Empty trailer tandems driven with Steel suspension will leave the ground and bounce. The California Weight stations make special bumps to make sure you are indeed empty in that far lane bypass.
Airride trailers are less prone to bounce.
Some parts of Chicago is best avoided as with all cities.
I used to sprint on the smaller state roads across the midwest zipping from town to town minding the horses and watching the traction. The bigger CATs and Detroits in the 470-600 HP range makes it rather fun and faster than the Interstate sometimes.
I recall we would run US 20 from... Akron all the way almost to Gary and had no trouble with travel times. versus the toll road.
I will say this...80-94 in Indiana is a joy right now...for how long? The construction also seems to be done at 80/94/294/394 junction. It took a long time, but it is smooth. It wasnt that long ago that making the several times a week trip from NW Indiana to Chicago was a real chore.
The Indiana Toll Road seems to be improved also with the new electronic tolls.
Dan Ryan still is a mess, but seems to be getting a bit better. A few more weeks and construction season will be over and then the snow will fly.
I65 from Indy north is a pain. I no long take it north of Lafayette. It is a bumper to bumper 85mph speedway with trucks occasssionally slowing things down to pass a slower truck. Then it is 5 miles of 66mph as the truck passes the 65mph truck. What a joke. I can make just as good time on 43/421 and the blood pressure is much lower.
Thanks for letting me vent.
ed
MichaelSol wrote: The overall trend of the 15 year period, however, is very clear and represents declining train speeds regardless of spending. Yes, spending more on increasing capacity "ought" to increase train speed, but it won't if the goal is to put on longer and heavier trains.That's the conundrum: you can spend like a house afire to increase "capacity" and then end up with less capacity if the train speeds fall because someobdy else on the railroad thought he could save a few cents by making his trains longer. Railroads -- and railroad journalists, by the way -- don't use the words "replace capacity" when it sounds better to be "increasing capacity", but that is in fact what most capacity expenditures have been for since 1990 -- trying to replace lost capacity due to slower average train speeds. And it has been, for the most part, a losing battle because of the increase in unit trains -- coal and ag, constituting upwards of 65-70% of all rail tonnage.The railroads have spent roughly $95.6 billion in capital expenditures since 1990. During that time, average track speed has dropped from 23.6 to 18.5 mph. The decline in train speed represents a shrinkage in available capacity of approximately 20%. The industry investment of $95.6 billion, 1990-2006 (and that represents all capital investment, not just track), has not entirely replaced that 20% shrinkage, let alone actually increase U.S. rail capacity. Naturally, as traffic has increased, the increase was bound to meet the shrinkage at some point -- and corridors were filled up.The industry has been going backwards on overall capacity, nothwithstanding substantial increases in traffic and profits; rationalizing in many instances ploughing profits into stock buy-back programs rather than into the obvious infrastructure needs. And, insofar as being "capital intensive" railroads haven't been acting like it.
The overall trend of the 15 year period, however, is very clear and represents declining train speeds regardless of spending. Yes, spending more on increasing capacity "ought" to increase train speed, but it won't if the goal is to put on longer and heavier trains.
That's the conundrum: you can spend like a house afire to increase "capacity" and then end up with less capacity if the train speeds fall because someobdy else on the railroad thought he could save a few cents by making his trains longer. Railroads -- and railroad journalists, by the way -- don't use the words "replace capacity" when it sounds better to be "increasing capacity", but that is in fact what most capacity expenditures have been for since 1990 -- trying to replace lost capacity due to slower average train speeds. And it has been, for the most part, a losing battle because of the increase in unit trains -- coal and ag, constituting upwards of 65-70% of all rail tonnage.
The railroads have spent roughly $95.6 billion in capital expenditures since 1990. During that time, average track speed has dropped from 23.6 to 18.5 mph. The decline in train speed represents a shrinkage in available capacity of approximately 20%. The industry investment of $95.6 billion, 1990-2006 (and that represents all capital investment, not just track), has not entirely replaced that 20% shrinkage, let alone actually increase U.S. rail capacity. Naturally, as traffic has increased, the increase was bound to meet the shrinkage at some point -- and corridors were filled up.
The industry has been going backwards on overall capacity, nothwithstanding substantial increases in traffic and profits; rationalizing in many instances ploughing profits into stock buy-back programs rather than into the obvious infrastructure needs.
And, insofar as being "capital intensive" railroads haven't been acting like it.
