schlimm 1. The BLS gives wages, salaries and benefits, and list both as percentages of total compensation. I think you will find, that most people, when inquiring about a job, look at salary, not total compensation, since most people are interesting in supporting themselves and family, and benefits don't do that. 2. The number of people employed in manufacturing according to the NAM site (18.6 mil.) is much higher than either BLS category: 11,694,000 (which includes purchasing agents) or 8,236,340. Folks can decide which stats they think are relevant. In some statistics, McDonald's and Burger King, et al. workers are categorized as being in manufacturing, because they "make" hamburgers and other fast foods.
1. The BLS gives wages, salaries and benefits, and list both as percentages of total compensation. I think you will find, that most people, when inquiring about a job, look at salary, not total compensation, since most people are interesting in supporting themselves and family, and benefits don't do that.
2. The number of people employed in manufacturing according to the NAM site (18.6 mil.) is much higher than either BLS category: 11,694,000 (which includes purchasing agents) or 8,236,340. Folks can decide which stats they think are relevant. In some statistics, McDonald's and Burger King, et al. workers are categorized as being in manufacturing, because they "make" hamburgers and other fast foods.
Employer furnished benefits mean that the employee does not have to buy the services embedded in them, i.e. healthcare, FICA taxes, etc. If they did, they would realize quickly that employer provided benefits support them and their families.
The deferred maintenance that is accruing to the Interstate System would tend to indicate that the users are not paying for that system either.
When it comes to transportation, all forms, it is the circulatory system of the economy. Does our body expect its circulatory system 'to show a profit'...no! The body expects the circulatory system to carry all the blood necessary to sustain the the body, no matter the stress and strain that is placed upon it....to maximize flow where it is needed and to minimize flow where it is no longer needed. We expect the same from our transportation systems, without a willingness to fund them where more transportation is needed, and a reluctance to eliminate services that have demonstrated next to no need and no enhancement to the system in general.
The death of railroad operated passenger services can be traced to it's desire to eliminate 'unprofitable' branch line services...services that benefited the Main line services. As the branch line services ended, their contribution to the Main line services ended and the Main line volumes decreased to the level of unprofitably also. When you view the entirety of a system, not all of it will appear profitable on it's own merit.
The transportation systems of the country, in all its forms built and envisioned, are the circulatory system that keeps the US economy functioning.
Sam1 My objection to HSR is the low probability of the users paying for it. That is a different dynamic in a mature economy than a rapidly growing economy. As for the Europeans, they have more than their fair share of financial challenges. Frankly, I don't care what the Europeans do. This is not Europe. The solutions that might work there are not ones that would be a good fit in the United States.
My objection to HSR is the low probability of the users paying for it. That is a different dynamic in a mature economy than a rapidly growing economy. As for the Europeans, they have more than their fair share of financial challenges. Frankly, I don't care what the Europeans do. This is not Europe. The solutions that might work there are not ones that would be a good fit in the United States.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
You object to a report from the ASCE as likely to be biased ("worst case scenario") b/c it is a professional assoc. It is worth noting, however, that you seem to have no problem with a report from the NAM trade assoc., which is as likely to be biased as ASCE is in the respective areas.
It is also worth noting that if your 7 year old computer crashes (it isn't worn out, merely not the newest architecture) not one person will die or be injured. But 30-40 year old bridges? Just recall the I 35W bridge in the Twin Cities in 2007: 30 years old, 13 dead, 145 injured.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
When the Minneapolis I35W bridge collapsed, politicians seized on the event as an example of Our Crumbling Infrastructure. It made no difference that the collapse was due to a design flaw, and had nothing to do with infrastructure maintenance.
Not exactly. The design flaw was never noticed in the 40 years of the bridge's existence, although it was on the list of seriously deficient bridges for years, and is part of the design of many more bridges.
"On January 15, 2008, the National Transportation Safety Board announced they had determined that the bridge's design specified steel gusset plates that were undersized and inadequate to support the intended load of the bridge, a load which had increased over time.The primary cause was the under-sized gusset plates, at 0.5 inches (13 mm) thick. Contributing to that design or construction error was the fact that 2 inches (51 mm) of concrete were added to the road surface over the years, increasing the dead load by 20%. Also contributing was the extraordinary weight of construction equipment and material resting on the bridge just above its weakest point at the time of the collapse. That load was estimated at 578,000 pounds (262,000 kg) consisting of sand, water, and vehicles." Corrosion was not a factor.
