May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: George Conklin on 17 Oct 2009 14:53 "Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1hvjd597pvqn3idsmk252mur8d39odhn0o(a)4ax.com... > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> > said: > > >Scott in SoCal wrote: > >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> > >> said: > >> > >>> Brent wrote: > >>> > >>>> Great... more traffic problems caused by truckers. > >>> Why don't you stop buying or using anything that was ever in a truck? > >> > >> Actually, if we *directly* charged Truckers the *true* cost of using > >> public roads, the problem would vanish overnight. Goods would be > >> shipped long distance by rail and the "last mile" would be covered by > >> small delivery vans that don't cause nearly as much pavement damage > >> AND fit underneath more overpasses. > > > >One of my shippers has an address of "35 miles west or Rio Blanco, > >Colorado". Another is in Big Island, Virgina. One ships 7 rolls of > >paper totaling 44,000 pounds. The other ships 12 bags of some kind of > >something they dig out of the ground at about the same weight. How many > >little trucks you reckon will be required to get that to a rail head? > > How were such businesses served before trucks? > > The rail network we have today is but an atrophed shadow of what > existed back in the 1920s, when the first trucking companies began to > "leverage" public roads in order to shift most of the costs of > shipping onto the general taxpayers. With a level playing field and > each mode of transport paying the FULL, TRUE COST of shipping via that > mode, demand for the most efficient mode would skyrocket and we would > see a re-growth of rail infrastructure that would surpass even the > first track mileage peak of the last century. > > Sure, some shippers with inefficient locations would have to adapt. Nearly all sites are "inefficient" based on what you say. Rail's problem from the start was that reached only a few of the many places which needed service.
From: George Conklin on 17 Oct 2009 14:54 "Larry Sheldon" <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7jug79F357kp1U1(a)mid.individual.net... > Scott in SoCal wrote: > > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> > > said: > > > >> Scott in SoCal wrote: > >>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> > >>> said: > >>> > >>>> Brent wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Great... more traffic problems caused by truckers. > >>>> Why don't you stop buying or using anything that was ever in a truck? > >>> Actually, if we *directly* charged Truckers the *true* cost of using > >>> public roads, the problem would vanish overnight. Goods would be > >>> shipped long distance by rail and the "last mile" would be covered by > >>> small delivery vans that don't cause nearly as much pavement damage > >>> AND fit underneath more overpasses. > >> One of my shippers has an address of "35 miles west or Rio Blanco, > >> Colorado". Another is in Big Island, Virgina. One ships 7 rolls of > >> paper totaling 44,000 pounds. The other ships 12 bags of some kind of > >> something they dig out of the ground at about the same weight. How many > >> little trucks you reckon will be required to get that to a rail head? > > > > How were such businesses served before trucks? > > > > The rail network we have today is but an atrophed shadow of what > > existed back in the 1920s, when the first trucking companies began to > > "leverage" public roads in order to shift most of the costs of > > shipping onto the general taxpayers. With a level playing field and > > each mode of transport paying the FULL, TRUE COST of shipping via that > > mode, demand for the most efficient mode would skyrocket and we would > > see a re-growth of rail infrastructure that would surpass even the > > first track mileage peak of the last century. > > > > Sure, some shippers with inefficient locations would have to adapt. > > Maybe they would be important enough to rate their own rail siding or > > even a spur. Perhaps they would relocate their business to a more > > efficient location. Or, if they could afford it, they would simply pay > > the TRUE COST of shipping from a location out in the middle of > > nowhere. Nothing wrong with any of that. And the benefits to society > > of a balanced, cost-efficient transportation system would far outweigh > > such minor disruptions. > > > > Here's what I can't figure out: Truckers should be lobbying for this > > with everything they've got. Shifting long-haul shipping from truck to > > rail would basically turn every trucking job into a LOCAL job, moving > > goods from the rail terminal to those local businesses not served > > directly. The days of nightmare schedules, 18-hour workdays, sleeping > > in parking lots, etc. would be over. Y'all could work a normal 8-hour > > day and spend every evening at home with your families. For every > > long-haul Trucker job that is eliminated, several more local Trucker > > jobs would open up, so no Trucker would end up unemployed. And yet > > Truckers resist this idea. Why?? > > Because there is no money in it? > > Contrary to what appears to be the common idea here, trucking is > descended from wagoneers (See "teamsters") that predate railroads. > > And also contrary to ideas common here for most of our history there > have been lots of places with no rail service at all, and lots more with > no rail freight service. > > And Even if I were not a driver, I would be a fan of fresh fruit, milk, > and a number of other things that would not survive the two-trip by train. > > And some of us do not drive day cabs and beer trucks for a reason. > > Elsewhere I asked about truck routing between South Boston and Big > Island, VA. Under the best of conditions that have ever existed, how > long would it take to get a load of groceries from the DC in South > Boston to the Dollar General in Big Island? > Precisely the problem. Even when the ET&WNC RR was being pushed through, they wanted an equivalent amount of money spent on ROADS so farmers and others could even get to the track.
From: Brent on 17 Oct 2009 18:39 On 2009-10-17, George Conklin <nil(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Nearly all sites are "inefficient" based on what you say. Rail's problem > from the start was that reached only a few of the many places which needed > service. And roads that can handle heavy trucks do? Also much of the manufactured goods are coming from overseas by boat so it makes little sense cost wise to use a truck to move it from the coasts far inland.
From: Brent on 17 Oct 2009 18:48 On 2009-10-17, Dave C. <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote: > Ummm...Scott...a couple of minor problems with rail transportation. > First, the tracks are degrading, So are the roads and bridges. Maybe if our economy wasn't be sucked dry by maintaining an empire around the world this would be a solvable problem. > and need hundreds of billions of > dollars in maintenance (currently unfunded) just to maintain current > capacity, which is peaked. The bankers got several trillion all said and done. There's always money for the parasites of the society but no way people could keep their own money to use for the things that would be of great benefit to them. > shitload of money. Don't ask the taxpayers to do that. We are broke, > and losing trillions more each month already. The bankers and the military industrial complex took most of it, the pharmaceutical companies took a big hunk while entitlement mentality folks and various lesser connected businesses took the rest. Killing people on the other side of the planet remains a bigger priority than the transportation infrastructure so we are left with 1930s-1950s roads and 19th century rail.
From: Dave C. on 17 Oct 2009 08:33
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:48:37 +0000 (UTC) Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-17, Dave C. <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote: > > > Ummm...Scott...a couple of minor problems with rail transportation. > > First, the tracks are degrading, > > So are the roads and bridges. Maybe if our economy wasn't be sucked > dry by maintaining an empire around the world this would be a solvable > problem. In which case, the money would be better spent on maintaining the roads that ALREADY go everywhere we need them to go. -Dave |