Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal The idea that trucking only pays "one-third to one-half the costs" of their *actual* road damage is a fallacy. It makes no sense to include city streets, country roads, commuter lanes, bike paths, etc. in determining an actual allocation of the costs imposed by trucks on cross country highways. If we limit said highways to only those actually used for interstate transportation, then truckers do pay their fair share of road costs. That's only logical when we are trying to compare truckers' ROW costs vs railroad ROW costs. We shouldn't even count short haul trucker's road damage, because there is no railroad equivelent of a local distribution network. The railroads are totally dependent on trucks to get the goods from the point of origin and/or to the final destination, for all but maybe coal. If it was cheaper for trucks to haul over the highway rather than by TOFC, there would be no such thing as TOFC. The only times trucks go over the road is because there is no TOFC service being offered for that particular point to point haul. Since TOFC exists, it must mean that the costs truckers pay to use highways are higher than the costs to use the railroad. Assuming the railroads are charging a rate that covers their variable costs, an allocation of fixed costs, and some level of profit (which is debatable), then even the one true inequity between truckers and railroads (e.g. the fact that railroads pay property taxes on the ROW) does not amount to all that much comparitively. Could it be that (from a purely interstate highway perspective) truckers are actually paying more than their fair share of highway costs? [/quote] Why would you not include city streets or country roads? That makes no sense, even more so when you consider that often times these routes are the only access points to many industries for OTR trucks. To factor in just the interstate highways would be doing nothing but turn the trucking industry into the railroad industry. Since OTR trucks have access to most any road, on a local delivery basis, they have the most open access of any transportation mode available. The problem is, it doesn't make much sense to put one or two drivers in front of one container, when you could put two in front of a hundred. That is unless the two that are in front of a hundred aren't going anywhere soon. Another problem facing the trucking industry is just plain finding drivers to drive the trucks. If a driver isn't going to make money without half killing themselves, killing someone else, or running the risk of fines, they just won't do it. With the new government regulations affecting the on and off duty hours, a driver would have to break the law to make what they did in the past, it would seem to me. Also, how much fuel would it cost a trucking company to haul 100 containers as opposed to a railroad hauling the same thing over a given distance?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag