General Discussion

challenger3980:

PUT THAT %*#&*!^ CELL PHONE DOWN, hang up and DRIVE

Yes, put that binkie down! It used to be possible to live without being in constant contact with one person or another; it still is possible.

Johnny

As someone that had driven over 1 million accident free and the SON of someone that had 2 million accident free miles before we were both RETIRED due to medical conditons.  I can tell you this.  You want to make the trucks pay for their share of the highways they use.,  Fine then get ready to STARVE to death since a head of lettuce would be over 10 bucks a head bread would be 6 bucks for the cheap stuff hamburger would be around 20 bucks a lb and gas would be about 10 bucks a gallon.  Then you say let the RR's haul it all one small problem there were are they going to get their SPARE parts since they all come in via TRUCKS.  Eventually the entire logistics chain in the nation would collaspe due to people like this board that think trucks are EVIL.  They carry 60% tonaage wise and about everything to the final point of usage except maybe the coal trains. 

Remember this OTR trucking is the lifeblood of the nation and when the RR's collasped in the 60's who picked up the slack the TRUCKERS now that the burbs are mad they are there they want them gone sorry not going to happen.  As to the LCV issue upping the weight limit if done properly may be a decent idea however do not let the 6 week wonders behind the well of them.  Give the guys that have been hauling OTR for years the first chance they are not the easiest things to haul when they start to wiggle they can tip you fast.  Also remember that LCV and larger trailers will not FIT in most of the eastern cities I for one would NOT want to take a 57 footer into Boston or PHILLY at all.  Yet that is what will happen if this happens.  Best case would be go with a Tridem and 97K GVW with a restriction of a max length of trailer of 53 feet.

The open roads of mid America are not the same as commuter congested turnpikes and fourlanes of metropolitan areas.  But, yes, there are bad automobile drivers who cause accidents with law abiding trucks.  The flip side is that there are bad truck drivers who cause accidents. I have driven quite a bit in the east on two and four lane roads, and heavy truck traffic causes problems in populated areas.  The real truck problem is not because of bad driving skills but overweight trailers, fatigued drivers, lack of properly filled out logs; but thats not to say there are quite a few "cowboys" out there, too.  Ironically, an autombile driver can go 12, 15, how many hours and not be penelized? while a truck driver gets smacked over 10 or 12.  That should be made equal. I know truck drivers, railroaders, police officers and justices of the peace: the most often problem is the handful of truck drivers who are somehow skirting the laws or trying to get an extra pound or extra run for the day.   But most  truck drivers know the speed limits, the best way of conserving fuel, keep their logs, and don't let others drive them.

I will not disagree that the costs of goods would go up, whether or not it would be as much as your figures.  But all too often in the past decades I have heard truckers complaining about having to compete with the "subsidized" railroads.

I recognise the reality is that much of our transportation system, and especially for food, has become heavily weighted towards trucking and this is unlikely to change any time soon.  This shift to trucking is in part railroad management's fault, when they decided to de-market a lot of the transportation services formerly provided.  But it was not entirely their fault, since the rigid regulation imposed by the ICC no doubt made a lot of business lines uneconomic, and full crew laws meant labor costs were high.  Imagine if your state required three men in the truck, like some states used to require a 6-man crew on a freight train.  The so-called collapse of the railroads in the 60's was the result of loss of freight business to trucks, with what was left being less than the critical mass required to sustain operations, especially on branchlines.  But again, regulators forced the railroads to keep operating them at a loss.

And yes, I know the railroads do use trucks for some of their own hauling, including spare parts, and I think that is a very sad commentary on the management.  The problem is the timely need for the goods, and rather than fix the systemic problems (which would benefit all shippers) they "paper over the cracks" and use trucks themselves.

John

edbenton:

As someone that had driven over 1 million accident free and the SON of someone that had 2 million accident free miles before we were both RETIRED due to medical conditons.  I can tell you this.  You want to make the trucks pay for their share of the highways they use.,  Fine then get ready to STARVE to death since a head of lettuce would be over 10 bucks a head bread would be 6 bucks for the cheap stuff hamburger would be around 20 bucks a lb and gas would be about 10 bucks a gallon.  Then you say let the RR's haul it all one small problem there were are they going to get their SPARE parts since they all come in via TRUCKS.  Eventually the entire logistics chain in the nation would collaspe due to people like this board that think trucks are EVIL.  They carry 60% tonaage wise and about everything to the final point of usage except maybe the coal trains. 

