Fixing The Economy with Intermodal

[wabash1]

greyhounds

Railway Man

Murphy Siding

     Andy-UP-

     You seem to be saying, that this needs to be implemented across the whole North American rail system, accross all Class 1's.  Wouldn't a better plan be to start with a major traffic lane, like LA> Chicago,  get that up and rolling, and expand from there?

 

Market penetration intermodal for truckload-type freight in lanes such as Chicago-LA is already greater than 80%.

RWM

Yes, Andy-UP is not going to beat double stack ecnomics.  I ran the numbers on double stack vs TOFC and RoadRailer when I worked for RoadRailer.  You really have to pick your spots to beat double stack economics.

 I think there are some niche markets for carless technology.  My beloved Washington apples are one such niche.  But, in general, double stack efficiencies are overwhelming.  A national TOFC based system using "Swivel Cars" won't be competitive.

You say TOFC is not competitve with COFC.........WELL DUH 2 trailers in one compartment to 1 trailer on the flat car. The cost of road-railers not using cars just the trailers has been profitable and is why it still moves and works and tofc while not competitive with cofc it is still profitable. and is why both will be used in the future.

[oltmannd]

greyhounds

Actually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue.  He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle.  That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man.

Or, better yet, a toll based on weight and capacity consumed. Or even better, why not just privatize them and let them charge what the market will bear?

[schlimm]

greyhounds

It would be more than foolish to extend any form of subsidy to rail freight as a "Make Even" effort.  Then people would use both modes in wasteful manners since niether mode would have to cover its cost.  If the problem is, as you maintain, that highway use is underpriced -- then fix that.

I think you are not dealing with an important reality.  The US logistics system is overly truck oriented because of past government interference in the transportation market.  This interference was though economic regulation of the railroads.  The government diverted far more freight to the highway than would have been the case absent their involvement.  We're still paying the price today.  It's my considered opinion that the regulatory decisions had far more adverse impact than the highway use undercharges.  Having said that, it still would be a good thing to toll the Interstate Highways.

 

You are telescoping several separate points.  Highways were not constructed primarily for commercial truckers, but they benefit from them as though they were without paying the full price.  This is simply a coincidental but natural consequence of the sensible notion that dates from the 1800's: that the nation needs good roads from which everyone benefits.  There really isn't anything to do about this. Placing tolls on Interstates would force a burden (time, convenience, economic) on everyone merely to "Make Even" for trucks vs. rails.   That would be as silly as following the logic of going the full route of putting tolls on all roads.  Privatizing various areas of economic activity as a "one size fits all" answer to every problem suggests a misapplication of free market economics . You are also confounding over-regulation of the rails (or more accurately, regulation after its original purpose no longer was a factor) with economic costs.

[Andy-UP]

I agree that Traffic Studies to determine sequence of construction based on evaluation of where greatest returns can be expected should be how the system would start. First we need traffic studies to verify the numbers I took from an FHWA report. Also with these traffic studies the Rail system and Terminals should be evaluated to determine what changes need to be applied to accomodate the additional capacity.

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov./freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/nhsavglhft2035.htm

[schlimm]

oltmannd

greyhounds

Actually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue.  He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle.  That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man.

Or, better yet, a toll based on weight and capacity consumed. Or even better, why not just privatize them and let them charge what the market will bear?

 

greyhounds:  I don't know if you are a Chicago native, but living in the "boonies" (as John Coleman used to call them) I am surprised you would consider toll roads, given mutual experience with the Illinois Toll Road system.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Well, OK - then what we do is exempt from tolls all vehicles under - say, 10,000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight.  That way all the cars and light trucks can zoom past the toll booths for free - and only the heavy trucks will have to stop and pay.  In view of the road damage studies, that's a fair method and result.

Privatization has it's own issues, too, although I'm not necessarily or ideologically opposed to it.  ''What the market/ traffic will bear'' sounds good if there are some workable alternatives.  But if not - such as at a 'chokepoint' or 'bottleneck' bridge, as our Rt. 22 bridge over the Lehigh River - then it amounts to a monopolist's 'license to steal', unless an upper bound or 'cap' is placed on the tolls.  Also, the maintenance standards are hard to specify and enforce - particularly since in my experience here in Pennsylvania, those are more often 'honored in the breach than in the observance'', to quote Billy Shakespeare - that would put the state in the position of 'Do as we say - not as we do'.  How would / should we strike a balance between higher maintenance costs and better quality roads ?  What's to stop a private operator from building a couple super-heavy-duty lanes and allowing trucks with way over the current legal limit of 80,000 lbs. GVW from using them ?  That could be troublesome for some railroads - 'Be careful what you wish for'. 

But all this is dreaming, in my humble opinion.  Ain't never going to happen, with the strength of the truck lobby, and the pervasiveness and distribution of their members in the communities. 

Which is OK, too - or maybe I'm just too cynical this morning - because unless someone faces up to the long-term costs of maintaining and replacing the roadway infrastructure, it's just going to continue to deteriorate and crumble and become more congested, which will just burden the trucking industry in that way, instead of fees, taxes, tolls, etc.  But the railroads should be able to keep their infrastructure up to date, and with sufficient capacity, and compete better that way. 

