....Our morning paper has several articles regarding a 5 million dollar grant to "study" adding truck lanes to area Interstates around Indiana.
Seems to be a movement being considered in other areas, etc....
Our paper articles mentions of even congress and the Bush adminstration talking about using ships up and down the east coast to move freight, etc.....I read the several articles and I did not pick up one word of "rail transportation", for supplementing to help alleviate the interstate congestion.
What does it take to get the "word" to these government officials to open their eyes of the available rail network setting right in front of them and ready to go....????
Quentin
Dan
....Certainly, I try to make my comments of my opinions fair and reasonable.
All I'm saying in this morning's comments are: In the several articles in our morning paper {and there were several}, the issue of trying to relieve congestion on Interstates was brought to our attention. And first of all, in our area....they speak of throwing out 5 million dollars for a "study" of adding a truck lane on Interstates...5 million dollars..!
In all of those articles speaking of how this congestion might be relieved, the fact we have main north south, east west rail lines....not one word was mentioned of consideration to haul more freight...{trailers, containers, etc....}, on said rail lines. Even mentioning shipping lines between north and south of the eastern area....The omission of the rail method of transportation was quite obvious. And it's already in place for the most part.
No one is saying we expect the railroads can replace Interstate truck commerce. But to load some more of that freight on the rail structure sure could help.
Modelcar wrote: What does it take to get the "word" to these government officials to open their eyes of the available rail network setting right in front of them and ready to go....????
Well, the railroads have been saying that they are pretty much "full up". Shouldn't the governmental entities be concentrating, then, on those forms of transportation that they have control over and fund directly? Aren't they taking the rail industry at its word, that capacity has essentially been reached, and taking the appropriate steps to plan around that by increasing alternative infrastructure? What would you have them do?
Be realistic. If the government suddenly started "planning" for the rail industry, where do you think that would go?
As it is, you are looking at one part of the planning picture, and assuming that what you read represents the entire picture. That's simply a fallacy. The Department of Transportation is basing its planning and projections around its consulting firm's study that shows that growth in tons for rail transportation for the next five years will increase 12.9%, while trucking tonnage is expected to grow 13.8%. As part of its infrastructure planning, DOT has, in fact, looked very closely at railroad capacity, financial ability, and prospective expansion as a basis for its highway funding decisions.
See, http://www.stb.dot.gov/FILINGS/all.nsf/65b5f88aa880731785257373005e81d8/476d4f216705bc58852572b400013ac4/$FILE/218992.pdf
In that paper, you can see some of DOT's cause for concern at Chart 4. Because of what may be ill-conceived efforts at increasing productivity, rail system capacity has declined by 19.23% since 1990 due entirely to decreases in average train speed on the US rail system.
That is a huge, self-inflicted loss of capacity to achieve marginal increases in operating savings. The capital cost of replacing that former capacity is enormous -- which is in essence what current expenditures are directed to -- and represents, finally, the ultimate true cost of unit train strategy. Nothing is yet directed to the cost of increasing US rail capacity.
However, since the rail industry remains private, DOT's active planning functions are necessarily directed at its public funding responsibilities.
Just because you didn't read the whole story, doesn't mean there wasn't more to the story.
My solution will be to build truck ONLY interstates. No other vehicles allowed and set them at 80 mph.
People are going to try and get onto that highway with a car anyhow and will do it. No study will eliminate that little problem.
Traffic moves any way it can, ship, train, air or barge for the cheapest cost to the shipper. That is the bottom line.
All the rest of it including the words "Study" is nothing more than a method to put food on the table while they watch the interstate clog up in the next 5 years from thier porch and do nothing.
The DOT here in TN did a huge study on the interstate congestion. One solution may be for the state to provide money to the RR's for rebuilding. We may be lucky in already having a fund that can do that. This is used as a development tool to keep the shortlines running to some of the small industries. The I-40 & I-81 Corridor opens a new location for interstate traffic.
The Truck Only lanes are similar to the HOV lanes. Because of the hills & grades, TN already has miles of truck lanes in place. What we may need is some education to allow slow moving trailers 7 other traffic to use them.
I read the article just now. The reporter and the State Police talk about safety. I am not sure if the multi-state study for I-70 is about safety or congestion.http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071013/NEWS01/710130337
I dont have the map in front of me, but a few months ago the Trains Map of the month traced four shipments from Houston Tx to the Northeast. Very interesting map.
