The future's so bright, we gotta wear shades!

[greyhounds]

Well, we have this one from Transport Topics, house organ of the American Trucking Associations:

"Officials at J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc. told the Associated Press the United States needs more intermodal terminals.

Company President of Kirk Thompson recently told investors that limits on rail service confines intermodal transportation growth, AP said.

Terry Matthews, the truckload company's vice president of sales, said intermodal terminals would allow trucks and railcars to move freight inland from container ports at Long Beach, Calif., and Los Angeles, AP reported.

To help make the system more efficient, the country needs a national transportation policy and government investment to build more intermodal terminals, he told AP.

One version of a transportation spending bill that cleared the U.S. House last week would earmark $250 million a year for intermodal facilities from 2005 through 2009, AP said. The bill is awaiting action in the Senate.

J.B. Hunt is ranked No. 9 on the Transport Topics 100 listing of U.S. and Canadian for-hire carriers. "

By Transport Topics

But I vote no, JB doesn't get a subsidy. If they want IM terminals, they can build 'em.

Then we have the Interstate Highway toll thingy:

http://fleetowner.com/news/topstory/highway_bill_interstate_toll_truck_031405/

Looks like a runaway freight train to me.

I really think that if more intermoal terminals are needed that, instead of tax dollars being used to build them, the BNSF should raise its low ball rates on Montana wheat to fund the new terminals.

[Anonymous]

I've always been of the opinion that trains should have the long haul, and trucks the short haul.

It's just not economical to have trucks going from coast to coast with today's fuel prices.

It's happening more and more, trucks and trains have much more to gain by working together.

[oltmannd]

I can see why JB Hunt want the gov't to build them the intermodal terminals. The gov't built the rest of their infrastructure, why not this, too?

If it would get traffic off the urban interstates, like I-85 and I-75 in Atlanta, it would likely provide cheaper relief than adding capacity to the highways.

Sounds like a good application for ISTEA money. (or TEA-whatever, if they ever get thru authorizing it)

[Randy Stahl]

Why not use a box car .
Randy

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

Why not use a box car .
Randy

They ruin the concrete[:D]

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

Why not use a box car .
Randy

Use a what?

Seriously, the collection, aggregation, sorting, and delivery of individual general freight shipments can usually be done more efficiently with a truck than with a train.

Sometimes, boxcars are competitive, but you see most general freight now moving intermodal because the the origin/destion handling efficiencies of motor freight.

And, if it's international cargo it's in a steamship box anyway.

[gabe]

OK Greyhounds, I know we have been down this road before; but, if you are tiring of arguing about grain prices in Montana, maybe you will welcome the change of pace:

The government will spend X amount of $ next year to provide for X amount of increase of vehicles on the highway. Why does in not make sense to spend 74% of X to provide intermodal facilities that would take enough vehicles off the highway to prevent the government from having to spend all of X?

This is such a strange argument for me. I am usually on the other side of big government arguments, but if there is a method that gets things done cheaper and more efficiently, why not utilize it?

Gabe

[oltmannd]

Gabe, I think you've got it!

[greyhounds]

If economic planning was that simple, the government could do it.

Sticking an intermodal terminal somewhere will increase truck traffic in that area. It will draw shipments (hopefully) to it. So now the government will not only have to spend funds for the terminal, but they will also have to improve the road network to and from the terminal to handle the increased truck traffic.

Additionally, the terminal could spur some business location in its proximity. These businesses will ship and receive goods. Now an undeterminable amount of this business may go through the terminal - and that will further aggrevate congestion. But most trucking is short haul and unsuitable for intermodal movement. So that increase will also go on the highway.

It's easy to see them having to make the highway expenditures because of the terminal, not eliminate them because of the terminal.

None of this can be forecast or quantified with any degree of accuracy. They can't even begin to identify all the factors they would need to quantify. So the government can't know what it's doing in such a situation.

I went to a presentation on transportation infrastructure by Tom Finkbiner today at Northwestern University. Mr. Finkbiner used to be head of the Triple Crown RoadRailer operation. He's now with "Quality", which is the largest bulk commodity trucker.

There was a free flow of discussion and a general consesus developed (my perception) that the Interstates need to be toll funded. (That's not necessarily Finkbiner's hope.) a) No government in the US has spare cash lying around, b) it's only "fair" that the users of the roads pay for the roads in proportion to their use of the roads.