Actually, this scenario illustrates the mostly unremarked and unseen benefits of that burden which the private railroad companies have borne for almost 2 centuries now - the cost of building and maintaining their own infrastructure/ roadway.  But since that burden hasn't yet killed the railroads that are left, what it has done is made them stronger - it has made and left them pretty-much lean, mean, and self-sufficient, so now they have the ability to do whatever maintenance and make whatever improvements that they need to or can justify with their own funds, without having to depend on the vagaries and vicissitudes of government funding and the political process and other competing needs, etc.  The major railroads don't need to depend on Washington or state capitals - they can go their own way, and be in control of their own destiny.  So in the end, we'll probably get to the best result as a society anyway - someday.  But I too wish it would come sooner . . .

- Paul North.

[schlimm]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Well, OK - then what we do is exempt from tolls all vehicles under - say, 10,000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight.  That way all the cars and light trucks can zoom past the toll booths for free - and only the heavy trucks will have to stop and pay.  In view of the road damage studies, that's a fair method and result.

 

Interesting idea, Paul, but doubtful it could survive a legal challenge.  Privatization has obvious practical limits but conceptual ones as well.  Lean and mean is true, but perhaps too lean now.  I would guess there are many former or down-sized routes we might wish we had now...or double-tracked mainlines that were torn up.

[Railway Man]

Paul_D_North_Jr

What's to stop a private operator from building a couple super-heavy-duty lanes and allowing trucks with way over the current legal limit of 80,000 lbs. GVW from using them ? 

Other than ... ?

1. Would be very hard to get this through the NEPA process
2. Would be very hard to earn enough to pay for the capital costs
3. Would probably face difficult legal challenges if it did not allocate to the private operator the value of the public contribution of land, overpasses, drainage structures, right-of-way fencing, etc.
4. Would have to build costly freight transfer facilities at each end because the trucks would not be legal on the public street system.

RWM

 

[wabash1]

I realy enjoy these discussions because nobody has figured out that trucks alread pay for the highways but why not take more is your theme, and then again you want to pay 5.00 for a gallon of milk or 10.00 for a loaf of bread, At the start of each year trucks haft to get the base plate then they haft to buy the permits to run thru each state then the fuel taxes they haft to pay each state quarterly for mile run in state with out buying fuel, States like Illinois where fuel is high because they add the fuel tax at the pump people wont buy it so at the end of a quarter they haft to pay the tax for the miles driven .

Then go to arkanses where they pull you around the back and yo bring in your paper work if you cant show a fuel reciept for fuel you pay the taxes at the way station.  those stickers you see on sides of the tractors is not where i been stickers they are designed to show you paid to be there. So trucks are paying more than the fair share. the tolls are higher for trucks and on and on.

[Railway Man]

schlimm

I would guess there are many former or down-sized routes we might wish we had now...or double-tracked mainlines that were torn up.

There are a few but not as many as some suppose.  Perhaps the only big one is the North-East Corridor, which is still there but not very accessible to freight.

In the West there's not anything of great size that was torn up that I wish we had back, from a freight perspective.  A few subtle things inside and near terminal areas.  But no long-distance main lines. 

RWM

[schlimm]

I seem to recall that the UP has now almost finished restoring the former CNW double-track mainline in Iowa.  And then there is the former IC north- south mainline.  There probably are others.

[Railway Man]

schlimm

I seem to recall that the UP has now almost finished restoring the former CNW double-track mainline in Iowa.  And then there is the former IC north- south mainline.  There probably are others.

But it was not a mistake to rip up the C&NW's second main track!  It was not needed and the cost of trying to maintain it exceeded the cost of restoring it.  As for the IC north-south main line, who is saying it needs to have the second main track restored?

Go back to your original statement where you said there are main lines and double-track we tore up we wish we had now (and presumably cannot recover without excess cost we could have avoided).  How about telling me who is doing the wishing, because if they work for a railroad I do not know who they are.  Other than the aforementioned NEC and some terminal trackage, that is.

RWM

[Murphy Siding]

wabash1

I realy enjoy these discussions because nobody has figured out that trucks alread pay for the highways ................................................................................... So trucks are paying more than the fair share. the tolls are higher for trucks and on and on.

   I hear what you're saying, but there is a whole group of people that believe that trucks do more damage to highways than what they pay to use them.  The truth, I think, is that neither cars or trucks pay their *fair share* of what a highway costs to build and maintain.

[oltmannd]

Murphy Siding

wabash1

I realy enjoy these discussions because nobody has figured out that trucks alread pay for the highways ................................................................................... So trucks are paying more than the fair share. the tolls are higher for trucks and on and on.

   I hear what you're saying, but there is a whole group of people that believe that trucks do more damage to highways than what they pay to use them.  The truth, I think, is that neither cars or trucks pay their *fair share* of what a highway costs to build and maintain.

I might have to go digging, but somewhere (a GAO study? DOT?) i recently read that heavy trucks pay about 80% of their share of interstate highway usage.

[Andy-UP]

 

I do have a 8 1/2 x 11 drawing of rail car with 24 degree pivot that I sent to Trailer Train in 1991

and a layout for a possible Terminal that is a larger print. These were just my conceptual drawings when I started this study. I also have the one page comment from Trailer Train.

