It's part of the WSJ's "The Road Back" series, and is mainly about how this time around - unlike in the early 2000's - the railroads are continuing with their capital spending for "maintenance" and capacity expansion projects at the rate of $ 20+ billion per year, as well as increases in market share and profitability, and re-hiring laid-off employees, etc. It's by Jennifer Levitz, and can be found at page B-1, cols. 1 - 4, and page B-2, cols. 3 - 6, of the print edition, though the on-line version is dated June 28, 2010 instead, at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704569204575328994241506542.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
and/ or
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704569204575328994241506542.html?
Frankly, the article is only fair - it is another of the 'same old, same old' kind once again, and it could have used some proof-reading and/ or editing. For example, it says that "Union Pacific widened tunnels so that its double-stacked trains could get through" [emphasis added; that's nice - now what will they do about the increased height ? - PDN]; that "The company says it can add 20 boxes to a train with only a 1% increase in the train crew." [emphasis added; that's good, too - now where will they put the additional 0.02 of a crew member ? - PDN]; and in the print edition - though not in the on-line one - "CSX, which runs trains in 23 states east of the Mississippi, is spending $400 million to hasten the movement of freight on double-track trains from the Midwest to ports on the mid-Atlantic coast." [emphasis added; those trains straddle 2 tracks now ? - PDN], etc.
- Paul North.
P.S. - Last week the anonymous engineer of a NS local freight whom I was chatting with someplace told me that the company was so short of people now that it was 'buying back' their vacation time, and paying a $1,000 bonus as well - some people were getting $4,000 to $5,000 paychecks for those weeks. I recall that zugmann had said someplace here back in April or so that even back then his terminal was out of men and engines, and it wasn't even vacation season yet, so he was wondering what the railroad was going to be doing to get enough people to run. Anybody else hear or see anything about that ? - PDN.
If anyone wants to read the full article, just copy and past the title in google and click, the entire article should show up.
Thanks for posting and I take Mr. Young's comment very seriously:
"A lot of people don't understand railroads," says Mr. Young
The industry needs to open up to the public more by improving the PR, and try to re-educate the public on this new rail revolution.
Later on today I saw that the comments to this WSJ article include a lengthy and informed one by Lawrence Kaufmann - a sometimes Trains columnist and with extensive railroad, industry, and government experience. A lot of it was about the lack of quality journalism on the railroad industry these days - no surprise there, eh ?
Well, I bought the paper for $2.00 US because of Paul's posting.
My favorite line of misinformation was in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the print edition.
"...the railroads have continued to spend heavily, plowing more than $20 billion into capital improvements to widen tracks..." Widen the tracks? Lord knows what she meant.
I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or get angry about this sort of thing. I do know that you can't believe a gosh darn thing you read or watch in the news anymore. It's certainly not limited to railroading. They basically don't have a clue.
Paul_D_North_JrP.S. - Last week the anonymous engineer of a NS local freight whom I was chatting with someplace told me that the company was so short of people now that it was 'buying back' their vacation time, and paying a $1,000 bonus as well - some people were getting $4,000 to $5,000 paychecks for those weeks. I recall that zugmann had said someplace here back in April or so that even back then his terminal was out of men and engines, and it wasn't even vacation season yet, so he was wondering what the railroad was going to be doing to get enough people to run. Anybody else hear or see anything about that ? - PDN.
Dan
greyhounds"...the railroads have continued to spend heavily, plowing more than $20 billion into capital improvements to widen tracks..." Widen the tracks? Lord knows what she meant.
Her railroad naivete' notwithstanding, perhaps she was talking about adding second and third tracks. In highwayspeak, that would be widening the road....
But you are right - far too many of these folks have no idea what they are writing...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Sure, we can cut her some slack - we're informed enough to know what she meant to or should have said instead - and for the rest of the readers who are non-railroad-oriented, that's probably close enough to get across the idea that the rail lines are being improved and having capacity added, etc.