Most people would look at infrastructure problems as a function of out-dated designs and structures that over time are more at risk from repeated stress. The fact that axle loads on trucks are higher than they were in 1970 or 1980 might be a factor as well. The whole point is many of these structures worked fine for many years, but now are nearing the end of their functional lives, just as airliners do, even without corrosion.
"As of 2007, federal estimates suggest truck traffic increased 216% since 1970, shortly before the federal gross weight limit for trucks was increased by 30,000 pounds (14,000 kg). This is also the period during which many of the existing interstate bridges were built. Research shows that increased truck traffic (and therefore, increased stress) shortens the life of bridges. National Pavement Cost Model (NAPCOM) estimates indicate that one 80,000-pound (36,000 kg) truck does as much damage to roads as 750 3,800-pound (1,700 kg) cars."
It would as though an airliner designed to safely carry a certain weight, were subjected to a 40% increase. So once again, the issue of damage to roads by trucks comes up.
schlimm You object to a report from the ASCE as likely to be biased ("worst case scenario") b/c it is a professional assoc. It is worth noting, however, that you seem to have no problem with a report from the NAM trade assoc., which is as likely to be biased as ASCE is in the respective areas. It is also worth noting that if your 7 year old computer crashes (it isn't worn out, merely not the newest architecture) not one person will die or be injured. But 30-40 year old bridges? Just recall the I 35W bridge in the Twin Cities in 2007: 30 years old, 13 dead, 145 injured.
The NAM is reporting the compensations packages and statistics from its members. Its statement of U.S. manufacturing as a share of the world's total comes from the United Nations. It is not advocating anything in the figures that I reported. It was simply stating verifiable facts.
The ASCE is advocating a robust program of bridge building. Its members have a vested interest in projects that create jobs for civil engineers and technicians. That is not to say that they are not being honest in their beliefs. They cite DOT figures to buttress their point of view. But any time a special interest group advocates a point of view, its objectivity is suspect.
The reference to my computer was to show that functionally obsolete is relative. It may be functionally obsolete compared to a new design but it still works.
One bridge collapse does not mean that all the bridges in the U.S. or even a significant portion of them are structurally unsound. Projecting an single incident to the population as a whole, without supporting evidence, is a logical fallacy. Following the collapse of the I-35 bride in Minneapolis, TXDOT examined every bridge in the Texas. Not a single bridge had to be closed, although some were marked for repair and upgrade.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/bridges
Interesting reading.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Sam1 What disgusts me even more than TSA treating everyone like a criminal just in case is Americans who are so frightened that they tolerate it. If a police officer monitors traffic, is he or she treating everyone like a criminal. The TSA, for very good reasons, is trying to keep criminals from blowing up airplanes because that is what they have done or attempted to do. I wish it were not so. But it is a threat. And I am glad the TSA is doing its job.
What disgusts me even more than TSA treating everyone like a criminal just in case is Americans who are so frightened that they tolerate it.
If a police officer monitors traffic, is he or she treating everyone like a criminal. The TSA, for very good reasons, is trying to keep criminals from blowing up airplanes because that is what they have done or attempted to do. I wish it were not so. But it is a threat. And I am glad the TSA is doing its job.
I am a retired police officer. I never treated citizens like that in my entire career. I have a deep abiding respect for the rights and freedom of our citizens. The Fourth Amendment to our constitution guarantees us the right to be secure in our persons and property and specifically requires a showing of cause and a warrant to violate that security.
The hysterical response of the USA is grossly out of proportion to the threat.
You stand a greater chance of being struck by lightning than you do of being killed by a terrorist.
I prefer freedom to the illusion of safety that comes from that disgusting security theater at the airport.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
zugmann http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/bridges Interesting reading.
Ditto. Of course, those folks who object to government spending will find ways to ignore this too.
Although interesting, but predictable, we have strayed fairly far from the original topic. I simply wonder whether people interested in railroading can allow themselves to admire a great accomplishment, minus the economics, location and political considerations?
Sam1No one, certainly not this writer, is saying that portions of our infrastructure don't need to be repaired or replaced. Or that new infrastructure is not required. My counterpoint, however, is to some of the folks who post to these forums, claiming that the nation's infrastructure is falling apart. Bits and pieces of it are, to be sure, but overall the infrastructure of the United States is in reasonably decent shape.
Sam1 The report....goes on to state that most of the bridges, whilst needing repair, are safe, although lower speeds and weights may be required in some instances.
The report....goes on to state that most of the bridges, whilst needing repair, are safe, although lower speeds and weights may be required in some instances.
