The proposal only covers I-81 in Virginia, not the entire road, so the railroad involved would be the Norfolk Southern. My take on the Star Solutions proposal (which is of great interest to me since I frequently travel on I-81) is that they are requesting conducting tolls only on trucks to make the proposal more politically palatable. However, I believe that the real goal (and in fact, likely to be the inevitable result) is to make I-81 toll for both cars and trucks. To give the reason why I think this is an inevitable result would require a legal brief , but the short reason is that states are prohibited by the Constitution from discriminating against goods in interstate commerce (the so called negative commerce clause).
However, while the overall I-81 improvement study is heading towards what I feel is an undesirable result (turning I-81 into a toll road), some good is likely to come in that they are studying rail improvements to the Norfolk Southern lines. Some of these proposals are to build additional intermodal ports similar to the existing Virginia Inland Port which is near Front Royal. They are also studying improving rail capacity. Supposedly there is even talk for some passenger rail projects, but I'm not holding the breath.
Seems to me that if the rate 80k trucks pay to use the interstate was more in line with the actual pavement damage and pro-rated structures costs the movement you describe just might occur as the actual transportation function would become more valuable/expensive. Could be good for everyone or it could not be.
From what I can tell reading the historic debates the original highway planners knew that there would be excess capacity needing to be used and low-balled the price to bring highway freight into the mix. Are those days coming to an end?
Years ago there was a big stink in California where smoking trucks with dirty exhaust was rumored to be outlawed. They would want to build massive Oak Ridge style facilities capable of handling ALL commercial traffic at the state line breaking it down from full truck load to small truckloads that the shippers and recievers deliver and fetch for themselves.
Then the 18 wheelers will turn right around at the border and head east again.
Out west there is just miles of land that is neither fit for man or beast and it could be done.
But yer fooling with a established valley that covers hundreds of miles impacting farms, local industry, terrain, historical lands (particularly Virginia) and just thousands of home, land and farm owners just ready to bury City Hall in "NOT IN MY YARD" protests.
They should turn those container "Inland ports" into something capable of recieving bulk rail similar to what is happening with the Dedicated Perishable out of Washington State to Albany elsewhere on these forums.
Put the California Produce onto dedicated trains, break it down in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Alabama to truckers and the trucks take it on in.
I see the death of long haul sleeper trucks with the exception of teams and very high dollar/and or specialized loads that cannot ship any other way.
Some may shout NAY! Trucking will NEVER be obselete and they will be right. But the days of .20 cents a mile and 90 day wonders filling orientation with the resulting chaos on the interstate must stop.
Especially shippers and recievers that abuse the trucks, drivers and companies by treating everyone involved as nothing more than Temp warehouse workers who happen to carry adequate warehouse space to stop gap the problems for a day, two or several disregarding the next scheduled load that needs to be picked up later that day.
Organize the traffic, get it off that I-81 and similar roads and reassign skilled OTR drivers to regional hauls and back it up with real pay and benefits and you will probably begin to see increased use and participation of several DOT related programs such as "Convoying" under computer control and other related air-traffic-like controls to keep the cargo moving.
The Interstate system is a mighty good for our nation but it is creaking, groaning and crumbling as successive 4 year government terms paper out previous problems and literally pass the bill and problem list to the next generation to take office.
I see the I-81 debate as a small version of what will take place at the end of the ATA-AAR truce when the run up to the Surface Transportation reauthorization comes near. Obviously trains of 100 boxcars hauling 3 truckloads each could make short work of any truck caused overusage of I-81 should the line be double tracked per some proposals but those boxcars would have to come from a large catchment area outside of the I-81 study corridor. Currently, the areas outside of congested corridors are not being considered by the DOT guys. Since we cannot expect random shippers from outside the corridor to begin using containers all we could hope for is 100 to 110 un-reinforced plate-van trailers a train using either CPR's Expressway or conventional spine cars. In and of itself that does not seem like a bad solution for the over the road flow at say 20 additional trains a direction per day 4000 medium to long distance truck movements could come off the I-81 corridor, leaving the shorter haul truck movements on the I-81 corridor.