But these are tangible, readily identifiable primary dimensions/ directions, not theoretical or intangible abstractions - this isn't rocket science. A better description would be to say ''adding capacity'' to be generic, or ''installing additional or more tracks'' as Larry/ tree68 suggests to use a concrete example. There must be some principle of journalistic writing on how to do this without making a fool of yourself, and still get the essential point across.
I'm of two minds on this demonstration of a lack of competence. Earlier in life, I would have decried it and said that if we can't trust the media on this kind of routine non-urgent report, how can we trust them on the breaking stories or more important railroad ones, let alone the critical nationalk and international political, business, and security issues and matters, etc. Now, I'm kind of 'all for it' - despite what UP's Mr. Young said as quoted above, the longer and dumber the rest of the 'sheep' in the investment community stay about the railroads, the better for the rest of us to try to take advantage of it and rebuild our 401k's, etc. - meanwhile the Wall Street barons are out doing their 'same old, same old', trying to take over or spin off their next target or collect their next millions in fees from questionable deals, etc.
greyhounds Well, I bought the paper for $2.00 US because of Paul's posting. My favorite line of misinformation was in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the print edition. "...the railroads have continued to spend heavily, plowing more than $20 billion into capital improvements to widen tracks..." Widen the tracks? Lord knows what she meant. I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or get angry about this sort of thing. I do know that you can't believe a gosh darn thing you read or watch in the news anymore. It's certainly not limited to railroading. They basically don't have a clue.
Haven't read the article but I would bet she was referring to double tracking...poor editing on the Journal's part..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
A writer's and reporter's 1st axiom is to check and recheck your sources. Next is to be paraniod and independly verify anything you are not sure of by using independant sources such as google. Then at the end of article re-read and highlight anything that does not sound right. If you cannot verify then write items in a vague way not to put a fact in concrete.
Note: The comes from writers much more accomplished than I ever will be.
BT CPSO 266 If anyone wants to read the full article, just copy and past the title in google and click, the entire article should show up. Thanks for posting and I take Mr. Young's comment very seriously:"A lot of people don't understand railroads," says Mr. Young The industry needs to open up to the public more by improving the PR, and try to re-educate the public on this new rail revolution.
The "public" isn't out there anxiously awaiting the word from upon high about railroads. These are people still trying to earn a living, worried about their kids at school, trying to juggle hectic lives, and keep the checkbook balanced.
A lot of people don't understand ...
railroads
climate change
nuclear physics
coal combustion
deep sea vent ecology
The Big Bang Theory
diesel truck engines
why the Euro is collapsing
teenagers
I mean, really, the list just goes on and on, doesn't it?
And it has nothing to do with people's willful ignorance or some railroad president's worry that he and his company are not the complete focus of the world's attention; but rather that perhaps there are factors in people's lives that are far more important to, you know, actually know something about than railroading and most people aren't going to get the time for all of those, let alone railroading.
Railroads (gross revenue) represent 7/10ths of 1% of the national economy. And this is not to discount the importance of railroads, etc etc, but sometimes people get too invested emotionally -- in anything -- and need to make periodic reality checks. I don't think Jim Young took the comment too seriously.
The same degree of care and attention to accuracy and detail is applied to pretty much everything reported by every type of news media.
The very first rule of journalism should be: If you do not understand the subject, don't paraphrase.
Print reporters do not have a good command of grammar, and the talking heads who read the news on radio and television don't seem to know that the language actually discriminates AMONG past, present, and future tense. Ten times more and ten times as much don't mean the same thing, and 10 times smaller would be minus 9 times as much. When an airplane stalls it does not mean that the engine failed. I won't even comment on the things that are intentionally distorted.
Add to that the growing habit of reporting things they read on the Internet or got in a mass e-mailing and accuracy and fact checking are almost extinct.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
ICLandWhy?
Because many our getting the wrong idea about the industry. I am getting tired of the saying that "They are going out of business and useless" and the public is getting to comfortable with believing that statement. Even youth pretty much think freight in only moved by truck or air with little or no explanation on the growing and improving of rail service in the country in our text books, not even a brief mention on how things are moved in those books.