[oltmannd]

schlimm

This is simply a coincidental but natural consequence of the sensible notion that dates from the 1800's: that the nation needs good roads from which everyone benefits. 

Same logic could have applied to railroads. I think the only difference was that roads and waterways were well established early in the country's history. Real railroad building came along later after the industrial revolution was well underway. There is nothing fundamental about a road the makes it a "public good" any more than there is something about a railroad that keeps it from being a "public good".

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

schlimm

Paul_D_North_Jr

  Well, OK - then what we do is exempt from tolls all vehicles under - say, 10,000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight.  That way all the cars and light trucks can zoom past the toll booths for free - and only the heavy trucks will have to stop and pay.  In view of the road damage studies, that's a fair method and result. 

 

Interesting idea, Paul, but doubtful it could survive a legal challenge.  [snip]

Except that such differential/ disparate/ 'discriminatory treatment' is already being done, and has been for many years.  From the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's Toll Schedule Effective January 4, 2009, at:

 http://www.paturnpike.com/toll/images/pdfs/PTC%202009%20Cash%20Tolls%20BW%20Booklet.pdf 

When using the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Turnpike Extensions, your toll may be based on number of axles, vehicle weight, or both. See the guide below for Vehicle Class information.rmation

CLASS 1 - PASSENGER CARS

CLASS 2 - 7,001 TO 15,000 LBS.

CLASS 3 - 5,001 TO 19,000 LBS.

CLASS 4 - 19,001 TO 30,000 LBS.

CLASS 5 - 30,001 TO 45,000 LBS.

CLASS 6 - 45,001 TO 62,000 LBS.

CLASS 7 - 62,001 TO 80,000 LBS.

CLASS 8 - 80,001 TO 100,000 LBS.

CLASS 9 - 100,001 & OVER LBS.

For example, to cross the entire Commonwealth - from the Ohio state line ''Gateway'' Mainline Toll Plaza 2 to the Delaware River Bridge to New Jersey = Interchange 359 - would cost $24.70 + $3.75 = $28.45 total for a 2-axle passenger car, and $133.75 + $15.00  = $148.75 for a 5-axle, 80,000 lb. Class 7 truck.  It's not too much of a legal stretch of this classification system to say instead that the car need pay only $20 or $10 or $5 or even only $0, as long as the PTC has a 'rational' basis for doing so.  Getting rid of the administrative burden of collecting such comparatively small tolls, and avoiding the safety hazards and time delays and backups of many passenger vehicles clogging the toll booths are legitimate such reasons, in my view. 

But wait - what's wrong with this picture ?  Look at the ratio or disparity of those tolls between a light car and a heavy truck - it's only about 5 times higher for the truck than for the car.  My typical 3,000 or 3,500 lb. sedan or even a 6,000 lb. Suburban pays $28.45.  But the 80,000 lb. truck - which over 26 times heavier than my sedan pays $148.75.  If these tolls were pro-rated up from the car's on the basis of weight, then the truck would be paying in the range of $750.  That's an increase of $600 for a 360-mile = 6 hour trip, or about $1.67 per mile / $100 per hour - and a lot more of those trucks would be on Norfolk Southern trains on the Pittsburgh-Harrisburg-Reading-Lehigh Lines and going past me here in Allentown, that's for darn sure. 

- Paul North.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Railway Man

Paul_D_North_Jr

  What's to stop a private operator from building a couple super-heavy-duty lanes and allowing trucks with way over the current legal limit of 80,000 lbs. GVW from using them ? 

Other than ... ?

1. Would be very hard to get this through the NEPA process
2. Would be very hard to earn enough to pay for the capital costs
3. Would probably face difficult legal challenges if it did not allocate to the private operator the value of the public contribution of land, overpasses, drainage structures, right-of-way fencing, etc.
4. Would have to build costly freight transfer facilities at each end because the trucks would not be legal on the public street system.

RWM

 

It was more of a rhetorical question than a real one, so I didn't take a lot of time or space to set out all the details.  Also, it was for the ''Be careful what you wish for'' strategic aspect - do we really want a private road network established to carry the trucks that compete with railroads, even for the legitimate reason of forcing them to pay more of their true costs ? 

And, to get the reader to your 2. on a 'Yes, but . . .' analysis - I quite agree, that should be a 'show-stopper'.  It might also useful for esatablishing an upper bound for what rail rates could be - what the traffic will or might bear - before it would be feasible to turn to a fully-allocated costs highway method.  But how many civil engineering projects have there been with all kinds of grandiose projections of the high traffic or user volumes and revenues, and low costs - that later turn out to be pretty much the opposite ?  Let's see - only the Pennsylvania 'Main Line of the Public Works'' canal, inclined plane, and railroad system; the UP RR TransCon; the Hoosac Tunnel; the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel; the English 'Chunnel', etc.  Sadly, it seems that the prevailing attitude is that the money's to be made in the up-front construction and financing of the project, not in its long-term operation - and to heck with the long-term financing investors and bondholders, etc. who are vulnerable to being bankrupted when it all goes south.  Thus the private roadway may be initially under-priced for its long-term costs - and that would be stronger competition for the railroads, a possibility which should not be overlooked or dismissed too lightly.  Who knows what politicians would do, either in the beginning or as a later 'bail-out' . . .