UP 829 wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: At least in the Chicago area, history shows as more lanes are added and publicized, more people leave arterial streets and jump on the "expressway".So they'd still be clogged no matter how many lanes we'd build -- unless we built 10 in each direction, which would NEVER happen. I go to places like LA and Seattle and see four, five and six lanes but thanks to our corrupt politicians in Illinois the money just ain't there. Besides the politicians, I've often wondered about the concrete interests, I understand some go way back in Chicago history. For example, the North/South Tollway has been a disaster almost since it opened. Every year they grind it and every year it turns into a roller-coaster. I've seen the rear wheels of empty dirt trucks actually leave the ground over the pavement joints. 2 years ago they rebuilt I-90 between Woodfield and I-355 again with concrete, and it's already starting to do the same thing. By spring they'll probably be out there grinding it.
Poppa_Zit wrote: At least in the Chicago area, history shows as more lanes are added and publicized, more people leave arterial streets and jump on the "expressway".So they'd still be clogged no matter how many lanes we'd build -- unless we built 10 in each direction, which would NEVER happen. I go to places like LA and Seattle and see four, five and six lanes but thanks to our corrupt politicians in Illinois the money just ain't there.
At least in the Chicago area, history shows as more lanes are added and publicized, more people leave arterial streets and jump on the "expressway".
So they'd still be clogged no matter how many lanes we'd build -- unless we built 10 in each direction, which would NEVER happen. I go to places like LA and Seattle and see four, five and six lanes but thanks to our corrupt politicians in Illinois the money just ain't there.
Besides the politicians, I've often wondered about the concrete interests, I understand some go way back in Chicago history. For example, the North/South Tollway has been a disaster almost since it opened. Every year they grind it and every year it turns into a roller-coaster. I've seen the rear wheels of empty dirt trucks actually leave the ground over the pavement joints. 2 years ago they rebuilt I-90 between Woodfield and I-355 again with concrete, and it's already starting to do the same thing. By spring they'll probably be out there grinding it.
I see you're not familiar with how such things work in Illinois. The politicians are in cahoots with the construction companies that get the fat contracts for the state's road work. The contractors kick money back (some in the form of political campaign contributions and election support, and some in "other" ways) and in return continue to get more fat contracts. Why fix a road well if you can do crappy work now and come back and get paid again to redo it in three years?
Here's what happened when the Feds got involved with one politically-connected bunch of thieves. You couldn't make this stuff up:
http://www.thelaborers.net/newspapers/Tribune_6-19-99.html
Poppa_Zit wrote: UP 829 wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: At least in the Chicago area, history shows as more lanes are added and publicized, more people leave arterial streets and jump on the "expressway".So they'd still be clogged no matter how many lanes we'd build -- unless we built 10 in each direction, which would NEVER happen. I go to places like LA and Seattle and see four, five and six lanes but thanks to our corrupt politicians in Illinois the money just ain't there. Besides the politicians, I've often wondered about the concrete interests, I understand some go way back in Chicago history. For example, the North/South Tollway has been a disaster almost since it opened. Every year they grind it and every year it turns into a roller-coaster. I've seen the rear wheels of empty dirt trucks actually leave the ground over the pavement joints. 2 years ago they rebuilt I-90 between Woodfield and I-355 again with concrete, and it's already starting to do the same thing. By spring they'll probably be out there grinding it.I see you're not familiar with how such things work in Illinois. The politicians are in cahoots with the construction companies that get the fat contracts for the state's road work. The contractors kick money back (some in the form of political campaign contributions and election support, and some in "other" ways) and in return continue to get more fat contracts. Why fix a road well if you can do crappy work now and come back and get paid again to redo it in three years?Here's what happened when the Feds got involved with one politically-connected bunch of thieves. You couldn't make this stuff up:http://www.thelaborers.net/newspapers/Tribune_6-19-99.html
Being the cynical sort that I am when it comes to Illinois politics and politicians, I have often wondered how much of the summer road work that is done around here is just "busy work" for some contractor, and not really needed, just so some contractor, and politician get to line their pockets. There seem to be a couple of roads around here that always seem to be being worked on....I mean, besides the Dan Ryan.