I am not saying the industry should bombarded the public with information, but at least get accurate info about them out there and they are in the position to do it. Show them that "hey, this country would stale without us, and a good chunk of the nation's freight in moved by them."
As someone more observant than I has observed: Any kind of publicity is good for any cause. Fortunately, the subject WSJ article was on the front page of a section of my print edition, with a very fine, color. train photograph. Thereby, the article no doubt left a good impression on the less-informed about a subject. Rarely do WSJ readers have access to anything but "numbers" alone. Overlooking the obvious (to us) errors, the article context, I thought, was quite positive. Score!
Other than correct (albeit righteously) nit-pick an ill-informed writer, has any one of you also privately made contact with the writer and offered constructive counsel? Politely done, such efforts are oft effective in bringing greater understanding of railroads, if not also build a relationship with our community that might promulgate more frequent informative stories, that we all (frankly) cherish.
That said, I (a longtime WSJ reader) often note very poor editing in the print edition.
BT CPSO 266ICLandWhy? Because many our getting the wrong idea about the industry. I am getting tired of the saying that "They are going out of business and useless" and the public is getting to comfortable with believing that statement.
Because many our getting the wrong idea about the industry. I am getting tired of the saying that "They are going out of business and useless" and the public is getting to comfortable with believing that statement.
Where have you read anyone saying that "railroads are going out of business and useless"? This is pretty much a straw dog argument. It creates a negative perception simply by alleging that there is one. And I don't think its true. You'd have to show me where you get this.
I don't know anyone that feels this way, I haven't read anyone write this, and, as a matter of fact, we are talking about a railroad article on the front page of the second largest national newspaper in the country, very favorable to railroads ... and people are complaining about it! There's just no pleasing some people.
Railroads don't exist to spend good money that belongs to shareholders just to make railfans happy and especially when the allegation is made pretty much out of the blue that "people are getting the wrong impression" and I have to wonder what "wrong impression," how, why, from who?
Yea, verily, "ICLand" !
ICLandBT CPSO 266ICLandWhy? Because many our getting the wrong idea about the industry. I am getting tired of the saying that "They are going out of business and useless" and the public is getting to comfortable with believing that statement. Where have you read anyone saying that "railroads are going out of business and useless"? This is pretty much a straw dog argument. It creates a negative perception simply by alleging that there is one. And I don't think its true. You'd have to show me where you get this. I don't know anyone that feels this way, I haven't read anyone write this, and, as a matter of fact, we are talking about a railroad article on the front page of the second largest national newspaper in the country, very favorable to railroads ... and people are complaining about it! There's just no pleasing some people.Railroads don't exist to spend good money that belongs to shareholders just to make railfans happy and especially when the allegation is made pretty much out of the blue that "people are getting the wrong impression" and I have to wonder what "wrong impression," how, why, from who?
It is nothing you have to read, just ask the average Joe. I personally have noticed that it is a 80/20 split that most do not think RRs do not do anything important and think trucking just handles freight haulage. Highly untrue, but the average person would believe it. I have yet to find a poll that ask people what they think of the state of American Railroads? I have looked, did not find any. I mean if you ask the average person in this country of how they think their goods get to them, they probably answer truck, planes, and or ships, not even considering the trains haul anything they buy at walmart, or anywhere else.
I tell people I am going for a career in the rail industry and the looks on their face & the tone of their voice seem to display shock and that's when I tell them what all they are doing today, they are still in complete shock; this is most of the people I talk to. They seem to think it is a bad career option.
The WSJ being the #2 paper in the country does not mean anything when most of the country does not read nor subscribe to it. If the industry is looking for more Private-Public partnerships to help fund their expansion projects then, you got to convince the average taxpayer that they are worth the investment.