 

Remember this OTR trucking is the lifeblood of the nation and when the RR's collasped in the 60's who picked up the slack the TRUCKERS now that the burbs are mad they are there they want them gone sorry not going to happen.  As to the LCV issue upping the weight limit if done properly may be a decent idea however do not let the 6 week wonders behind the well of them.  Give the guys that have been hauling OTR for years the first chance they are not the easiest things to haul when they start to wiggle they can tip you fast.  Also remember that LCV and larger trailers will not FIT in most of the eastern cities I for one would NOT want to take a 57 footer into Boston or PHILLY at all.  Yet that is what will happen if this happens.  Best case would be go with a Tridem and 97K GVW with a restriction of a max length of trailer of 53 feet.

Every business and every one of us is subsidized to a high degree...

Sure...trucking is subsidized too...however not unfairly. After all..we all benefit from the  fast,  flexible, and relatively cheap transportation network that  trucking provides. The "subsidy" that we truckers get  really  flows though to every shipper and every consumer. So to suggest we get an unfair helping of tax dollars because we aren't directly paying the 3000 dollars a gallon in fuel tax needed to maintain roads is just plain silly.

Society decided long ago that it wants the speed and flexibility that trucking provides. Furthermore, society wants that transportation cheaply so that every shipper can sell his or her wares to pretty much any consumer in North america at affordable prices. Whether that "societal want" is right or wrong in light of our current knowlege of renewable resources and environmental sustainability is another matter. But my point is that we truckers aren't benefitting from subsidies becuase those benefits flow through to our customers and to consumers in general (and maybe that's as it should be).

Ulrich:

Every business and every one of us is subsidized to a high degree...

Sure...trucking is subsidized too...however not unfairly. After all..we all benefit from the  fast,  flexible, and relatively cheap transportation network that  trucking provides. The "subsidy" that we truckers get  really  flows though to every shipper and every consumer. So to suggest we get an unfair helping of tax dollars because we aren't directly paying the 3000 dollars a gallon in fuel tax needed to maintain roads is just plain silly.

Society decided long ago that it wants the speed and flexibility that trucking provides. Furthermore, society wants that transportation cheaply so that every shipper can sell his or her wares to pretty much any consumer in North america at affordable prices. Whether that "societal want" is right or wrong in light of our current knowlege of renewable resources and environmental sustainability is another matter. But my point is that we truckers aren't benefitting from subsidies becuase those benefits flow through to our customers and to consumers in general (and maybe that's as it should be).

Well, I think Ulrich is a pretty sharp guy.  He usually provides good insight and perspective.  But he's way way wrong here.

"Every business and every one of us is subsidized to a high degree" is simply not possible.  Somebody has to make the money.  "Making Money" is a great term.  It litterally means creating wealth.  And without that creation we'd all be grubbing in the dirt and expiring at 28 after a miserable life spent in total ignorance.

Everybody can't get a subsidy because if they did there would be no one to create the money (wealth) needed to provide the subsidy.  I mean the dang government has to have someone to take it away from before they can give it to someone else. (It's basically legalized theft.)

Subsidies, they B generally very bad thing. 

They usually involve taking money from a weath generating enterprise and giving it to a wealth destroying operation, an operation that "looses money"; or, in other words an operation that destroys wealth.  Would you willingly keep giving your money to someone who kept on loosing it?    You'd go bankrupt.  So will we as a society if we do it to a great extent long enough.

Everybody doesn't get subsidized.  Somebody's got to bring home the bacon.

Note: There are things outside the economic realm such as religion and public safety (Church, Army, Fire protection, EMT's, Police.)  I'm not saying they shouldn't exist.  I'm talking about commerce, the necessary element that makes everything possible by creating wealth.