Poppa_Zit wrote:I see you're not familiar with how such things work in Illinois. The politicians are in cahoots with the construction companies that get the fat contracts for the state's road work. The contractors kick money back (some in the form of political campaign contributions and election support, and some in "other" ways) and in return continue to get more fat contracts. Why fix a road well if you can do crappy work now and come back and get paid again to redo it in three years?Here's what happened when the Feds got involved with one politically-connected bunch of thieves. You couldn't make this stuff up:http://www.thelaborers.net/newspapers/Tribune_6-19-99.html
I've heard all about the construction contractors and Illinois projects, I was wondering about the concrete suppliers and local connections. Doesn't Prairie or Material Service go way back in Chicago history? And why do certain suburbs, particularly in Dupage County continue to pave side streets with expensive concrete when they already have some of the worst concrete streets in the Chicago area?? Is it a coincidence the I-355 runs throgh Dupage County?
You have to remember that DuPage County is a political unit that prides itself on being separate from Chicago and Cook County. Side streets and secondary through streets are the jurisdiction of the local municipality, township or county, not the state. The money they spend on their streets is not available to other political units. The Tollway system is operated by a separate authority which is self-funding through the tolls it charges.
Material Service Corp. is not what it used to be and the political influence of the Crown family has waned in recent years. Prairie Material is based in Bridgeview (on the IHB at 79th St) and has some influence in the southwest suburbs through the Oremus family.
Simple to say...Hard to do.
The first question I would ask is where are you going to put that "TRUCKS ONLY" lane?
On the inside, next to the median? On the outside?
On the inside. Conflicts with existing practices--historically, the passing lanes; motorists are schooled they can get out, and GO! In those lanes,traffic will get out of their way. Visualize a TRUCKS ONLY lane on the Tollway around Chicago.. Trucks passing cars on the left,motorists will not stand for it, and will jump right in--"I was only out there for a second,Officer!"
On the outside. Conflicts with traffic exiting, and entering; merging with traffic becomes an exercise in futility--a lot of motorists are unable to get the picture/concept of using a rear view mirror to ascertain what is coming up on them. At what point do they merge with the faster traffic. Go to Atlanta, Ga and observe the "TRUCKS ONLY" in the TWO right hand lanes, and see how that works with merging traffic! The "Birds" fly! That upward pointing arm and fist is not an invitation to an Italian wine and cheese party!
Separation, in my opinon will not happen when it is a voluntary thing on US Interstates [or other roads]. It is going to require a seperate infrastructure of road network, OR a time curfew--cars only from 5AM to 7PM and trucks only the rest of the time. And that will be like flinging a polecat into the family picnic; as everybody's ox gets gored--economically, and politically..
I guess I'm thru venting
It is interesting to remember that, when the Interstates were being considered, the reason for building them was to aid in the evacuation of the cities in the event of a nuclear attack.
Initially, they were not for general transportation at all. The Interstate roads were to be built, roped off and only opened in the event of an emergency, like Fire Escapes and Fallout Shelters.
Capitalism being what it is, it was then decided that it was too great an expense to build and let sit, unused, so it was decided they would be used by trucks only, in a manner similar to the way railroads are still run (i.e.: you cannot put your personal "car" on RR tracks and go anywhere you want).
I remember people talking about buying the smallest truck that would be allowed on the Interstates so they could take vacations and use these new roads instead of being stuck on the old highway system with everybody else. There was debate about whether trucks would have to be semi-cab/trailer combinations or if unibody trucks would be allowed, or if maybe panel trucks and vans would be allowed, too. Would pick-up trucks count? Would motor homes count?
But the thing that finally put the family car on the Interstate was the fear that in the event of an emergency, people would not know how to get on the Interstates, where the Interstates went, or how to drive on them. The logistics of periodic public "fire drills" and the recognition that most people would not participate anyway, made the decision easy... let the public drive on them all the time like the California "Freeways" are used. Then people would learn how to use them and where they went, so there would be less trouble in an emergency.
Then there was the general motoring public's disgust with the trucks already on the existing highway system and the perception that if the trucks were confined to one lane (like everybody was already confined to) and the cars were allowed to go around the trucks in the second lane then "everybody" would be happy... even Truckers were agreeable to that proposition since cars were considered a hazard to the general trucking industry on the highways; it was considered a boon to be able to maybe use the other vehicle type's lane periodically in emergencies or under special circumstances.
Of course, nobody considered that the Interstates would never really be "completed" or that there would be so much ongoing repair and restructuring to the whole system. The realities of "growth" were not recognized in any way.
And Eisenhower said that if he had known what the Interstate system would do to the Railroads he would never had signed the bill to authorized them.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
I think three lane highways were built to get workers in large numbers to and from wartime factories. Martin Aircraft comes to mind in Maryland.