BT CPSO 266ICLandWhere have you read anyone saying that "railroads are going out of business and useless"? This is pretty much a straw dog argument. It creates a negative perception simply by alleging that there is one. And I don't think its true. ...Railroads don't exist to spend good money that belongs to shareholders just to make railfans happy and especially when the allegation is made pretty much out of the blue that "people are getting the wrong impression" and I have to wonder what "wrong impression," how, why, from who? It is nothing you have to read, just ask the average Joe. I personally have noticed that it is a 80/20 split that most do not think RRs do not do anything important and think trucking just handles freight haulage. Highly untrue, but the average person would believe it. I have yet to find a poll that ask people what they think of the state of American Railroads? I have looked, did not find any. I mean if you ask the average person in this country of how they think their goods get to them, they probably answer truck, planes, and or ships, not even considering the trains haul anything they buy at walmart, or anywhere else. I tell people I am going for a career in the rail industry and the looks on their face & the tone of their voice seem to display shock and that's when I tell them what all they are doing today, they are still in complete shock; this is most of the people I talk to. They seem to think it is a bad career option.
ICLandWhere have you read anyone saying that "railroads are going out of business and useless"? This is pretty much a straw dog argument. It creates a negative perception simply by alleging that there is one. And I don't think its true. ...Railroads don't exist to spend good money that belongs to shareholders just to make railfans happy and especially when the allegation is made pretty much out of the blue that "people are getting the wrong impression" and I have to wonder what "wrong impression," how, why, from who?
Where have you read anyone saying that "railroads are going out of business and useless"? This is pretty much a straw dog argument. It creates a negative perception simply by alleging that there is one. And I don't think its true. ...
I grew up in a railroad town, in a railroad family, and spent the last 60 years associated with the industry in some fashion or another. We had a division point, had a roundhouse, car shops, neighbors on both sides worked for the railroad, half the kids at school were railroad brats. Unlike your experience, when I was growing up, where I grew up, everyone knew exactly what railroading was and was all about.
And it wasn't what was in the public relations pamphlets then put out by the AAR and distributed to schools.
You bet EVERYONE knew about railroads. And, at high school graduation, there was a real clear cut career path: you could be dumb as a box of rocks, but your Dad worked for the railroad, you were going to get a job with the railroad. Indeed, if you were dumb as a box of rocks, that's where you headed.
And if you had an ounce of smarts or creativity, the last thing you wanted to do was work for the railroad and get stuck for a lifetime on a seniority list behind some a*******, under a division superintendent or manager who was also a complete a******, trying to maintain a family home on one end of the division and a place to stay on other end because you spent half your time there it seemed. And you were stuck there for all eternity because that's where your seniority was. And half the employees hated the other half because they or their Dads started with the railroad during the 1922 railroad strike and, uh-oh, that meant they were scabs and nobody in a Brotherhood forgave that and that seniority date was literally the Mark of Cain and even into the 1960s you could still find some poor guy on the Division that no one would talk to, just waiting to retire after 45 years so he could move away.
Yeah, tell people all about that.
Or, you tried to get a job on the white collar side, and if you were "lucky" enough to get into a management track, you got transferred every two years, and you spent your career with a crying wife and crying kids every time you had to move and they had to leave their friends.
Do you think the Railroad PR said anything about that?
No, nobody with a lick of brains said they "wanted to go to work for the railroad." And if you did say that, you would get the same look of shock from people who knew all about railroading and thought it "was a bad career choice" if they thought you had any possibilities at all. And that dates "way" back -- it's in the song "Kilkelly, Ireland", where a father writing to his son in America in the 1870s pleads: "... and don't go to work for the railroad."
The smart ones didn't say they wanted to "go to work for the railroad." They went out and got educations and experience and became civil or mechanical engineers, lawyers, accountants, managers, and THEN they came back and went to work for the railroad.
If you are going to spend your life worrying about what the "average person believes," without realizing that the average person is busy enough trying to manage their own life, let alone pretend to be interested in your particular railfan interest, it is going to be a frustrating existence. I cannot see why railroads should spend money to satisfy your purely vanity interest so that you can have people you talk to respect your particular, apparently future, career choice.
Indeed, seeing now that you haven't worked for a railroad yet, exactly what is it that you presume you "know" that other people should "know"? And how do you "know" it? Railfanning?
