A solution to high way overcrowding

[Anonymous]

Hers a great idea to solve the problem to highway overcrowding. Thers a lot of old road beds out there, and to get more turcks off th road, use governmemt money to rebuild them into railroads. Plain and simple.Les polution and congestion, and more cargo moved. Because the trucking industry has had it good to long. Railroads built America, not trucks.It makes me upset when I see 2 or more semis puiling the same trailers with the same logos going crose country. That means more poultion, and more trucks on the road. One 86'foot boxcar can take at least 3 trailers. Wish rail trafic incresing, we need to have more rail lines. For those towns who let rail service go infavor of trucks, too bad, because your not conected with the world.

[MP57313]

Would like to see it, but I believe the trucking & highway industry still has more connections and clout in getting funds allocated...

[DSchmitt]

Trucks can provide door to door service.

Just because two or more trucks appear to be traveling together doesn't mean their origin and destination are the same (although admittedly they could be).

Trucks can provide faster service, they don't have to wait around to be made up into trains. (often many times before delivery). Trucks can take shorter routes and travel at higher average speeds.

There are many places trains don't go to. Most of them places trains never went to even at their peak development.

[Anonymous]

Ya.......Raise gas prices up to $5 to ten dollars a gallon for a year.
BNSFrailfan.

[Junctionfan]

I believe that every town or at least county should have a distribution center where train loads can be unloaded and trucks can ship the product who can't afford or can't access a rail spur. This eliminates the trucks polluting time on the highway without putting the truck driver out of work.

[jchnhtfd]

There are a number of ways that trucking firms and railroads can work together to do this -- using the flexibility of the truck for delivery and the efficiency (and potential speed) of the train for the longer haul -- Junctionfan has it about right.

However... that would suppose that somehow trucks (and automobiles) and trains operated on an even economic footing. I think my views on State DOTs in this regard are pretty well known around here... and they aren't complementary. The highway industry (automotive and truck manufacturers, construction firms, and entrenched bureaucracies) have a pretty firm hammerlock on the public purse -- while railroads, at least in the USA, are treated at all levels as cash cows to be taxed to death. A while back CSX wanted to upgrade the line on the west side of the Hudson River for better service to New York -- but was faced with the reality that if you improve your property, your taxes will go up (anybody know what finally happened there? I lost track, somehow).

It will take a major change in the political climate to even the playing field -- but it has to happen sometime.

[rrnut282]

Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. Your average Joe doesn't see any benefit in having more tracks available (it's just another rough spot in the road I own, I might get stopped by a train, and I don't want to wait, etc) and will howl when his tax money is spent for something he doesn't benefit from. To take enough trucks off of the road for this scheme to work, it will take more service lanes and faster travel times and more interconnections to duplicate the trucking network. Don't get me started on the NIMBY's that will come crawling out of the woodwork if you try to run a train on a track that has laid dormant for 30 years....

Don't get me wrong, It would be nice, but impractical at this point.

[Randy Stahl]

We need a NY times expose' on the daily slaughter of motorists on the PUBLIC highways to incite people to take action, note I said Public highways NOT commertial highways!!!!!!!
Randy

[mudchicken]

Having to drive back from central Illinois to Denver last week, had to listen to the two AM radio "All Night" trucking programs. Both were full of whining by the truckers about the federal and state level politicians about to start charging along interstates for tolls for commercial use. The whining by truckers having to pay fees commeasurate with the amount of damage they cause was nothing short of a near riot......I was grinning all the way across Nebraska! AH Reality - What a concept![:D][:D][:D]

Evil Feathers

[TH&B]

Leveling the playing feild is realy the only way to go. But people will complain when they suddenly get charged for what has been free or cheap even though someone else has been paying for it. We live in a distorted economy right now that makes ceratain wastefull practises make sense, but the next generations will pay that mistake. Trucks are very efficient and nessesary but they don't have to be so big and poorly designed and opperated from a safety point of veiw. Also some traffic that is shipped by truck should be more efficient by rail exept that our rail system isn't always as efficient and flexable as it should be.

