Topic #1: Mark's article and highway congestion

[gabe]

I received my Trains magazine yesterday, and--of course--read Mark's article regarding "subsidies for all or subsidies for none," to paraphrase.

First, I think it was a great article because it really stimulated my thinking on the subject.

I largely agree with the gravamen of the article's contentions. However, I am curious about what the readers, and Mark, think about the growing phenomenon of highway congestion in relation to the article's contention?

If conditions stay the way they are now, I think Mark's contention is unassailable. However, I have seen growing evidence that highway congestion is approaching "the knee of the curve" with regard to how much is required to be spent in order to keep highway congestion at a minimum. In other words, even if the government continues to subsidize truckers through highway construction, the cost of doing so is going to start growing, causing highway taxes to increase and causing a less-favorable environment for trucking.

It is no longer simply a matter of building new highways. There are growing choke points, which either preclude further highway construction or cause it to be considerably more expensive to do so—there are only so many highways you can build in a city.

In short, when highway congestion "redlines," wont trucking rates rise either as a result of outright congestion or much higher taxes, and rail’s advantage of being able to add capacity more cheaply be able to be taken advantage of even if railroads are not subsidized?

Gabe

[Modelcar]

...New TRAINS magazine already...! I look forward to reading the article indicated above, sounds like a good subject to be discussing. I'll start looking in the mailbox a week or 10 days from now for my issue....
...Ammended: 11-29-04....Wow, new January TRANS arrived today. Can't remember it being received that early recently...! [:0]

[motor]

I don't get the new Trains until a day or two after the 1st of the month.

motor

[gabe]

I guess I am special.

[Anonymous]

I'm just hoping it's in todays mail...

Newstands around here are usually at least a week behind subscribers...

LC

[jeaton]

Gabe

You win the prize "I got mine first this month". Now you have to send a thank you note to the USPS. A small gratuity is suggested, otherwise the next edition might not get to you until sometime after leaves are back on trees. LOL

Jay

[Anonymous]

Can't really comment until I get a chance to read his article, but knowing Mark's attitude toward people who have the audacity to actually drive to work for a living.......

[daveklepper]

Don Philips' article in the same issue makes pretty much the point you are making. And then, of course, there is National Defense.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Can't really comment until I get a chance to read his article, but knowing Mark's attitude toward people who have the audacity to actually drive to work for a living.......

Lets not forget not only your ridiculous and unyielding ideas about virtually everything relating to railroads, either...

Most of us have the "priviledge" of driving to work. I miss the times when I have been able to take the train to work...of course when I get to work I get on the train...if there were more trains...

LC

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe
If conditions stay the way they are now, I think Mark's contention is unassailable. However, I have seen growing evidence that highway congestion is approaching "the knee of the curve" with regard to how much is required to be spent in order to keep highway congestion at a minimum. In other words, even if the government continues to subsidize truckers through highway construction, the cost of doing so is going to start growing, causing highway taxes to increase and causing a less-favorable environment for trucking.

It is no longer simply a matter of building new highways. There are growing choke points, which either preclude further highway construction or cause it to be considerably more expensive to do so—there are only so many highways you can build in a city.


Gabe

When the new container terminal was built at Long Beach CA about 25 years ago, It was built to be served by trucks, not trains. The trucks haul the containers through on one of the most congested freeway systems in the world between the ships and rail[V] I'm a highway guy but this decision was DUMB[:(]

[Anonymous]

That *&^%$#@! Post Office!! No longer uses rail effectively, wants to raise postal rates to $0.41 for a first class stamp AND NO TRAINS Magazine, again!!

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

That *&^%$#@! Post Office!! No longer uses rail effectively, wants to raise postal rates to $0.41 for a first class stamp AND NO TRAINS Magazine, again!!

LC

Could not have said it better myself

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe
If conditions stay the way they are now, I think Mark's contention is unassailable. However, I have seen growing evidence that highway congestion is approaching "the knee of the curve" with regard to how much is required to be spent in order to keep highway congestion at a minimum. In other words, even if the government continues to subsidize truckers through highway construction, the cost of doing so is going to start growing, causing highway taxes to increase and causing a less-favorable environment for trucking.

It is no longer simply a matter of building new highways. There are growing choke points, which either preclude further highway construction or cause it to be considerably more expensive to do so#8212;there are only so many highways you can build in a city.