But what to do about terminals? With the current piggypacker sidelifts a 200+ acre terminal yard is capable of handeling what around 700 trailers a day with parking for maybe 1400 trailers? So three additional yards would be needed to meet the flow but wouldn't some of those yards most logically be located off the I-81 corridor? How will the broader issues of the transportation marketplace ever be dealt with by the DOT types, Ms. Peters included, who don't have the political authorization to look outside the congested corridors? When you think about it the corridor analysis techniques are a distinct DOT approach that rarely understands the full marktetplace.
What I think needs to happen is a shift in an intermodal technology/operations to one that allows truck trailers to be parked directly next to the spot in the train where they will ride. Little parking would be provided for long-term storage of a trailer unless under penalty fees. Something along this approach could create a 100/trailer a day terminal in 10 acres. Ideally, each trailer would be provided a 16 hour window during which it must be picked up trainside before being moved to penatly fee parking (similar in some aspects to what Class I are moving towards.
Irony is not dead?
I'd be 100% behind the DOT selling I-81 between Harrisburg and Knoxville to the ATA. However, they should be REQUIRED to carry all non-commercial traffic toll-free. The Fed gov't would just send a check to the ATA for the Fed fuel tax paid for those vehicle miled travelled on their road. Local gov't would be allowed to assess property taxes on the ROW and improvments and the Fed and state gov't would be allowed to regulate safety of the ROW and operations. Does any of this sound familiar?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I-81 is awful stragetic.
Truckers need to run that road for all loads to and from the Northeast. There are thousands every hour on all of that Interstate.
Who are the railroads or anyone for that matter kidding when they think they can accomodate 1000 tired truckers ready to be shipped a few hundred miles in either direction with both the tractor and trailer?
What happens when three trains depart and thousands more loads pile up at the staging/loading area wanting to be shipped in a few hours?
Unacceptable.
Truckers sometimes will NOT be at the other end ready to get that trailer.
Tolling I-81 will not solve the problem. It will force drivers to select I-55 at Memphis, cross into Kentucky and working across via WVA using high horsepower and Jakes to defeat the mountains. The small loss in fuel and out of route mileage will turn out to be a cheaper expense than paying toll on I-81 end to end.
I-81 is up against the mountains with low clearences and some very dangerous terrain. I remember one road in particular that is a severe S curve that climbs basically straight up near I-81. On the bottom you see cliff and at the top, nothing but sky and wonder if your outside wheels are still on the pavement.
If I had to travel that road to bypass tolls, I would find other cargo instead NOT going to that area.
Finally I-81 is a place where you dont expect to find parking space at night. You dont run that road in bad weather. Especially ice. I know that road and every inch of it and can assert to you that truckers will rest at Knoxville TN or Harrisburg PA and run it straight thru.
Take a look at White's on mile marker 205 (I think.. or was it 195?) that is one truckstop that is ALWAYS FULL. You have more than enough business to support a dozen more along that Interstate.
The rest of the traffic support regional industry and commuters.
Use the effort and funds to build a new interstate parrallel to I-81 or improve the network of roads and needed areas to better truck access.
I want to thank the powers that be for causing me to be amused and fall out of my chair in breathless mirth and humor thinking that waving a few toll tickets can solve the current problems along I-81.
My solution?
Close I-81 to ALL vehicles EXCEPT... Clawss 6, 7 and 8 commerical vehicles and build a nice toll parkway for cars and such. Dedicate I-81 to commerical traffic ONLY.
Yes people will scream. But build em a nice road free from battling trucks they will love you for it.
By the way, I run the PA Pike, Midwest I-80 etc for years and have no issues. Part of the convience is in the electronic transponders that automatically bills the trucking company from the cab. It is nice not having to juggle company cash alongside your own or having to collect reciepts (And log them within 15 minutes in the comic book).