Another reason we had "Beltways" was so that if the city was to get hit with Nuclear there was still a way to get aid to the city. No one ever thinks about closely surrounding areas that will probably also be turned into irradiated deathlands. I dont know if this is a urban myth or not but that is how I saw it.
I found the PA Turnpike to be safe during winter storms, one could make really good time out of the midwest into the coast ports no matter how stiff the storms were, at the time the alternative is to face mountain pass after pass in several feet of snow. Keep in mind we didnt use chains... much on the east.
Later on, the Pike became a liability in terms of tolls (Approx 100+ dollars and change for a 18 wheeler depending on weight) and it was easier to rely on high horse desiels and zip I-80 or I-68.
Several have posted about cars. Ive developed a firm belief that Cars and trucks just dont mix. When two try to occupy the same spot in space and time people die or get smashed and maimed.
USA driver training for cars is really a joke. Some lectures in high school and a spot of time with a family member who has willingness to endure transmission and other failures and a wild ride in exchange for the license and freedom of sorts from having to cart said kid from place to place on demand.
18 wheeler training depends on where you go and who trains you. Even then, a driver who has been on the duty behind the wheel in stress situations for 10+ hours isnt going to have the reflexes of a commuter jugging starbucks coffee bright and early fighting 20,000 other commuters all dependant on big engines, attitudes and big brakes to jam themselves to work downtown ahead of everyone else. I witnessed one time 5 complete lanes of cars jamming on thier brakes in panic braking at 80+ early one workday, the situation that presented to me was one of "someone will die today" if those brakes were not kept in adjustment. After I made that stop; my foot came down and used the roof of a station wagon filled with kids as a step down to the pavement. Those kids will never know the mortal danger they were in during the 8 seconds or so until I finished the stop and that was 2 decades ago.
Im not trying to make a hero or some big stuff on the trucking, but cars will go where they please and trucks dont compute at all where the car wants to go. Things like makeup, coffee, cellphones and work is much more important and requires the full attention of the driver. Things like actually manupilating controls or actually "DRIVING" is in the way of life.
Thus I say automate the cars and take away the need for people to actually drive. Let them board the thing, input the destination and just do what they need to do leaving the trip to the computer.
If you want a thrill, jump on the 401 between Montreal and Windsor, especially the stretch from Toronto to Windsor, and with special emphasis on Toronto Metro. 14 lanes (7 in each direction), with three as "collector" lanes and four as "Express" lanes. Went through there at 85 once (MPH, not KPH) in what amounted to bumper-to-bumper traffic. No wonder my hands are still stiff.....
Of course, when they have a "transport" (truck) accident, it's usually a doozy.....
As for adding any sort of lane - for some parts of the Interstate system, that will also require reconstruction of "surface" street overpasses, as many were only built wide enough for two lanes. I-40 through NC is a case in point.
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...
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
Tree68, come down to the GW sometime one night when a thousand of truckers racing for the markets after waiting out the afternoon rush. 80 mph minimum thru the cross bronx.
The mission is quite simple. Get in first, dock first unload first and be first OUT by sunrise. Preferably 2 states away to be first to reload what few loads are availible that day.
It is my understanding they built the 95 across and through a very large neighborhood with a extremely dense housing and commerce all in the name of National Defense back then.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: You have to remember that DuPage County is a political unit that prides itself on being separate from Chicago and Cook County. Side streets and secondary through streets are the jurisdiction of the local municipality, township or county, not the state. The money they spend on their streets is not available to other political units. The Tollway system is operated by a separate authority which is self-funding through the tolls it charges.
True, except that the Tollway Authority Board is dominated by many of those very same DuPage County politicians who run un-opposed at virtually every level in every election.
I think that at one time the ATA used a motto "If you own it, a truck brought it!". They could have added "and you paid the freight". Even someone living off the land without any modern conveniences probably owns a few things that were shipped from one point to another.
I find the various schemes being advanced to finance highway capacity expansion an excercise in "somebody else will pay". The cost of highway expansion starts at $1.5 million per lane mile and that doesn't include any work on bridges over and under, interchange modifications and any necessary land acquisition if additional right of way is needed. Add those items and you probably don't want to know.
OK, suppose that the new construction is exclusively for trucks only and financed by tolls. Looks like the truckers are paying for the highway, but where do the truckers get their money?