Also government money should be used to remove level crossings in more busy areas and multipul underutilized parallel routes should be consolidated, this benifets everyone ((exept railfans)). People in cities should not need to waite for long slow trains at crossings and trucks should not dominate our public roads and hiways. Our seaways, canals, great lakes and coastlines should also be taken into account and bigger is not always better every time.

I'm interested in specializing in the rail freight.

Well anyways that's my 2 or 3 cents or more.

[Anonymous]

Here in Oklahoma I have been talking and sending letters to politicians saying to them just how importatant rail travel can be. But sadly most of the public and political leaders don't know what a train is other than it can be a big slow moving monster. If rail travel should ever come back from the brink of destruction education of this vitale transportation should be made known. It is sad for me to see everybody complaining over high gas prices but know one has done anything about it.

[Anonymous]

if the terrorists use trucks to get in the US from mexico then BAM!!!! more trains because trucks will instantly be outlawed by the goverment... well thats my thought anyways....

[Anonymous]

w

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Having to drive back from central Illinois to Denver last week, had to listen to the two AM radio "All Night" trucking programs. Both were full of whining by the truckers about the federal and state level politicians about to start charging along interstates for tolls for commercial use. The whining by truckers having to pay fees commeasurate with the amount of damage they cause was nothing short of a near riot......I was grinning all the way across Nebraska! AH Reality - What a concept![:D][:D][:D]

Evil Feathers

there is all the highway 50 deaths by truckers here in kansas and you can actually hear them yell "get the **** out of my way"




DEATH TO THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY[}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][:p][:p][:p]

[csxns]

Death to the trucking industry i dont know i like to eat would not like to go hungry.You have to agree if you have it a truck brought it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxns

Death to the trucking industry i dont know i like to eat would not like to go hungry.You have to agree if you have it a truck brought it.

hmm never thought of that... no food [xx(][xx(][xx(]

[Anonymous]

Speaking as a former North Carolina DOT engineering Tech, everybody is on the money. Here is a tid bit that makes the above agruements even more interesting. This comes from the NCDOT pavement design section. By the Proctor Method of Asphalt testing: One (1) legally loaded Simi-Tractor Trailer with approved tire inflation, in one pass, does more damage to the road surface and its structure than do 900 automobiles. When you combine the cost of lives, injuries, lost time and expense of widening and modernizing roadway (4 to 5 million dollars a mile and that's cheap) it seems that somebody sure has done a great snow job in getting us to pay our tax dollars that seem to be cheap to go into what is an increasingly large money pit to serve us in a more and more expensive way of putting our lives on the line.

[TH&B]

But didn't Americans eat food before there was intersate trucking ?

[csxns]

Long before interstate trucking about every town had farms everybody almost everybody grew food and had chickens or about every kind of farm animal to eat.Even in the 1800's about everything that traveled had to get to the rail head by walking or wagon just like trailers and containers do today.The best way is for the two to work together.

[Junctionfan]

Trucks didn't become big until it was invented by Ford. I don't know when and why business prefered long-distance trucking to rail but it should stop. As I said in my previous statement, you can combine both. Their are distribution centers out there already using the railroads to foward freight to businesses that can't afford or can't get rail service directly. Their are distribution center that even use ships too. Even trucking companies have werehouse facilities where they get rail service for transloading. The problem is there is not enough customers that will go with this. The government should consider funding, tax breaks and/or tax incentives designed for the railroad to go out of their way to ensure that the service is there, the businesses for chosing a more environmentally friendly mode of transportation, and the trucking industries for choosing intermodal or transloading delivery service to long haul highway transport. Lets face it, rail service is expensive for shorter distances so if rail is trully to be implimented, if the Kyoto Protocol is to followed than the government is going to have to invest more wisely and go for rail.

Highways require such a constant amount of money to even keep the highways half decent, it almost isn't worth it. Who here enjoys slow crawl through traffic due to near constant construction that may or may not be needed? Who here loves to drive near big trucks during bad weather, fog or black ice conditions? If you consider that the investment of rail will ensure your safety, redution in dependancy of foreign oil interests, less were and tear on the highways, less hold ups on the highways and off course the elimination of overcrowding; it is worth the investment.