Gabe

When the new container terminal was built at Long Beach CA about 25 years ago, It was built to be served by trucks, not trains. The trucks haul the containers through on one of the most congested freeway systems in the world between the ships and rail[V] I'm a highway guy but this decision was DUMB[:(]

The problem with the U.S. highway program is one of political spoilage, and this despoilment has caused a circumvention of the two prime directives of developing a national transportation system, namely dispersement and redundancy. When the Interstate Highway system was first devised, it was meant for improving transportation between the major population centers. As the years went by, more and more funds were used for development of urban freeways and less on true interstate freeways. The problem with this urban focus is that traffic is funnelled onto fewer and fewer highways, causing the aforementioned choke points, while at the same time encouraging more growth inducement in areas that can best be described as overpopulated.

The cause of highway congestion is simply political malfeasance. If engineers were allowed to plan transportation systems and infrastructure development free of political input, there would be no such thing as choke points or congestion.

[Wdlgln005]

Another part of the congestion is the % of traffic actually going to a destination in a city as opposed to interstate traffic. A A proposal in Nashville is to tear down the downtown expressways and turn them into boulevards. Long distance travel would require outer belts to be built 35 miles outside the center of the city. Cloverleafs and other high speed designs take up too much room, valuable real estate that could easily be put to other uses. Then yuu add many additional side streets for pedestrians and local traffic. All this depends on a new 30-50year plan for the future of the city.
Railroads may have a difficult time reclaiming ROW if the former belt line track is taken up by an interstate or some other highway construction.
Congestion here is an issue because of the geography of the city. It was a huge error to allow major interstates like I-40 &65 to run together, forming a loop around the downtown area. Planners may not have forseen the transformation of the riverfront area from industrial use to sports, commercial & other uses. THere will be more residential units built than factories. TDOT will not be able to add many more lanes, so money & time will go to restoring the railroads. Some of the short lines may be state owned anyway, like our Nashville & Eastern.

[Anonymous]

Is Interstate 80 congested across Nebraska and impossible to expand??? I don't think so. Whether freight comes into a large city like Chicago by truck or Intermodal, it still gets delievered locally by truck. Some Intermodal transfers in the Chicago area are done by truck, making local congestion even worse. Both trucking companies and railroads are building terminal/transfer facilities farther and farther out in the boonies, which also increases congestion on both urban and regional highways and roads.

I keep seeing the topic of leveling the playing field coming up, but I don't see anyone suggesting how this would be done. If the freight railroads are subsidized equally, do I get to drive my high-wheel sportscar on them anytime and anywhere I want?? Or If trucks pay the full cost of the Interstates, are other uses prohibited?

Let's suppose the field were level and costs and subsidies were comparable. In many of the articles I've read about trains loosing business to trucks, the other issues were speed and consistent delievery times. During the 60s & 70s the railroads got caught up in terminal to terminal rather than door to door times. Some were more concerned with the minimum hp/ton they could get away with than getting the trains across the road. Except for bulk commodities, trucks did it faster, cheaper, and more consistently, so the 'market' made them the winner.

Should the government subsidize the old mainframe computer makers to level the playing field against PCs and mini-computer servers(which run sioftware components like UNIX and TCP/IP which were developed in University's with government grants)???

[Anonymous]

I think some of you are missing at least part of the real message. Part of a level playing field is money to help upgrade railroads(similar to highway aid), or if it is to be equal payments model having truckers pay their fair share for highways (versus private autos using the same highways). Perhaps the more important view is the transportation policy behind rail. At one time railroads regularly received significant benefits from the government including government charters, land grants, financial assistance and later grant programs. They were seen as critical transportation which they were and are.

How should the government place the railroads on an equal footing? Treatises could ber written on the subject (and have been). Obviously capacity issues on mainlines and choke points at junction points and terminals need to be addressed. Take a look at the Alameda Corridor or the new flyover in KC as examples. But, perhaps more important, railroads need the ability to easily create new tracks and connections without the massive red tape that exists now to reach customers with direct rail. If we truly want an efficient rail system that serves its goal of mizimizing pollution and maximizing utility at least those customers using significant bulk products (coal, ores, aggregates, metals, plastics, chemicals, etc) need direct rail service. Distribution centers should have rail service. Transloading adds significant costs to the system that can only be solved by removing the truck from that equation, not in all cases but in many...

