 |
Re: How much traffic - really - on the Coast?
Author: OldPoleBurner
Date: 08-23-2012 - 10:12
> However: I thought that most of the damage done to roads is done by 18-wheelers.
> And it seems to me that none of the Class 1 railroads are interested in any business except
> coal and grain and all those doublestacks.
> Maybe, just maybe, if the Class 1s had not ripped up so much track (spurs and branch lines),
> they might be cajoled and inducedto go after other business -- which could take those
> rroad-damaging trucks off our deteriorating highways.
> We also need much more double and triple and even quadruple track, so as to allow more
> fluidity. No one would even dream of seriously proposing two-lane freeways or even
> single-lane freeways, yet this is what railroads are stuck with now: far too much single-
> track territory, which cannot easily handle much new business. And they certainly cannot
> handle more Amtrak trains. (No, I don't know how to fit more tracks into some places,
> but that is a subject for another thread.)
> Gosh, I hope things get better soon!
You make a number of good points. In fact according to a number of studies over several decades (both public and private - not railroad sponsored), 80,000 lb trucks not only do much damage to the highways, but their gas taxes and fees do not pay anywhere near the cost of repairing that damage. Nor do they pay for the difference in construction costs to beef up highway designs to handle trucks in the first place.
ALL of that is paid by the rest of us in tolls and gas taxes. And lets not forget that a very large part is still funded by property taxes, sales taxes, state and municipal bonds, and even state and federal general funds. And worse yet, the Federal deficit. And the net result of the railroads dumping 80% of the freight ton-miles onto the subsidized highways, is that there is now not enough money in any government budget, to pay for repairs. Thus that expensive highway system is crumbling.
The highway never was sustainable as a primary means of mass transportation. But a lot of big contractors got very rich, car makers sold a whole lot more cars than they would have, oil companies sold a lot more oil, and truckers now had the means to bury their main competition, despite the inherent inefficiency of the medium.
All this was paid for by us - diverting much personal wealth, that could have been used to improve other aspects of life. But now, transportation needs suck up a significant portion of everyone's earnings. I often contemplate what it would have been like, to be able to spend my money elsewhere, rather than on that 2nd or 3rd car needed for commuting - over and over and over again. But Eisenhower, with his anti-railroad vendetta, had better ideas (he got pissed at the railroads during the war).
And your are right - it seems railroads are no longer very interested in any business that is not "Low hanging fruit" (very easy to manage); often claiming that the costs are too high and the profits too low. But this is just one more example of railroad myopia. They have forgotten how to actually run a railroad. Their own bean counters keep claiming that the costs of drayage to and from the inter-modal facility is suppressing profits. But actually, it's much simpler than that - it simply is considerably more costly to pay one driver for each 60,000 pound load; than it is to pay one switch crew for several dozen 100,000 pound loads. DUH!
It has always been a no brainer - John Kneiling was wrong! So now that they adopted his drivel under deregulation, railroads are now but a wispy shadow of their former selves. Thus deregulation has not really been so kind to railroads, as it exposed them to their own folly.
It enabled railroads to get rid of what was perceived as the less remunerative sides of their business. But on the freight side, they replaced it with something even more costly - and on the passenger side, the costs were merely transferred elsewhere, and where viable passenger services were dropped altogether - those costs (now on us) soared, simply because a vastly less efficient means was used instead.
It is true that whatever rail passenger services the public wants, should be paid for by the public. And that includes the cost of needed capacity expansion. But still, capacity expansion is currently costing the private railroads but a fraction of what it is currently costing public agencies. So let those able to do it more efficiently - do it. We thus would be better off simply transferring operation of these trains back to the railroads, by contract; while providing enough remuneration to cover all capital costs (at current levels), as well as operating costs.
Now if an adequate return on (their) investment is not enough to "Cajol them", then they are indeed MYOPIC as businessmen! A dollar says to the doughnut, that the likes of Uncle Pete, will suddenly become interested in providing the service without inflating capacity improvement needs; while the enforced contractual obligation to attract ever more passengers, should protect the public interest. Same goes for loose-car freight service - both needed by the public at large - as you point out.