Another thing for passenger travel; the ticket prices are too damn high. It is cheaper and move convienient often to take a Greyhound than a train. The passenger industry must keep the prices cheap or people won't use it as much. If it was cheap or at least reasonable and their were more trains available, people would use it a lot rich or poor and so the passenger train industry would make their profit by the volume of customers and not by the often failing attempt to make a profit by gouging the customer.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxns

Long before interstate trucking about every town had farms everybody almost everybody grew food and had chickens or about every kind of farm animal to eat.Even in the 1800's about everything that traveled had to get to the rail head by walking or wagon just like trailers and containers do today.The best way is for the two to work together.

Correct

Before the 1920's long distance travel by road was very difficult. There was a network of roads but outside of town they were crudely constructed and not maintained. However even then most places could not be reached by train. Wagons made the "short haul" from the railroad to/from the railroad. Latter trucks replaced wagons. The first wide scale road building was after World War 1 pushed by the American Automobile Associan, bicyclists, as well as truck interests and the military. An even bigger boost to the road system came after World war 2 with the Interstate highway system. They were justified as military highways but all the American people, not just the truckers benefited through faster, easier, safer movement around the country.

Many (probably most) shippers/recievers did not need carload shipments. (this is still true today) The railroads and independent freight companies built large terminals to consolidate LCL (less than carload) freight in car load lots. This is where trucks had their first success in competion with railroads. Door to door trucking were faster and less handling of the cargo was required. They were also often more reliable. Rail was usually less expensive but Shippers are often willing to pay more for speed and reliability. The railroads tried to compete (for instance SP OVERNIGHT service between San Francisco and Los Angeles) but necessity to run trains between fixed terminals doomed the busness.

Today many shippers find the advantages of speed, reliability and door to door service that truckers provide worth while even for longer distances and larger loads and the railroads really do not want the small business that only occacinally ship a car load or two.

Today there is cooperation between a segment of the trucking industry and the railroads as some companys have found it advantages to ship their trailers longer distances by train. More of this should be encouraged.

By the way have you ever seen a huge oversized load on the Highway and wondered why it wasn't shipped by rail. One reason (other than that the railroad doesn't go there) is that the railroad can't handel it. Bridge and tunnel clearances or other restrictions may make it impossible on all rail routes. There is more flexibility in routing on the Highway system

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxns

Long before interstate trucking about every town had farms everybody almost everybody grew food and had chickens or about every kind of farm animal to eat.Even in the 1800's about everything that traveled had to get to the rail head by walking or wagon just like trailers and containers do today.The best way is for the two to work together.

Correct

Before the 1920's long distance travel by road was very difficult. There was a network of roads but outside of town they were crudely constructed and not maintained. However even then most places could not be reached by train. Wagons made the "short haul" from the railroad to/from the railroad. Latter trucks replaced wagons. The first wide scale road building was after World War 1 pushed by the American Automobile Associan, bicyclists, as well as truck interests and the military. An even bigger boost to the road system came after World war 2 with the Interstate highway system. They were justified as military highways but all the American people, not just the truckers benefited through faster, easier, safer movement around the country.

Many (probably most) shippers/recievers did not need carload shipments. (this is still true today) The railroads and independent freight companies built large terminals to consolidate LCL (less than carload) freight in car load lots. This is where trucks had their first success in competion with railroads. Door to door trucking were faster and less handling of the cargo was required. They were also often more reliable. Rail was usually less expensive but Shippers are often willing to pay more for speed and reliability. The railroads tried to compete (for instance SP OVERNIGHT service between San Francisco and Los Angeles) but necessity to run trains between fixed terminals doomed the busness.

Today many shippers find the advantages of speed, reliability and door to door service that truckers provide worth while even for longer distances and larger loads and the railroads really do not want the small business that only occacinally ship a car load or two.

Today there is cooperation between a segment of the trucking industry and the railroads as some companys have found it advantages to ship their trailers longer distances by train. More of this should be encouraged.

By the way have you ever seen a huge oversized load on the Highway and wondered why it wasn't shipped by rail. One reason (other than that the railroad doesn't go there) is that the railroad can't handel it. Bridge and tunnel clearances or other restrictions may make it impossible on all rail routes. There is more flexibility in routing on the Highway system

History Convicts and Geography Rules

[Train Guy 3]

If the tucking industry dies..... how will the trailers move once they are unloaded off the flatcars at the terminals?