To answer the original question, traffic will continue to move on highways as long as service from the railroads is appx 15 days for 2000 miles.
ed
MP173 wrote: I dont have the map in front of me, but a few months ago the Trains Map of the month traced four shipments from Houston Tx to the Northeast. Very interesting map.To answer the original question, traffic will continue to move on highways as long as service from the railroads is appx 15 days for 2000 miles.ed
Some shippers aren't concerned about fast delivery times. If a manufacturer uses 20 carloads of plastic pellets each and every week, and he has a standing order for those 20 carloads a week, what difference does the rail travel time make if he gets what he needs when he needs it? If the product needed today left its origin 2000 miles and 15 days ago and this fact was factored into the flow of materials plan, it only makes sense to use rail to save costs. A business like that would never have to order 20 carloads for three-day delivery because there would never be a need. Same thing with coal loads. Doesn't matter when the cars left or how long it takes as long as the supply stream is steady.
Regarding moving goods by ship, even with the best intentions no one can guarantee a speedly or timely delivery -- especially with the volatile weather along the east coast of the U.S. And unless the recipient is located on its own port, he'll still need trucks or rail to get the shipment delivered.
I don't see separate lanes for trucks being added, though. Totally cost prohibitive based on the return (nothing). Government has no business using taxpayer dollars to enhance existing infrastructure specifically for private industry. We already pay enough for the roads truckers use. If the trucking industry wants its own private right-of-way let it buy land and build it themselves like the railroads have to do today.
MichaelSol wrote: Well, the railroads have been saying that they are pretty much "full up". Shouldn't the governmental entities be concentrating, then, on those forms of transportation thathttp://www.stb.dot.gov/FILINGS/all.nsf/65b5f88aa880731785257373005e81d8/476d4f216705bc58852572b400013ac4/$FILE/218992.pdfIn that paper, you can see some of DOT's cause for concern at Chart 4. Because of what may be ill-conceived efforts at increasing productivity, rail system capacity has declined by 19.23% since 1990 due entirely to decreases in average track speed of trains on the US rail system. That is a huge, self-inflicted loss of capacity to achieve marginal increases in operating savings. The capital cost of replacing that former capacity is enormous -- which is in essence what current expenditures are directed to -- and represents, finally, the ultimate true cost of unit train strategy. Nothing is yet directed to the cost of increasing US rail capacity.
Well, the railroads have been saying that they are pretty much "full up". Shouldn't the governmental entities be concentrating, then, on those forms of transportation thathttp://www.stb.dot.gov/FILINGS/all.nsf/65b5f88aa880731785257373005e81d8/476d4f216705bc58852572b400013ac4/$FILE/218992.pdf
In that paper, you can see some of DOT's cause for concern at Chart 4. Because of what may be ill-conceived efforts at increasing productivity, rail system capacity has declined by 19.23% since 1990 due entirely to decreases in average track speed of trains on the US rail system.
Although moving some of the traffic to ships ("bottoms", as they are called...) would solve some issues, such as a way to revitalize a lagging US flag maritime fleet, and perhaps decrease some traffic congeston on the corridors, how about the other problems you create?
The first one I can think of traffic around already crowded ports...
The next one should sound familiar....if you think it's tough getting rail service to small industries in remote areas, try gettin even a small lighter with just a few containers anywhere inland...
Perhaps part of the study should examine the container traffic moving by barge along the COlumbia River...and similar routes up the Mississippi, the Tennessee/Tom Bigbee, and the East Coast. If there were a buck to be made shipping that way, I suspect someone is already doing it at least on a small scale...I also suspect that even if they used RO/RO (Roll ON, Roll Off) to emulate a piggyback service, it would take longer... just marshaling the trucks/containers, then taking turns getting on the ship, and getting the tractors back off...Examine where RO/RO is being used effectively, and find out why it works there. My guess: no other mode is even half as effective.
$5 Million seems to be the minimum now for conducting studies...the actual price tag would likely be in the Billions...
.....To build another lane on I 70 from Kansas City to Columbus, Oh would take time....what....10 years...? Having driven the distance from Indiana to Somerset, Pa. now as long as it's {I 70}, been there I have some idea of how much traffic is really on it. At times, it can be very dangerous to be on it. So help is needed before say the 10 years it might take to construct that continuous 3rd or 4th lane.
Michael....This is not the first awareness or conversation about the subject I have ever noted. Hence "just because you didn't read the whole story"...etc....is not exactly correct either.
It is a subject that requires debate....discussion....and plenty of it. I'm sure most folks traveling the Interstates will agree, at times and in an increasing frequency there is very bad congestion.
spokyone wrote: Then spending decreased as speeds increased. Now speeds are less and spending is increased. Why do you think train capacity will not increase? If train speeds increase then capacity increases as well.