In my last years along that road, VA made massive improvements in the rest areas with parking space that really helped. Now if they can put down the construction and back away from it everything will be fine.
It is my personal belief that you can pave a 100 lane wide monster with the best of everything and it will still be stop and go frankenstien at rush hour with all the wonderful road rage associated with it.
Moller Skycars anyone?
jchnhtfd wrote:one is tempted to observe that they other end of the I-81 corridor is served, end to end, by CPR -- which has a pretty good record on this sort of thing, and is working to make the old D&H main line north of Schenectady into sometime better than a wonderful tourist attraction!
I-81 is paralleled by rail from Watertown to Syracuse (CSX - to Massena and Montreal), and Syracuse to Binghamption (Susquehanna). Not a smooth transition right now, but that wouldn't be hard to fix, especially if they could manage to avoid a stop in Dewitt.
I think the old Lehigh runs along I-81 in northern PA. After that I'd have to break out the atlases.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I as the ATA would be quite worried if the only private market alternative to the right-of-way I was getting at $0.243 tax/gallon of diesel at say 6 mpg = $0.041/mile + vehicle sales + tire tax + ($0.03 to $0.11/mile State Taxes) = $0.10 to $0.18/mile in taxes came in at $0.37/mile in tolls. I mean what if that set a precident for the use of all those other roads? This is for the I-81 corridor. It is one of the busier freight corridors in the Southeast yet despite the volume there is not enough money to support just the paving and bridge works to add a truck only toll lane in each direction.
I tend to think the ATA will oppose all truck only toll roads for the same reason even over new routes unless a capital grant was applied but even then the per mile subsidy figures could be easily calculated by a group aganist their interests. What will the solution be as a country? We are coming to the end of the grand compromise in highway funding with the looming shortage of capacity on many routes.
futuremodal wrote: 1435mm wrote: VPayne wrote: In the minds of the ATA they have won the battle to prevent STAR solutions from creating Truck Only toll roads as a solution to congestion on the I-81 interstate corridor as they would have to pay $0.37/mile in tolls. This despite the fact that $1.5 Billion was to be given as a grant for the project. http://http://www.logisticstoday.com/displayStory.asp?S=1&sNO=8221&MLC=Navigation/SC_Truckload&OASKEY=BreakingNews But what is the ATA solution? The folks on the other side of the debate see rail investment in an "open access" faster intermodal freight technoloby as the solution, something like CPR's Expressway. http://www.railsolution.org/ I suppose my take on it is an intermodal technology that allows over the road drivers to load the trailer onto the train is what is needed, to really reduce the yard labor and time for the transfer. Any thoughts? I tried to search the archives for a relevant thread but found none. Not a surprise that ATA was appalled by this; it would open a back-door that DOTs would pry open to apply truck use fees even on non-dedicated toll roads, establish a precedent to requiring trucks to pay their own way on their own infrastructure everywhere, and generally ruin the nice open-access taxpayer-paid highway system that they now enjoy at pennies on the dollar. Something about "winning the battle and losing the war."S. Hadid Putting aside the debate over whether trucks pay their "fair" federal share or not via fuel taxes and fees, you have to remember that adding tolls to current highways is only adding another cost that may be over and above the fair share parameter. Assuming the cost of the toll itself is fully allocated to recover the cost of building and maintaining the toll road, if trucks could then deduct or get a rebate on their fuel taxes and fees each time they used such toll roads, maybe that would fly. Now, that doesn't mean the toll road concept is totally without favor at the ATA. There are quite a few places in the US where a new toll road routed over a corridor that currently doesn't have a highway, then you'd see some support. In those situations, the toll road may significantly reduce both mileage and time over currently available options, so even if the toll is apportioned to fully recover road costs, it still saves truckers money in the long run.
