John WR If you go to a community which has experienced a sandwich collision where a car has gotten between two such trucks you will find an appreciation of freight railroads.
If you go to a community which has experienced a sandwich collision where a car has gotten between two such trucks you will find an appreciation of freight railroads.
If I were to go to a community that has suffered such a horrific accident, I fully expect people to say "there are too many trucks on that highway" and "we need to enforce the in-town speed limit" or some such thing. I seriously doubt that the average person has thought much about railroad intermodal as a solution to the highway accident problem.
That is the entire point of my reasoning on why the railroad companies are running those feel-good ads. The average person does not subscribe to Trains or log in to this Web site to comment. The average person probably has not given much thought to trains, the average person in the U.S. does not live in a commuter train suburb where they or their neighbors ride the train, and the interaction that the average person has with trains is being impeded by grade crossings, the average person reads about horrific accidents at grade crossings, and the average person reads about chemical spills resulting from train derailments.
The train can be a nuisance (risk of accident, traffic delays at grade crossings, noise) and a blessing (cheap consumer products, prosperous economy) all at the same time, but the nuisance side is very apparent whereas the benefit side requires some reflection. Hence, the railroad ad campaigns.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovicf I were to go to a community that has suffered such a horrific accident, I fully expect people to say "there are too many trucks on that highway" and "we need to enforce the in-town speed limit" or some such thing.
And you may be assured many people did say that and the State of New Jersey tried to enforce it but could not. In Hopewell Township, New Jersey there is a section where there is no north--south interstate highway. From Route I 95 in Ewing to connect with I 287 in Somerset Country you turn north on State Route 31, a two lane highway built in the 1930's. About 20 miles up the road SR 31 becomes a 4 lane highway and is much newer and ultimately connects with I 287 which runs north up to the New York State Thruway. But in Hopewell Township there is only the 2 lane highway. Many trucks use this because the only alternative north-south roads are the New Jersey Turnpike, a toll road or route 1 which has a great many traffic lights. And it is on SR 31 where more than one of these sandwich accidents occurred.
When the State tried to ban large trucks a lawsuit was filed in Federal Court. The ruling was that the state can ban all large trucks from the road but it cannot ban some and allow others. Since some of the trucks were making local deliveries to businesses they had to be allowed and that meant allowing all trucks. So the trucks still run there. Speed limits are strictly enforced but I doubt that makes the difference. The road is so narrow and twisting that I doubt a large truck would be able to exceed the speed limit unless the driver were really reckless.
As far as the "average person" is concerned, I doubt you can place all people along a two dimensional continuum on issues like this.
Freight RRs are largely invisible to the general public. Most people don't give the first thought, much less a second though. The news about RRs that most people see is negative. A spectacular derailment, et. al, but pretty much all news is negative, so I doubt that it creates an out-of-kilter negative impression of RRs any more than reporting on house fires makes people think negatively about living in their homes or car wreck stories make people think negatively about driving to the beach or mountains for fun.
The ads are there to bring RRs to mind in a positive light so that when issues, positive or negative come up, the RRs have a shot in the "court of public opinion". Some of these would include the ongoing push to re-regulate and getting some state and federal money to aid capital investment (CREATE, for example) where there are public benefits.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Very true. Many Americans are fairly ignorant of matters outside their area. Since the freight railroads have trimmed the national network so much and large areas haven't seen a passenger train in over 40 or 50 years, a lot of younger folks (under 50) regard the rails as old-fashioned, irrelevant or even extinct. So the PR campaigns are understandable but probably ineffectual.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John WR As far as the "average person" is concerned, I doubt you can place all people along a two dimensional continuum on issues like this.
The English Common Law along with State and Federal laws derived from same in fact do such a thing, make broad characterizations about the thought processes of wide categories of people. Evidence of this is found in the many "reasonable person" tests in court cases.
I applied a "reasonable person" test to the reaction of a community to a truck/auto "sandwich" accident. Guess what, I made a prediction as to how people would react to the accident (restrict trucks, enforce speed limits), I am told that such is indeed how people reacted in a particular community in New Jersey, and then I am told that I can't make assumptions how people react?
This thread started out discussing the challenges to be faced by a new Secretary of Transportation, it focused on whether the big freight railroads running feel-good ads was evidence of the railroads wanting to "get in on" Federal capital infrastructure spending of the other modes.
There is a strong reason why (some) people would want this to be the case. The TARP "bailout" money went to all banks, not just the failing banks, so as not to stigmatize banks receiving the money, which could adversely affect investor and depositor confidence of banks receiving a bailout and hence frustrate the purpose of the entire rescue program.
Likewise, the freight railroads are the last holdout (OK, maybe pipelines) of a private-capital funding of infrastructure model. I get dinged around here for "making assumptions about people", but I know for certainty that some people want the freight railroads to accept Federal infrastructure money because they had told me as much. They want this to happen because it would make justifying the Amtrak subsidy perhaps easier; Federal infrastructure money would also bring with it an obligation to make the passage of Amtrak trains on the rail network go easier. The argument is also couched in necessity, that the freight railroads are unable, for some unspecified reason, to raise the public capital that will be needed for expansion when we chase all the trucks off the highways or when the oil runs out or whatever reason.
There are all manners of reasons why the freight railroads may be running feel-good ads, but (some) people around here have taken ahold of this as evidence that the freight railroads are eyeing up Federal infrastructure money. I offered reasons and evidence why this may not be the case 1) the freight railroads are not about to give up their exclusive-control-of-the-rail-line business model, and if they accept infrastructure money, it will be to support particular (public) passenger operations (Amtrak, commuter) or to remove grade crossings or other matters of social benefit that they may have to do anyway as good citizens, and 2) there are alternative reasons why railroads engage in feel-good advertising, specifically, to counter with a positive story some of the negative experiences people have with railroads.