If we funded highway betterments, additions and maitenance out of use, instead of out of general revenues, we'd get a more valid economic relationship that could balance cost and benifit.

If we fund out of general revenue, we'll never be close to being able to guess at the cost benifit relationships. It looks like Interstate tolls are going to be approved in congrerss (They don't have much choice.) and the betterments are going to be toll funded.

I like that idea.

[MP173]

I think I am tired of Montana wheat also.

I rested my case tonight and dont think I will ever go back there.

The Northwestern seminar would have been a good one.

ed

[arbfbe]

If J.B. Hunt thinks the country needs more of them then they should quit whining to the public about it, do some market research, put together the business plan, obtain the financing and go out and build the ones they think they need. Along with that they could build some third lanes on grades on the Interstates so the rest of the traffic on the road is not restricted to truck speed in the mountains. How about some trucker owned rest areas so the traveling public can use the rest areas they paid for and don't have to deal with trucks parked on the edge of the entrance ramp. The railroads have had to do all that on their own for over 100 years it is time the trucking companies used their own initiative to fund what they need as well.

I am not really against the truckers but they should give going it on their own a try.

[Junctionfan]

Of course the more business that come to the area, the more taxes you collect if you are the government. Vacant land isn't profitable.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Of course the more business that come to the area, the more taxes you collect if you are the government. Vacant land isn't profitable.

Revenues do not equal profits.

There's no way for governments to know if their extra taxes will offset their extra costs. They can't quantify this stuff (although sometimes they pretend to).

Vacant land may not be "profitable", but it's nice and enhances our quality of life. That's why we have "Parks". I like "Parks". They're not an economic activity and a proper role of government, unlike economic development such as intermodal terminals.

Yes, I can explain this.

[spbed]

Well after UPS JBH is the BNSF largest intermodal customer. They have invested very heavily in there own containers (not trailers) which require chassises at each end. The more yards available to JBH means the more places they can serve via intermodal RR service rather then by over the road trucking. [:o)][:o)]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

If economic planning was that simple, the government could do it.

Sticking an intermodal terminal somewhere will increase truck traffic in that area. It will draw shipments (hopefully) to it. So now the government will not only have to spend funds for the terminal, but they will also have to improve the road network to and from the terminal to handle the increased truck traffic.

Additionally, the terminal could spur some business location in its proximity. These businesses will ship and receive goods. Now an undeterminable amount of this business may go through the terminal - and that will further aggrevate congestion. But most trucking is short haul and unsuitable for intermodal movement. So that increase will also go on the highway.

It's easy to see them having to make the highway expenditures because of the terminal, not eliminate them because of the terminal.

None of this can be forecast or quantified with any degree of accuracy. They can't even begin to identify all the factors they would need to quantify. So the government can't know what it's doing in such a situation.

I went to a presentation on transportation infrastructure by Tom Finkbiner today at Northwestern University. Mr. Finkbiner used to be head of the Triple Crown RoadRailer operation. He's now with "Quality", which is the largest bulk commodity trucker.

There was a free flow of discussion and a general consesus developed (my perception) that the Interstates need to be toll funded. (That's not necessarily Finkbiner's hope.) a) No government in the US has spare cash lying around, b) it's only "fair" that the users of the roads pay for the roads in proportion to their use of the roads.

If we funded highway betterments, additions and maitenance out of use, instead of out of general revenues, we'd get a more valid economic relationship that could balance cost and benifit.

If we fund out of general revenue, we'll never be close to being able to guess at the cost benifit relationships. It looks like Interstate tolls are going to be approved in congrerss (They don't have much choice.) and the betterments are going to be toll funded.

I like that idea.

OK but who decides the fair fraction of use? The gas tax currently under taxes trucks and over taxes cars based on wear and tear. Repair of weather damage occurs regardless of use. Use of a "slot" of capacity could vary with vehicle length, grades, speed, etc, but not vehicle weight. How do you sort all this out to create a fair "toll", "user fee" or just plain old tax?

Figuring out soft costs and soft benefits IS difficult, but government is probably better at it than the private sector. I'll cite mercury emission regulation as an example. All of the benefits are soft, but (hardly) anyone doubts that the regulation is a good thing.