That said, as to 1. - the scenario I had in mind was more like rebuilding the outer lane or two of the NJ, Penna., Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois turnpikes, etc., for such super-heavy truck traffic, as opposed to a 'new build' on a new alignment.  Thus, I'm not sure how much of a NEPA review would be triggered, or how intensive the scrutiny or standards would be - nowhere near as much as for a 'new build', of course.  Also, I'm not sure how the NEPA jursidiction would get invoked, esp. if no federal funds are involved because it is a private venture, after all, by definition/ postulation of the question.  Perhaps for the permits to widen bridges over navigable waterways or to encroach upon federal wetlands if there is an actual expansion or widening of the roadway, etc. - but maybe not even that, as long as the rebuild is confined to the exisiting lanes. 

As to 3. - I don't see how this would be any different from any other privatized highway or public facility or operation.  They all get the benefit of the existing infrastructure per the terms of the solicitation/ offer/ contract - as a contribution in kind, on a pay-for-it basis, or some combination, etc.  Then it's up to the operator to obtain financing and perform the improvements, etc.

As to 4. - I had in mind full-length = 53 ft. 'doubles' or even 'triples' = 'road trains' as in Australia, not oversize or over-length trailers.  So all that would be needed is an unpaved ' drop yard' with some lighting and security to temporarily hold the trailers and bogies between trips - nothing like an intermodal terminal as we know it.

Hope this clarifies it.  But it was an intellectual challenge and exercise at best, not a real-world proposal.  (I beleive I still owe you 2 substantive responses on electrification issues, which I'd much rather put time towards instead!    )

- Paul North.

[greyhounds]

schlimm

oltmannd

greyhounds

Actually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue.  He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle.  That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man.

Or, better yet, a toll based on weight and capacity consumed. Or even better, why not just privatize them and let them charge what the market will bear?

 

greyhounds:  I don't know if you are a Chicago native, but living in the "boonies" (as John Coleman used to call them) I am surprised you would consider toll roads, given mutual experience with the Illinois Toll Road system.

Not a Chicago native.  Grew up in a small town in downstate Illinois.  Antioch has almost as many people as the county I grew up in.  I came to the Chicago area to go to grad school at Northwestern 35 years ago when I got out of the Army.  Wound up staying here.  Didn't always live around Antioch.

I pay two tolls per workday.  Sometimes I pay three if I change my route home as I did this evening.

It is basically painless.  I have this little white box stuck up by my rear view mirror   $0.50 is deducted from my account when I exit and enter I-294.  They just expanded 294 from three lanes to four in each direction.  It's made the commute much better.  I'll gladly fork over $5.00, sometimes a little more, per week for a nice uncongested drive.  I sip coffee, listen to the radio, stay cool in summer and warm in winter.  Move on my own schedule (with some imput from "The Company.")  When my account gets low they just put $40.00 on my Master Card and off I go.

It's a limited access highway funded by tolls.  As they all should be.

 

 

[greyhounds]

schlimm

greyhounds

It would be more than foolish to extend any form of subsidy to rail freight as a "Make Even" effort.  Then people would use both modes in wasteful manners since niether mode would have to cover its cost.  If the problem is, as you maintain, that highway use is underpriced -- then fix that.

I think you are not dealing with an important reality.  The US logistics system is overly truck oriented because of past government interference in the transportation market.  This interference was though economic regulation of the railroads.  The government diverted far more freight to the highway than would have been the case absent their involvement.  We're still paying the price today.  It's my considered opinion that the regulatory decisions had far more adverse impact than the highway use undercharges.  Having said that, it still would be a good thing to toll the Interstate Highways.

 

You are telescoping several separate points.  Highways were not constructed primarily for commercial truckers, but they benefit from them as though they were without paying the full price.  This is simply a coincidental but natural consequence of the sensible notion that dates from the 1800's: that the nation needs good roads from which everyone benefits.  There really isn't anything to do about this. Placing tolls on Interstates would force a burden (time, convenience, economic) on everyone merely to "Make Even" for trucks vs. rails.   That would be as silly as following the logic of going the full route of putting tolls on all roads.  Privatizing various areas of economic activity as a "one size fits all" answer to every problem suggests a misapplication of free market economics . You are also confounding over-regulation of the rails (or more accurately, regulation after its original purpose no longer was a factor) with economic costs.

No.

Your point of contention keeps changing.  Now you say: "There really isn't anything to do about this"  Well, if there "really isn't anything to do about this" then the government shouldn't "really do anything about this" or they'll screw things up even more than they have.

This whole thread started with some zealot advocating massive government mandated change to the logistics system in the US.  He falsely claimed nothing had been done to divert freight from highway to rail.  I guess he missed the whole double stack/JB Hunt thing.

I pointed out that just letting the market work would produce a far better result than any government edict.  (The intermodal/truck freight market aproximates a free market, it's as close as you can get.)

You then responded by accusing me of having "Blind Faith" in the market.  I don't.  I have a healthy skepticism of government involvement.  And that's just the right word.  My skepticism is, in fact, "Heallthy".  I have no "faith" in government.  That's a healthy thing to not have.

You further cited "external costs".  When I pointed out that "external costs" (or externalities) do not play a significant role in the rail vs. truck competitive situation you responded and basically claimed that trucks receive "subsidies" due to the fact they they do not have to cover certain "external" costs.

When I pointed out that this would be yet another failure of government involement (they don't charge enough for the use of their highways) you now say    "This is simply a coincidental but natural consequence of the sensible notion that dates from the 1800's: that the nation needs good roads from which everyone benefits." 

Well, if it's "simply a coincidental but natual consequence", then it's not an external cost.  Your logic is like a dog chasing its tale.  (And please don't argue with me about dogs.)

You've got to learn and understand the difference in roads.  Read Adam Smith.  He'll explain it to you.

A local road network is a common good.  It is impossible to assign the benifits to the users.  Someone who doesn't even own a vehicle "uses" the local road network.  It's how public safety forces protect him/her.  It's how the mail is delivered.  It's how food gets from the grocery store.  It's how utility repair crews get to where they are needed.  It's fitting and propper that such a "common good" network be paid for out of the general tax levy.

 Local road nets are basically not a negative factor for railroads.  The firefighters ain't gonna' show up on the railroad.  (In fact, the local roads can be a benitit to railroads.  If the railroad's building is on fire the local roads will provide access for the firefighters. Local roads are how crews get to work.)

Limited access roads are different.  They link destinations that are not "Local".  They benifit the people who use them in a reasonable approximation to the benifits those people receive.  So you charge a toll.  The toll to the trucker will be passed on to his/her customers, who will in turn pass it on to their customers.  So each "end user" will pay in proportion to their use.  So toll the Intersates and let the freight fall where it may.

That's the "optimization" desired.  Linking benifits to costs.  It will "optimize" the use of scarce resources such as fuel.  It will also "optimize" the divison of freight between rail and highway.  (You've got to understand that "optimize" is not a synonym for "perfect".  Utopia is not an option.)

And if someone from the government says they can make things better with 2,000 pages of paper, be skeptical.  Be very skeptical.  That's a healthy state of mind.

 

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

greyhounds - A couple of succinct, well-written policy statements in your 2 posts above.  Thank you !    The benefit from your unfortunately frequent practice and repetition is showing . . .   Would that the politicians would see and act on it that clearly.    

Any idea of what the 80,000 lb. truck would pay in tolls for the same distance as your 50 cents ?

"Perfection is not optimum." [Copyright PDN 2009.]

Actually, the optimization that you describe is perfection - or pretty darn close, for the situation we have.  What else would we want to do differently, or better  ?  And how ?

Thanks again.

- Paul North.

[Railway Man]

I don't see how any of the Class 1s think of it the way you do, Greyhounds.  Their public statements and visible actions are at odds with this ideology.

RWM

[Railway Man]

oltmannd

Murphy Siding

wabash1

I realy enjoy these discussions because nobody has figured out that trucks alread pay for the highways ................................................................................... So trucks are paying more than the fair share. the tolls are higher for trucks and on and on.

   I hear what you're saying, but there is a whole group of people that believe that trucks do more damage to highways than what they pay to use them.  The truth, I think, is that neither cars or trucks pay their *fair share* of what a highway costs to build and maintain.

I might have to go digging, but somewhere (a GAO study? DOT?) i recently read that heavy trucks pay about 80% of their share of interstate highway usage.

 

Recent FHWA study.  I read it and thought the methodology was designed to try and get the result as close to 100% as possible.

RWM

[Railway Man]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Railway Man

Paul_D_North_Jr

  What's to stop a private operator from building a couple super-heavy-duty lanes and allowing trucks with way over the current legal limit of 80,000 lbs. GVW from using them ? 

Other than ... ?

1. Would be very hard to get this through the NEPA process
2. Would be very hard to earn enough to pay for the capital costs
3. Would probably face difficult legal challenges if it did not allocate to the private operator the value of the public contribution of land, overpasses, drainage structures, right-of-way fencing, etc.
4. Would have to build costly freight transfer facilities at each end because the trucks would not be legal on the public street system.

RWM

 

It was more of a rhetorical question than a real one, so I didn't take a lot of time or space to set out all the details.  Also, it was for the ''Be careful what you wish for'' strategic aspect - do we really want a private road network established to carry the trucks that compete with railroads, even for the legitimate reason of forcing them to pay more of their true costs ? 

And, to get the reader to your 2. on a 'Yes, but . . .' analysis - I quite agree, that should be a 'show-stopper'.  It might also useful for esatablishing an upper bound for what rail rates could be - what the traffic will or might bear - before it would be feasible to turn to a fully-allocated costs highway method.  But how many civil engineering projects have there been with all kinds of grandiose projections of the high traffic or user volumes and revenues, and low costs - that later turn out to be pretty much the opposite ?  Let's see - only the Pennsylvania 'Main Line of the Public Works'' canal, inclined plane, and railroad system; the UP RR TransCon; the Hoosac Tunnel; the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel; the English 'Chunnel', etc.  Sadly, it seems that the prevailing attitude is that the money's to be made in the up-front construction and financing of the project, not in its long-term operation - and to heck with the long-term financing investors and bondholders, etc. who are vulnerable to being bankrupted when it all goes south.  Thus the private roadway may be initially under-priced for its long-term costs - and that would be stronger competition for the railroads, a possibility which should not be overlooked or dismissed too lightly.  Who knows what politicians would do, either in the beginning or as a later 'bail-out' . . .