The apparent correlation between spending and speed is false. As traffic declines, profitabilty tends to decline, but speed tends to go up because there is less traffic; less congestion. Doesn't have much to do with spending. The statistical correlation is not between spending and speeds, but each independently tied to income and traffic ... and overall economic ups and downs.
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. Some comparisons:
(Capital Expenditures-Depreciation)/Net Income -- September 31, 2005 to September 31, 2006 (in most cases)
Net Capital Expenditure as a percentage of net income:
Fed Ex 62.40%
Toyota 53%
Hewlett Packard 49%
BN 48%
Don't have the figures for other roads, but that particular railroad hasn't been "acting" like it is investing "heavily" in its growth compared to other companies that also require substantial capital investment to sustain growth.
The sense that DOT and related agencies are placing their bucks and bets where they are may have a legitimate basis.
All types of numbers (statistics?) can be found and manipulated to present a point of view. I wonder what numbers Berkshire-Hathaway found which motivated them to invest heavily in RR's???
Perhaps they should consult we wizzards here. To paraphrase another old saying 'If you lay all of the statisticians end to end they would never reach a conclusion'.
diningcar wrote: All types of numbers (statistics?) can be found and manipulated to present a point of view. I wonder what numbers Berkshire-Hathaway found which motivated them to invest heavily in RR's???Perhaps they should consult we wizzards here. To paraphrase another old saying 'If you lay all of the statisticians end to end they would never reach a conclusion'.
Another interesting saying was uttered 4/12/07:
diningcar: Being new to this site I am under the impression that we have theorists who may be educators, students or of some other discipline but have little 'real world experience' in the RR business who are weighing in on this issue of what is a good business plan for a RR over the long haul.
Being new to this site I am under the impression that we have theorists who may be educators, students or of some other discipline but have little 'real world experience' in the RR business who are weighing in on this issue of what is a good business plan for a RR over the long haul.
It is nice to now see the respect paid to Warren Buffet, he being cited in support of what must be his "real world experience" in railroading since his opinion is offered as proof of what must be good business plans for railroading over the long haul. Interesting.
More interesting is this idea that his opinion not only gratuitously, conveniently, and automatically offers a generalized retort to every specific proposition without ever actually offering an answer, but that his investments for the future can be manipulated to justify industry investment decisions made between 1990-2006, a period which, oddly coincidentally, Warren Buffet apparently was not much impressed. He must have just gotten around to consulting some of the "wizzards" here.
Or, Retroactive Genius it must be.
Remarkable.
Just remarkable.
There are some places where it is a hard solution to please every single town council on where to put the widened highway. All it takes is 4 people to come up with a crazy twist in a highway and a suggestion to move the railroad tracks a mile to totally stall out a highway widening plan.
Leave the railroad tracks, elevate one lane for miles, tunnel the other lane for miles, and the grade crossing problem is solved in places like Schoolcraft, MI and Three Rivers, MI.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
I guess a lot of highways have "truck lanes" inasmuch that trucks are required to stay in right-hand lanes.
The one kind of idiocy, and it is idiocy of the first water, that I would like to see go is split car/truck speed limits. Any truck operators with me on this one? Car motorists?
I am not sure what the reasoning is on this one. Is this some kind of "good governance" thing that "trucks are speeding menaces" or "trucks are pounding our Interstates to shreds" or "car drivers are supreme and truckers must be put in their place"?
Illinois has a 65/55 split, and Michigan, does it have a 70/55 split? So you have truckers doing more or less 55 because the cops are hassling them, or perhaps it takes only one truck doing a strict 55 with a line of trucks behind it trying to find a break in traffic to get around. And then you have most of the car traffic in the left lane doing not 65-70 but a good 75-80 for their "10 MPH leeway", so you have these Autobahn-like lane speed differentials, but without German-style regard for traffic laws or road manners.
