A solution to high way overcrowding

[Anonymous]

Rich747us, I agree with you 100% If it makes scence, the Gov turns a blind eye to it, but if ti has a ton of red tape, there after it! And hear you about trucks on the high way! I ate it when they try to push me down the road, hey, maby I should turn my car off and save gas and let them push me!! lol

[Anonymous]

1) as others have adequately pointed out, trucks are a random access transportation system. not so Rail. So how to make the two competitive and still preserve their niches? the two systems are complimentry, as JunctionFan points out; having them as competitiors doesn't serve the public interest. Regulations or govenment takeover isn't going to work; witness the mess Amtrak is perpetually in. (when I try to ride Amtrak, I spend more time on BUSSES in the very traffic I'm trying to avoid than I do on trains, fer crissake!)
(Note: a Bus, to me, is a slow, ugly airliner with a lower demographic and no wings. I hate'm!)

I would remind everyone that trucking has a low entry cost to the industry. (a modern tractor and 53' van can be bought new for less than the cost of a house out here in the Bay Area) A truck can be driven with relatively little additional training by a non-union employee, who can also do most of the routine checks and maint. Heavy maintenance can be performed by the lowest bidder at a place convienient to both parties. this makes for heathy competition between trucking companies. I personally can't see how to bring that competition to pass between railroads. . . and when you add in the adversarial relationship RR managment and Labor usually have, it's a miracle any railroad survived the Standard Oil- GM collusion back in the early 40's.

2) the interstate highway system is mandated to be maintained to a certain level of readiness by old cold-war legislation from the Eisenhower era. . . the interstates were to be reserve airfields when ww3 kicked off. (the swiss or the swedes <forget which> use their highways as military airfields on a semi-regular basis. . . )

so the problem has to be attacked from multiple directions. JunctionFan has part of the answer- rather than a punitive tax on an industry our entire economy currently rests on, offer simple, direct incentives to ship by rail instead.. . . and don't muddle up the incentives with loopholes and exception clauses. While we're at it, lets examine some of the reasons our government does things, and decide if those things still need to be done, and for what reasons. . . . maybe railroads or waterways have more strategic importance now?

Then let's make rail travel attractive again- make it fast, clean and convienient; make it the priority it was in the middle of the last century, instead of the bothersome scheduling problem it's seen as now. This probably means a subsidy paid for performance. . . give $xx.xx per amtrak train-mile that gets though with no delays and a mandated ride quality; but only basic freight trackage fees for a delayed and/ or bumpy trip.
Schedule the cross country trains to arrive at times useful to travelers, and arrange for some trains, at least, to pass through the scenic wonders of this continent during the day. . . I'd travel by rail more if I could see the sights! going though the Siskious and the Cascades at night is no better than flying over them by day. I took a 2 day rail trip through Mexico almost 20 years ago as part of a summer spent exploring my roots; my fondest memories of the whole period are the sights and experiences of those two days. And the trains ran on time!
Eventually, things will (hopefully) improve to the point where a private venture will start up to compete with Amtrak . . . sort of a FedEx vs the post-office scenario?)and competition will improve the breed, as it always has before. (sometimes it's not pretty; look at what's happened / is happening to the airline industry. . .) Rail travel can compete with southwest airlines, given a fair shake by the railroads.

Then figure out a way for Labor and Management to play trains in a civil manner. . .which may take an act of God to accomplish.
maybe part of the answer is requiring managment to spend part of each year in the trenches, dealing with locomotives that won't load because they haven't been maintained (or the engineers who're hot because of same), having to call a taxi from southeast nowhere, wrestling stubborn couplers in the rain and being shouted at by someone who has forgotten that railroading is WORK ought to do wonders for their viewpoint at the GUT level where decisions really get made.

Then let the gang with with the callused hands try playing accountant with rising fuel costs and a price war on with the truckers, or maybe muddling their way through the latest federal regulations or consumer lawsuit-- remind them that THINKING is work, too! I think both sides would come away with a new respect for the other.

but I think the final solution is to simplify: to ship x tons y distance in z time by w method costs $V.VV, which can be looked up on a chart by anyone with functional eyes. Such a chart could be computer generated on a weekly basis and would include all costs from all the carriers involved, (inc. local trucking) direct or indirect, including wear and tear on <all> the infrastructure, this week's fuel prices, a reasonable profit to be shared by everyone who moves the freight, and includes damage and performance insurance. Works for Fed Ex and UPS, both of which are wizards at leveraging the entire logistical system . . . from a guy in a uniform and a stepvan to container on a ship out of Oakland.

