoline tax. Instead of assessing a tax based on a percentage of the amount of gasoline that the consumer purchases, I would instead assess the tax based upon the weight of the vehicle as well as the gas mileage that the vehicle gets.
The principal use of gas tax funds (at least it should be) is for the construction and maintenance of roadways. It only makes sense to charge a higher tax rate to heavier vehicles that cause more wear and tear on the roads.
Charging a tax based upon the fuel efficiency of the vehicle allows individuals to have the freedom to drive whatever vehicle they desire but also provides a de facto subsidy to more fuel efficient vehicles. The overall net effect would be an increased demand in the market place for more efficient vehicles. A higher quantity of more efficient vehicles on the road would result in less fossil fuel demand in the United States allowing this country to reduce our dependence on chronic world trouble spots like the Middle East and South America.
Ultimately, my goal would not be to change the overall amount of gasoline tax that is raised, but instead to shift the burden of this tax onto those consumer who insist on driving the heaviest and least efficient vehicles.
I would exempt municipal vehicles used for road maintenance/repair and mass transit from this tax.
I figured that the race was going to come down to a mass sprint as opposed to a break away. Odds were with that outcome.
Then I looked at the pure sprinters and decided who had the best chance.
Erik Zabel: Former winner, may be past his prime. Not to say he could not have pulled it off, he almost won the worlds last year after all. But I was looking for better odds than that.
Robbie McEwen: I almost picked him to win over Freire but I recalled the win that Freire took over McEwen in the Tour last year. Freire knows that he can beat McEwen in a drag race and I thought it could give him an edge.
Tom Boonen: Strong team could have set him up for the win. But I knew that he was having some health problems this spring.
Alessandro Petacchi: I was not convinced he would be 100% for MSR due to the effects of his serious knee injury from last year.
So I had to pick somebody, I went with Freire. I doubt I’ll be that lucky to pick the winner of Flanders but I will give it a shot. I’ll run a pool for Paris-Roubaix this year so get ready to win all those prizes that I never delivered from my Tour pool of last year.
UPDATE 3:13pm - Video no longer available. Stupid Viacom.
You have to act fast if you want to watch Daily Show clips as You Tube takes them down almost as soon as they are posted since they are being sued by Viacom. You can watch it here (Viacom vs. YouTube).
The 297km (184 miles) race, known to the Italian fans as ‘La Primavera’, starts in the industrial city of Milan, proceeds directly south to the Mediterranean coast city of Voltri, and then follows along the shore to the city of San Remo. With the exception of the Passo del Turchino, a 20km climb that reaches a height of 532 meters above sea level, the race is mostly a parade until the peloton reaches Voltri with 142km left in the race.
It’s at that point that the television broadcast begins and the speed of the race increases dramatically. If the peloton is not already together at this point the increase in speed means that any breakaway riders are soon caught. It then becomes a drag race as the peloton screams along the Mediterranean coastal roads at speeds above 30mph. There are five climbs towards the back end of the race, but only two of these climbs are severe enough to affect the outcome of the race: the Cipressa and then the twisting, hairpin climb of the Poggio where any riders off the front will throw caution to the wind and drop like stones down to the flat run in to the finish along the Via Roma.
Bunch sprints are not uncommon in Milan-San Remo. Historically any individual or group of riders hoping to stay clear of the hard charging peloton will need to have at least 8 seconds gap in front of the peloton at the summit of the Poggio in order to stay clear to the finish. Sometimes even that is not enough. Italian Moreno Argentin was taught this lesson by Irishman Sean Kelly when Kelly used a kamikaze descent of the Poggio to catch Argentin and then beat him at the finish line in the 1992 race.
The 2007 Milan-San Remo takes place tomorrow. I am picking Rabobank rider Oscar Freire for the win.
This is a personal web site and does not represent the views or policies of my employer. If you come across an item that you happen to find offensive then you have not been reading long enough because there are lots of things that are offensive on this site. Sorry…