OPB
> And it seems to me that none of the Class 1 railroads are interested in any business except
> coal and grain and all those doublestacks.
> Maybe, just maybe, if the Class 1s had not ripped up so much track (spurs and branch lines),
> they might be cajoled and inducedto go after other business -- which could take those
> rroad-damaging trucks off our deteriorating highways.
> We also need much more double and triple and even quadruple track, so as to allow more
> fluidity. No one would even dream of seriously proposing two-lane freeways or even
> single-lane freeways, yet this is what railroads are stuck with now: far too much single-
> track territory, which cannot easily handle much new business. And they certainly cannot
> handle more Amtrak trains. (No, I don't know how to fit more tracks into some places,
> but that is a subject for another thread.)
> Gosh, I hope things get better soon!
You make a number of good points. In fact according to a number of studies over several decades (both public and private - not railroad sponsored), 80,000 lb trucks not only do much damage to the highways, but their gas taxes and fees do not pay anywhere near the cost of repairing that damage. Nor do they pay for the difference in construction costs to beef up highway designs to handle trucks in the first place.
ALL of that is paid by the rest of us in tolls and gas taxes. And lets not forget that a very large part is still funded by property taxes, sales taxes, state and municipal bonds, and even state and federal general funds. And worse yet, the Federal deficit. And the net result of the railroads dumping 80% of the freight ton-miles onto the subsidized highways, is that there is now not enough money in any government budget, to pay for repairs. Thus that expensive highway system is crumbling.
The highway never was sustainable as a primary means of mass transportation. But a lot of big contractors got very rich, car makers sold a whole lot more cars than they would have, oil companies sold a lot more oil, and truckers now had the means to bury their main competition, despite the inherent inefficiency of the medium.
All this was paid for by us - diverting much personal wealth, that could have been used to improve other aspects of life. But now, transportation needs suck up a significant portion of everyone's earnings. I often contemplate what it would have been like, to be able to spend my money elsewhere, rather than on that 2nd or 3rd car needed for commuting - over and over and over again. But Eisenhower, with his anti-railroad vendetta, had better ideas (he got pissed at the railroads during the war).
And your are right - it seems railroads are no longer very interested in any business that is not "Low hanging fruit" (very easy to manage); often claiming that the costs are too high and the profits too low. But this is just one more example of railroad myopia. They have forgotten how to actually run a railroad. Their own bean counters keep claiming that the costs of drayage to and from the inter-modal facility is suppressing profits. But actually, it's much simpler than that - it simply is considerably more costly to pay one driver for each 60,000 pound load; than it is to pay one switch crew for several dozen 100,000 pound loads. DUH!
It has always been a no brainer - John Kneiling was wrong! So now that they adopted his drivel under deregulation, railroads are now but a wispy shadow of their former selves. Thus deregulation has not really been so kind to railroads, as it exposed them to their own folly.
It enabled railroads to get rid of what was perceived as the less remunerative sides of their business. But on the freight side, they replaced it with something even more costly - and on the passenger side, the costs were merely transferred elsewhere, and where viable passenger services were dropped altogether - those costs (now on us) soared, simply because a vastly less efficient means was used instead.
It is true that whatever rail passenger services the public wants, should be paid for by the public. And that includes the cost of needed capacity expansion. But still, capacity expansion is currently costing the private railroads but a fraction of what it is currently costing public agencies. So let those able to do it more efficiently - do it. We thus would be better off simply transferring operation of these trains back to the railroads, by contract; while providing enough remuneration to cover all capital costs (at current levels), as well as operating costs.
Now if an adequate return on (their) investment is not enough to "Cajol them", then they are indeed MYOPIC as businessmen! A dollar says to the doughnut, that the likes of Uncle Pete, will suddenly become interested in providing the service without inflating capacity improvement needs; while the enforced contractual obligation to attract ever more passengers, should protect the public interest. Same goes for loose-car freight service - both needed by the public at large - as you point out.
OPB
