NOTE: This thread was orginally entitled:
THREAD LOCKED WITH NO EXPLANATION
Why does a thread that ran four pages, starting on 2/19, get locked today with no explanation and no obvious reason? Perhaps it was a technical fluke.
I am referring to the Scott Walker thread in the Transit forum.
This is the last post (I quote in blue) by Sam1 responding to another member’s comment about truckers not paying the full cost of truck damage to roads:
“I would like a reference to the studies that show trucks cause the amount of road damage claimed or don't pay their fair share of the cost of building and maintaining the nation's highways.
Clearly, heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on roadways than lighter vehicles. The key question is whether the truckers pay a fair share of the cost of repairing the incremental damage that they cause. The American Trucking Assoication, as you might imagine, claims that they do.
I would like to know the methodologies that were used in the studies. Model assumptions would be critical to the outcomes. For example, if the studies assume that all 18 wheelers are carrying 80,000 pounds of goods, that would be incorrect. Many trucks carry far less weight than their rated capacity, i.e. Frito-Lay trucks loaded with potato chips, FedEx trucks loaded with packages. Many trucks haul low density, high volume, high value goods, which means that they fill up the trailer with heaps of light materials.
Studies can be deceptive. The researchers frequently use simulation models that rely on assumptions that may or may not apply in the real world. They usually make heavy use of statistical sampling, projecting the results to the population as a whole. The results of a statistical sample cannot be projected to the population as a single number. It has to be a range, determine by the sampling construct constraints. As soon as someone tells me that trucks cause X amount of damage to the highways, I know it is probably wrong. A single number would only be correct by chance.
Supporters of commuter rail claim that it is far more fuel efficient that cars. They base their studies on common operating assumptions, load factors, etc. I question some of the assumptions. For example, the average load factor on the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) is approximately 33 per cent, although it is near 80 per cent during the morning and evening rush hours. How is that factored into the studies? Also, the TRE trains layover at their end points for approximately 25 minutes, pumping heaps of pollution into the environment. How does that compare with the modeler's assumptions? It is these kinds of questions that a researcher needs to address, whether it is a commuter rail operation or the damage trucks do to the highways.
Several years ago Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) gave me route information for every one of their routes, included the TRE. When I asked the Vice President of Operations how much each route contributed to a reduction in pollution in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, he admitted that he could not tell me.
Whoops, I forgot. What does the damage trucks do or don't do have to do with commuter rail systems?”
****
I was just going to respond to the question at the end of his post as the thread got locked, so I will follow up here with my response:
The charge that truckers do not pay their fair share of road damage comes up over and over in order to make it appear that rail subsidies are relatively less unfair because road cost is higher than it appears due to the hidden cost of unaccounted-for truck damage.
I can't say for certain, but unless it was Murph, and I sincerely doubt that he would simply lock it without some form of closure, it had to have been someone on the staff.
Crandell
Bucyrus Why does a thread that ran four pages, starting on 2/19, get locked today with no explanation and no obvious reason? Perhaps it was a technical fluke. I am referring to the Scott Walker thread in the Transit forum. This is the last post (I quote in blue) by Sam1 responding to another member’s comment about truckers not paying the full cost of truck damage to roads: “I would like a reference to the studies that show trucks cause the amount of road damage claimed or don't pay their fair share of the cost of building and maintaining the nation's highways. Clearly, heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on roadways than lighter vehicles. The key question is whether the truckers pay a fair share of the cost of repairing the incremental damage that they cause. The American Trucking Assoication, as you might imagine, claims that they do. I would like to know the methodologies that were used in the studies. Model assumptions would be critical to the outcomes. For example, if the studies assume that all 18 wheelers are carrying 80,000 pounds of goods, that would be incorrect. Many trucks carry far less weight than their rated capacity, i.e. Frito-Lay trucks loaded with potato chips, FedEx trucks loaded with packages. Many trucks haul low density, high volume, high value goods, which means that they fill up the trailer with heaps of light materials. Studies can be deceptive. The researchers frequently use simulation models that rely on assumptions that may or may not apply in the real world. They usually make heavy use of statistical sampling, projecting the results to the population as a whole. The results of a statistical sample cannot be projected to the population as a single number. It has to be a range, determine by the sampling construct constraints. As soon as someone tells me that trucks cause X amount of damage to the highways, I know it is probably wrong. A single number would only be correct by chance. Supporters of commuter rail claim that it is far more fuel efficient that cars. They base their studies on common operating assumptions, load factors, etc. I question some of the assumptions. For example, the average load factor on the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) is approximately 33 per cent, although it is near 80 per cent during the morning and evening rush hours. How is that factored into the studies? Also, the TRE trains layover at their end points for approximately 25 minutes, pumping heaps of pollution into the environment. How does that compare with the modeler's assumptions? It is these kinds of questions that a researcher needs to address, whether it is a commuter rail operation or the damage trucks do to the highways. Several years ago Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) gave me route information for every one of their routes, included the TRE. When I asked the Vice President of Operations how much each route contributed to a reduction in pollution in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, he admitted that he could not tell me. Whoops, I forgot. What does the damage trucks do or don't do have to do with commuter rail systems?” **** I was just going to respond to the question at the end of his post as the thread got locked, so I will follow up here with my response: The charge that truckers do not pay their fair share of road damage comes up over and over in order to make it appear that rail subsidies are relatively less unfair because road cost is higher than it appears due to the hidden cost of unaccounted-for truck damage.
