NAFTA, imports vs exports, and railroads

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon

This is somewhat off topic but I find it interesting that a huge majority of the goods trucked into and out of Canada are hauled on Canadian trucks. I live near the border and easily 9 out of 10 trucks I see crossing the border are Canadian . I don't understand why they dominate the cross border traffic so much. This includes goods such as produce from California. But may be things are different in the east. Where are the American truckers? T

Canada does allow higher GVW than does the US, so maybe that allows Canadian trucking firms more revenue to invest in new marketing and newer trailer concepts like the b-train. Watch those Canadian trucks and see if most combo hoppers and combo flatbeds are of the b-train design, while most American combo hoppers and flatbeds still use the pup trailer concept.

And since the Canadian dollar is still lower against the US dollar, shipping firms can pay the Canadian truckers less than their US counterparts.

[andrewjonathon]

This is somewhat off topic but I find it interesting that a huge majority of the goods trucked into and out of Canada are hauled on Canadian trucks. I live near the border and easily 9 out of 10 trucks I see crossing the border are Canadian . I don't understand why they dominate the cross border traffic so much. This includes goods such as produce from California. But may be things are different in the east. Where are the American truckers? T

[jeaton]

Well, I have personal experience with at least two of them. Both were cases where a trucker, after solicitating the business and quoting rates, either could not or would not provide the service. I put the business on the rails.

It has been over 15 years since I have had job responsibilities that required me to purchase transportation services, so maybe the "professionals" no longer have problems with truckers. If so, lucky them.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

And if you have never heard of a shipper getting PO'd at truckers and shifting his freight to rail, you really ought to get out more.

I haven't found any examples of such in any conversations I've had with transportation professionals, nor in any news items. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but the usual information sources have not provided any such documentation of truck to rail shifts based on customer dissatisfaction with truck service.

If you have any examples, I'd be interested in perusing them, even if they are based on anecdotal evidence.

[jeaton]

Fatal error. You imply that "other" modes are always more advantageous for hauling bulk commodities than trucks. I would submit that only a very small fraction of bulk truck shipments move as a result of another mode not providing service that would be profitable for that mode.

And if you have never heard of a shipper getting PO'd at truckers and shifting his freight to rail, you really ought to get out more.

[Anonymous]

Jay,

Even you would have to admit that trucks only get commodities that normally move in bulk, when the modes that are more advantageous for moving bulk either can't or won't handle such commodities. We've all heard the stories about rail shippers that get fed up with some lacking aspect of rail service, and consequently shift to trucks. I have never heard of a situation in which truck shippers get so PO'ed that they shift to rail!

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

This almost sound anti-railroading. Anybody else see the irony coming from a site called Progressive Railroading?

Don't shoot the messenger! There just relaying information from the BTS.

Oh, no; don't interpret it that way. I just find it interesting that the sight has that on there. I wouldn't think they would have something like that on there for PR reasons.

[Murphy Siding]

Lumber-lots of lumber! Lumber in trucks! Lumber in trains. Lumber-lots of lumber! That's what comes out of Canada!

[jeaton]

futuremodal

"Since trucks are the mode of last resort"

I guess you figure if you say that loud enough and often enough, it will become true.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

This almost sound anti-railroading. Anybody else see the irony coming from a site called Progressive Railroading?

Don't shoot the messenger! There just relaying information from the BTS.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon

QUOTE:
It would appear that the captive U.S rail shippers are more likely to turn to trucks to get their goods into Canada, while Canadian rail shippers seem to prefer to stick with rail shipping into the US relative to their US counterparts.

I doubt the difference has so much to do with differences between Canadian and US shippers preferences as it does with the types of products being shipped. Canada exports to the US a lot of natural resources such as lumber tend to be shipped by rail more often than the types of goods going into Canada from the US such as fresh produce from California.

That was one thought I had for explaining the disparity, but it still seems that there needs to be a lot more to explain the paradox. The U.S. does run a trade deficit with Canada, so one would expect that some raw materials accounts for some of that disparity. Yet the fact that trucks take more product into Canada than they bring out seems to be an anomoly, e.g. there should also be a trade imbalance via trucking that emulates the overall balance of trade. Also, the imbalance of trade via rail is a larger import to export ratio than the overall balance of trade ratio.

Since trucks are the mode of last resort, it would suggest there is much that could move into Canada by rail, but doesn't for the various reasons that have been debated elsewhere on this forum.

[Junctionfan]

This almost sound anti-railroading. Anybody else see the irony coming from a site called Progressive Railroading?

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE:
It would appear that the captive U.S rail shippers are more likely to turn to trucks to get their goods into Canada, while Canadian rail shippers seem to prefer to stick with rail shipping into the US relative to their US counterparts.

I doubt the difference has so much to do with differences between Canadian and US shippers preferences as it does with the types of products being shipped. Canada exports to the US a lot of natural resources such as lumber tend to be shipped by rail more often than the types of goods going into Canada from the US such as fresh produce from California.

[Anonymous]

The point is, the weighted average of the percentages should be closer to the U.S.-Mexico distribution. This is not to be confused with balance of trade between the NAFTA countries, as some seem to be.

[Murphy Siding]

According to an expert-Dr. Johnny Fever, of radio station WKRP in Cinncinatti, "For a whole lot of people, the last person they saw while alive was a doctor, do you think that doctors are causing death?" With expert insights like that, how could anyone doubt their statements? It's also important to remember that 5 out of 4 Americans don't understand fractions![:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Percentages can be manipulated easily when you don't provide the hard numbers behind them. In response, how does the method of transportation contribute to the trade deficit? The goods are going to be transported one way or another, by rail, truck, air, barge or whatever.

You have to admit that this data supports the theory that importers into the US are less likely to end up as captive rail shippers, while exporters out of the US are more likely to be captive rail shippers. We know for a fact that non-captive rail shippers pay lower rates than captive rail shippers, which makes it much easier to import into the US and much harder to export out of the US. It would appear that the captive U.S rail shippers are more likely to turn to trucks to get their goods into Canada, while Canadian rail shippers seem to prefer to stick with rail shipping into the US relative to their US counterparts.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Percentages can be manipulated easily when you don't provide the hard numbers behind them. In response, how does the method of transportation contribute to the trade deficit? The goods are going to be transported one way or another, by rail, truck, air, barge or whatever.

[jeaton]

Murphy

Never mind. Just another non sequitor.

[Murphy Siding]

Peterson6868 ? Is that you?[}:)]

[Anonymous]

This is from ProggressiveRailroading.com:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/freightnews/article.asp?id=7408


June U.S.-Canada surface transportation trade according to the BTS:

Trucks - 57 percent of imports, 79 percent of exports
Railroads - 21.5 percent of imports, 9.2 percent of exports

The ratio of imports to exports via trucks is 0.7 to 1
The ratio of imports to exports via rails is 2.3 to 1

Clearly, railroads contribute to the U.S. trade deficit specific to the raw percentages, whether by design or by natural market occurance. What is it about NA railroads that make this disparity so apparent?

Just for the record, for U.S./Mexico trade, the ratio of imports to exports on a percentage basis is about even for both truck hauls (80% and 83%, respectively) and rail hauls (14.8% and 14.7% respectively).