Almost everyone posting to this thread have cited their favorite congested highway. Fortunately not every mile of Interstate is crowded, but key routes between major metropolitan areas are getting slamed. We have got to expand or we are facing something approaching gridlock. Anyone who thinks they will not be affected is in denial.
Bottom line is we are either going to pay for capacity expansion with taxes or in the cost of the goods we buy. Otherwise we can just stay home and do without.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
The money for the trucking comes straight from the customer, you and me and everyone else!
Let's see... cost of moving 20 ton of apples over... 2000 miles out of Yakima.. er... let's call it .10 cents a pound. You probably bought the apples at the grocery store at about 1.20 a pound.
Substract .10 it becomes 1.10. Take away approx .40 and pay the farmer. That leaves about.... .60 a pound. I bet some of that money goes to fatten the broker, store and re-sellers. And a few cents go to the electric utitlies that chill those apples waiting for you to choose and buy them along with those taxes.
The .10 cents a pound over 40,000 pounds of apples for a city works out to 4000 dollars gross to the truck that hauled it. That breaks down to 2.00 a mile (Let's dream some more while we enjoy this fantasy) Let's assume Anytown is 2000 miles to the east of the Washington State Apple Farm in the Yakima.
Taxes, fuel, meals, payroll etc etc etc etc eat into that 4000 dollar pile at a awesome rate.
Keep in mind that every dollar spent during the move from shipper to store has additional taxes on it most every step of the way across all of the counties, states, towns and sometimes Nations. Dollar here dollar there 5 bucks over yonder etc. Ching ching ching.
Let's pay the nice driver, trucking company and maybe wall street stock holders too. Taxes please. More ... always more... like Oliver in the story asking the soup line for more holding the bowl.
Oh dont forget additional taxes on telephone charges, cell charges, satellite tracking, wood crate and pallet builders and let's not forget the taxes on the irrigation water bills paid by the farmer of that apple tree along with the taxes of all the people associated with the move of that apple from tree to your dining room table.
But who cares? The trucker and the company (Sometimes one and the same) simply charges off the expenses and takes the deductions so that the annual tax bill is not so stiff.
The Government turns around and builds a road and asks all citizens to pay for that road out of the tax revenue or vote Bonds to pay for it using 20+ years of future tax revenues.
Yea. That truck boughten those apples, but we the eaters of that apple owns it all. Lock, stock and barrel.
Oh, there usually aint sales tax on that bunch of apples you boughten at the store today.
And tell me again how much one mile of three lane interstate sitting on 2 feet of ballast and 18 inches of blacktop apsalt is these days?
If I recall my history, railroads used to move those Apples along with everything else good to eat west coast to east coast in very good time back in the 40's and 50's. The only reason you needed a truck was because you bought alot of apples for your little shop to sell downtown that day.
OTR trucking compaines would KILL to get 2 bucks a mile including any Fuel Surcharges. We are lucky to get around 1.50-1.60 a mile or less to haul produce and our fuel costs have TRIPLED in the last 6 years and we are now getting 20% less MPG with the new EPA MANDATED ENGINES THAN WE USE TO. Now CARB is saying we can not run the older more fuel efficant reefers into CA and to replace a reefer trailer costs 60K or more with the unit running 40K of that we run on avarage with a 4% profit margin and now we are getting squeezed even tighter with the Mexican trucks hauling here in the states. Look for the OTR and the Trucking indusrty in general to say the HELL with it and parking it especially the O/O that have their rigs paid for. We are sick and tired of being taxed to death yet when we try to recover OUR actual costs we can not do it.
Oh and I forgot the truck payment. Leasing starts approx 1400 dollars a month and ownership runs about 2000 per month with trailer and more if equippted fully. taxes on the registration and tags start about 1000 dollars per truck minimum per year. I started back in the bingo card days so I dont know now what it costs to feed a truck tag across all 48 states today each year.
My dispatcher used to split up two light coils that will fit on one trailer and turn a 1.40 a mile move into a two truck 3.20 a mile move. Dont quote me on this because it's hearsay.
UP 829 wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: You have to remember that DuPage County is a political unit that prides itself on being separate from Chicago and Cook County. Side streets and secondary through streets are the jurisdiction of the local municipality, township or county, not the state. The money they spend on their streets is not available to other political units. The Tollway system is operated by a separate authority which is self-funding through the tolls it charges.True, except that the Tollway Authority Board is dominated by many of those very same DuPage County politicians who run un-opposed at virtually every level in every election.