I had the same question, which I posted on the transit forum. While this thread has an unfortunately provocative and biased title, the actual posts it has generated seem to be pretty informative, and not in any way abusive. Tthe thread seems to have been locked after Sam1's 4/14 post. Now, I've had a bit of a spat with Sam1 on another thread, but not this one. His comment and question seem to me to be perfectly approrpiate and not in any way objectionable..
By the way, the key studies that show the exponential imapact of heavy trucks were done by ASHTO. And, in response to Sam1's question (and as he probably meant to imply), the costs trucks impose on highways have nothing to do with passenger rail serivces.
Except that I believe a thorough analysis would show that if highway transportation in general, definitely including trucks, paid its own way totally and was taxed on the same basis as freight railroads, passenger service in some corridors, Chicago - St, Louis - Kansas City for example, would be profitable and would be attractive for capital for private freight railroads to invest in and operate.
One solution to the passenger delimna, could be that any freight railroad that provides a good standard of passenger service is exempt from real estate taxes on the specific routes and facilities. After all, interstate highways don't pay real estate taxes.
It wasn't me. To be honest, I hardly ever read the transit forum. When I do lock a thread, I give my explanation why I locked it. I feel that's the right thing to do.-Norris
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
daveklepper One solution to the passenger delimna, could be that any freight railroad that provides a good standard of passenger service is exempt from real estate taxes on the specific routes and facilities. After all, interstate highways don't pay real estate taxes.
What an outstanding suggestion!! That might rekindle some interest. Bet the local governments would loath the idea, though.
Convicted One daveklepper: One solution to the passenger delimna, could be that any freight railroad that provides a good standard of passenger service is exempt from real estate taxes on the specific routes and facilities. After all, interstate highways don't pay real estate taxes. What an outstanding suggestion!! That might rekindle some interest. Bet the local governments would loath the idea, though.
daveklepper: One solution to the passenger delimna, could be that any freight railroad that provides a good standard of passenger service is exempt from real estate taxes on the specific routes and facilities. After all, interstate highways don't pay real estate taxes.
I don’t see the point. You could just as well have the government just pay the freight railroads to provide a good quality passenger service rather than give them a tax break. I doubt that the freight railroads would take the deal either way. It would just be another variation of Amtrak. Maybe they would take the deal if you paid them well enough. The government could get the money from a new hefty gas tax. That would get people out of their cars and looking for an alternative such as trains. We could bring back the jitneys for the terminal trips.
Bucyrus You could just as well have the government just pay the freight railroads to provide a good quality passenger service rather than give them a tax break.
You could just as well have the government just pay the freight railroads to provide a good quality passenger service rather than give them a tax break.
It's always been my impression that it's easier for government to forgo revenue, than it is for them to assemble funding. When you are putting together a funding package, everyone wants to stir the pot, whereas with the alternative the majority will leave well enough alone so long as their own sacred cows are not impacted.
