The JPost recently had an article about a successful Jerusalem businessman who runs a huge food store that sells wholesale to supermarkets and convenience stores, and still does a local retail business, with everything a bargain. This got me thinking about an analogy for the “Amtrak problem.”
Suppose a similar businessman wished to open a store on an island because the land was cheap. He expected to do a huge business, and in additon to building a bridge to the nearby prosperous town, he built a large truck unloading area with many bays, and even put in tracks and unloading platforms and provision for one railroad car-ferry to dock, even getting a second-hand GE 44-tonner to move the cars around.
Most of the people that lived in the town were happy with this new source of employment and economical food. They didn’t mind the increased truck traffice because they realized its benenfit in terms of the prosperity and economy that benefited them. But many of the townspeople DID NOT OWN CARS. The town was served by an efficient local bus system that conveniently connected at two commuter stations for frequent service to The Big City. And even those that did own cars often prefered to go to the store on foot, since the walk was short and the view from the bridge quite beautiful. That is where the trouble started.
In the interest of economy, the bridge was built with only one lane, and system of priorities with lights was provided for alternating one-way traffic. A sidewalk was also provided for the pedestrian retail shoppers. The truck drivers complained about the delays, and shortly they were joined by the wealthiest people in town who did use cars (a few chauffer-driven!) for their shopping. So the owner decided to widen the bridge for two lanes, and the only economical way was to eliminate the sidewalk for pedestrians.
Some of the townspeo
Nice story. I don’t see it as a very apt analogy myself, but that is probably just me. Part of the problem with the analogy is that you start out having many of the townspeople not owning cars and therefore not having any other means of transportation. If I understand the analogy correctly, they would be the people who take Amtrak because they need to. Or am I missing the boat?
I liked the story as well but I am at a loss to figure out what the point of it was. I liked the inclusion of a 44 tonner but somehow lost it’s connection to the rest of the story with one way traffic…I was thinking in terms of a grocery store that was subsidized on an island by all the citizens taxes although not all of them used it …it was because not everyone could afford to use the bridge to shop on the mainland, and a secondary reason was given for the subsidy in order to reduce the traffic on the bridge…for the rest who were able to use the bridge…are we talking about reversible lanes?..scheduled freights? I don’t get it…fill me in on what I missed here because I am sure you intended for thick heads like me to understand it…When I read it I kept reliving the frightening drives I used to take on the old FEC bridge to Key West…one time we were attacked by a waterspout with nowhere to go but over the side…
o.k I just came back from shopping…whilst driving pushing the grocery cart, etc I felt my brain was being turned into a human Rubic’s Cube…er…the bridge is a subsidy? The ocean is the universe? what!!?
Sounds more like the script for “The Truman Show”. Are you suggesting the Jim Carrey character is analagous to Amtrak?
Let me add a new wrinkle: Just on the other side of the bay, a large town hears about this wonderful food store. It wants in. However, the only way it can get in is to build a causeway across the bay. This large town has no problem paying for the causeway. With all the money they will save buying from the food store, the causeway is no problem. The owner of the food store and the people on the other side of the bridge say no. This causeway will spoil our bay and ruin our view of the ocean. What to do?