Sign On
Create Account

Last

TypeCreatedCategoryCreatorSortVotesHidesRating
single20-Feb-1998opinionmilktree unsorted581149.1%

Advanced_Stats

How much more would you pay for things from far away if you knew that they were shipped by train? Assume that encouraging trains as means of shipment instead of trucks will reduce costs and pollution in the long run.




VotesAnswer
120% I don't care either way.
30% I think the shippers should figure it out on their own.
130% but if the price was the same, I'd pick the one shipped by train.
21%
33%
65%
1110%
025%
050%
0any cost

UserComment
seth
posted 20-Feb-1998 8:18pm  
If it reduces costs, it will be cheaper and won't require any subsidation on my part, but I'd pay for decreased pollution.
Dolemite
posted 20-Feb-1998 10:41pm  
Frankly, my dear...
Jimmy
posted 22-Feb-1998 2:27am  
Good idea, but I'm a college student. Saving money is more than just a pasttime.
zoomie
posted 22-Feb-1998 10:46am  
I chose 1% but of course, here where I live, lots of truck trailers are already shipped by train for long distances, then unloaded, picked up by trucks and distributed in short hauls.
weth
posted 22-Feb-1998 3:17pm  
And how is the consumer to tell the mode of transport for their products?
Dahlia
posted 22-Feb-1998 4:08pm  
I'd agree to about a 10% hike in price, for the time being. But if prices didn't start going down to the equivalent of sending it by truck... then I would switch back to truck. (mind you, since a train can fit so much more stuff on it.. I would think it would be cheaper from the start)
jefff
posted 22-Feb-1998 4:12pm  
If it reduced costs, why would I have to pay more? What are the hidden assumptions in this question?
Timmi
posted 23-Feb-1998 12:44pm  
It depends greatly on the ultimate final cost of the product. I'd be will to pay 10-25% more for, say, oranges but much less for, say, a new car.
loche
posted 24-Feb-1998 9:21am  
Love trains!
wiggsj
posted 24-Feb-1998 6:12pm  
I would encourage train shipping if indeed it did reduce costs and pollution, and if the costs were reduced, I would not need to pay more. However, it does put people out of work....
milktree
posted 25-Feb-1998 12:07pm  
The idea is that by paying more now for goods that were certified "shipped by train" we could vote with our dollars to encourage shipping companies to change their habits and go with a more efficient and cleaner transport method. Many pollution reducing advancements save money, but are resisted by the industries until they are forced or until there are financial incentives. I'd like to encourage enlightened self interest.
jennj
posted 1-Mar-1998 12:25pm  
The environment doesn't matter - in fact, I encourage the destruction of the Earth. It's the only impetus we have for the continuation of the space program - lets get the hell off of this planet!
bill Survey Central Gold Subscriber Double Gold Star Survey Creator This user is on the site NOW (5 minutes ago)
posted 2-Mar-1998 6:05pm  
...yeah, so we can spread like a virus to the next planet and destroy that one too.
elijahblue
posted 2-Mar-1998 7:59pm  
It still doesn't make sense to me that we are being asked to pay more if trains reduce cost. To reduce pollution significantly, I'd be willing to pay 10% more. Atzilut: why? I can understand not wanting to save the four-eared bandersnatch or whatever, but we are steadily progressing toward a world which is unlivable for humans, and already many deaths are caused by pollution. Do you dispute this or do you just not see it getting that bad in your lifetime, and fudge future generations?
booker
posted 3-Mar-1998 1:52am  
I really don't want to pay more, sorry
Atzilut
posted 5-Mar-1998 2:22pm  
the "environmental" ""argument"" doesn't fly with me.
joe
posted 19-Mar-1998 7:45pm  
don't forget there are MANY other things you can do to improve the ecology of the world besides using more trains
lisashea
posted 12-May-1998 2:13pm  
I try to support environmentally-minded ventures, even if it costs me some. I consider that a "donation". I recycle even if it costs me money to do so, etc. It's sort of like "start-up funding".
daver
posted 14-May-1998 8:07pm  
Option two. What exactly do you mean by reduce costs? To the shipper? to me?
This is one of the few situations where I feel government meddling is warranted. If a particular transportation type is more polluting than another, then I feel that said type should pay for the pollution, internalizing the cost of the pollution (fuel taxes are probably best). The only problem is that money collected through fuel taxes will probably not be spent on transport related things (developing cleaner engines, etc.) since it's all just money to our congresscritters.
reality
posted 12-Jun-1998 7:20pm  
I wouldn't pay more, but if the shippers realized that shipping by train is cheaper, then they can make a bigger profit by shipping it that method and still charging the same price.. therefor, shipping by train would be happening already. **thank you daver.. I like that.. 'congresscritters'... hehehehhehehehehehehhehehe
phi
posted 25-Jun-1998 10:13pm  
There are so many other reasons to pick one product over another ... and anyway, there are more effective ways to encourage train shipping, such as being sure to stop your school bus every 20 feet in front of all the trucks.
Last
Advanced_Stats

If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On

 
Link this survey: http://surveycentral.org/survey/259.html

Hits: 2 today (8 in the last 30 days)