Convicted One Bucyrus: You could just as well have the government just pay the freight railroads to provide a good quality passenger service rather than give them a tax break. It's always been my impression that it's easier for government to forgo revenue, than it is for them to assemble funding. When you are putting together a funding package, everyone wants to stir the pot, whereas with the alternative the majority will leave well enough alone so long as their own sacred cows are not impacted.
Bucyrus: You could just as well have the government just pay the freight railroads to provide a good quality passenger service rather than give them a tax break.
I know what you mean, but times are changing. I have just recently learned that every tax that does not exist amounts to government spending.
My 2cents worth.
1. This country's crowded roads. Where you have the traffic density that can support rail it should be part of the plan. Building a 2 track rail line is a whole lot xheaper then a 6 lane freeway, and has a lot more capacity.
Why has the auto train concept not been thought about more with rail? If you can not get people out of their cars give them a way to bring it along. Say have a pallet to load the car on a train. driver would drive car onto pallet and when the train arrives load car on train with or without driver. ( Yes this pie in the sky day dreaming).
The same concept could be done with over the road trucks.
Someone commented about Long Island Expressway. I would point out that the vast majority of trucks on that roadway are delivery trucks going to places like the local grocery supermarket , Taco Bell, McDonalds ,McFriendly's Ice Cream Parlor, Toys r Us, Target, Macy's and/or (name a retail store). I have inthe past said that the road railer concept is underutilized. My opinion is that this is a good place to try. Unless I am mistaken the Long Island RR is quiet at nite why not use the over nite capacity there to drop trailers at at 20 or 30 locations. Which could then be deliveredduring the day.
One comment I will say is every time you do something it affects someone. And most politicians would rather deal with the least amount of screaming in their scheming about how to get reelected.
Unfortunetly for this country we have elected a bunch on the right who are in the keep anybody from doing anything so I don't have to pay my fair share of taxes.(very political statement !!)
Can I dream a little dream of uncrowded roads in more places?
thx ign
Regarding the substance of the Original Post by Bucyrus above, quoting Sam1 (because I didn't see it in the Transit Forum - I don't visit there often) - not the 'procedural' fluff-up about locking the thread, etc.:
You guys are on the right track (sorry - pun not intended) to be skeptical about the details of the "trucks do more damage to highways" study. A local newspaper columnist - Paul Carpenter of The Morning Call - loves to quote a study that concluded trucks do 9,600 times more damage to roads than cars, and therefore truck tolls to cross the entire Pennsylvania Turnpike (for instance) should be in the range of $80,000 per trip (right there is enough to cause me to go "Huh ?"). So a few years ago I looked into it a (very) little further, and here's what I found, as best as I can recall:
*Shear stress may be simply defined here as the effect in the thickness of the slab of the opposing downward load of the tire on the top of the slab, and the upward lift or support on that same part of the slab which is coming from the immediately adjoining portion of the slab - not from direct support underneath, and in the vertical direction only - not from bending resistence further away, although that occurs, too. Stated another way - in the cross-sectional area directly underneath the tires (only).
To play with this a little bit and to perhaps illustrate it better, using some contemporary values (and a lot of simplification): Consider a typical 3,000 lb. small car - that's 750 lbs. of weight on each tire and onto the slab. At an allowable shear stress of 63 psi., a cross-sectional area of 11.9 - say, 12 - square inches is needed. Assuming that the tire is about 6 inches wide at the contact point and the load is evenly distributed, a slab thickness of 2 inches would be more than enough to provide the required 12 sq. in. (Actually, the load would spread out a little bit, in the shape of a triangle with it's top cut off, or a trapezoid - but even with that refinement, the required slab depth still comes out at about 1.6 = 1-5/8 inches, based on the shear and the weight spreading out at a 45-degree angle from the vertical.)
Now consider a max. 80,000 lb. GVW truck with 18,000 lbs. on each of the 4 axles with tandem tires - that's 4,500 lbs. per tire. Again, with a maximum shear stress on 63 psi., that would require a cross-sectional area of about 71.4 - say, 72 - square inches. Assuming a truck-tire width of about 12", that means the slab needs to be about 6" thick (further refinement into a trapezoid reduces that to about 4.5" slab thickness).
So it appears that the truck needs a slab that's roughly 3 to 4 times thicker than a small car in order to obtain equal shear stresses.