Yup. DuPage County is the Republican version of Crook County (where the primary elections are far more more important than the Blue vs. Red ones because Red never wins). DuPage, though, is an all-Red leafy island with newer infrastructure and without 25-foot lots, the "projects" and abandoned buildings. The Tollway board is appointed by the governor, a labeled Democrat who is secretly a member of The Combine (not Blue, not Red, just powerful insiders), the invisible political gang that is always in power and has been yanking the strings of puppets in government at the state, county and large city levels. The Tollway board has always been a rubber stamp for whatever gubernatorial insider has been rewarded with the presidency.
Falls Valley RR wrote: The money for the trucking comes straight from the customer, you and me and everyone else!Let's see... cost of moving 20 ton of apples over... 2000 miles out of Yakima.. er... let's call it .10 cents a pound. You probably bought the apples at the grocery store at about 1.20 a pound.Substract .10 it becomes 1.10. Take away approx .40 and pay the farmer. That leaves about.... .60 a pound. I bet some of that money goes to fatten the broker, store and re-sellers. And a few cents go to the electric utitlies that chill those apples waiting for you to choose and buy them along with those taxes.The .10 cents a pound over 40,000 pounds of apples for a city works out to 4000 dollars gross to the truck that hauled it. That breaks down to 2.00 a mile (Let's dream some more while we enjoy this fantasy) Let's assume Anytown is 2000 miles to the east of the Washington State Apple Farm in the Yakima.Taxes, fuel, meals, payroll etc etc etc etc eat into that 4000 dollar pile at a awesome rate.Keep in mind that every dollar spent during the move from shipper to store has additional taxes on it most every step of the way across all of the counties, states, towns and sometimes Nations. Dollar here dollar there 5 bucks over yonder etc. Ching ching ching.Let's pay the nice driver, trucking company and maybe wall street stock holders too. Taxes please. More ... always more... like Oliver in the story asking the soup line for more holding the bowl.Oh dont forget additional taxes on telephone charges, cell charges, satellite tracking, wood crate and pallet builders and let's not forget the taxes on the irrigation water bills paid by the farmer of that apple tree along with the taxes of all the people associated with the move of that apple from tree to your dining room table.But who cares? The trucker and the company (Sometimes one and the same) simply charges off the expenses and takes the deductions so that the annual tax bill is not so stiff.The Government turns around and builds a road and asks all citizens to pay for that road out of the tax revenue or vote Bonds to pay for it using 20+ years of future tax revenues.Yea. That truck boughten those apples, but we the eaters of that apple owns it all. Lock, stock and barrel.Oh, there usually aint sales tax on that bunch of apples you boughten at the store today.And tell me again how much one mile of three lane interstate sitting on 2 feet of ballast and 18 inches of blacktop apsalt is these days?If I recall my history, railroads used to move those Apples along with everything else good to eat west coast to east coast in very good time back in the 40's and 50's. The only reason you needed a truck was because you bought alot of apples for your little shop to sell downtown that day.
This may be the singlemost interesting version of economics I;ve ever seen.Especially where you claim "some of that money goes to fatten the broker, store and re-sellers". Why not say 10 cents a pound goes to fatten truck drivers and their companies? With all due respect here's a thought just as silly: If there wasn't a farmer, a broker, a store and consumers wanting to buy apples you wouldn't be needed, would you? Do you have a greater right to make a living than they do?I looked carefully and re-read it and still fail to see a point in there. Just complaining. Does the trucking industry have some unique and unfair costs that don't apply to any other businesses?This is how it works in a free-market economy.Excuse me for asking a question: if trucking is such a terrible occupation, the hours being long and away from home and the costs exhorbitant, why do you guys stay in it?