[Modelcar]

A more modern rail system that could handle truck traffic loads and move it moderate and long haul distances and working in conjunction with trucks at centers to distrubute it to where it's final customer is located would unload the mass of trucks that populate each interstate one drives on...I have no idea how this would be put in place but it seems something should and will need to be done as we all have been in the saturated traffic spots that is happening many locations in this country.

[DSchmitt]

One question brought up in thi discussion is do trucks pay their "fair share"

From what little reasearch I have done it appears what they pay in gasoline taxes and weight fees does not cover the cost of the damage they do to the Highway.

In Califoria (at least until around 1980 when the politicians started raiding the highway funds for other uses) the difference was more than made up on taxes and fees paid by automobiles. Before that time California had a well maintained Highway system, was keeping ahead of congestion and had a surplus in the highway fund.

one of the beliefs of the "small is beautiful" crowd that ran the government at that time was that if you don't build the Highways you won't get development. I think subsequent developments have proved them generally wrong.

Environmental issues have also tremendously increased costs. One Highway project in the area I live (which is really desired by the local governments and would be a boon to the area which is one of the poorest in the State) has had at least 3 environmemtal studies in the last 30 years. It probably could have been built 20-25 years ago for less than has been spent on studies.

One must also consider that their may be benefits to society by subsidizing trucking in the form of lower costs to shippers and more reliability. Shippers are willing to pay a higher cost (than for rail) because of the service provided.

Would raising the cost send the business to the rails? Possiblly some business if the cost were high enough. But many shippers would have to continue using trucks.

Are you willing as a consummer to pay the costs in terms of higher prices, and/or less availability of goods?

What would this do to the economy? What would it do to business and jobs in America?

I don't know the answers.

I do know that raising taxes and fees can have unintended, often undesirable, consequences.

[Anonymous]

DShimmt,Whos sind are you on??
Turcks are heave poluters

[Anonymous]

Randy Stahl, I agree with you 1000%!!

[Anonymous]

DShmidt.
Trucks polute the air rughly 70% more than trians, and cause A lot of deths on the highways. I hate it when I am driving on the free way, and some big rig is trying to run me over, most drivers act liek they OWN it, and we are the **** on's.The goverment is relay subsidizing killing of inocent people with trucks, along with rpoducing green house gasses! See a truck stop full opf trucks ideling for hours at a time is a pure waste of fule! Plain and simple. Train crews do a great job sticking to there hours law, truckers dont. We need to invest more in the railroads, rebuilding and expanding them.

[Anonymous]

you and I think the same way train man, way to go!

[DSchmitt]

M.W. Hemphill is a post on page 2 of a related topic

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19544

said it much better than I:

"The higher truck-tax argument presupposes that rates and market share are inelastic; that is, if truck rates go up relative to rail rates that rail market share goes up by the same amount. They don't, because most of the truck traffic cannot move by rail (unless most of the existing logistics system is scrapped and rebuilt next to the tracks). It doesn't work in the other direction, either, because most of the rail traffic can move by truck. ....."

This of course does not address the costs of damage to the Highway caused by trucks compared to what they pay in user fees (fuel tax, license and weight fees)

It does however clearly state why I believe that raising the costs for trucks would not necessairly relieve congestion on the Highways.

Blue Ridge Front in the next post is correct.

[Anonymous]

I'm all for more inter-modal rail traffic and all other types of freight too and less truck traffic to help make the roads less congested and safer, but we have to face the fact that we could never go without some form of a truck. It may not have to be a 53' trailer running 70 mph on the interstate, but some sort of transportation would be required to get freight to places too far away from the rails. With nothing running over Saluda now, the nearest place for a train to come here would be 20 to 25 miles away. Even if it were re-opened there are places in the county and around that are 15 miles away from the tracks, some places rail lines can't even be built and I'm sure there are numerous other areas like this across the country. They would have to have some way of getting their freight to them in mass supply, as in a truck. Have to face that trains simply can't go everywhere. But trucks do need to be cut back. Way back.