A similar analysis could be done on the basis of the bearing pressures on the soils under each tire. For an allowable bearing pressure/ stress of 1,000 lbs. per square foot, the 3,000 lb. car would need to spread the weight on each tire over an area of 0.75 sq. ft., or a square area about 0.87 ' = 10.5" on each side. Assuming that its 6" wide tire has about a square "footprint" of 6" x 6" or 0.25 sq. ft., that means a slab thickness of about 2.25" = 2-1/4" is needed to distribute its weight over the larger required area of 0.75 sq. ft.
Similarly, for the truck's 4,500 lb. tire load, 4.5 sq. ft. of bearing on the soil would be needed - that's a square that would be 2.12 ft. = 2'-1-3/4" on each side . Again, assuming a square tire "foot print" of 12" x 12" or 1.0 sq. ft, a slab thickness of about 0.56' = 6-3/4" is needed to distribute its weight over the larger required soil bearing area under the slab.
So even on this basis, the truck needs a slab that is only about 3 times thicker than the car.
Bridges are another matter entirely, because the truck typically has an "internal bridge" of some 30 ft. or so between the tandem axles of the tractor and the tandem axles of the trailer. But each pair of tandem axles is carrying 2 x 18,000 lbs. = 36,000 lbs., or 12 times the weight of the car. For most bridges, that is the ratio of the beam strength-carrying capacity that is needed - but that doesn't mean that 12 times bigger beams or a bridge that costs 12 times as much is needed.
In conclusion, I could see a definitive and rigorous study concluding that a truck causes highway construction and maintenance costs to from at least 3 times to maybe 10 times as much as a car - but nowhere near that 9,600 times figure. (An interesting correlation is that those factors of 3 to 10 times as much aren't that far off from the relative fuel efficiencies of trains per ton-mile, and cars per MPG, respectively, over trucks.)
- Paul North.
I started this thread to continue a thread that had been locked in the Transit forum; and to ask why it was locked. That thread has since been unlocked, and the moderator who locked it explains why he locked it. So I have changed the title of this thread to reflect the continuation of the locked thread, and to exclude the question of why it was locked.
Paul,
That was a very good explanation from an engineering perspective. If I may, I would like to correct one small error. An 80,000 pound truck requires five axles. Three on the tractor and two on the trailer. That's your typical eighteen wheeler. The front axle on the tractor is rated at 12,000 lbs, an the other four (tandem with dual wheels on the tractor and trailer) are rated at 36,000, hence the GVW of 80,000. Heavier trucks are allowed, but must have more axles to spread the load. Bridge restrictions can determine axle spacing to minimize the stress on them.
I have a friend in Washington who moves loads in excess of 200,000 lbs (heavy duty excavating equipment). When he's moving such a load Washington (AC not DC) regulations dictate enough axles and proper spread to make his rig over one hundred feet long. As you would suspect, special permits and escorts are required to move such loads.
Said with total respect for your engineering expertise,
Norm
Paul:Excellent analysis. You lost me with all of the engineering data, but I trust your conclusion.
I have often wondered how much weather affects the road conditions. More to the point, the cold/warm patterns which are prevelant, including the precipitation which enters the roadway, freezes, thaws, etc.
Comments?Ed
If you got it a truck brought it~~~~
Jim
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Here in Pennsylvania our truck axle weight limits are 8,000 lbs. on the front steering axle, then 18,000 lbs. per axle for the other 4 tandem axles - 2 on the tractor, 2 on the trailer, which is 36,000 per tandem as you state - for 80,000 lbs. total. I didn't mention the steering axle because at 'only' 4,000 lbs. per tire, it's not 'controlling'.
I can recall seeing - and have a photo of - sand and gravel dump trailers in southern Lower Michigan with as many as 5 axles with dual wheels under the trailer. When a shorter version is also towing a trailer, it kind of looks like a centipede going down the highway . . .
I too have done some over-weight loads, but nothing like that - only for an rail-running small MOW Burro crane which was around 60,000 lbs. or so. For a while we had some 'per axle' weight issues when hauling 39' rails on 35' trailers - because of the 4' overhang, the rear trailer axles would go 'over-weight limit' before we got near the total allowable GVW for the entire rig. So we spent a couple of rainy spring days weighing various combinations of empty and loaded rigs - each axle and tandem - at a nearby quarry scale, to validate the stencilled weights and theoretical calculations.
Thanks for your additional comments.
Even abandoned roadways will have age and weather related damage as well as the used highways.
Bucyrus Convicted One: Bucyrus: You could just as well have the government just pay the freight railroads to provide a good quality passenger service rather than give them a tax break. It's always been my impression that it's easier for government to forgo revenue, than it is for them to assemble funding. When you are putting together a funding package, everyone wants to stir the pot, whereas with the alternative the majority will leave well enough alone so long as their own sacred cows are not impacted. I know what you mean, but times are changing. I have just recently learned that every tax that does not exist amounts to government spending.
Convicted One: Bucyrus: You could just as well have the government just pay the freight railroads to provide a good quality passenger service rather than give them a tax break. It's always been my impression that it's easier for government to forgo revenue, than it is for them to assemble funding. When you are putting together a funding package, everyone wants to stir the pot, whereas with the alternative the majority will leave well enough alone so long as their own sacred cows are not impacted.
Don't think of it as a tax break, think of it as a bartered payment in lieu of taxes. With the commercial enterprise free to set their own rates and run an agreed frequency of passenger trains any way they wish, they might even be able to find a way to make it revenue neutral if not profitable.
Never under estimate the ingenuity of someone trying to make money.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Paul ; That is a good ( skid stick) calculation. I thought highway concrete was 5.000lb. HI early at 6 to 8 in. depth. Some where along the way a train brought powder cement to the siding . then a powder buggy hauled it to a portable ready -mix plant . Have a good day.
MP173 Paul:Excellent analysis. You lost me with all of the engineering data, but I trust your conclusion. I have often wondered how much weather affects the road conditions. More to the point, the cold/warm patterns which are prevelant, including the precipitation which enters the roadway, freezes, thaws, etc. Comments?Ed
Actually, those two are related. Small fractures allow water to accumulate in them then the freezing water expands...
Phoebe Vet Bucyrus: Convicted One: Bucyrus: You could just as well have the government just pay the freight railroads to provide a good quality passenger service rather than give them a tax break. It's always been my impression that it's easier for government to forgo revenue, than it is for them to assemble funding. When you are putting together a funding package, everyone wants to stir the pot, whereas with the alternative the majority will leave well enough alone so long as their own sacred cows are not impacted. I know what you mean, but times are changing. I have just recently learned that every tax that does not exist amounts to government spending. Don't think of it as a tax break, think of it as a bartered payment in lieu of taxes. With the commercial enterprise free to set their own rates and run an agreed frequency of passenger trains any way they wish, they might even be able to find a way to make it revenue neutral if not profitable. Never under estimate the ingenuity of someone trying to make money.
Bucyrus: Convicted One: Bucyrus: You could just as well have the government just pay the freight railroads to provide a good quality passenger service rather than give them a tax break. It's always been my impression that it's easier for government to forgo revenue, than it is for them to assemble funding. When you are putting together a funding package, everyone wants to stir the pot, whereas with the alternative the majority will leave well enough alone so long as their own sacred cows are not impacted. I know what you mean, but times are changing. I have just recently learned that every tax that does not exist amounts to government spending.
I understand what you are saying, but nobody is going to actually be making any money in the deal no matter how it is structured. If the freight railroads were given enough public money for them to break even or even make a profit running passenger trains, it still would be a subsidized passenger rail service. It would be nationalized passenger rail, although with operation contracted to the freight railroads as private operators.
I don’t see how any rabbit can be pulled out of the hat just because the operation is contracted out to the private sector.
How many highways were constructed with porous concrete that allowed road salt and water to corrode the rebar in the paving. Also what happens with Asphalt roads?
You really can't blame trucks for road damage. Trucks are essential to the economies of the world. Travel to other countries and see for yourself how they do things. In Germany trucks are heavier and have a greater axle load then here in the good old US. The difference is in the road themselves. Compacted soil over many hundreds of years makes a better roadbed then just freshly graded. Bridges are built years in advance before the road meets them to give the concrete proper time in reaching its maximum hardness. Asphalt and concrete roads are much thicker and have greater reinforcing. Greater costs up front but longer lasting. Here we build cheap and fast. Low bid and shoddy work is the norm. The roads in most newer developments around my house are 3 to 4 inches thick laid on nothing but graded stone on top of sand. Any mid sized car will make pot holes in it. Don't blame the trucks. If we designed trucks like our roads then it would take several trips to the corner store for 2 bags of groceries. Imagine carrying 1 quart of milk 4 times because the road can not support 1 gallon at once. How is that the gallon containers fault?
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
Paul_D_North_Jr - snippage - In conclusion, I could see a definitive and rigorous study concluding that a truck causes highway construction and maintenance costs to from at least 3 times to maybe 10 times as much as a car - but nowhere near that 9,600 times figure. (An interesting correlation is that those factors of 3 to 10 times as much aren't that far off from the relative fuel efficiencies of trains per ton-mile, and cars per MPG, respectively, over trucks.)
- snippage -
A few comments with the caveat that I am not a civil nor a structural engineer.
Your analysis of required road strength does not look like you are taking dynamic loading into account. My guess is that truck spring rates are much higher in relation to car spring rates than the ratios of axle loading. Think comments about nose suspended traction motors versus truck or body mounted traction motors.
Damage is likely to be a highly nonlinear function of axle loading (much as it is for railroading). I suspect that damage to roads would be somewhat like fatigue in metals - which is still not very well understood as Boeing recently found out with the SWA 737 a couple of weeks back.
I think you are probably in the ball park about building a highway to handle trucks may cost 3 times as much as on built solely for cars. Assuming this is true, this implies that the truckers should be paying for 2/3rds of the highway construction costs.
- Erik
Paul_D_North_Jr In conclusion, I could see a definitive and rigorous study concluding that a truck causes highway construction and maintenance costs to from at least 3 times to maybe 10 times as much as a car - but nowhere near that 9,600 times figure. (An interesting correlation is that those factors of 3 to 10 times as much aren't that far off from the relative fuel efficiencies of trains per ton-mile, and cars per MPG, respectively, over trucks.) - Paul North.
This 172 page engineering department paper from the Univ. of Kansas may qualify as such a study:
http://www2.ku.edu/~iri/publications/HighwayDamageCosts.pdf
Or on page 23 of a 1994 GAO study, the exponential effect from the 1962 AASTHA study (with the 9600X figure) is summarized:
http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf
I'm no engineer, though the authors of both these studies are.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Thanks much for those links. I just skimmed the Kansas one, which is very interesting being based on data and a study completed only a couple years ago - mainly for the meat and related industries - and including recommendations for more rail and intermodal usage, so greyhounds should be interested in it as well. It deserves a more devoted review, but in the meantime here's the essential conclusion, last paragraph at the bottom of page 122 (Page 130 of 180 of the 'PDF' format version, approx. 2.83 MB in size):
". . . the total highway damage cost associated with processed meat related industries was estimated as $71,019 per year, or $1,727 per mile. The damage cost per truck per mile was approximately $0.02."
My 'gut reaction' is that's not believable. In railroad terms, that's 2 cents for about 20 to 25 payload ton-miles or 40 gross ton-miles = 0.05 cent per gross ton-mile or $50,000 per Million Gross Ton-Miles per Mile - although, that's not far off from what a typical mile of track costs to maintain per year for - say, about 10 times as much traffic (10 MGT or so). But that 2 cents per mile would be only about $7.20 in road damage costs to cross the entire state of Pennsylvania, some 360 miles. Locally, to travel 15 miles on the PA Turnpike costs $1.10 for 15 miles from Lehigh Valley to Quakertown or about 7.3 cents per mile for my standard-size 4-wheel cars - more than 3 times as much. Stated another way, that $1,727 per mile for a generous 30 year service life for a roadway would amount to about $52,000, or around $10 per foot. 'Seat-of-the-pants", rebuilding a mile of road would cost at least 10 times that much. But let me look at the methodology in some more detail.
Paul_D_North_Jr Thanks much for those links. I just skimmed the Kansas one, which is very interesting being based on data and a study completed only a couple years ago - mainly for the meat and related industries - and including recommendations for more rail and intermodal usage, so greyhounds should be interested in it as well. It deserves a more devoted review, but in the meantime here's the essential conclusion, last paragraph at the bottom of page 122 (Page 130 of 180 of the 'PDF' format version, approx. 2.83 MB in size): - Paul North.
Well now, Greyhounds are an ancient breed. In the thousands of years they've been around I don't think even one of them has ever expressed disinterest in bloody raw beef.
Kansas has done a couple studies on the transportation situation in the south west part of the state. They've got a big industrial concentration there (which they like) of very large beef plants and feed lots. Since the inbound and outbound shipments for these industries primarily move by truck, the state of Kansas is on the hook for providing the necessary transportation infrastructure.
They look at the underutilized rail lines in that area and sigh.
I'm convinced the reason that the vast majority of this business, with the exception of inbound cattle feed, moves by truck has nothing to do with rail being an inferior transport mode for the beef. Intermodal development was stunted by Joseph B. Eastman. Eastman can best be described as a "Hard Working Idiot." He became chairman of the ICC in 1926 and was made "Emergency Transportation Co-ordinator" or something like that by FDR in the early 30's. Effectively, he was FDR's transportation czar.
Eastman "Saw Dangers" in intermodal transportation. What "Dangers"? During his ICC charimanship the commision literally ordered the development of intermodal transportation in the US stopped. Once you stop development of something like that you can never get back to where you could have been. Especially if the government leaves restrictions in place for 50 years, as it did.
So, among other things, we've got this situation in SW Kansas where roads get pummeled, unnecessary fuel gets used, and beef costs more than it otherwise would. Thanks Joe.
(I'm slugging through Eastman's biography. It is a slow slug. He was not the most interesting man in the world.)
Where the fault lies on the condition of the US Highway system it is Not the Trucks cars or any of the Users. It lies with teh GOVERMENT and them alone. Why is that you say name the people that come up with the standards that the Engineers have to design the Bridges and roads to meet the Goverment. Name the people that refuse to make the Concrators have a Warrenty peroid for any problems in the Roads the Goverment. In Europe if there is a problem with the road the Concrator that did the last repavement job has to warrenty the ROAD for 30 years. Here as soon as they are done they are off the hook. Also here in the States it is the Cheapest bid that meet or does not meet the Specs gets the contract. Europe they require the contract to go to the Longest Warrenty issued on the Contract. Not who bids the lowest.
Here in the US we might use 5% asphalt in blacktop. Europe IIRC from other Forums it is 15% hpolds up a hell of alot better. Also we have a 6 inch thick layer of roadbead. There it is 30 inches which one will last longer. Remember the FHWSA writes the construction standards.
edbenton Here in the US we might use 5% asphalt in blacktop. Europe IIRC from other Forums it is 15% hpolds up a hell of alot better. Also we have a 6 inch thick layer of roadbead. There it is 30 inches which one will last longer. Remember the FHWSA writes the construction standards.
You must live in the South. When I moved south that was one of the things that struck me as odd. Interstates do have a good foundation in NY. I was amazed to see the construction of I-485 here, where they basicaly scraped the ground flat, rolled it, and put the pavement right on the dirt.
But then, I was also amazed to see that my water meter is outdoors. LOL
edbenton Where the fault lies on the condition of the US Highway system it is Not the Trucks cars or any of the Users. It lies with teh GOVERMENT and them alone. Why is that you say name the people that come up with the standards that the Engineers have to design the Bridges and roads to meet the Goverment. Name the people that refuse to make the Concrators have a Warrenty peroid for any problems in the Roads the Goverment. In Europe if there is a problem with the road the Concrator that did the last repavement job has to warrenty the ROAD for 30 years. Here as soon as they are done they are off the hook. Also here in the States it is the Cheapest bid that meet or does not meet the Specs gets the contract. Europe they require the contract to go to the Longest Warrenty issued on the Contract. Not who bids the lowest. Here in the US we might use 5% asphalt in blacktop. Europe IIRC from other Forums it is 15% hpolds up a hell of alot better. Also we have a 6 inch thick layer of roadbead. There it is 30 inches which one will last longer. Remember the FHWSA writes the construction standards.
I think that is an important point. The government owns the roads, so why would they be motivated to make them last? Bad roads are cash cows for revenue. Every pothole and every traffic jam has hundreds of taxpayers fuming in their cars, and this culminates in besieging the government to take action now. Nothing could be easier than collecting more taxes from taxpayers demanding government action. This is politician heaven.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.