Just in Fuel taxes alone our tax rate is 20% of our revenue right out the window before we can even start to pay other expenses including other taxes and fees we have to pay to stay in business.
charlie hebdo Of course the truck person doesn't mention all the property taxes the rails pay on infrastructure they own and maintain while trucks pay peanuts to maintain the infrastuctures they paid nothing to build and cause far more wear and tear on it that than any other users.
Of course the truck person doesn't mention all the property taxes the rails pay on infrastructure they own and maintain while trucks pay peanuts to maintain the infrastuctures they paid nothing to build and cause far more wear and tear on it that than any other users.
C.H. I would call your argument sort of a 'fruit basket one'. The property, and other ancilary taxes paid by the railroads, and the trucking industries,on their state-by-state operations, are not necessarily the 'same kind of fruit'; but there are similarities.
I cannot speak to the taxation of the railroads, but in the trucking side of transportation; truck taxation and recipropsity of taxes, are a very real, and costly set of expenses. Not to mention the non-compliance, and failures to pay the taxes levied by each state can get very costly, very quickly!
PEANUTS! They are NOT!
Here is a linked site that has state-by-state automotive liscensing fee schedules:
http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/transportation/Motor_Vehicle_Registration_Fees_18014.pdf
Here also is a better graphic representation by the FHWA.dot.gov @
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=iba&hsimp=yhs-1&type=sbff_7131_FFW_US&p=Truck%20Liscensing%20Fees%20in%20the%20USA%3F
The drivers that want to run OTR are still out there. However what is killing drivers that want to run OTR is the HOS that were imposed on the industry. Finally the FMCSA and Federal DOT are looking at what they did and going we screwed the pooch on the HOS why. Well 1 year after the ELD mandate was imposed guess what they found out about accidents. Instead of going down like they thought they actually INCREASED by 10% overall. That's right the biggest saftey regulation since ABS that was supposed to lower crashes in the industry increased them and the drivers of those accidents reported that it was due to being forced to race the clock of the HOS to try and find a safe place to park.
The head of the FMCSA admitted to a motor carrier group his agency dropped the ball on the HOS overhaul and the new one due to be created this year will not be done by people with no experience in the OTR industry at all or influenced by groups such as PATT or CRASH and will not rely on the ATA for the input either. They are going to look at real world data and come up with a workable regulation that will fix most of the problems.
samfp1943 BaltACD In the PSR world - railroads will go after short haul business - Short haul train load business. Not short haul car load business. PSR is predicated on train load movements, not inidividual car movements. Dave Klepper noted aslso: Posted by daveklepper on Monday, March 04, 2019 3:17 AM "BNSF will go after shorter-hauls if profitable enough! So will most shortlines and reginals." To what Balt said about 'short haul train load business'. Since PSR is all about 'utilization and service', it would seem to follow that PTC would also work into the equation of allowing more and smaller trains over a given set of track? WE already know that the trucking industry is in an era of business model realignment as to that Regional trucking is becoming a larger part of the picture. That the practice of long-haul trucking is slowing down, in favor of a smaller pool of individuals willing to go out, and stay out for long periods of time, away from their bases, home and families. Short-haul, or Regional dispatching seems to be the model that is fitting into the 'new' industry recruiting model'(?). As to Dave's comment, out here in SC Kansas, BNSF seems to be running 'shorter' trains and consists, with 'fleeting'[ groups in directional running?] of these trains, being a noticable component of that practice(?). Regular[ timely schedules] appearances of 'types' of trains. [ ie: a friday evening(?) westbound movement of 'yard- type' power and company fuel tankers; returning eastbound on sunday evening(?). a fairly regular fri/sat WB mostly, ReeferTOFC that returns su PM to early mon AM.] These movements are observational, and only on the Mulvane/Augusta,BNSF Main 3]
BaltACD In the PSR world - railroads will go after short haul business - Short haul train load business. Not short haul car load business. PSR is predicated on train load movements, not inidividual car movements.
In the PSR world - railroads will go after short haul business -
Short haul train load business. Not short haul car load business. PSR is predicated on train load movements, not inidividual car movements.
Dave Klepper noted aslso:
"BNSF will go after shorter-hauls if profitable enough! So will most shortlines and reginals."