[gabe]

Greyhounds,

I will concede your point about quantification. I don't think your point can honestly be argued. However, does the fact that our debate topic cannot be honestly quantified help my point or yours? I honestly don't know.

Yes, the highway area surrounding the intermodal terminal would need more money put into it to provide for the increased traffic. However, that needs to be compared to the 1000s of highway miles that the truck would have used had it not been put on rail. Also, isn't the consolidation of industrial centers more efficient? I know that is one of the theories motivating modern zoning ordinances.

I am not sure what I think about the uses of tolls on the Interstate. It would add the cost of (1) the construction of the tolls, (2) the payment of tollbooth operators to the cost of highway travel, and (3) be yet another bureaucratic agency to an already over bureaucratized system. Furthermore, I would rather pay the money for license plate fees and out of gas taxes (that way I don't have to stop every 10 miles and slow my trip). Most importantly, I suspect such tolls would more or less amount to a "secret" tax increase, as I doubt that the gas tax or license plate fees would go down after such tolls were implemented. So in effect, we would just be increasing taxes.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

Need more "WHAT"?
We already got more junk coming from over seas as it is.
BNSFrailfan.

[daveklepper]

One place government (not necessarily Federal) can spend money to improve freight efficiency is tracks on docks so the dock is really a see of container flatcard that can be moved off and replaced efficiently. Of course the right design yard is necessary as an adjunct with its space, so the container flatcars can be marshalled into trains efficiently. But cutting down turn-around time for ships at ports dramtically raises the ports' efficiencies. Thew use of trucks at Long Beach and LA to pick up the containers from docks is rediculous in my opinion. Compair:

Ship to dock dock to truck truck to flatcar vs.

Ship to flatcar

There can be a small area for the trucks to pick up short-hall stuff directly or
everything can leave the dock on flatcar and shorthaul stuff moved to truck in an
intermodel yard that insures most short haul trucks don't need to pass through a congested area.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

I am not sure what I think about the uses of tolls on the Interstate. It would add the cost of (1) the construction of the tolls, (2) the payment of tollbooth operators to the cost of highway travel, and (3) be yet another bureaucratic agency to an already over bureaucratized system. Furthermore, I would rather pay the money for license plate fees and out of gas taxes (that way I don't have to stop every 10 miles and slow my trip). Most importantly, I suspect such tolls would more or less amount to a "secret" tax increase, as I doubt that the gas tax or license plate fees would go down after such tolls were implemented. So in effect, we would just be increasing taxes.

Gabe

When we lived in Houston 10 years ago the Hardy Toll Road used a system of sensors to automatically collect our toll and we saw it hit our checking account every month. We didn't need to slow down and the cost was very evident on our monthly checking statement.

I think the cost should be as visable so people understand the cost. One of the great errors pre-Staggers was that the railroads were expected to cross subsidize various losing services. As an example, I use to hear people say a line moving pulpwood from the woods to a paper mill in Green Bay may be losing lots of money but the railroad can make it up on the profitable traffic from the UP at Fremont to CR at Chicago.

[arbfbe]

The idea of taking a hit on the pulpwood move was you got to make it up with the haul of finished product out of the mill that would more than make up for the loss.

But back to the original post, if J. B. Hunt wants another intermodal terminal why doesn't J. B. Hunt build it? Why should the railroads or governments build it for them?

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

The idea of taking a hit on the pulpwood move was you got to make it up with the haul of finished product out of the mill that would more than make up for the loss.

But back to the original post, if J. B. Hunt wants another intermodal terminal why doesn't J. B. Hunt build it? Why should the railroads or governments build it for them?

Because they either can't quickly or will not quickly. J.B. Hunt is making money as it is. Why spend billions on such a facility when they can make slightly less moving it over the road. The government subsidy is the necessary sweetener to justify the service from an economic point.

Gabe

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

But back to the original post, if J. B. Hunt wants another intermodal terminal why doesn't J. B. Hunt build it? Why should the railroads or governments build it for them?

Because they either can't quickly or will not quickly. J.B. Hunt is making money as it is. Why spend billions on such a facility when they can make slightly less moving it over the road. The government subsidy is the necessary sweetener to justify the service from an economic point.