And as someone (440cuin?) pointed out, there's a cultural component, too. . . As long as we as a people remain wedded to high-horsepower, individual transportation and instant gratification while living in our identical crackerbox houses on postage-stamp lots and watching the same televised moronic pap put out by conglomerates that rival the population and economy of small european nations, things are going to proceed down the same worsening road they are now.

The real problem with overcrowded highways? UNDER-populated CARS and SUVs. Go on, count'em A semi occupies about the same road area as 2, maybe 3, properly driven cars at highway speeds. . . and there are a lot more than 3 times the number of single-occupant private vehicles as trucks on any of the routes I travel. A loaded modern semi can achieve 7-8 MPG or better at speed. . . 3 average cars use about the same *total* amount of pertrochemicals to move only 3 200 lb people. that's not a favorable load factor, or a efficient use of time. . .

so, as one of my profs used to say: "when you go pointing your finger, remember, most of your fingers are pointing right back at you."

[Junctionfan]

I don't believe in raising taxes on trucking companies but do believe in giving tax incentives for them to use rail. Trucks belong in a partnership or at least a cozy relationship with railroads. Trucks should do the delievery and trains should do the traveling (intermodal service or mixed freight to truck via distrubution or transloading facility).

[edbenton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rich747us

Hey Jay1:

There is only one problem with your idea, it makes too much sense (lol)! It would be wonderful if we could sock it to trucks like that! All they do is hog the road, tailgate, and cut people off! I for one am FED UP!

[*^_^*][*^_^*][*^_^*]
you should boht be ashamed I am a Former Otr driver who had to come off the road due to a car cutting me off and causing me to put my truck on the side to avoid killing the driver of the car that cut me off and as for raising taxes on trucks my last year of driving I paid 18,000 in taxes just on fuel alone plus trucks have actually been cleaner than trains since 2000 when the new emission laws went into effect on them railroads fought any emisson controls till they were rammed down their thoart they still burn High sulfar fuel otr diesel is 99 percent sulfar free so dont go there about trucks being the ememy plus can a train pull into your gas station to fill up the tanks or the grocery store to fill the shelves if you have it a truck brought it name one thing in your house a truck had no part in bringing it to you IF YOU CAN

[DSchmitt]

I've had much more trouble with discourteous car drivers than with truckers. Most of the truckers I've seen in 40 years of driving are professional safe drivers. No, I'm not a trucker although my second vehicle is a GMC. I use it to carry modules to train shows.
They won't fit in my Saturn.

[rich747us]

Hey Jay1:

There is only one problem with your idea, it makes too much sense (lol)! It would be wonderful if we could sock it to trucks like that! All they do is hog the road, tailgate, and cut people off! I for one am FED UP!

[Randy Stahl]

And yes I dream about one of our trains hitting a beer truck!!! Provided everybody lives>
Randy

[Randy Stahl]

But I'll chase the Tombstone pizza trucks ,,, MMMMMMMMM
Randy

[Randy Stahl]

I'm not fat.....
Randy

[TH&B]

There is no need for trucks to support our high quality life style, because we do not as a nation have a hi quality life style. Look at how many fat people there is everywhere (not to offend anyone but...). It reflects among other things poor quality food. Good prices but poor quality brought in swiftly by truck. Comunities are built with no core, you cant walk to the store, you gotta drive... growing fatter again. Cities with downtown cores are often falling apart and surounded by getoes and stuff, down by the rail tracks.

Anyways my point is that arguing that interstate trucks are what makes our "wonderful" life style then maybe we should get rid of them.

[tree68]

I recall reading somewhere once that the invention of the refrigerated railroad car killed the East India spice trade. The spices were no longer needed to cover the taste of rancid butter.

Improved highways have allowed communities to grow away from established rail centers. Population centers once grew where the rails went. More than one established community literally disappeared when the railroad bypassed it, while a new community grew around "Podunk Station."

This growth was not followed by the rails, for the most part. Even in pre-NIMBY days, potential rail routes were probably blocked by the new growth.

Trucks are very much part of our life, and their predecessor, teams and wagons, is the source of the term "team track."

As mentioned, even though you may see several trucks from one company running in "convoy," they may not be headed for the same destination. Loading them on flatcars at the source may not be the best option.

Add to that the aforementioned switching, etc, and you have a problem. Many of the loads that are compatible with TOFC, etc, are already moving that way - witness the UPS trains. The only way to truly mix the two modes is to seek out those commodities whose shipping is compatible with the mixture. And that's gonna be tough.

[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.

[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]

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

[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]

Randy Stahl, I agree with you 1000%!!

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

[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.

[Train Guy 3]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[TH&B]

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

[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.

[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(]

[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]

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]