That said, as to 1. - the scenario I had in mind was more like rebuilding the outer lane or two of the NJ, Penna., Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois turnpikes, etc., for such super-heavy truck traffic, as opposed to a 'new build' on a new alignment.  Thus, I'm not sure how much of a NEPA review would be triggered, or how intensive the scrutiny or standards would be - nowhere near as much as for a 'new build', of course.  Also, I'm not sure how the NEPA jursidiction would get invoked, esp. if no federal funds are involved because it is a private venture, after all, by definition/ postulation of the question.  Perhaps for the permits to widen bridges over navigable waterways or to encroach upon federal wetlands if there is an actual expansion or widening of the roadway, etc. - but maybe not even that, as long as the rebuild is confined to the exisiting lanes. 

As to 3. - I don't see how this would be any different from any other privatized highway or public facility or operation.  They all get the benefit of the existing infrastructure per the terms of the solicitation/ offer/ contract - as a contribution in kind, on a pay-for-it basis, or some combination, etc.  Then it's up to the operator to obtain financing and perform the improvements, etc.

As to 4. - I had in mind full-length = 53 ft. 'doubles' or even 'triples' = 'road trains' as in Australia, not oversize or over-length trailers.  So all that would be needed is an unpaved ' drop yard' with some lighting and security to temporarily hold the trailers and bogies between trips - nothing like an intermodal terminal as we know it.

Hope this clarifies it.  But it was an intellectual challenge and exercise at best, not a real-world proposal.  (I beleive I still owe you 2 substantive responses on electrification issues, which I'd much rather put time towards instead!    )

- Paul North.

 

Paul, what's with the "be careful what you wish for?"  What is that supposed to mean?  Frankly, if this super-highway scheme really is more valuable, more efficient than railways, then I am all for it.  Why wouldn't any reasonable person be?

Next:  Go read NEPA and tell me how a fundamental change of use of a federally assisted highway corridor, even if now only state or private funds are used, can evade this being a federal action.  I'd like to see that one tested in court and I would be very surprised if a number of people didn't promptly try just that. The very next time the highway department in that state wants to use federal matching funds to rebuild an overpass that happens to also span the new toll lanes, how's that going to work?

Your point about capital costs setting a boundary on rail rates caught my eye.  Lots of people have tried to do analyses like this both in an effort to levy a tax on railroads or conversely into trying to justify what the maximum cost of the infrastructure can be (for everything from ports to inland ports to logistics centers to P3s for new rail capacity) and it leads them straight into a swamp.  It's a microeconomic analysis extracted from a macroeconomic question and they blow up every time. Rail rates are not related to costs, they are related to what people will pay.  So are truck rates.  Shippers have 1,000,000 alternatives and will invent all sorts of end-arounds to squeeze a nickle out of their costs.  Almost no one NEEDS any corridor, anywhere.  They need spme corridor.  There are MANY corridors to choose from.  You build a fancy corridor between points A and B to capture the traffic and the next thing you know there isn't any traffic because the shippers all relocated their DCs to a different corridor that you didn't even think existed.  Since your business model can't control access to all the other corridors, it becomes stranded.  

Trying to back into the rate from the cost of the infrastructure to justify a project is putting the cart before the horse.  First you think of the purpose and need, then you think of the solution that best fulfills it. 

As to point 3, it's one thing to convert the whole highway to a tollway and privatize it.  Everyone is treated equally.  It's another to convert only part of it and privatize it.  Now there's unequal treatment.  It sounds like a fun test case for ambitious class-action attorneys.

As to point 4, I had caught the word overweight previously but I guess that was in reference to gross, not axle weight?  And where are you putting these?  Out in the sticks isn't very attractive because just like railroads, your dray costs will kill you.  This is not an improvement. And, you will still have to find land for these transfer facilities and get them through the environmental process, which I can almost guarantee you will employ a small army of consultants for years.  My own experience with a number of these projects is that they are lightning rods for local land-use challenges.  And anything that's large-scale like this is going to be a lightning rod for national environmental challenges because most of the groups will consider this going backward, environmentally.

Take a look at the high-speed rail NEPA process, Paul. It's turning into a career-maker for a lot of people.

RWM

[schlimm]

 greyhounds:  Since you have not demonstrated an understanding of externalities, there isn't any point in continuing the discussion

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

RWM - For two rational and well-educated professionals that we are, I don't understand why we so often seem to be miscommunicating - or are you being a 'Devil's advocate' here, which is fine too ?  Well, nevertheless, here I/ we go again -

Railway Man

  [snip]  Paul, what's with the "be careful what you wish for?"  What is that supposed to mean?  Frankly, if this super-highway scheme really is more valuable, more efficient than railways, then I am all for it.  Why wouldn't any reasonable person be? 