Railroads are exactly like any other business: do it right and the people who need to know will know it. Do it wrong, and everybody is going to notice.
ICLandI grew up in a railroad town, in a railroad family, and spent the last 60 years associated with the industry in some fashion or another. We had a division point, had a roundhouse, car shops, neighbors on both sides worked for the railroad, half the kids at school were railroad brats. Unlike your experience, when I was growing up, where I grew up, everyone knew exactly what railroading was and was all about.
And I can walk across the empty lots now where the roundhouse and car shops were, and see nothing but knapweed and a couple of chunks of concrete here and there. Where a thousand people once worked, built their lives and raised their families, that's all that's left.
And nobody here now remembers any of that or what a "railroad career" meant then.
If I wanted sympathy, I suppose I could go get therapy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APwfZYO1di4
ICLandBT CPSO 266 If anyone wants to read the full article, just copy and past the title in google and click, the entire article should show up. Thanks for posting and I take Mr. Young's comment very seriously:"A lot of people don't understand railroads," says Mr. Young The industry needs to open up to the public more by improving the PR, and try to re-educate the public on this new rail revolution. Why?The "public" isn't out there anxiously awaiting the word from upon high about railroads. These are people still trying to earn a living, worried about their kids at school, trying to juggle hectic lives, and keep the checkbook balanced.A lot of people don't understand ... railroadsclimate changenuclear physicscoal combustiondeep sea vent ecologyThe Big Bang Theory diesel truck engineswhy the Euro is collapsingteenagers I mean, really, the list just goes on and on, doesn't it? And it has nothing to do with people's willful ignorance or some railroad president's worry that he and his company are not the complete focus of the world's attention; but rather that perhaps there are factors in people's lives that are far more important to, you know, actually know something about than railroading and most people aren't going to get the time for all of those, let alone railroading.Railroads (gross revenue) represent 7/10ths of 1% of the national economy. And this is not to discount the importance of railroads, etc etc, but sometimes people get too invested emotionally -- in anything -- and need to make periodic reality checks. I don't think Jim Young took the comment too seriously.
People don't understand railroads, but they do understand what's it's like to drive on a truck-choked highway, fight their way though and airport on business or for vacation, and they do worry about the price of gas. So, if you can show them that railroads can help with those problems, they'll listen (and their congressmen will know they are listening.....) They don't have to know and understand all the nuts and bolts, they just need to see how it fits into the context of their life. That's Jim Young's point, I think.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndSure, there are lots of things people don't understand but that doesn't make them unimportant, it just make the context more important. People don't understand railroads, but they do understand what's it's like to drive on a truck-choked highway, fight their way though and airport on business or for vacation, and they do worry about the price of gas. So, if you can show them that railroads can help with those problems, they'll listen (and their congressmen will know they are listening.....) They don't have to know and understand all the nuts and bolts, they just need to see how it fits into the context of their life. That's Jim Young's point, I think.
That was basically the point I was trying to make. Sure if you tell people rail transportation can offer a solution to freight transportation problems, they will listen, but one must understand that they are more than likely not thinking about how far the industry has come. Most still think the only way to move any the freight is by boxcar, the majority of people I run into do not even know railroads co-operate with trunking companies and haul trailers.
I mean if the industry is going to see any kind of support from the general public, then they have to show them what they are doing different from 40, 50, 60+ years ago, and those are the years people are thinking of when they thinking about how railroads run.
As for ICland,
Were did you get the idea I wanted any form of sympathy? It was an example from what I have noticed; and they are not reactions of the kind of working environment, but more so thinking "they are hiring and looking for people, did not think we were going to need them anymore." Most do not even have a clue what the working environment is like. I am actually studying to get a Civil Engineering degree, and I am aware that it is a harsh working environment. This has nothing to do with railfanning in the least, it is a education of the public and how they are viewed in the public eye.
You basically blew a simple comment out of proportion. I never thought it would turn out like this and I would have to go on to defend my statement of a trend that I have noticed and many would agree.
I would like to apologize to Paul, if my comment started a discussion he did not want his thread to go.
