> "allan tracy" hotmail.com> wrote
>
>

>> No it won't, because between me and the HGV industry are the bakers
>> and forcing them to pay more for their transport costs would at least
>> cause them to take stock of their transport needs and decide if there
>> might be cheaper ways to do their business.

>
> Don't you think they have already looked at the most efficient way to
> distribute their product? Surely even the most avid gricer can see that rail
> is not a suitable means to distribute a highly perishable product such as
> bread?
>

>> For example, one of things that came out of the Mathews Turkey bird
>> flu scare, last year, was the crazy situation where turkeys were being
>> shipped out half way to Asia by road for processing then shipped back
>> all the way again for the supermarket.

>
> ...

> They perhaps would not be costlier and less efficient if trucks paid the
> full cost of road upkeep.

> "John Wright" pegasus.f2s.com> wrote
>

>> They perhaps would not be costlier and less efficient if trucks paid the
>> full cost of road upkeep.

>
>
>
> Trucks don't pay *anything* towards to costs of road upkeep. Consumers do.

> WorstGreatWestern wrote:

>> On 15 Dec, 22:57, "Knight Of The Road" hotmail.com>
>> wrote:

>>> "Tim Woodall" wrote
>>>

>>>>>>

>>>

>>>>> The cost of which would be passed on to you.

>>>> ... in reduced taxes due to not having to subsidise the
>>>> construction and maintenance of roads for the trucking industry
>>>> any more.

>>> But then transport would cost more, and this would be passed on to
>>> the consumer, so where's the gain?
>>>

>> transport should cost more......and it will.....

>
> And you will pay for it, so where is the gain?

> John Wright wrote:

>> Knight Of The Road wrote:

>>> "allan tracy" hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>

>>>> No it won't, because between me and the HGV industry are the bakers
>>>> and forcing them to pay more for their transport costs would at least
>>>> cause them to take stock of their transport needs and decide if there
>>>> might be cheaper ways to do their business.

>>>
>>> Don't you think they have already looked at the most efficient way to
>>> distribute their product? Surely even the most avid gricer can see
>>> that rail is not a suitable means to distribute a highly perishable
>>> product such as bread?
>>>

>>>> For example, one of things that came out of the Mathews Turkey bird
>>>> flu scare, last year, was the crazy situation where turkeys were being
>>>> shipped out half way to Asia by road for processing then shipped back
>>>> all the way again for the supermarket. ...

>
>
> "Tim Woodall" wrote
>

>> So yes, maybe we should increase the tax on fuel for HGVs and abolish it
>> for small cars and motorbikes so that the tax take stays the same
>> because, for all intents and purposes, all the cost of building and
>> maintaining the trunk roads is incurred due to supporting HGVs.

>
>
>
>
> But then you would just have to pay more for everything you bought. So
> where's the gain?
>

>>> It's impossible to know whether trucking is really the best way of
>>> shifting things around anyway.

>>
>> If there were a better one, it would be in use.
>>

> No, companies (and people) will chose the option with the cheapest
> marginal cost, not the option with the cheapest cost.

>> Because rail and water can meet "Just In Time" deliveries at 6 hours
>> notice can't they?
>>

>
> Doesn't matter.

>>> Gosh, I never realised that Tesco's were the benchmark for the whole
>>> of UK industry.
>>>

>> They are.

>
> By what criteria?

>

>> How do you think they make the profits they do?

>
> By selling goods.
>

>
> Ban lorries and a few cans of white paint and kerching, 33%% increase in
> motorway capacity.

> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:19:53 -0000, "Brimstone"
> yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>

>>>> Ban lorries and a few cans of white paint and kerching, 33%%
>>>> increase in motorway capacity.

>

>>> But how would the petrol for your car get to the petrol station?

>

>> Pipeline?

>
> How much do you believe it would cost to install such a huge
> infrastructure?