Gabe

This is the hard part. Any carrier is going to say a lot of things to get government money. Some of it will be true but you need to somehow seperate the wheat from the chaff. Recalling my pulpwood buddies the future was always bright with the promise of much more business. Then came Staggers and contracts. My buddies were not willing to sign simple contracts with a minimum annual volume promise backed up with liqudated damages for non performance.

[kenneo]

Point - increased traffic at/near IT = Those trucks are going to be on that freeway anyway as long haul moves. Where traffic will increase is the feeder road(s) between the IT and the freeway. The Oregon financing model is for the developer to build and fund all access and service costs (build road, water, sewer, power etc). Government just inspects and approves or rejects, and then sends the developer a bill for that service. Not much economic expansion in Oregon. High unemployment. $100k house now costs $250k in new areas.

Cross-subsidies = Still going on today. Rail pays full fare ticket. OTR gets breaks from governments to give higher cost OTR moves cheaper cost structure. Continuation of the Granger Populist Politics of 125 years ago. See Montana debate for modern version. To get high value and high rate traffic, railroad hauls certain items for customer at a loss in exchange. Railroad looses more than it gains. Variations of this theme a major reason CRIP went bust.

Market Pricing - Competition = Intermodal rates (and coal and most grain rates, too) are much below what they should be to cover all normal business costs - in some cases as much low as a 70% parity level. Various reasons. Very long winded discussion. If rail rates increased to 100% parity, truck rates would follow in lock step. Resulting income would go (mostly) straight to the bottom line and fund rail infrastructure repair and expansion and buy more trucks and pay truckers enough to stay in the trucking business - not as now. Also, increased tax reciepts without much increased spending - general rate taxpayer delighted.

[CSXrules4eva]

it

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

If J.B. Hunt thinks the country needs more of them then they should quit whining to the public about it, do some market research, put together the business plan, obtain the financing and go out and build the ones they think they need. Along with that they could build some third lanes on grades on the Interstates so the rest of the traffic on the road is not restricted to truck speed in the mountains. How about some trucker owned rest areas so the traveling public can use the rest areas they paid for and don't have to deal with trucks parked on the edge of the entrance ramp. The railroads have had to do all that on their own for over 100 years it is time the trucking companies used their own initiative to fund what they need as well.

I am not really against the truckers but they should give going it on their own a try.

Hay I agree with ya here when you mentioned that instead of wining J.B. Hunt should go out and do something about it. They should try to colaboriate (spelling) with some of the railroads liek UP for example since J.B. Hunt does major bulk transfer with them. They should also get ideas from other trucking offits on increasing intermodel facilities.

I do have to say one thing I don't agree with you on some of the coments you made about truckers. To me it seems as if your claiming them to be the scum of the universe. These truckers are people too they deserve respect too. Try getting behind the wheel of a tri axle or something. It's not as easy as it looks. You have 10 or sometimes 18 gears to shift and downshift. Their job is just as hard as a job on the railroad being an engineer. They deserve to use the same bathroom as other commuters at the rest stops. Also, you complained about the truckers going slow on the highway. Either just pass them there is more than one lane usually on the highway, or just slow down everything doesn't have to be done in such a rush.

[arbfbe]

4eva
I am not picking bones with individual truckers but with their industry. I hear lots of complaints about a lack of infrastructure involving resting areas, additional lanes and now intermodal terminals. The solution is pretty basic, build what you need. The industry is so fragmented there is no understanding or what might be accompolished. They are so used to getting a low tariff on the public nickel they do not want to take responsibility in meeting their own needs. Did you ever hear of the industry telling any state legislature that trucks would be getting heavier and longer in the next 25 years and they would like the government to build stronger, wider and safer roads and streets to be ready for the larger trucks? No, all you hear is they want longer and heavier trucks NOW in order to be more competitive with railroads? barges? each other? Then they proceed to tear up the public infrastructure and complain about how much damage the broken roads are doing to their equipment. I have yet to meet a driver who likes 53' trailers and triple trailers and I can sympathize with them for that. It is a shame they have to sleep in their trucks instead of a bed and shower in a motel. They have to work in their industry and the industry is a bunch of career freeloaders. Perhaps if the industry worked harder at investing for their employees they could lower their turnover expenses and pay for the investments they have made.

At first the railroads built the intermodal facilities because they wanted the loads the truckers had. Now the trucking industry wants to use the railroads to save on fuel and employee costs but the still expect the railroads or government to build the terminals for them.