Then I received the Aug. 2010 issue tonight, and skimmed through the interview with Michael Ward, CSX's CEO. See his comments about the justifying the value of CSX's advertising campaign to a skeptical stockholder. 'Nuff said.
BT CPSO 266You basically blew a simple comment out of proportion. I never thought it would turn out like this and I would have to go on to defend my statement of a trend that I have noticed and many would agree.
Your comment was "I am getting tired of the saying that "They are going out of business and useless" and the public is getting to comfortable with believing that statement."
And I've never seen anything like that comment in any public source. And it's quite an assertion. And since there doesn't seem to be any actual basis for it, I am curious as to why you would invent a false observation.
Then you asserted that "I personally have noticed that it is a 80/20 split that most do not think RRs do not do anything important and think trucking just handles freight haulage. Highly untrue, but the average person would believe it. I have yet to find a poll that ask people what they think of the state of American Railroads? I have looked, did not find any. I mean if you ask the average person in this country of how they think their goods get to them, they probably answer truck, planes, and or ships, not even considering the trains haul anything they buy at walmart, or anywhere else."
You "personally" have noticed an 80/20 split? And yet you can find no poll? So, you actually ask your friends and family what they think about railroading, and do this consistently so that you can make a conclusion about what the average person in the United States "probably" thinks?
You must be the life of every party.
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you actually go around and do that. But, then you did clarify that it's based on your personal experience: "I tell people I am going for a career in the rail industry and the looks on their face & the tone of their voice seem to display shock and that's when I tell them what all they are doing today, they are still in complete shock; this is most of the people I talk to. They seem to think it is a bad career option."
They express "complete shock"!!?! Apparently the people you associate with are far more emotional than the folks I have known in my life. You know, if you said you were going into the sewage treatment field, you'd be earning -- if you worked for NY City -- substantially more than the average railroader, be involved in a line of work that is absolutely essential for the daily management of the entire society, and retire at about three times what the average railroader earns. I bet you'd still be met with "complete shock."
The fact is, and I do think you need to get out more, is that you have little compassion for the average person and don't realize that of course they don't know much about railroading unless they're in it. They don't know much about sewage treatment, airplane manufacture, or plumbing codes either. But you seem to feel strongly that your choice of professions requires a positive feedback from people you talk to. Since you said it, you invited my comment that I think that's vanity and you want railroads to fix it for you.
As a practical matter, I see an awful lot of CSX ads and some fewer NS ads. And I'm not in either of their market areas so I assume they are chucking some large budget dollars into advertising and have been doing so for quite some time.
I've been seeing the same CSX ad and NS ad now for about two years it seems. Since they started advertising heavily, in year 2000 or so, I think I've seen five or six different NS ads, and 2 or 3 different CSX ads; heavily promoted. I like the Union Pacific "Building America" ads. They don't tell me much, but they're nice to look at. BNSF has done good, to the point, fuel efficiency ads since 2004. One of the best ads I ever saw for anything was from GE's Locomotive Division.*
The point is, there has been, over the past decade, a fairly heavy advertising promotion by the railroads. So, it's a little hard to see what you are complaining about, except that you seem to be unaware of expensive, continuing efforts to do what you complain isn't being done, and despite that advertising, complain that people still don't respect your job choice. I'm not really sure what you are advocating or want from the Rail industry. I think they have done a pretty good job all things considered.
You used the word "understanding" but when I pointed out what "understanding" railroading actually meant, you wanted to go in a different direction\ and as near as I can tell is that you want an artificial, public relations view to be presented to the public on a more massive scale than is presently being done.
Public relations isn't "understanding." It's an artificial picture.
Here's how it plays out with intermodal and the NS ad where a tree (!?) is grabbing containers off the highway and putting them on trains. It's a clever ad, well done, played too much, but conveys a useful public relations point. Is it a true picture?