If you are a car driver who wants to maintain some sanity in terms of speed and fuel consumption, it is either lump along in the truck lane at 55-60 or try to merge with the 80-per traffic in the left lane. Don't try that with anything less than 6 cylinders and 24 valves.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote: I guess a lot of highways have "truck lanes" inasmuch that trucks are required to stay in right-hand lanes.The one kind of idiocy, and it is idiocy of the first water, that I would like to see go is split car/truck speed limits. Any truck operators with me on this one? Car motorists?I am not sure what the reasoning is on this one. Is this some kind of "good governance" thing that "trucks are speeding menaces" or "trucks are pounding our Interstates to shreds" or "car drivers are supreme and truckers must be put in their place"?Illinois has a 65/55 split, and Michigan, does it have a 70/55 split? So you have truckers doing more or less 55 because the cops are hassling them, or perhaps it takes only one truck doing a strict 55 with a line of trucks behind it trying to find a break in traffic to get around. And then you have most of the car traffic in the left lane doing not 65-70 but a good 75-80 for their "10 MPH leeway", so you have these Autobahn-like lane speed differentials, but without German-style regard for traffic laws or road manners.If you are a car driver who wants to maintain some sanity in terms of speed and fuel consumption, it is either lump along in the truck lane at 55-60 or try to merge with the 80-per traffic in the left lane. Don't try that with anything less than 6 cylinders and 24 valves.
If the State Police enforced the truck lane restrictions in Illinois, the revenue could balance the budget, fully fund the CTA, and pay for Create. Having all the I-Pass lanes on the left forces the trucks that do obey the restrictions to cross over to left then back again. The transportation planner that came up with that one...
Around the Chicago area, we seem to be having a serious car/truck accident almost every day. I don't know the details of the Indiana plan, but maybe the idea is to seperate the 2 for safety reasons. Things are only going to get worse as cars get even lighter.
Check out the big wreck in California. I-5 has a truck bypass at an interchange. Looking at the comments about the wreck is enlightening. Among other things, the posters say the big problem is cars using the truck lanes along with a poor tunnel design.http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-freeway-gb,0,4717476.graffitiboard?coll=la-home-center
....Just a comment Paul: Surely you are not suggesting a Grand National Buick of a few years back would not qualify to head over into the passing lane....A V-6 turbo w/ 12 valves.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:I guess a lot of highways have "truck lanes" inasmuch that trucks are required to stay in right-hand lanes.The one kind of idiocy, and it is idiocy of the first water, that I would like to see go is split car/truck speed limits. Any truck operators with me on this one? Car motorists?I am not sure what the reasoning is on this one.
I am not sure what the reasoning is on this one.
I am not sure either, and I also think it causes problems....however comma.....
I believe one reason there is a split is limits is stopping distance of trucks. And, with trucks limited to the right two lanes of traffic, it does make it easier for cars (and other trucks) to merge onto the freeway if the truck traffic is going slower...
Another rational i believe, which you alluded to, is that the heavier trucks at higher speeds cause an uproportional amount of damage to the freeways, especially those desgined and built before the truck weights increased...as speed and weight increase, kinetic energy inceases...stopping distances increase...and probably wear and tear on the surface.
I also have always thought that the split in speed limits was hazardous...and that California also could balance it's budget by enforcing the lower limits for trucks!
Paul I am a trucker and live in Illinois and agree 100%. Split speed limits are unsafe for evryone on the highway. I would like to take "Blowgo" our govoner on a trip in my truck and show him what highway safety is. Most but not all people and trucks drive too fast. Now they are talking about putting speed limiters on trucks. If we all drive between 65 and 70mph traffic will flow much better. But when someone is going slow and and another driver is going too fast and comes up on the slow driver the brakes come on and everone slams on the brakes . all this because two peiple are going diferent speeds.
I-70 needs to be eight lanes from KC MO to Columbus OH. All the traffic going east and west funnels between St Louis Mo to Columbus OH. Most of the food from the west to the east travels this route. Illinois ,Indiana , and Ohio all have split speed limits. Ohio is harder on trucks that the other states. Illinois could have all the money they could spend if they just would enforse the law. That goes for cars and trucks. It would improve highway safety , save lives and cut taxes.
....I 70 is a busy highway and at times really a congested one. Several locations between {where we get on to head east}, Richmond, In. and Columbus it is a 3 lane {each way}, route and in my opinion, that is quite a bit of help.
If it was continously 3 lanes each way, it would be a great help, but for how long...I have no idea. The cost and time to build that would be sizeable.
In the past recent years the Pennsylvania Turnpike...{the original part}, has had up grade lanes for slower traffic added and I'm sure that has been a big help. That is on the mountainous part that slowed some trucks and the additonal lane has been a great addition. Massive costs and construction time has been required as the terrain is rough thru that area....Not easy to add to what was there. Time and money.
Some years before that, the Western Maryland RR...generally, east and west but a bit south of the turnpike was abandoned. If the present RR in the same general area...{ex B&0, now CSX} is to capacity, it's too bad timing worked out that way as the WM RR might have been a big help now and in the future.
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.
One of these days everyone is going to own a Moller Skycar and leave that bloated interstate behind in good VFR conditions.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.