I wrote that simply in response to oltmannd/ Don's suggestion to privatize the highway network, so as to result in trucks paying more of their fair share of the costs.  My initial point or concern with that is - What if that happens in a place where the trucks can cherry-pick high-rated traffic off the railroad ?  Or - What happens if the truck toll rates are then set or rigged - whether by design or mistake - to be artificially low ?  And  of course the basic structural finance problem that the railroads have to pretty much raise and pay for their entire infrastructure investment 'up front' before a revenue wheel turns over any of it, whereas the trucks on a tollway can repay its investment cost on a more gradual and spread-out 'pay-as-you-go' basis. And so then there's a new competitor on the block, with a brand-new high-capacity infrastructure at a perceived low marginal cost.  Even - or especially - if such a private highway is not long-term sustainable from the standpoints of repaying the investment and/or raising enough revenue to cover the on-going maintenance and eventual replacement costs - how much damage will be done to the traffic and revenue levels of a paralleling railroad until the fallacy or distortion is revealed ?  Will the railroad be able to hold out that long on other traffic ?  That's my real concern here - the under-priced new private highway.  I also wrote it partially as an advocate for the railroads, which I freely admit that I am on an amateur basis, as are most of us.  But if it is truly a better and more economical alternative than the railroad, ''all-in'' - great, then let it be so.

Railway Man

  Next:  Go read NEPA and tell me how a fundamental change of use of a federally assisted highway corridor, even if now only state or private funds are used, can evade this being a federal action.  I'd like to see that one tested in court and I would be very surprised if a number of people didn't promptly try just that. The very next time the highway department in that state wants to use federal matching funds to rebuild an overpass that happens to also span the new toll lanes, how's that going to work?  

I'm not a expert - or even very knowledgable - on NEPA.  (However, since I do have ongoing mandatory professional continuing education obligations to the extent of 12 hours per year, that just makes it that much easier to pick one of the next seminars for me  to attend.   )  More generally, should we and the railroads be that confident in assuming or relying or depending on NEPA being a successful or long-term non-economic, non-structural 'barrier to entry' to private roadways competing with railroads ?  Although it is a significant practical constraint and reality today, if we here truly believe in a mostly laissez-faire economy - and/ or a stroke of the pen in Washington amends the NEPA to exempt privatization and parallel capacity improvement projects - what then ?  Do we just go around 'fat, dumb, and happy' and assume that such a thing will never occur ?

Railway Man

  Your point about capital costs setting a boundary on rail rates caught my eye.  Lots of people have tried to do analyses like this both in an effort to levy a tax on railroads or conversely into trying to justify what the maximum cost of the infrastructure can be (for everything from ports to inland ports to logistics centers to P3s for new rail capacity) and it leads them straight into a swamp.  It's a microeconomic analysis extracted from a macroeconomic question and they blow up every time. Rail rates are not related to costs, they are related to what people will pay.  So are truck rates.  Shippers have 1,000,000 alternatives and will invent all sorts of end-arounds to squeeze a nickle out of their costs.  Almost no one NEEDS any corridor, anywhere.  They need spme corridor.  There are MANY corridors to choose from.  You build a fancy corridor between points A and B to capture the traffic and the next thing you know there isn't any traffic because the shippers all relocated their DCs to a different corridor that you didn't even think existed.  Since your business model can't control access to all the other corridors, it becomes stranded.  

Trying to back into the rate from the cost of the infrastructure to justify a project is putting the cart before the horse.  First you think of the purpose and need, then you think of the solution that best fulfills it.  

Yes, I thought that might catch your eye - but wow, geez, not for any of the purposes that you mention.  My point was entirely based on and I fully agree that - ''Rail rates are not related to costs, they are related to what people will pay.''  So to exactly that end I was simply asking: Suppose a rail marketing executive is looking at a competing private highway that's being built.  As a basic 'intelligence on the competition' exercise (have you seen the recent Julia Roberts/ Clive Owen movie Duplicity - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135487/ ?), a fair estimate of the construction costs plus a reasonable profit will lead to a projection of what the toll rates for trucks on the private highway might be.  Can that data then be used to better inform the railroad's rate-setting process - specifically, as a 'cap' or upper bound' - particularly if said private highway is likely to become a market-leader and the preferred route ?  While there may well be other alternatives as you point out - such that the highway is not the controlling factor on the railroad's rates - the highway is likely believed to be a competitive factor or advantage for someone; elsewise, why is it be being built ?  The image I have in mind is the upper 30 miles or so of the NJ Turnpike to the 'Chemical Coast' there.  But this scenario of mine may be just another reflection of our differing backgrounds - my perspective of the crowded and busy NorthEastern US conditions, vs. your view of the wide-open spaces of the Western US. 

Railway Man

  As to point 3, it's one thing to convert the whole highway to a tollway and privatize it.  Everyone is treated equally.  It's another to convert only part of it and privatize it.  Now there's unequal treatment.  It sounds like a fun test case for ambitious class-action attorneys. 

The scenario I had in mind was the former, and that as part of the privatization it would be improved - only that the truck lanes would be improved way more than we now regard as standard.