1435mm wrote: VPayne wrote: In the minds of the ATA they have won the battle to prevent STAR solutions from creating Truck Only toll roads as a solution to congestion on the I-81 interstate corridor as they would have to pay $0.37/mile in tolls. This despite the fact that $1.5 Billion was to be given as a grant for the project. http://http://www.logisticstoday.com/displayStory.asp?S=1&sNO=8221&MLC=Navigation/SC_Truckload&OASKEY=BreakingNews But what is the ATA solution? The folks on the other side of the debate see rail investment in an "open access" faster intermodal freight technoloby as the solution, something like CPR's Expressway. http://www.railsolution.org/ I suppose my take on it is an intermodal technology that allows over the road drivers to load the trailer onto the train is what is needed, to really reduce the yard labor and time for the transfer. Any thoughts? I tried to search the archives for a relevant thread but found none. Not a surprise that ATA was appalled by this; it would open a back-door that DOTs would pry open to apply truck use fees even on non-dedicated toll roads, establish a precedent to requiring trucks to pay their own way on their own infrastructure everywhere, and generally ruin the nice open-access taxpayer-paid highway system that they now enjoy at pennies on the dollar. Something about "winning the battle and losing the war."S. Hadid
VPayne wrote: In the minds of the ATA they have won the battle to prevent STAR solutions from creating Truck Only toll roads as a solution to congestion on the I-81 interstate corridor as they would have to pay $0.37/mile in tolls. This despite the fact that $1.5 Billion was to be given as a grant for the project. http://http://www.logisticstoday.com/displayStory.asp?S=1&sNO=8221&MLC=Navigation/SC_Truckload&OASKEY=BreakingNews But what is the ATA solution? The folks on the other side of the debate see rail investment in an "open access" faster intermodal freight technoloby as the solution, something like CPR's Expressway. http://www.railsolution.org/ I suppose my take on it is an intermodal technology that allows over the road drivers to load the trailer onto the train is what is needed, to really reduce the yard labor and time for the transfer. Any thoughts? I tried to search the archives for a relevant thread but found none.
In the minds of the ATA they have won the battle to prevent STAR solutions from creating Truck Only toll roads as a solution to congestion on the I-81 interstate corridor as they would have to pay $0.37/mile in tolls. This despite the fact that $1.5 Billion was to be given as a grant for the project.
http://http://www.logisticstoday.com/displayStory.asp?S=1&sNO=8221&MLC=Navigation/SC_Truckload&OASKEY=BreakingNews
But what is the ATA solution? The folks on the other side of the debate see rail investment in an "open access" faster intermodal freight technoloby as the solution, something like CPR's Expressway. http://www.railsolution.org/
I suppose my take on it is an intermodal technology that allows over the road drivers to load the trailer onto the train is what is needed, to really reduce the yard labor and time for the transfer. Any thoughts? I tried to search the archives for a relevant thread but found none.
Putting aside the debate over whether trucks pay their "fair" federal share or not via fuel taxes and fees, you have to remember that adding tolls to current highways is only adding another cost that may be over and above the fair share parameter. Assuming the cost of the toll itself is fully allocated to recover the cost of building and maintaining the toll road, if trucks could then deduct or get a rebate on their fuel taxes and fees each time they used such toll roads, maybe that would fly.
Now, that doesn't mean the toll road concept is totally without favor at the ATA. There are quite a few places in the US where a new toll road routed over a corridor that currently doesn't have a highway, then you'd see some support. In those situations, the toll road may significantly reduce both mileage and time over currently available options, so even if the toll is apportioned to fully recover road costs, it still saves truckers money in the long run.
Wow. I almost agree with you. Well, the first part, anyway.
I'll bet they see tolls as a way for states to "extort" money from them to fund "make work" or special local projects. Given how gov't at all levels "extorted" money from the RRs in the first part of the 20th century, perhaps their fears are justified.
In Atlanta, there have been proposals for truck only - mandatory tolls lanes on I-75 so that the free lanes can be left to commuters. The ATA howled at that one, too.
The fuel tax funding of their ROW is a sweet deal for them since that makes the ROW a short term variable cost. Tolls would be the same thing. Neither address the issue of the up front, fixed cost of construction and ownership. Maybe they should have to come up with some sort of annual "subscription fee" or something like a stadium "seat licence".