LC

[Anonymous]

Oh, and I shoujld mention, I haven't yet been able to see Mark's article, so perhaps some of my points have already been adddressed there...

LC

[daveklepper]

No, you don't get to drive your high wheel sports car on a subsidized railroad. Presumably in a democracy, with a true level playing field, you would be able to enjoy your present highway with far less congestion and possibly also enjoy a decent commuter or intercity train ride.

[edblysard]

"The cause of highway congestion is simply political malfeasance. If engineers were allowed to plan transportation systems and infrastructure development free of political input, there would be no such thing as choke points or congestion."

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride....

Since when has any goverment handed a blank check, with no strings attached, to any one?

Ed

[CSXrules4eva]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Haven't read the article.

Is congestion necessarily "bad"?

I guess it would all depend on how u interpert the work "congestion". For instance if a certain highway like I95 (which attracts thousands of travelers a day) gets heavy traffic then it just might decrease the highway taxes for construction; since many people are paying those "high" tolls. However, congestion can be bad because, it would call for more road maintainence, and possibly road expansion. At the same time this road (I95) will not might but WILL face mile or more traffic jams. Then with that u have an envornmental issue as well.

The term congestion applied to rail terms is slightly different. I would say congestion on the rails is more of a bad thing than it is good. This si so because, if u have congestion on a mainline for instance, the railroad will run into the following problems. Increased wait time on sidings (costing the railroad money), the railroad's coustomers would start screaming about how long it's taking for the railroad to ship their goods to the given destination. Given this the train crews might have to make up for track time. This in turn might cause possible desasters like a derailment per chance.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

"The cause of highway congestion is simply political malfeasance. If engineers were allowed to plan transportation systems and infrastructure development free of political input, there would be no such thing as choke points or congestion."

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride....

Since when has any goverment handed a blank check, with no strings attached, to any one?

Ed

I am like most of the rest of you- no Trains in my mail yet. but we had a person once who drove freeways through entire neighborhoods destroying them and the environment along the way- Robert Moses of New York- most of the regulations that we have resulted from his activities. But have to admit, the roads and bridges got built. Interesting read on it : The Power Broker by Robert Caro.

[Overmod]

Don't forget --

1) The Bob Moses parkway construction was largely financed initially via Triborough Bridge Authority revenue,

2) Explicitly tied to this method of funding: no "commercial" traffic on Moses parkways -- e.g. no dangerous and pavement-wrecking trucks, and no buses for the hoi... note that bridges were intentionally constructed with inadequate clearance for trucks and buses to ensure the 'ban' would continue even if a later political administration went back on the idea.

3) Later Port Authority funding of the assorted Hudson crossings made Triborough revenue look a bit sick by comparison... but instead of lots of roads, we got the World Trade Center instead. I'm tempted to note, however, that if engineers had a free hand planning highway systems, we might well wind up with more, not less, concrete linguini. (Witness the Cross Bronx Expressway, which has needed either to be substantially widened or multiple-decked for over 30 years -- engineers would never tolerate a road of its current characteristics and capacity in a critical network. Reasons why it has *not* been substantially expanded are interesting to review...)

Might have been interesting to see what Moses et al. would have done in the absence of the Federal Interstate Highway program, the Highway Trust Fund, etc. My guess is that the market for railroad freight both through the New York area and to many of the terminals in that region would have been much improved, simply because trucking would have been restricted. I dimly remember, when only a couple of years old, the parade of trucks up Amsterdam Avenue in the middle of the night... part of one of the old major arteries through New York City to New England and points north!

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered
[I did study urban planning back in the 80's and interned with the city of New Haven. (How I ended up being a cop in Alabama is a long story.) What glorious, idealistic days of yore they were! I could draw and submit plans revitalizing neighborhoods, widening roads... even changing zoning if I felt like it. The problem came in when the people who actually lived in those neighborhoods caught wind of these wonderful plans.

The hard lesson I learned from that eventful six month stint was that government is going to respond to what the taxpayer wants, which is not neccessarily common sense.

Erik

I believe that the sum of individual decisions made by the people, in the long run, brings better results than the grandose plans of politicians and bureaucrats. I trust in the people's common sense. When the people don't see a real benifit to themselves they are usually right, and what's bad for the parts is bad for the whole.