I usually stay away from studying 'equal-treatment' laws and cases, for a variety of professional and personal reasons.  However, economic unequal treatment is usually afforded pretty broad discretion, as long as it's not based on or caused by one of the usual 'evil' bases, suich as race, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, age, etc., etc.  My sense is that if only the truck lanes were privatized - not the scenario I had in mind, but a plausible variaiton nevertheless - that inequality would not be a problem.  But I could be wrong - another seminar topic to look for and muse about in the meantime, I suppose.

Railway Man

  As to point 4, I had caught the word overweight previously but I guess that was in reference to gross, not axle weight?  And where are you putting these?  Out in the sticks isn't very attractive because just like railroads, your dray costs will kill you.  This is not an improvement. And, you will still have to find land for these transfer facilities and get them through the environmental process, which I can almost guarantee you will employ a small army of consultants for years.  My own experience with a number of these projects is that they are lightning rods for local land-use challenges.  And anything that's large-scale like this is going to be a lightning rod for national environmental challenges because most of the groups will consider this going backward, environmentally. 

Yes, I mainly had higher gross weights in mind - truck tractors and full-length trailers in either 'double' or 'triple' combinations - more than axle weights.  Although I suppose the latter could also be accomodated on a private highway, they would then be limited on where they went afterwards, unless transfers/ transloads are involved, etc., which seems counterproductive and subject to the very real objections/ concerns that you raise. 

Here, despite a huge concentration of Distribution Centers in the Fogelsville area at Rts. 100/ 222/ I-78, there are no truck stops - the nearest one is 4 miles west on I-78, and that's about it.  They are a 'LULU' = Locally Undesirable Land Use in the vernacular of land-use attorneys - add that to your NIMBY and BANANA vocabulary sub-section, if you haven't already.

Instead, my adverse scenario is for the competition to use nothing more complex than a simple truck terminal/ truck stop/ service plaza operation along or just off the private highway, same as they exist now.  I'm not envisioning this happening or being a threat to the railroad industry on a large scale or nationwide - mainly in the cash-strapped and traffic-congested states in the NorthEast / Upper Midwest US, and maybe the Mid-Atlantic down as far south as Florida.  But what I am suggesting is that certain railroads might want to take a look at something like that as a possible competitive threat in certain lanes where that might be most likely and/ or vulnerable to that happening - CSX and NS to North Jersey, or NS along I-81, or CSX along I-95, etc. - that's all.

Railway Man

  Take a look at the high-speed rail NEPA process, Paul. It's turning into a career-maker for a lot of people. 

RWM 

I'd already reached that conclusion after my previous post - per my first response above, likely a good topic to attend a seminar.  Sounds like maybe some interesting and useful career advice, too - if I want to stay in that legal end of the business (not too sure about that right now, though).  I'll look into it.  Thank you for that suggestion, too.

- Paul North.

[blownout cylinder]

Paul: Between you and RWM I'm going to need a couple of large book staplers! I've been printing off both of your responses--just so that I can 'edumicate' myself on this topic---

[n012944]

greyhounds

schlimm

oltmannd

greyhounds

Actually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue.  He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle.  That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man.

Or, better yet, a toll based on weight and capacity consumed. Or even better, why not just privatize them and let them charge what the market will bear?

 

greyhounds:  I don't know if you are a Chicago native, but living in the "boonies" (as John Coleman used to call them) I am surprised you would consider toll roads, given mutual experience with the Illinois Toll Road system.

Not a Chicago native.  Grew up in a small town in downstate Illinois.  Antioch has almost as many people as the county I grew up in.  I came to the Chicago area to go to grad school at Northwestern 35 years ago when I got out of the Army.  Wound up staying here.  Didn't always live around Antioch.

I pay two tolls per workday.  Sometimes I pay three if I change my route home as I did this evening.

It is basically painless.  I have this little white box stuck up by my rear view mirror   $0.50 is deducted from my account when I exit and enter I-294.  They just expanded 294 from three lanes to four in each direction.  It's made the commute much better.  I'll gladly fork over $5.00, sometimes a little more, per week for a nice uncongested drive.  I sip coffee, listen to the radio, stay cool in summer and warm in winter.  Move on my own schedule (with some imput from "The Company.")  When my account gets low they just put $40.00 on my Master Card and off I go.

It's a limited access highway funded by tolls.  As they all should be.

 

 

 

I could not agree more.  As someone who grew up in Lombard, and still drives the toll roads every day, I think that they are great. It would be nice if all expressways became tollways.

[Anonymous]

n012944

It would be nice if all expressways became tollways.

 

I believe that not only all expressways, but all other public roads will become toll roads within a decade or less under a fully automated system, which will include standard tracking, pricing, and billing equipment in every car.  Non-congestion will be rationed by price.  The more you pay, the closer to the speed limit you can drive. 

[blownout cylinder]

Bucyrus

n012944

It would be nice if all expressways became tollways.

 

I believe that not only all expressways, but all other public roads will become toll roads within a decade or less under a fully automated system, which will include standard tracking, pricing, and billing equipment in every car.  Non-congestion will be rationed by price.  The more you pay, the closer to the speed limit you can drive. 

I heard that one type of "drive by wire"(?) method had even been considered a few years ago by at least one manufacturer with that in mind--as a tracking system. One would/could see a set of alternatives being made---but still paying a set fee based on distance as well---