To what Balt said about 'short haul train load business'. Since PSR is all about 'utilization and service', it would seem to follow that PTC would also work into the equation of allowing more and smaller trains over a given set of track? WE already know that the trucking industry is in an era of business model realignment as to that Regional trucking is becoming a larger part of the picture.
That the practice of long-haul trucking is slowing down, in favor of a smaller pool of individuals willing to go out, and stay out for long periods of time, away from their bases, home and families. Short-haul, or Regional dispatching seems to be the model that is fitting into the 'new' industry recruiting model'(?). As to Dave's comment, out here in SC Kansas, BNSF seems to be running 'shorter' trains and consists, with 'fleeting'[ groups in directional running?] of these trains, being a noticable component of that practice(?). Regular[ timely schedules] appearances of 'types' of trains. [ ie: a friday evening(?) westbound movement of 'yard- type' power and company fuel tankers; returning eastbound on sunday evening(?). a fairly regular fri/sat WB mostly, ReeferTOFC that returns su PM to early mon AM.] These movements are observational, and only on the Mulvane/Augusta,BNSF
Main 3]
In PSR you only operate small trains when needed to balance power and crews. You can't cut costs by increasing the number of trains you run to carry the same level of traffic on a designated route.
Among other movements - CSX operates a dedicated 'Trash Train' between Sealston, VA and Fort Meade, MD. Train operates with empties from a trash disposal site at Sealson to trash aggregation site at Fort Meade. Train drops the empties at Fort Meade and takes the loads from Fort Meade back to the disposal site at Sealston - 6 days a week - roughly 2500 tons of municipal waste per day is moved by one crew.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
[/quote]
BNSF will go after shorter-hauls if profitable enough! So will most shortlines and reginals.
And it is all about service. A shipping firm calls a trucking company. The transportation provider asks "How many trucks you need and when will they be needed at the dock"? Simple and nothing like the mush that goes on with a rr in a case such as this.
Around 1991 or so a bakery here in Wichita was buying carloads of bulk flour from mill about four miles away. The airslide hopper would be delivered by Wichita Term Assn to the UP transfer. A UP yd job would pull the load and later spot it at the bakery plant. Average normanl transit time from when the car left the mill to when it was delivered at the bakery was three days.
The method of this cross-town food shipment did not last long and wisely, trucks became the replacement
That sounds similar to a study at Penn State I was made aware of some years ago.
There is really no question that truckers get a big time break. But the question then becomes how do you handle the increased costs that the consumer will have to pay. Using highway trust funds for public transit and bike paths doesn't help matters. The growth of fuel efficient cars, hybreds, and electric cars also makes things worse. Some (mostly urban oriented) politicans want to charge a mileage tax. Of course, they could care less about the rural areas that would be hammered if that happened. The Feds also contribute to the problem by not overruling the highway consruction/repair lobby and their unions when it comes to modernizing road building standards. They are insufficient for modern trucking weights.
The problem really took off many years ago when the legal weights for trucks doubled over time from the original 40,000 standard. I suupose decreasing that over time might help but who knows if politically that could be done. Another possibility might be to require special licenses for truck trips over a certain milage. But with the current wall street driven RR operating practises I don't see the major RR's as having a great desire to really go after shorter hauls.
I expect 5 years from now nothing will have drastically changed and we'll all be taking about the same issues.
Some dispute that trucks pay their full costs for highways.
https://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-industry-subsidy/
I once found an Iowa DOT study that said about the same as the linked article.
I like everyone else always thought that the subisidy was directed at truckers. While they benefit, the true subsidy is on large shippers who are able to keep their freight rates as low as possible. As was observed, there are many trucking companies out there. If one dares raise their rates, there's always someone else to call. This will make some of them to try to eat some costs if possible instead of passing them along. Because of this, maybe it's time to levy a road use tax directly on the shipper in some way. They are the ones who benefit the most from trucks pounding highway infrastructure into the ground.
Jeff
[/quote]lking about the same problems and issues.
jeffhergert I like everyone else always thought that the subisidy was directed at truckers. While they benefit, the true subsidy is on large shippers who are able to keep their freight rates as low as possible. As was observed, there are many trucking companies out there. If one dares raise their rates, there's always someone else to call. This will make some of them to try to eat some costs if possible instead of passing them along. Because of this, maybe it's time to levy a road use tax directly on the shipper in some way. They are the ones who benefit the most from trucks pounding highway infrastructure into the ground.