Intermodal is the current revolution in transportation. I stepped onto my first full-fledged intermodal facility in 1969 and wondered if the railroad was ever going to make a nickel off the investment. It makes things cheaper to buy. Indeed, it makes cheap things cheaper to buy, and so not only do people buy more of them, they buy crappy stuff and over the long run sometimes spend more than they would if they just spent on the quality in the first place. Well, in any case, intermodal is, to some extent, its own driver of consumption because of its transport efficiency.
Well, now think about this from the perspective you claim: relieving congestion, etc.
Now, on the West Coast I've been at the unload container facilities in Long Beach, Oakland, Tacoma and Seattle, and San Diego. Where do containers transfer to trucks? Where the people are.
So, at the container ports, which are pretty heavily populated areas, there are big lines of trucks hauling the containers from the terminals to the various local and regional destinations. And the rest go on trains. And where do they get back onto trucks? Minneapolis, Chicago, St. Louis, Houston, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York, Memphis, Atlanta, etc.
And which highways were they taken off of by virtue of rail transport? The Interstate Highways passing through Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas. I guess you could argue that transportation "congestion" is reduced in those states, but I don't think the public is really going to care much on that point.
But where's the highway congestion that most people suffer through? And where are the trucks being ADDED to the transportation matrices as the result of the transportation efficiency of intermodal?
Here's where the street, road, and highway traffic congestion is increased as the result of intermodal efficiency: San Diego, Long Beach, Oakland, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Houston, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York, Memphis, Atlanta, etc..
And those are the places where the severest highway congestion already exists, and cost penalties to the public and the cost of solutions, again to the public, are the most expensive.
It makes it worse, and even more so because unlike the conventional rail siding which permits a delivery without any truck whatsoever, intermodal REQUIRES trucking into and through already congested areas.
Intermodal vastly increased the market reach of railroads at the cost of significantly increasing highway congestion in the very areas that are already most heavily congested. This has imposed a substantial cost penalty absorbed entirely by the public in deteriorated highways, increased congestion, and increased personal and commercial use of petroleum resources and capital needs because of slower highway transit times and increased cycle times.
Intermodal was an economic incentive to many positive changes, but they were not all positive, and "understanding" railroads in the sense you advocate may not provide the results you seek. Unless of course what you really mean is that the public should be provided a misconception, which is often the purpose of advertising. I don't happen to think that the rail industry should go too far in misrepresenting reality, otherwise that opens up obvious credibility problems and that's when you do more harm than good.
So, when arguing that the public needs to have more "understanding" of your pet career choice, be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
And you need to lighten up a bit. My suggestion for therapy was a reference to a GIECO ad** and how a drill instructor might respond to complaints that the world isn't perfect. The reference to "sympathy" in that context was "tongue in cheek".
*GE ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggWiK8iotJU
About two weeks ago, 11 cars of a CSXT coal train derailed outside of Grafton, West Virginia; and on June 23, the local newspaper, the Mountain Statesman, printed a front-page article about the incident. Here are the first two paragraphs of the article:
"Most throughout the state, and natives of West Virginia, have probably grown accustomed to passing by, traveling over or around railroad tracks, and hearing the familiar sounds of trains as they approach or pass by.
Most people do not realize the ways in which they benefit from the railroad system industry, nor seldom consider this mode of transportion and the safety of its passageways."
The article went on to say that "most are acquainted with someone who either works for or is related to someone who serves this industry"; and it ended by reporting that no one was injured and CSXT "went to work immediately" to clean up the scene.
I'm sure that railroading has lost much of its importance in many locations; but that hasn't occurred everywhere.
ICLand,
I am sorry I brought up the fact I tell people about my career option now, you keep thinking I am looking for sympathy and comfort? It was just an example, nothing more. It is just something that leads me into finding out what people really think.
In casual conversation, one will tend to ask what kind of job or career one is going for, and that can tend to lead into a discussion of why; it is the why discussion where I learn what people really think about the industry, they tend to enjoy the discussion because most where not aware what modern railroading has become. Do I bring this up all the time? No. but over the years of talking to people I have noticed a trend.
