Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
RR's are full - then let truckers pull doubles!

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Wow! So much to correct here, and some continued disappointment at the opinions of those who really should know better... 1. Back to the original subject at hand, what needs to be done to improve the efficiency of truckers is to get rid of Gross Vehicle Weight limits and replace that with an average weight per axle standard. Here's a quiz: Which causes more road damage - two trucks each hauling 35 tons of cargo, or one truck hauling 70 tons of cargo? Assuming the average axle loadings are the same, the two trucks will cause more road damage because they are adding more tare weight in the form of the second cab unit. Obviously, by allowing a single trucker to haul two trailer loads worth of cargo will result in less road damage. In addition, a single truck pulling two 53' trailers will have less net length than two trucks each pulling a single 53' trailer, again due to the space taken up by the second cab unit. With our nation's dependency on trucks to deliver the goods, the idea of allowing more weight and/or more trailers per truck can only benefit the nation. 2. Mark, I really wish you would think things through regarding open access, defered maintenance, etc. Why do you insist that an infrastructure company would be more likely to defer maintenance than the current situation? We know that today's railroads are purposefully defering capital investments to temporarily improve their botton lines with Wall Street. An infrastructure company would have no choice, they would have to reinvest in the infrastructure or go out of business real soon. To suggest that infrastructure-based corporations exist only for the here and now and would not reinvest in infrastructure is extremely cynical. Don't the owners of pipelines reinvest to keep current capacity and grow for future capacity increases? What about electric transmission line owners? Telecommunications infrastructure owners? Don't timber companies replant trees after logging operations on separately private timberlands or public timber lands? Do store owners simply let the paint peel and the shelves collapse to the point of being ineffectual for the selling of the goods, and then simply close up and walk away? NO! They include the costs of maintenance and expansion in the markup of the goods. An infrastructure company will base rates in a way that will cover maintenance costs to maintain the track at certain minimum speeds, weights, train lengths, etc., and with a certain ROI factored in. By doing so, they will satisfy their customers, who in turn will commit to more long term contracts. This is the basic business model, and it includes the cost of maintenance as a cost of doing long term business. By reinvesting, they will attract more business, which in turn will allow investment in future expansions. There is enough of an efficiency and/or speed advantage of railroads to successfully compete with highways and waterways, enough so to make up for subsidization of the others. In other words, there is a market for pathways to maintain the flow of goods. Those who provide the most efficient infrastructure will garner the most shippers and profit from it, those who let their pathways crumble will go out of business. It is the basic supply and demand dynamic, and this dynamic is the basis of the free market system. When either supply and.or demand are artificially squelched in monopolistic situations, it degrades the dynamic, and that is what is happening in the railroad industry in North America. There are formulations available by third party firms that calculate what an infrastructure company would have to charge in order to cover up to the date maintenance and still produce a profit. Check out this website..... http://www.zetatech.com/CORPQIII44.htm ..... then offer up your collective opinions on whether an infrastructure company could make it or not. 3. I'm also disappointed in the presentation of shippers as being some sort of bad guy trying to destroy our nice little railroads. Excuse me, isn't it supposed to be about the shippers? Aren't they the reason transportation companies exist in the first place? Why do some of you instantly denegrate shippers who are guilty of nothing more than trying to alleviate themselves from the abuses of monopolistic practices by the railroads? Why do you think the manufacturers of bulky, heavy things are constantly moving their operations overseas or shutting down? One of the major factors in the U.S.'s loss of manufacturing jobs lies in the inability of stateside manufacturers to access competitive transportation options. Look at those handful of buk-transport-dependent manufacturers who are planning expansion in the U.S. By and large, they seek to site their new facilities in locations which have access to more than one Class I railroad. Few if any will be building new facilities in locales which have access to only one Class I railroad. Dave Smith
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag