Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH So, what's your point? I see a lot a words but nothing being said. [/quote] As opposed to saying little and still saying nothing as above?[}:)] What I am pointing out is the typical regurgitation of rail industry myths.... 1. "Trucks are the competition" 2. "Longer train consists are more efficient than shorter train consists" 3. "Trucks don't pay their fair share of highway funds" ....and refuting them.... 1. Trucks are not the competition for railroads. Outside of areas with waterways and coastal shipping opportunities, only railroads are the competition for railroads. The writer seems to think that when a trailer or container is taken off a truck and put on a railcar, the truckers are "losing" business to the railroads, when in fact the truckers are getting a net benefit by shipping their trailers and containers by rail instead of hauling them over the highways. If the truckers were losing to the railroads by utilizing TOFC and COFC, JB Hunt et al wouldn't allow a single trailer or domestic container to go by rail. Since TOFC and COFC is a win-win for both railroads and truckers, it is not a competitive arena, it is rather a cooperative arena. And I'm still waiting to here about those trucking companies bidding for coal hauling contracts out of the PRB! 2. In this the writer and NS have got it right. Longer consists are not the economic panacea *professional* railroaders have extolled for years, rather those longer consists can end up costing the railroads business. Railroads can running shorter, more frequent consists and make better money, all by using the "Information Highway" model. Look for a revival of the shorter faster consist model in the years to come. 3. Not only do trucks pay their fair share of federal highway fees, they apparently are also subsidizing the railroads with their fuel taxes and other fees, as per mention in the article regarding the federal aid for NS's upgrades. You can argue legitimately that truckers don't pay a sufficiently apportioned portion of state and local highway costs, but this is non-sequitor for the railroads vs trucks debate, mostly due to the fact that it is the elective will of state and local highway jurisdictions to use in part property taxes and/or sales taxes and/or bonding to provide those types of road funds. Railroads don't have any redress for local road usage since they don't offer those types of shorthaul services, and indeed are completely dependent on trucks to serve that "last mile" between rail terminal and consumer. If you ask me (and yes, you didn't, but I'm gonna say it anyway) railroads should also pay the same federal diesel fuel tax as the truckers do, since (a) railroads are increasingly turning to the federal government to provide aid for capacity improvements, and (b) railroad retrenchment has contributed to increased truck usage of those roads in corridors vital to the supply chain.
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