I do not mean to imply that planning should not be done. Consideration of alternatives and direction are needed. People need information in order to make good decisions. I don't trust argument that something must be done for the "good of society". There must be other reasons to back up a planning decision and justify its implemation..

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

Don't forget --

1) The Bob Moses parkway construction was largely financed initially via Triborough Bridge Authority revenue,

2) Explicitly tied to this method of funding: no "commercial" traffic on Moses parkways -- e.g. no dangerous and pavement-wrecking trucks, and no buses for the hoi... note that bridges were intentionally constructed with inadequate clearance for trucks and buses to ensure the 'ban' would continue even if a later political administration went back on the idea.

3) Later Port Authority funding of the assorted Hudson crossings made Triborough revenue look a bit sick by comparison... but instead of lots of roads, we got the World Trade Center instead. I'm tempted to note, however, that if engineers had a free hand planning highway systems, we might well wind up with more, not less, concrete linguini. (Witness the Cross Bronx Expressway, which has needed either to be substantially widened or multiple-decked for over 30 years -- engineers would never tolerate a road of its current characteristics and capacity in a critical network. Reasons why it has *not* been substantially expanded are interesting to review...)

Might have been interesting to see what Moses et al. would have done in the absence of the Federal Interstate Highway program, the Highway Trust Fund, etc. My guess is that the market for railroad freight both through the New York area and to many of the terminals in that region would have been much improved, simply because trucking would have been restricted. I dimly remember, when only a couple of years old, the parade of trucks up Amsterdam Avenue in the middle of the night... part of one of the old major arteries through New York City to New England and points north!

If you take a look at the freeway designs connected to the major U.S. cities, you will see that nearly all have the primary interstate routed directly into the heart of the city. Only a few such as Pittsburg PA and Des Moines IA have the major freeways routed around the cities, with spurs into the business districts. When you research as to why this occurred, nearly all articles will mention something to the effect of city leaders demanding that the primary interstate go right into the heart of the city, the thought being that that would encourage travelers to patronize the downtown business districts via easy access from the nearest off ramp. What all failed to realize at the time was that normal growth coupled with the phenomena of urban flight would turn these freeways into de facto commuter roads, and the unexpected combination of commuter traffic with normal interstate traffic has resulted in gridlock for all these cities. If the Interstate Highway act would have had a caveat of requiring all major cities to be bypassed by the primary one and two digit Interstates and instead have those business districts accessed by the three digit loops and spurs, I'm not sure there would even be such a thing as highway gridlock, at least in terms of being a national problem.

It is also of note that if the rail grid were to be built today from scratch, most railroad companies would opt to place terminals and stations on the outskirts of major cities, letting trucks handle final delivery to the business districts. The only exception to this would be if port facilities were in close approximation to the business districts.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
[It is also of note that if the rail grid were to be built today from scratch, most railroad companies would opt to place terminals and stations on the outskirts of major cities, letting trucks handle final delivery to the business districts. The only exception to this would be if port facilities were in close approximation to the business districts.

That is exactly what is happening around Chicago and the result may be more highway congestion spread even fartther out on the area expressways. For example on I-55 in the Chicago area there's often 2 solid lanes of trucks, but the vast majority are local rigs hauling containers and TOFC trailers, rather than long hail rigs. BNSF's new facility way out in Joliet is just going to add to this, as has the UPS facility in Willow Springs. Intermodal may be keeping this traffic off I-80 across the rural part of the state, but it does nothing for congestion around here.

I suspect that just as the railroad congestion is largely at the terminals, roadway congestion is in the same place. If railroads could get the trucks and containers off the trains while keeping the freight on with better local delievery, things would be much better, but that's not the business railroads have choosen to be in.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

I received my Trains magazine yesterday, and--of course--read Mark's article regarding "subsidies for all or subsidies for none," to paraphrase.

Having finally received my copy of January 2005 TRAINS and analyzed Mark's opinion piece, I can finally comment, although by now most of the debate has been put forward. I will say that I see very little difference between the content of Mark's piece and that of Don Phillip's piece, although Mark does delve a little more specifically into some of the issues. (BTW, Don, could you provide some references for your sources, rather than vaguely mentioning a "prestigious journal" and a Bush Administration "ghost writer"?)