Chico
Steam Is King wrote: Falls Valley RR wrote: The money for the trucking comes straight from the customer, you and me and everyone else!Let's see... cost of moving 20 ton of apples over... 2000 miles out of Yakima.. er... let's call it .10 cents a pound. You probably bought the apples at the grocery store at about 1.20 a pound.Substract .10 it becomes 1.10. Take away approx .40 and pay the farmer. That leaves about.... .60 a pound. I bet some of that money goes to fatten the broker, store and re-sellers. And a few cents go to the electric utitlies that chill those apples waiting for you to choose and buy them along with those taxes.The .10 cents a pound over 40,000 pounds of apples for a city works out to 4000 dollars gross to the truck that hauled it. That breaks down to 2.00 a mile (Let's dream some more while we enjoy this fantasy) Let's assume Anytown is 2000 miles to the east of the Washington State Apple Farm in the Yakima.Taxes, fuel, meals, payroll etc etc etc etc eat into that 4000 dollar pile at a awesome rate.Keep in mind that every dollar spent during the move from shipper to store has additional taxes on it most every step of the way across all of the counties, states, towns and sometimes Nations. Dollar here dollar there 5 bucks over yonder etc. Ching ching ching.Let's pay the nice driver, trucking company and maybe wall street stock holders too. Taxes please. More ... always more... like Oliver in the story asking the soup line for more holding the bowl.Oh dont forget additional taxes on telephone charges, cell charges, satellite tracking, wood crate and pallet builders and let's not forget the taxes on the irrigation water bills paid by the farmer of that apple tree along with the taxes of all the people associated with the move of that apple from tree to your dining room table.But who cares? The trucker and the company (Sometimes one and the same) simply charges off the expenses and takes the deductions so that the annual tax bill is not so stiff.The Government turns around and builds a road and asks all citizens to pay for that road out of the tax revenue or vote Bonds to pay for it using 20+ years of future tax revenues.Yea. That truck boughten those apples, but we the eaters of that apple owns it all. Lock, stock and barrel.Oh, there usually aint sales tax on that bunch of apples you boughten at the store today.And tell me again how much one mile of three lane interstate sitting on 2 feet of ballast and 18 inches of blacktop apsalt is these days?If I recall my history, railroads used to move those Apples along with everything else good to eat west coast to east coast in very good time back in the 40's and 50's. The only reason you needed a truck was because you bought alot of apples for your little shop to sell downtown that day.This may be the singlemost interesting version of economics I;ve ever seen.Especially where you claim "some of that money goes to fatten the broker, store and re-sellers". Why not say 10 cents a pound goes to fatten truck drivers and their companies? With all due respect here's a thought just as silly: If there wasn't a farmer, a broker, a store and consumers wanting to buy apples you wouldn't be needed, would you? Do you have a greater right to make a living than they do?I looked carefully and re-read it and still fail to see a point in there. Just complaining. Does the trucking industry have some unique and unfair costs that don't apply to any other businesses?This is how it works in a free-market economy.Excuse me for asking a question: if trucking is such a terrible occupation, the hours being long and away from home and the costs exhorbitant, why do you guys stay in it?Chico
Apples grow here, and the cities are over there. I said earlier that the railroads used to bring those apples to where the people want to buy them. Everyone involved in the load of apples from the farmer who grew them, the crew that packed and loaded them all the way through the grocers and other workers who worked to get the apples to the customer buying them has a certian amount of money to make. Otherwise it is not worth getting into the apple business.
Trucking can move those apples to the customer. You could go to the farmer and buy the apples direct from him for much less than what the grocer will charge you. I recall buying apples off the farm's own outlet shop for about .25 cents a pound versus .75 in walmart at the time. Now apple prices have escalated to 1.30 and beyond.
The reason for the increase is that fuel is more expensive.
Another reason is that there are not many drivers or trucks as there used to be so the freight people has to increase the money paid to the trucker. Company Driver wages have gone up as trucking struggle to keep good people on the road. Everything goes up as everyone tries to make a reasonable mark up.
As long as Billy Bob and his family can afford the apples at the grocery store, everyone is making money in the apple business.
Now suppose Billy Bob's wages does not keep pace with the increase in apple prices? Sooner or later he and his family will not be able to buy as many apples or any at all.
What happens then? You tell me.
Falls Valley RR wrote: As long as Billy Bob and his family can afford the apples at the grocery store, everyone is making money in the apple business.Now suppose Billy Bob's wages does not keep pace with the increase in apple prices? Sooner or later he and his family will not be able to buy as many apples or any at all.What happens then? You tell me.
The scenario you paint can be found in any high school freshman-level economics book.
Fact of life: Wages have always and will always lag behind the cost of living. It is all part of an unending cycle -- inflation. Billy Bob gets a raise to adjust for additional cost of living. His company passes that raise onto its customers. They, in turn, eventually pass it along to their customers. Which somewhere will find itself back to good old Billy Bob in the form of more expensive apples, who will then need another cost of living increase.
But to answer your question, if something radical happens and Billy Bob does not get his raise and cannot afford his apples, the government will buy them for him because he will qualify for assistance.