At the root of the service demand for consistency and speed is inventory carrying costs. It's a matter of how much stuff they have to have in the pipeline and stored in order to be able meet demand - either a production schedule or keeping items on the shelf to purchase. Theoretically, fast and inconsistent = slow and consistent. RRs and their customers understand that there are more opportunities to make service consistent than there are to make it significantly faster, hence the demand for consistency over speed.
Also, since it is inventory cost that governs, the value of the stuff being shipped factors in. High value stuff can afford to be moved faster.
VPayne wrote:In the minds of the ATA they have won the battle to prevent STAR solutions from creating Truck Only toll roads as a solution to congestion on the I-81 interstate corridor as they would have to pay $0.37/mile in tolls. This despite the fact that $1.5 Billion was to be given as a grant for the project. http://http://www.logisticstoday.com/displayStory.asp?S=1&sNO=8221&MLC=Navigation/SC_Truckload&OASKEY=BreakingNews But what is the ATA solution? The folks on the other side of the debate see rail investment in an "open access" faster intermodal freight technoloby as the solution, something like CPR's Expressway. http://www.railsolution.org/ I suppose my take on it is an intermodal technology that allows over the road drivers to load the trailer onto the train is what is needed, to really reduce the yard labor and time for the transfer. Any thoughts? I tried to search the archives for a relevant thread but found none.
tree68 wrote: A rail solution seems like a no-brainer, but it will require dedicated rail. As the NS prez said, the secret is consistency, not speed. A truck driver loading his truck at one end needs to know that he will arrive at the other end at a given time, every time. Getting stuck behind a slow coal drag is not an option. Time is money. That said (and hopefully accomplished) the idea that a driver will load at some point in, say PA, and arrive in NC (or wherever) a certain number of hours later also means that he or she has theoretically had rest time, so can travel further than had he actually driven the road himself. This could be a major selling point. Doing this overnight, with reasonable sleeping facilities on board the train, would likely be desirable as well. It's very possible that drivers may not even accompany their vehicle - they might load it and get ferried home, while another driver picks up the rig at the other end and delivers it. Efficient loading and unloading (multiple ramps) and fares that make the trip by rail competitive with driving pricewise are also key factors that need to be addressed.
A rail solution seems like a no-brainer, but it will require dedicated rail. As the NS prez said, the secret is consistency, not speed. A truck driver loading his truck at one end needs to know that he will arrive at the other end at a given time, every time. Getting stuck behind a slow coal drag is not an option. Time is money.
That said (and hopefully accomplished) the idea that a driver will load at some point in, say PA, and arrive in NC (or wherever) a certain number of hours later also means that he or she has theoretically had rest time, so can travel further than had he actually driven the road himself. This could be a major selling point. Doing this overnight, with reasonable sleeping facilities on board the train, would likely be desirable as well.
It's very possible that drivers may not even accompany their vehicle - they might load it and get ferried home, while another driver picks up the rig at the other end and delivers it.
Efficient loading and unloading (multiple ramps) and fares that make the trip by rail competitive with driving pricewise are also key factors that need to be addressed.
Wick Moorman is absolutely right, Consistancy is what all shippers crave, to pick up as promised, and deliver as scheduled..This what creates return business for the Carrier[Truck or Rail]. Screw them up and they will be out shopping for the company that Delivers as promised.
And the statement:
This is what companies like Schneider, and Hunt, as well as some others are trying to accomplish with a rail move in their operations; it keeps the drivers in a region of the country[ read a comfort level], therefore, closer to their homes. with an ability to spend some nights at home, rather than being miles away, and living in a sleeper compartment of a truck. In short it creates a level of driver satisfaction, and retention in their driver pools. Truck drivers are a pretty mobil lot[no pun intended] and can jumpt to another job without too much effort, so driver satisfaction and the retention are both reflected in the companies bottom lines.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.