I think the use of the term "subsidies" to describe spending on highways is a little bit off base. In terms of federal money for the movement of freight across America, the vast majority of that money comes from user fees, not de facto subsidies. Indeed, at the state and local level, those governments do utilize funds from sales taxes, property taxes, construction bonds, et al, but for all intents and purposes the federal share of highway spending comes from user fees. What Mark is suggesting ,e.g. since there are subsidies for highway spending there should be also subsidies for railroad infrastructure spending, is based on an inaccurate view of how the various transportation modes get there funding. In short, there is no real federal subsidy for highways, thus no basis for Mark's argument.

Regarding the railroad fuel tax trust fund idea, what Mark infers but doesn't come right out and say is that such a tax is nothing more than an accounting adjustment for the most part, since the 10% tax for rail infrastructure improvements only replaces the railroad earnings earmarked for such improvements, more or less, with the rest being covered by increased shipper fees. What he failed to mention is the pressure of railroad stockholders to improve their ROI, a pressure that more often that not results in that bugger known as "deferred maintenance". It is this deferred maintenance that the railroad companies are trying to pawn off on the federal taxpayers using the phony argument of competitive modes being federally subsidized to a vast degree outside of user fees.

Additionally, what Mark and other advocates of railroad subsidies blatantly ignore is that moneys spent on highways and waterways, regardless of the argument of whether it comes from user fees or outright subsidies, is spent supporting open access transporation pathways. The moneys being proposed for subsidizing railroads is in violation of that moral caveat, and in that vein can only be justified if the railroad companies adopt a legitimate form of open access.

I have yet to hear from anyone who can argue as to why it is justifiable for all other transportation modes have some form of open access, except railroads.

[arbfbe]

One could strongly argue that railroads are the original open access carriers. To the shipper it is a seamless open system. They put their load into a container or boxcar and could care less how it gets to where it is going relative to which carriers end up being involved. They load on the NS for a destination on the BNSF and it gets there. Sure the NS can't run a train to that particular destination and could not economically do so but the NS has access to customers on any other railroad. Interchange rules have allowed that for more than 100 years. What the current open access movement is all about is cherry picking the 'best' traffic from one carrier by another or even by a non-railroad entity. You know, the ability to whipsaw the rates, pitting one carrier against another and their investments in infrastructure be damned.

[bobwilcox]

Futuremodal-After botched railroad mergers and mergers between shippers there are so few captive shippers left the railroads should be willing to trade open access for sizeable capital infusions. One way to earn your cost of capital is to lower the cost with cheap federal money.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

If you take a look at the freeway designs connected to the major U.S. cities, you will see that nearly all have the primary interstate routed directly into the heart of the city. Only a few such as Pittsburg PA and Des Moines IA have the major freeways routed around the cities, with spurs into the business districts. When you research as to why this occurred, nearly all articles will mention something to the effect of city leaders demanding that the primary interstate go right into the heart of the city...

Of note, however, is the fact that many freeways did bypass towns, particularly smaller ones, only to have the town "center" move to the area of the interchange. In some cases, the original interchange was a mile or more "outside town" but isn't anymore.

QUOTE: I have yet to hear from anyone who can argue as to why it is justifiable for all other transportation modes have some form of open access, except railroads.

I would submit that the infrastructure just isn't there to support an open access model that operates much differently than what runs now. Unlike a trucking company, which can for maybe $100,000, build a trucking terminal. The connection to the existing road system involves a couple loads of gravel and a culvert pipe (and maybe a permit from the highway department).

Perhaps an interesting new thread would be ideas on how an open access rail system would be structured...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox


Futuremodal-After botched railroad mergers and mergers between shippers there are so few captive shippers left the railroads should be willing to trade open access for sizeable capital infusions. One way to earn your cost of capital is to lower the cost with cheap federal money.

That is the gist of the current debate. The best way for the railroads to reduce their capital expenses (and thus improve the operating ratio) is to pawn off the infrastructure to a government entity in one of three forms: 1. A privately owned infrastructure company that receives tax credits, tax exemptions, and/or subsidies of some kind. 2. A public-private ownership of the infrastructure with the same tax/subsidy benefits. 3. Outright federal or state ownership of the right of way, as is done with highways and waterways.

Of course, the opponents of open access would point out that with de facto competition for every rail shipper e.g. no captive shippers or differential (read: monopoly) pricing, profit margins would shrink, and some rail operating companies might fail. I say so what, that is what is supposed to happen in a market based economy, ease of entry and ease of exit. As long as the infrastructure is safe, other rail operating companies will take up the slack.