 As to "Society decided long ago that it wants the speed and flexibility that trucking provides. Furthermore, society wants that transportation cheaply so that every shipper can sell his or her wares to pretty much any consumer in North america at affordable prices."

Nope.

What "Society" will buy is the low cost production/distribution channel.  If trucks get subsidized that will make them the "False Low Cost' transportation component of the channel.  But if it's a false choice due to a subsidy, and often it is, then the cost to "Society" is greater than it would be absent the subsidy.  Making false subsidized choices that are actually more costly than they falsely are is another good way to go bankrupt as a nation.

The idea that every shipper can sell her/his product anywhere in North America is not realistic.  A local brewery can't distribute nationwide.  Heck Fire, they'd be shipping a product that is basically water thousands of miles.  This makes no sense. 

I could go on, but I think you all get the point. 

Ulrich, I think you're wrong here.  But generally, I think you've got a good head on your shoulders. 

Of course a small handfull of drivers are ruining it all, for everything shared.  But there will always be those. Maybe even me if I temporarily reluctantly need a job badly and they need truckers in bigger trucks (it's not something I want to do) jeroneemoooooo.... hahaha. 

But seriously society has to set a standard.  Bigger trucks in open slaces and smaller trucks in tight spaces.  How hard is that? OK if your the federal government you can't care about these differences and one size fits all.. 

Greyhounds..good observation and perhaps I'm using the term subsidized incorrectly. What I mean is that all of us, to a large degree, benefit from the input of others...and that input may be in terms of tax dollars or through some other mechanism. For example...the trucking industry is subsidized...no doubt about it. However, does that mean that those of us in the industry don't create wealth and that the industry is an overall draw on resources? I don't think so. Society via the democratic process has decided on the setup in which the industry operates because society wants the industry and that type of flexible transportation at affordable prices. When I stated that we're all subsidized I meant to point out that we all (well most of us who are employed anyway) create VALUE and wealth in one area while accepting a subsidy (direct or indirect) in another. For example, lets say you drive to and from work every day.. the roads you use are to some extent paid for by others...and your tax dollars may or mat not pay your "fair share".  Look at artists..I know of one or two who create fantastic VALUE yet can't seem to make enough money to pay their bills...so they collect welfare to survive. On the one hand they create value while on the other  they are subsidized. Overall  I believe the verdict is still out as to whether the subsidies we require outstrip the wealth that we as a socirty create. I believe that as a society we taking far more out than putting back...hence the huge and growing debt problem and dwindling resources on which to draw upon.

Ulrich:

Greyhounds..good observation and perhaps I'm using the term subsidized incorrectly. What I mean is that all of us, to a large degree, benefit from the input of others...and that input may be in terms of tax dollars or through some other mechanism. For example...the trucking industry is subsidized...no doubt about it. However, does that mean that those of us in the industry don't create wealth and that the industry is an overall draw on resources? I don't think so. Society via the democratic process has decided on the setup in which the industry operates because society wants the industry and that type of flexible transportation at affordable prices. When I stated that we're all subsidized I meant to point out that we all (well most of us who are employed anyway) create VALUE and wealth in one area while accepting a subsidy (direct or indirect) in another. For example, lets say you drive to and from work every day.. the roads you use are to some extent paid for by others...and your tax dollars may or mat not pay your "fair share".  Look at artists..I know of one or two who create fantastic VALUE yet can't seem to make enough money to pay their bills...so they collect welfare to survive. On the one hand they create value while on the other  they are subsidized. Overall  I believe the verdict is still out as to whether the subsidies we require outstrip the wealth that we as a socirty create. I believe that as a society we taking far more out than putting back...hence the huge and growing debt problem and dwindling resources on which to draw upon.

Well, I'm going to respond to this because I think it's important.  Some people throw the word "subsidy" around very loosely.  Recently a Trains editor embarrassed himself by proclaiming that the railroads have established cross subsidies amongst their customers.  They haven't.  It would be foolish for them to do so.  It's also an invitation to reregulation.  It is safe to say that he made such a dang fool statement because he doesn't have even a basic understanding of economics.  There seem to be a lot of folks in the same boat.  People seem to think "Trains are good.  And because they are 'good' it doesn't matter if they can be made to pay financially.  The government should subsidize them because they are a 'good thing'".

