Another "putting trucks on the rails" study by AAR

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all,
Wdlgln005, just curious, but during steam days when everyone was driving between cities on two-lane roads, how long did it take to traverse those 200 miles in a car?
The Eisenhower Interstate System was devised to go around cities, not through them. But as has been noted, the cities moved to the highways.
A second perimeter road has been suggested to encircle Atlanta, GA. The idea came from a Dalton, GA carpet company owner whose trucks have to come down to Atlanta, sit in the parking lot that is I-285 then get on I-85 and go up the east coast. An outside perimeter would mean much less traffic on I-285. At least for a week.
There is a CSX intermodel lot alongside DeKalb Avenue in East Atlanta and another somewhat west of the city, owned, I think, by Norfolk Southern. I don't see why more trucks couldn't get off the roads. What makes traffic here, and I suspect everywhere else, is people driving alone to work. I've never counted cars passing me on GA 400 or any other road where there were more than one out of every 10 cars occupied by more than one person. Still, I would feel safer if I didn't have so many big trucks to share the road with. But I'd rather have them off the two-lane roads where they really get scary. I think the idea for tax relief to users of rail would get trucking companies thinking. Also, maybe a halt on them having to have new, environmentally friendly diesel engines in their trucks.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

[Anonymous]

I have a feeling of faint amusement regarding Interstate Traffic around Chicago. Trucks or No trucks.

Chicago was either a destination to deliver to... or a obsacle to be bypassed.

Many a time I go thru that part of the country praying that I dont get caught up in the rolling gridlocks that chokes everything between Gary Ind all the way to Schuluimberg (Spelling?) I always try to do it at night around 3 Am so no one is on the roads.

I dont think the railroad will do much better.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

oltmannd,

Of all those cities you cite, can you give reasonable credence to the prospect that all those trucks are merely passing through, and not engaged in local pick-up/delivery? The point I'm trying to make is that I believe most trucks you find parked on congested urban freeways are either doing business somewhere in that urban area, or originated in an area that doens't have TOFC service, or are destined for an area without TOFC service. It doesn't matter if those trucks came via a lonely Nevada Interstate or a Class I TOFC service, they all gotta complete that last mile to/from the loading dock. Railroads have gravitated away from dock to dock service (which is mostly carload traffic), replaced by consolidated terminals and unit trains.

It has never been truer than today, railroads are becoming more and more dependent on trucks to provide the cargo.

I understand your point. A lot of truck traffic in the east isn't easily converted to intermodal with the given rail infrastructure - but that's just the point. Investment beyond which the RRs can generate themselves is needed to convert some of this traffic. It is likely that in many cases, public investment in rail would produce a better ROI than public investment in highway capcy.

Or, if you just want to eliminate urban through traffic, you might provide roll on roll off rail shuttles throught urban areas. A business model may be tough to develop because the costs accrue to the RR but the benefits accrue to the highway user in the form of less congestion.

[samfp1943]

Having worked for a truckline that tried intermodal with the IC at Memphis, both south [to NOLA] and north to Chicago..It was not the rail rates that were the problem it was the local drayage fees that skunked the operations..Those extra fees made it more economically viable to send the load with one driver and avoid the extra fees and time at the railyard...Plus the fact that the guys loading the trailers [with very large fork lift type machines] did so much damage to the trailers, it was prohibitive due to repairs....for such a small operation

[Anonymous]

greyhounds... i'll chuckle in amusement as you talk about tolls. lol. for work i'd have to go up 55 to first ave. unload, go south(east) on the ryan and over to gary across 80. once i figured my way around town i started taking the skyway $10.40 to go 10 miles. it was a straight shot to where i had to go and there was NO traffic going outbound and saved me at least a half hour or more. it was a ginormous stress relief and there was a mcdonalds on the way. so the story goes, no matter the time savings and so on, i had to go west across 80 to iowa and all my time was usually lost. i spent 80% of my time cussing the OTR drivers as all they did was 'park' in the middle and right lanes and drive half the speed of surrounding traffic completely fouling everything up. hit the gas and get the flock outta town i say.

so i'm all for getting the long haul on the rails. i'd much rather see an intermodal train WFO across the countryside than getting stuck behind two trucks, one going 60 mph getting passed by another doing 60.1 mph.

[Anonymous]

i agree with prog. rr report. also less accidents and deaths,less wear on roads.

[Anonymous]

oltmannd,

Of all those cities you cite, can you give reasonable credence to the prospect that all those trucks are merely passing through, and not engaged in local pick-up/delivery? The point I'm trying to make is that I believe most trucks you find parked on congested urban freeways are either doing business somewhere in that urban area, or originated in an area that doens't have TOFC service, or are destined for an area without TOFC service. It doesn't matter if those trucks came via a lonely Nevada Interstate or a Class I TOFC service, they all gotta complete that last mile to/from the loading dock. Railroads have gravitated away from dock to dock service (which is mostly carload traffic), replaced by consolidated terminals and unit trains.

It has never been truer than today, railroads are becoming more and more dependent on trucks to provide the cargo.

[oltmannd]

Most cities have interstates thru the city as well as a belt around them.

Trouble is, growth around the belt has made traffic worse than the route thru the city in many cases.

Right off the top of my head, I can name serveral cities where traffic congestions could be reduced by removal of through trucks:

Atlanta - it would be HUGE here. I75, I85 and I20 all cross here and the perimter is the worst of all. Proposals to build an "outer-outer" loop funded solely from toll money have been laughable - tolls on the order of $0.40/mile for cars and lots of wealthy NIMBYS in the way.