Well, not EVERYONE else. But you sure do understand economic reality a lot better than most people.
The truckers would have to pass the increased costs along to their customers. It's either that or go broke. They can't "eat it". The near perfectly competitive nature of trucking means their rates just cover cost, including their cost of capital. They'd have to pass any increase in costs along, and the only place they can pass those costs to would be their customers.
Shadow the Cats owner No the reason why the highway trust fund is going broke is in the 90s Clinton's DOT sec of Transportation made it a piggy bank for transit projects................
Some factual information on the Trust Fund and proposals:
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-highway-trust-fund-and-how-it-financed
Corrections to the truck person's fallacious account of the mass transit portion and other errors.
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 made major revisions to the highway taxes, including another increase in Federal motor-fuel taxes. The 1982 STAA also established a special Mass Transit Account in the HTF and directed a portion of the motor-fuel tax to that new account. [on Reagan's watch] The rest of the tax remained dedicated to the original portion of the Trust Fund, referred to as the “Highway Account.” The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) increased the Federal gasoline tax by another five cents per gallon (up to 14.1 cents per gallon), effective December 1, 1990. It also established a “first” for the HTF: half of the revenues derived from the five-cent increase went to the General Fund of the Treasury for deficit reduction. Before that time, virtually all revenues from Federal motor fuel (and other highway-related Federal excise taxes) had been credited entirely to the HTF.[70] The General Fund portion of the tax was imposed on a temporary basis through September 30, 1995. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93) increased the Federal gas tax yet again, this time by 4.3 cents per gallon, effective October 1, 1993 (and with no expiration date). The increase brought the gasoline tax to 18.4 cents per gallon, and the entire amount of the increase was directed to the General Fund of the Treasury for deficit reduction. The law also permanently extended the General Fund fuel tax imposed by OBRA 90 and directed those revenues (except in the case of certain alcohol fuels) to the HTF, effective October 1, 1995.[71]
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 made major revisions to the highway taxes, including another increase in Federal motor-fuel taxes. The 1982 STAA also established a special Mass Transit Account in the HTF and directed a portion of the motor-fuel tax to that new account. [on Reagan's watch] The rest of the tax remained dedicated to the original portion of the Trust Fund, referred to as the “Highway Account.”
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) increased the Federal gasoline tax by another five cents per gallon (up to 14.1 cents per gallon), effective December 1, 1990. It also established a “first” for the HTF: half of the revenues derived from the five-cent increase went to the General Fund of the Treasury for deficit reduction. Before that time, virtually all revenues from Federal motor fuel (and other highway-related Federal excise taxes) had been credited entirely to the HTF.[70] The General Fund portion of the tax was imposed on a temporary basis through September 30, 1995.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93) increased the Federal gas tax yet again, this time by 4.3 cents per gallon, effective October 1, 1993 (and with no expiration date). The increase brought the gasoline tax to 18.4 cents per gallon, and the entire amount of the increase was directed to the General Fund of the Treasury for deficit reduction. The law also permanently extended the General Fund fuel tax imposed by OBRA 90 and directed those revenues (except in the case of certain alcohol fuels) to the HTF, effective October 1, 1995.[71]
In addition to increasing Federal fuel taxes, Congress has also passed laws to redirect certain fuel tax revenues:
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 redirected the revenues from the 4.3-cents per gallon levied under OBRA 93 from the General Fund to the HTF, effective October 1, 1997. The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V (STEA 04-V) redirected to the Highway Trust Fund the portion of the gasohol tax that had continued to be deposited in the General Fund under the provisions of OBRA 90 and OBRA 93. This redirection was effective for the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA 04) made the STEA 04-V redirection permanent. It also eliminated gasohol’s partial exemption from the gasoline tax, which had been enacted in 1978 as an incentive to alternatives to petroleum fuels. In lieu of the exemption, AJCA 04 authorized the General Fund to pay a credit to eligible filers.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 redirected the revenues from the 4.3-cents per gallon levied under OBRA 93 from the General Fund to the HTF, effective October 1, 1997.