Subsidies are not established because a society values a good or service.  Subsidies are established because a society does not value the good or service.  If the population willingly pays for something there is no need to subsidize it.  It is only when society won't willingly pay for something that a subsidy is requested.

Then the special interests go to work.  Everybody and their dog can make a case to the dang government that they are a special case, the world will end without them, and, as such, they deserve a subsidy.  Far too often the government types will thwart the will of the people, who really don't want the dang thing enough to actually pay for it, and grant a subsidy to satisfy the special interest group.  This forces people to pay for something they don't want to pay for.

Long distance Amtrak trains are a great example.  There aren't enough people who will willingly pay enough money to support these trains.  But special interest groups such as NARP and the unions convinced the Federal government that such trains were absolutely necessary.  Now we're all forced to pay for them whether we use them or not.  A very common defense of this forced payment is that it is a very small amount per peron.  Well, for any one thing it is a small amount.  But when we subsidize a good portion on the economy, it adds up quickly and makes us all poorer.

Do we get "value" from subsidized services, such as trucking and long haul Amtrak.  Sure.

But this "value" received is less than the cost of producing the services.  That's destroying our wealth and until folks understand that they are made poorer by such subsidies we're going to continue to be in an economic mess.  Those two artist mentioned above do produce "value".  But not enough value to support themselves.  They have aparently decided that we must all be forced to support them so they can live the life they want.  In doing so they help deny the same opportunity to folks with real jobs.  Seeking a subsidy is a blatant act of selfishness.

 Subidies are generally detrimental to the economic welfare of our nation.  They destroy wealth and limit economic freedom.  Goods and services should be paid for by the people who use them.  If the users won't do that then the value produced is less than the cost of providing the good or service.  That's destroying wealth and should not be done.

I'll add my ususal disclaimer that there are things outside the economic areana that must be supported with tax dollars.  We're not going to let people starve because they don't have the ability to earn their own way, etc.

And, BTW, most of my commute to/from work is on a tollway.  One would hope that the toll authority is able to pay for itself.  i.e. Those of us actually using the tollway are paying for the tollway.  But it's an Illinois tollway, so a good part of the tolls are probably ending up in off shore bank accounts.

greyhounds:

Subsidies are not established because a society values a good or service.  Subsidies are established because a society does not value the good or service.  If the population willingly pays for something there is no need to subsidize it.  It is only when society won't willingly pay for something that a subsidy is requested.

 

But the fact that a subsidy is even considered and then established means that someone realizes that there is a value to that service.  For instance, the public doesn't respond (i.e., doesn't understnd, doen't get it explained to them) to a track being maintained into a power plant so it can recieve coal to operate.  The alternative is to build heavier local roads and run trucks day and night but they can't comprehend what that really means either.  So the solons foot the bill to maintain a railroad track so that they don't have to build and maintian the roads and so that there is a 24 hour parade of trucks through the neighborhood.  Public (society) doesn't seem to give a *** and do not put value on anything, but someone...either the railroad or the utility, in this case, even the town government...realizes the problems and that the solution is to subsidize the railraod.  This happens very often.  The public is all too often ignorant, and kept ignorant, of these matters,...well, reasons for that are another tirade not needed here...

Subsidies are established because society does value the good or service being subsidized...otherwise the subsidy would never come in to play. Society wants the flexibility of and speed that only over the road transportation can provide...and we all pay for that infrastructure. If society as a whole did NOT value this type of transportation then the message would be ..."we're not going to put money into this..if you want a truck to move your stuff then you  Mr. Shipper can pay $100.00+ per mile to move your loads". What do we as a society get for our tax dollars? Well..we do have an excellent over the road transportation system...and make no mistake about it..it isn't perfect but it is excellent. Our manaufacturers are able to ship pretty anywhere within a thousand mile radius of their plants overnight...and often at rates that are cheaper than rail. Look at some of the denser lanes..like Charleston, SC to Atlanta, GA... 550 bucks will get you a flatbed truck and door to door service in under eight hours.. sure its subsidized...but we get what we pay for.