Chattanooga - a little city that's an interstate hub with lots of through traffic and a decent amount of congestion

Charlotte - I bigger version of Chattanooga

Philadelphia - Lowest number of interstate highway lane-miles per person of the major cities (I think). Quite a bit of through N-S traffic with poor rail alternative.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

Re: Interstates running through downtown. When built, a lot of them didn't (admittedly, some did), but the towns grew around the interchanges. Where I live the interstate was a mile outside of town when they built it. Now the "new downtown" keys on the highway. The freeway isn't an issue traffic-wise, but the surface streets weren't laid out to handle today's traffic, and for us it sometimes gets brutal. Of course, people with real traffic problems would laugh heartily at our complaints.

Just like downtown used to key on the railroad tracks...

LC

[tree68]

Re: Interstates running through downtown. When built, a lot of them didn't (admittedly, some did), but the towns grew around the interchanges. Where I live the interstate was a mile outside of town when they built it. Now the "new downtown" keys on the highway. The freeway isn't an issue traffic-wise, but the surface streets weren't laid out to handle today's traffic, and for us it sometimes gets brutal. Of course, people with real traffic problems would laugh heartily at our complaints.

[dldance]

Since NAFTA - through truck traffic in Austin has increased about 50%. A new bypass toll road is being built to help the congestion, but putting trucks on rail would be a great help as well.

dd

[Anonymous]

It still ignores that fact that trucks are NOT the cause of urban congestion. Wendall's study is flawed in that regard, getting trucks off urban freeways (not a done deal by any means even if 25% more trucks go by TOFC) will not significantly aid in reducing urban congestion. But since it's the AAR, they will pu***his angle for political reasons.

Second of all, Chicago railroads are already congested themselves, so where is this extra rail capacity going to come from to take 25% more trucks off congested freeways? With no extra rail capacity, some current rail traffic will have to be reduced to make room for these extra TOFC's.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03

i'll drink to that. getting around chicago on any of the freeways is a nightmare and i'm glad i don't have to go up there anymore.

Shoot Fire! You been drinkin' already. They charge you tolls to sit in that congestion. It ain't free.

I am so grateful that I no longer commute on I294 with that absolute wall of trucks that can not accelerate any faster than a lame wiener dog.

[Anonymous]

i'll drink to that. getting around chicago on any of the freeways is a nightmare and i'm glad i don't have to go up there anymore.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/freightnews/article.asp?id=7510

Gist of article: Taking freight/trucks off highways and onto rails will reduce congestion and save fuel.

It's not that there isn't merit in the argument, it's that it ignores today's supply chain realities. Since today's logistical blueprint has trucks as the primary mode for local delivery, and since most congestion happens in urban areas, taking trucks off the highways and onto trains will not reduce urban congestion, because those TOFC trucks will still need to transit the urban byways between typical intermodal terminal and all those warehouses/distribution centers/etc.

What I want to know is the AAR's end game with all these "taking trucks off highways" studies. Could it be the railroads are positioning themselves for a government handout?

I will guarantee you that taking some trucks going through the Chicago area on I294 and I80/90 off those will reduce congestion. Local pick up and delivery won't be affected, but just getting those through trucks of the roads will do a heap a helpin'.

[Wdlgln005]

A better question may be what % of the truck traffic goes past the city for another location. It may be silly for the major interstates to go thru the downtown areas. Perhaps most of this traffic should be routed around the city. Leave the downtown area for the workers & other folks.

The railroads must be setting up for govm't assistance in the form of capital assistance. There is a limit to how much can be added to the interstate highway system. It's past time for some money to be spent rebuilding the freight system. The Interstates are one reason traffic on the RR's dried up so much. You have to bve careful to look at the rail map for each state.

Here in TN, the RR's have always been a north-south affair, with very little connection from east to west. THe NC&STL is the only route connecting Memphis with Nashville. Most of it is single track. In steam days, it took 6 hours to make the 200 miles.

The situation to Knoxville & further east is even worse. THe Tennessee Central was the only route brave enough to make it's way accross the steep grades. It would take millions to create a modern higher speed rail route half equal to I-40. THe communities in between are just as important. Improved rail access will be required to keep them viable.

[Junctionfan]

That's what I would advocate if in Federal Politics officially.

I would give tax breaks to the railroads based on how much trucks they took of the highways and how much new economic development they contributed.

I would give subsidies and grants to upgrade the infrastructure to meet the proprosals of highway traffic reductions. I would also cut taxes on their fuel based on efficiency of trains (how many cars) and fuel efficiency of locomotives (GE ES units, SD70ACE/70m-2).

I would also give out taxbreaks to trucking companies based on how much new rail use they used particularly making it favourable for them to use more domestic containers on chassis then regular trailers.

I would also give out tax breaks to industries based on their interest to convert some of their road traffic into rail either by direct railspur access or intermodal if possible.

This way, not only will pollution will go down, it will reduce the need to widen and frequent maintainance on highways and other major roads used as trucking routes.

[Anonymous]

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/freightnews/article.asp?id=7510

Gist of article: Taking freight/trucks off highways and onto rails will reduce congestion and save fuel.

It's not that there isn't merit in the argument, it's that it ignores today's supply chain realities. Since today's logistical blueprint has trucks as the primary mode for local delivery, and since most congestion happens in urban areas, taking trucks off the highways and onto trains will not reduce urban congestion, because those TOFC trucks will still need to transit the urban byways between typical intermodal terminal and all those warehouses/distribution centers/etc.

What I want to know is the AAR's end game with all these "taking trucks off highways" studies. Could it be the railroads are positioning themselves for a government handout?