To suggest that the freight railroads are doing just fine-without-Federal-infrastructure-spending-thank-you-very-much, runs the risk of being accused of making "unhelpful comments" and "generalizations about what people think", giving the impression (the impression, mind you, I am not telling anyone what they are thinking) that I am "going against the narrative", the narrative that everybody is getting Federal money or will be needing it or asking for it very soon so what-is-the-big-deal-about-the-Amtrak-subsidy? To suggest that the freight railroads are running feel-good ads merely to counter with positive stories a (somewhat) negative public image, that this suggestion seems to make people unhappy, or at least motivates people to correct my "erroneous thinking", strongly indicates as much.
The Space Transportation System (the Space Shuttle) was another Federally supported transportation system that had a narrative behind it and critics with a bad attitude who made its supporters unhappy. There was also a system of beliefs supporting the enterprise. One belief was that sufficient care was taken that the accident rate was some large number, say 1 in 10,000 launches whereas the engineers who really were "rocket scientists" wet their index finger, put it up in the wind, and came up with a number of about 1 in 100 launches, which was remarkably close to the historical record for the Shuttle in hindsight.
Passenger rail transportation in the U.S. can be a worthy goal while at the same time there can be a lot of wishful thinking in promotion of that enterprise along with unhappy people who are unhappy about discussions of the wishfulness of some of the thinking (1 in 10,000 accidents per launch pointed out as being crazy talk for that other transportation system). "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
oltmanndThe ads are there to bring RRs to mind in a positive light so that when issues, positive or negative come up, the RRs have a shot in the "court of public opinion". Some of these would include the ongoing push to re-regulate and getting some state and federal money to aid capital investment (CREATE, for example) where there are public benefits.
Don: Just to be entirely clear on a thread that seems as murky as a mud pond, are you saying that private railroads want federal dollars to assist with infrastructure and other capital investments?
schlimm oltmanndThe ads are there to bring RRs to mind in a positive light so that when issues, positive or negative come up, the RRs have a shot in the "court of public opinion". Some of these would include the ongoing push to re-regulate and getting some state and federal money to aid capital investment (CREATE, for example) where there are public benefits. Don: Just to be entirely clear on a thread that seems as murky as a mud pond, are you saying that private railroads want federal dollars to assist with infrastructure and other capital investments?
Yes, to the extent there are public benefits, they want the public to pay. So, chunks of CREATE that eliminate or improve road Xings would have some portion of public funding.
What about ROW improvements on track shared with some passenger entity where the purpose would be to increase speed limits and overall speed? Public benefit but possibly troublesome for the freight line?
The freight carriers generaly take the position that if a public entity wants capacity for passenger trains, then the public must pay for it. The usual standard is that there be no net impact on freight capacity. Most public agencies blanch at the cost of making the freight carriers whole and some of them havegone running off claiming that they are somehow entitled to take the capacity and that the railroad should be happy to stand the loss "for the public good." Carriers are naturally skitish about more passenger trains for exactly this reason.
Mac
Paul MilenkovicI applied a "reasonable person" test to the reaction of a community to a truck/auto "sandwich" accident. Guess what, I made a prediction as to how people would react to the accident (restrict trucks, enforce speed limits), I am told that such is indeed how people reacted in a particular community in New Jersey, and then I am told that I can't make assumptions how people react?
Well, Paul, the fact of the matter is that a Federal Judge reacted quite differently than people in the community did.
John
schlimm What about ROW improvements on track shared with some passenger entity where the purpose would be to increase speed limits and overall speed? Public benefit but possibly troublesome for the freight line?
In that case, the public would likely be on the hook for the whole nickel plus some annual amount to make the RR whole for the "troublesome" part.
The Conrail/NYS Hudson Line agreement worked that way.
PNWRMNM The freight carriers generaly take the position that if a public entity wants capacity for passenger trains, then the public must pay for it. The usual standard is that there be no net impact on freight capacity. Most public agencies blanch at the cost of making the freight carriers whole and some of them havegone running off claiming that they are somehow entitled to take the capacity and that the railroad should be happy to stand the loss "for the public good." Carriers are naturally skitish about more passenger trains for exactly this reason. Mac
The three general principles for "sharing" are:
1. Make us whole economically (cost plus margin)
2. No additional liability
3. 90 mph max
oltmannd3. 90 mph max
That will be a problem for good passenger service. How do they manage that on the UP CHI-STL 110 mph line?
Little to no freight traffic on the route?
jclass Little to no freight traffic on the route?
Yup. Hudson Line, too. Not likely to be anymore like that.
According to IDOT:
.The new Joliet Intermodal Terminal will double the number of freight trains using the Chicago to St. Louis Corridor from six to 12. The number of freight trains is projected to increase to 22 by the year 2017, which could affect the performance and capacity for high-speed passenger rail.
schlimm According to IDOT: .The new Joliet Intermodal Terminal will double the number of freight trains using the Chicago to St. Louis Corridor from six to 12. The number of freight trains is projected to increase to 22 by the year 2017, which could affect the performance and capacity for high-speed passenger rail.
That's a lot, but not a huge number of freight trains. With 110 mph passenger trains, it's going to be tricky keeping the freight moving on schedule. The freights will be hopping from siding to siding. I'm sure they simulated all of this in RTC before committing.
The last I read he had taken himself out of consideration for the job. I wouldn't mind Michael Dukakis getting the job myself.
How about another Republican? Tommy Thompson? He's not got much to do these days.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.