Or, Billy Bob could do something like attend a community college and enhance the skills he can offer to an employer and therefore be qualified for a job that pays more. That's how individuals break the cycle. CPAs earn more than ditch diggers even though ditch digging is much harder work -- at least in the sweat & sore muscles category. The less people in the workforce share your skills, the more you make. Tiger Woods makes more money than any other golfer because his skills are in the stratosphere, alone.
The apple producing business is forced to become more efficient, and the price of apples goes down.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Fact of life: Wages have always and will always lag behind the cost of living.
Fact of life: Wages have always and will always lag behind the cost of living.
Oh good heavens, average wages have historically, not always, advanced faster than the consumer price index.
1951-1960, wages increased 43%; CPI 21%
1960-1970, wages, 54%; CPI 26%
1970-1980, wages, 102%, CPI 98%
1980-1990, wages, 68%, CPI, 71%
1990-2000, wages, 53%, CPI, 34%
2000-2006, wages, 20%, CPI, 17%.
Total, 1951-2006, wages 1281%, CPI, 709%.
MichaelSol wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Fact of life: Wages have always and will always lag behind the cost of living. Oh good heavens, average wages have historically, not always, advanced faster than the consumer price index. 1951-1960, wages increased 43%; CPI 21%1960-1970, wages, 54%; CPI 26%1970-1980, wages, 102%, CPI 98%1980-1990, wages, 68%, CPI, 71%1990-2000, wages, 53%, CPI, 34%2000-2006, wages, 20%, CPI, 17%.Total, 1951-2006, wages 1281%, CPI, 709%.
MichaelSol wrote:Oh good heavens, average wages have historically, not always, advanced faster than the consumer price index. 1951-1960, wages increased 43%; CPI 21%1960-1970, wages, 54%; CPI 26%
Pretty much true for 1951 to 1970.
1970-1980, wages, 102%, CPI 98%1980-1990, wages, 68%, CPI, 71%1990-2000, wages, 53%, CPI, 34%2000-2006, wages, 20%, CPI, 17%
2000-2006, wages, 20%, CPI, 17%
Wages from 1970 to 2006 barely keeping pace with CPI. Also note that the CPI was redefined in the 1980's and again in the 1990's, both redefinitions reducing increases in CPI.
Getting a realistic definition of the CPI is non-trivial, e.g. the cheapest color TV in 1965 went for about $300 and you can probably get one now for less than $200. On the other hand, a house in Cardiff that might have gone for $30,000 in 1970 may well be worth nearly a million now.
Note that most of the gains in wages over CPI took place between 1951 and 1970. This is due to a rapid increase in productivity taking place in that era.
edbenton wrote: OTR trucking compaines would KILL to get 2 bucks a mile including any Fuel Surcharges. We are lucky to get around 1.50-1.60 a mile or less to haul produce and our fuel costs have TRIPLED in the last 6 years and we are now getting 20% less MPG with the new EPA MANDATED ENGINES THAN WE USE TO. Now CARB is saying we can not run the older more fuel efficant reefers into CA and to replace a reefer trailer costs 60K or more with the unit running 40K of that we run on avarage with a 4% profit margin and now we are getting squeezed even tighter with the Mexican trucks hauling here in the states. Look for the OTR and the Trucking indusrty in general to say the HELL with it and parking it especially the O/O that have their rigs paid for. We are sick and tired of being taxed to death yet when we try to recover OUR actual costs we can not do it.
For the 3rd quater of 2007 Werner reported an averrage of $1.70/mile revenue plus $0.35/mile fuel surcharge. Total is $2.05/mile. Produce might be different - it goes longer distances so the revenue per mile would be less under competitive conditions.
Average length of haul was 550 miles. They are reducing the size of their over the road fleet just as you said they would.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071015/20071015006403.html?.v=1
I am not current on emissions but the Prebuy was absolutely necessary to secure the effective engines before the deadline, after which you had casterated engines.
Vans is good to have (Box trailer) but Reefers is more effective because you increase your options for backhaul.
The Solos cannot carry through without attrition of those who are not totally able to be on time reliably for a variety of reasons. Teams are the future in long haul.
Trucking overall is a feast and famine and after the year is finished and everything is settled up and paid for, a dollar's profit is something to be enjoyed.
I think that Trucking Companies that are owned wholly privately or otherwise not involved in any way with wall street and share holders along with no debt are the strongest. The rest, they are forced to dance to the tune of profit.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.