The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V (STEA 04-V) redirected to the Highway Trust Fund the portion of the gasohol tax that had continued to be deposited in the General Fund under the provisions of OBRA 90 and OBRA 93. This redirection was effective for the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004.
The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA 04) made the STEA 04-V redirection permanent. It also eliminated gasohol’s partial exemption from the gasoline tax, which had been enacted in 1978 as an incentive to alternatives to petroleum fuels. In lieu of the exemption, AJCA 04 authorized the General Fund to pay a credit to eligible filers.
Shadow the Cats owner No the reason why the highway trust fund is going broke is in the 90s Clinton's DOT sec of Transportation made it a piggy bank for transit projects when they said if you're using highway funds to get traffic off the roads then the federal government will pick up the cost up to 80 percent to start. Ever since then the balance has trained negative. Kinda like social security when Johnson put the trust fund there on the budget to pay for his welfare state.
No the reason why the highway trust fund is going broke is in the 90s Clinton's DOT sec of Transportation made it a piggy bank for transit projects when they said if you're using highway funds to get traffic off the roads then the federal government will pick up the cost up to 80 percent to start. Ever since then the balance has trained negative. Kinda like social security when Johnson put the trust fund there on the budget to pay for his welfare state.
Don't forget that in that same time the tax has not been increased, and with inflation the cost of everything else has gone up, meaning that the tax has actually decreased significantly.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
CSSHEGEWISCH And the Highway Trust Fund is still running out of money thanks to Grover Norquist.
And the Highway Trust Fund is still running out of money thanks to Grover Norquist.
And the ATA (the truckers' lobbyist) to keep their fuel tax expense down.
Trucking carriers are mostly small companies and due to their size are generally much easier to do business with than a large company. That's their number one advantage. Number two would be that they're easier to run than a railroad. Mostly it's pickup at point A and deliver at Point B.. and done. There's no Precision Scheduled stuff involved.. Billy or Jane fires up the truck.. gets it loaded and drives to destination.. hand in the bills.. end of story.
Railroads have the advantage of size. You can bend the little trucker over all day long.. and there's always another waiting to work for less. Can't do that so much with CSX or the others.. the rate is the rate, and the service is the service. The railroads by virtue of their size have alot of clout over their customers, especailly for volume shippers where trucking isn't a viable alternative.
The US Treasury has had to make a supplemental payment from general revenue (our tax dollars) into the Trust every year because the fuel tax has not kept pace with costs.
So you said you paid out 10%($5.1 million) of your revenue to maintain (and rebuild) the infrastructure your trucks use (and destroy)? I wonder how much a typical Class One railroad has to spend on maintaining and upgrading its own infrastructure? The UPRR spent $2.52 billion in 2017 on operating revenue of ~$21 billion.
5.1 million is roughly 10 percent of the revenue for the company in a year. That's before we pay the required ss taxes our property taxes and income withholding for our employees. Last year IIRC the total check written to the Treasury department of various governments was about another 15 million. Schiender last year had a fuel tax bill over 1 billion dollars. That give you an idea of what this industry pays into the highway Trust funds.
Shadow the Cats owner charlie hebdo Of course the truck person doesn't mention all the property taxes the rails pay on infrastructure they own and maintain while trucks pay peanuts to maintain the infrastuctures they paid nothing to build and cause far more wear and tear on it that than any other users. Last year we paid over 1.8 Million in Fuel taxes alone for the fleet. Then throw in 1.3 million in 2290 taxes and tractor trailer plates each year. Let's not forget the close to 2 million in tolls we paid for last year. We pay more than our fair share of the expense of road repair. If the freaking states would not divert road funds for things like bike paths and other crap more money would be in the road repair funds for Highways. Why do you think the ATA sued the State of NY for diverting money from the Thruway to pay for the Canals in NY and won.
Last year we paid over 1.8 Million in Fuel taxes alone for the fleet. Then throw in 1.3 million in 2290 taxes and tractor trailer plates each year. Let's not forget the close to 2 million in tolls we paid for last year. We pay more than our fair share of the expense of road repair. If the freaking states would not divert road funds for things like bike paths and other crap more money would be in the road repair funds for Highways. Why do you think the ATA sued the State of NY for diverting money from the Thruway to pay for the Canals in NY and won.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Shadow the Cats owner Last year we paid over 1.8 Million in Fuel taxes alone for the fleet. Then throw in 1.3 million in 2290 taxes and tractor trailer plates each year. Let's not forget the close to 2 million in tolls we paid for last year. We pay more than our fair share of the expense of road repair. If the freaking states would not divert road funds for things like bike paths and other crap more money would be in the road repair funds for Highways. Why do you think the ATA sued the State of NY for diverting money from the Thruway to pay for the Canals in NY and won.
