 |
Re: Calif to impose $45/carload fee for hazardous materials? Yeah?
Author: BOB2
Date: 07-22-2016 - 16:17
So you're all okay with using your tax monies and mine to respond and clean up these incidents?
So, from most of these responses, you're all mostly okay with a "free ride" by those who's actions, accidents, or negligence may impose costs on others?
When they crash into your house you wouldn't require them to compensate for those costs and damages?
Yeah right?
At $45 per tanker, that works out to .0012 cents per gallon.....watch those prices rise in a bout of runaway inflation....what utter nonsense.
Absolutely this should also apply to all hazardous commodities based on risks they pose, carried by all modes, so as not to arbitrarily create a market distortion favoring one mode over another.
Trucks on a gallons transported, times miles, times accident rate, might even be required to pay much more for the risk they pose, since there would appear to be many more hazmat responses to truck accidents per mile gallon/mile hauled.
Taking responsibility for the costs does not cause prices to rise, since you are just paying for these "real" costs out of less teachers, firemen, or cops, or just higher taxes, when my taxes and yours pay for these costs, and give these folks a "free ride" on the rest of us.
That is, if these funds aren't used to reimburse actual costs, and are stolen for the bullet train, or otherwise misused, as has been rightly noted. "he price of liberty is eternal vigilance: and, "n a democracy, we get the government we deserve...." So if that's the problem, then maybe we should vote some of these fools out?
Meanwhile, this concept of making firms and individuals take "responsibility" for the costs they impose on others, due to their actions, accidents, negligence, could even become "all the rage", making us all much safer.
Back on earth, where I live, I doubt the California can do this legally, by way of a State imposed fee, though. This will almost certainly be challenged on its impacts to interstate commerce and Federal preemption of this kind of "rate" setting. It will be interesting to see where this ends up going and what the response will be from the hazmat and rail industry.
So, from most of these responses, you're all mostly okay with a "free ride" by those who's actions, accidents, or negligence may impose costs on others?
When they crash into your house you wouldn't require them to compensate for those costs and damages?
Yeah right?
At $45 per tanker, that works out to .0012 cents per gallon.....watch those prices rise in a bout of runaway inflation....what utter nonsense.
Absolutely this should also apply to all hazardous commodities based on risks they pose, carried by all modes, so as not to arbitrarily create a market distortion favoring one mode over another.
Trucks on a gallons transported, times miles, times accident rate, might even be required to pay much more for the risk they pose, since there would appear to be many more hazmat responses to truck accidents per mile gallon/mile hauled.
Taking responsibility for the costs does not cause prices to rise, since you are just paying for these "real" costs out of less teachers, firemen, or cops, or just higher taxes, when my taxes and yours pay for these costs, and give these folks a "free ride" on the rest of us.
That is, if these funds aren't used to reimburse actual costs, and are stolen for the bullet train, or otherwise misused, as has been rightly noted. "he price of liberty is eternal vigilance: and, "n a democracy, we get the government we deserve...." So if that's the problem, then maybe we should vote some of these fools out?
Meanwhile, this concept of making firms and individuals take "responsibility" for the costs they impose on others, due to their actions, accidents, negligence, could even become "all the rage", making us all much safer.
Back on earth, where I live, I doubt the California can do this legally, by way of a State imposed fee, though. This will almost certainly be challenged on its impacts to interstate commerce and Federal preemption of this kind of "rate" setting. It will be interesting to see where this ends up going and what the response will be from the hazmat and rail industry.