I realize that the railroads back then were hampered by outdated regulation, outrageous work rules, and unfairly subsidized competition. Thus they did not have the means to pay for all of the needed repairs. And if the Stagers Act had not been passed, and if the unions had not relented, I believe there would not be much in the way of railroading left in this country; perhaps some tracks would have remained to haul coal, either at significantly higher prices, or operated by a government-run coal transportation system.
These days progress and improvements are hampered by NIMBY's, nearly-endless "environmental impact" studies, and political near-sightedness.
Great accomplishments don't exist in a vacuum....they exist in the world that is driven by economics, location and political considerations; especially when those accomplishments occur in the world of transportation.
schlimm Although interesting, but predictable, we have strayed fairly far from the original topic. I simply wonder whether people interested in railroading can allow themselves to admire a great accomplishment, minus the economics, location and political considerations?
True, but that doesn't stop folks from debating Heritage paint schemes, which are not an achievement at all.
I bet the guy that designed the paint scheme, or the guys that appled it think it was an achievement.
OK, a minor achievement then. LOL
Sometimes simple victories are the best.
Greyhounds asks for an example in which short-term profits trumped long-term investment: CSX under the leadership of John Snow. The railroad was a mass of slow orders, and seemingly every day brought a new FRA safety citation for failure to maintain infrastructure. Since Snow's departure, CSX has turned this around, but there was a close call when a hedge fund bought seats on the board and threatened to oust management because it thought the railroad should spend more money on dividends and stock buybacks rather than maintenance. Only the onset of the recent "Great Recession", which took down a lot of over-leveraged hedge funds, prevented this.
More broadly, it takes a short memory not to recall the circa-2000 tech bubble, during which brand new companies selling cat litter over the web at a loss commanded larger stock market capitalizations than long-established companies with customers and profits. Wall Street was throwing money at every 20-year-old CEO who knew how to construct a web site, while capital-intensive industries like railroads couldn't float a new stock offering at any price.
Or simply ask yourself why UP suspended double-tracking the Sunset route during the recent Great Recession? Here's a railroad with a history of being caught short and clogging up whenever business surges; its managers obviously anticipated that traffic would in time increase; and a recession is the perfect opportunity to add track, both because materials and labor are cheaper, and because there's more idle time for maintenance windows. So why wasn't UP able to make this happen financially?
The problem isn't that railroad managers are greedy or irrational. The problem is that the US financial system rewards managers who deliver consistent quarterly results rather than maximum long-term results, and rational managers respond to the incentives they're given.
...and don't forget Carl Icahn, Victor Posner, Nelson Peltz, Robert M. Bass, T. Boone Pickens, Harold Clark Simmons, etc. Collectively called corporate raiders, who in the 1980s bought huge companies using borrowed money in hostile takeovers, issued all their liquid assets in dividends and sold off the carcases putting many thousands of loyal employees out of work and destroying entire industries in the name of short term profits. They had no interest in actually running the target companies for long term gain.
Congress (both parties) and President Reagan refused to deal with it, so American companies reacted by greatly reducing their liquid assets so that there would be less quick profit for a raider. Thus began our policy of carrying too much debt. The eventual big crash was inevitable.
I thought I remember reading an interview done with Matt Rose soon after the Berkshire Hathaway acquisition (Railway Age, perhaps? -- not sure, and don't have time to check, but maybe one of you will also recall). His comments were something to the effect that he was now able to focus on long-term growth, because he was no longer tied to quarterly results in the same (short-term) way that Wall Street required of a public company.
In a parallel universe....what if they wanted HSR and nobody bid on it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14118028
Foreign firms had found it difficult to form a consortium with Brazilian companies, a condition of the bidding process, he said.
Hmmmm.
Phoebe Vet Foreign firms had found it difficult to form a consortium with Brazilian companies, a condition of the bidding process, he said. Hmmmm.
Last week service had 2 interruptions of 2 - 4 hrs due to storm damages to CAT.
ecoli The problem isn't that railroad managers are greedy or irrational. The problem is that the US financial system rewards managers who deliver consistent quarterly results rather than maximum long-term results, and rational managers respond to the incentives they're given.
The likely root of this problem is that stocks are largely held by institutional investors, e.g. pension funds, mutual funds, insurance companies, etc that want some consistency in the rise of the stock price. FWIW, the biggest investors in hedge funds are these same large institutional investors. Now if pension funds and non-profits had to pay capital gains tax on investments held less than five years, there would likely be a lot more interest paid to long term investments.
- Erik
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.