MrLynnIf that's true, then you're basically giving up everything that cannot make up a unit train to the truckers. I suspect containerization creates a middle ground between loose cars and unit trains. But it may take a lot more automation.
You've hit one of the big nails on the head.
Back in my 'formative years' reading Trains as a kid, I bought strongly into the Kneiling version of integral unit trains on the 'iron ocean', running over true lanes but with quick intermodal transfer at a variety of intermediate points. Observing the mechanics of the ISO series I marine container, I made quick asynchronous parallel transfer the heart of a proposed high-speed container service in the Northeast Corridor in the late 1970s. If we extend quick asynchronous transfer to work between trains, and not just between train and truck, then much of the proposed advantage of crew size starts to apply as you indicated.
There is a peripheral advantage: the miles of the truck drivers become shorter and more intensely local in character, or (as noted to be inherent and present in the old CP Expressway service) one long-haul driver can both source and last-mile deliver multiple trailers or containers for each long-distance move he or she drives only once. Provided there is quick assured loading and drop, and no lumping or other expedient time wasting, the "250 drivers" become much easier both to qualify and to source as they make local deliveries within a logical working day and then go to their own paid-for homes at night instead of needing a sleeper cab or motel budgeting.
But the key in, probably, most actual service in this model involves one or more reasonably scheduled transfers between trains and lines. Fortunately in much modern JIT traffic the requirement for absolute time minimization/highest speed is much less 'significant' compared to the precision of delivery exactly where and when it can be best unloaded and deployed as production resources... note that in a great majority of cases this is not something amenable to being spotted on a fixed single-track siding using a conventional locomotive or even a Trackmobile, compared to last-mile on a rubber-tired chassis.
MrLynnI suspect containerization creates a middle ground between loose cars and unit trains.
Recall that EHH closed the nearly new IM facility at North Baltimore, OH. It's back up and running now.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD PSR is the active discouragement of loose car merchandise railroading. The PSR carriers want 'scheduled' unit train volume movements or nothing at all. If you have repetitive 'train loads' of traffic PSR likes you, if you don't - go away and don't darken our physical plant.
PSR is the active discouragement of loose car merchandise railroading. The PSR carriers want 'scheduled' unit train volume movements or nothing at all. If you have repetitive 'train loads' of traffic PSR likes you, if you don't - go away and don't darken our physical plant.
If that's true, then you're basically giving up everything that cannot make up a unit train to the truckers. I suspect containerization creates a middle ground between loose cars and unit trains. But it may take a lot more automation.
/Mr Lynn
MrLynn'HOS'? "Hours of Service'? Or something else? Please do not use acronyms without defining them first, for us ignoramuses. ;-)
Hours of service.
MrLynnIs that 250 drivers? That's a lot of payroll compared to two guys on a train.
Only if you make the slightly silly assumption that all 250 drivers are competing with one train serving two endpoints in a lane.
One point she's making is that, even with team drivers, her operation can do precise point-to-point deliveries that might require 125 American train moves (in various directions over various combinations of lines) to accomplish. Now factor in HOS if any of those trains take over 8 hours in their travels, as in most cases they can't be tied up as easily as a single truck can and need to be kept moving, precision-scheduled or not.
Now in actual practice it probably isn't quite that sanguine: there will be specific lanes that produce more than the average demand for specialized hazmat, and there may well be times that a truck would 'have' to pull 3 or more trailers (or 3 or more crews will be needed to cover the necessary trailer movements) at one time. But even so, the discussion isn't "is there enough freight to fill all the trains" in this particular argument; it's "what are the costs of running the trains necessary to provide the same geographic range of service/lanes cost-effectively"?
And I think this is at least part of what is driving the neo-bean-counters in the PSR 'movement' to start declining all the traffic sources that do not contribute to low-OR train operation...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.