At least people know we need sewer systems because they see and use it everyday, in terms of freight movements, usually they just see the truck as the possible beginning or end of the chain of moving the freight but most do not think that. With the recent bombardment of ads over the past few years people have begun to ask questions and have become curious about the industry.
As for the intermodal, true other areas are going to see more traffic do to the transportation model, which are the areas that should be focused on improving and less on the long distance highways. Not to mention better mass transit systems, but that is a whole another discussion.
BT CPSO 266 Do I bring this up all the time? No. but over the years of talking to people I have noticed a trend. ... With the recent bombardment of ads over the past few years people have begun to ask questions and have become curious about the industry.
Do I bring this up all the time? No. but over the years of talking to people I have noticed a trend.
... With the recent bombardment of ads over the past few years people have begun to ask questions and have become curious about the industry.
So, the "trend" you refer to is a positive trend?
What's the problem, then?
Congratulate the rail industry, don't complain about it.
But, you're not going to change the "average" person much, because they don't have all day to inquire about everything "important" that may seem "important" to you. Most of them are trying to earn a living and raise their kids.
That's what's important to them.
I am intrigued by the recent lengthy but articulate polemic by "ICLand," especially regarding intermodal. For those of us that occasionally must use the Long Beach Freeway in southern CA, the effect of ship-to-truck intermodal is graphically illustrated, with its extremely dense truck traffic that oft creates considerable congestion and to poor air quality. From the Long Beach Freeway, eastbound now-loaded trucks then are part of the great diaspora via the Los Angeles CA area arterial freeways to the rest of the country.
There surely are those of you far more knowledgable than I, so may I ask: What are the efforts made at coastal ports to have more ship-to-train intermodal shipping? That would seem (to me) to lessen the adverse effects in neighboring communities.
ICLandSo, the "trend" you refer to is a positive trend?What's the problem, then? Congratulate the rail industry, don't complain about it. But, you're not going to change the "average" person much, because they don't have all day to inquire about everything "important" that may seem "important" to you. Most of them are trying to earn a living and raise their kids.That's what's important to them.
The "trend" I refer to is the trend of out dated info the average joe has. The current advertising by railroads is a positive step in the right direction, but it does take more, it is not just advertising but maybe go to a major news network and do a special on how far the industry has come and exactly what they are like in the modern day; could help people better understand what all those commercials are all about.
It does not have to be the focal point of everyone lives, but if there is a special on TV about the subject people may be interested to watch it.
Does anyone get where I am coming from?
BT CPSO 266 Does anyone get where I am coming from?
Yes, I "get where [you] are coming from," BT CPSO 266. Though I may be overstepping my naivete here, let me suggest: If only those, who oft criticize writers in the popular media (perhaps validly) for supposedly inaccurate stories, would take the effort to contact (telephone or email) those writers and kindly offer suggestions for content improvement, you would gain a friend for railroading. Rather than fault-find amongst ourselves and generally fulminate about "nobody understands railroading," what are we ourselves doing to rectify that perceived problem? More knowledgable media might then recognize the true "hidden" values of railroading, and thereby put out future stories heretofore not considered for publication.
YoHo1975I have a Friend that is an editor in a media corporation. I joking ribbed him about the editing in that article. He pointed out to me that really there's nothing of significance wrong with it. The errors I pointed out are trivial. The point of the article is about the health and plans of modern railroads and it delivers that message to it's audience with no spelling errors and proper editing. Sure, there are some misquotes and misstatements, but those misquotes and misstatements are only detracting to foamers. As far as the core audience of the paper. The fact that the tunnels were raised/floors lowered and the articles said they were widened doesn't make a darn bit of difference. She did track down the news and reported it. The news of the story is about the spending of the railroads and their expectations in this market. The specifics aren't the news. I and my friend aren't saying it wouldn't be better to be correct, just that this isn't a reasonable complaint.
I agree that the article got the general point across. But what's "trivial" and "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. I won't accept a standard that allows some professional journalist to say "widened" when it was a height change they were writing about. To me, that's just basic accuracy and understanding.
But, I'm not in charge and if that's the media industry standard so be it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.