Don Phillips: Rant of the Week

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

It really hurts me to post this topic, but I can’t resist.

I really like Don Phillips. I make absolutely certain to read his column every issue of Trains. Also, from everything I have heard from people who have met him, he is a knowledgeable and affable person. Thus, I am somewhat reticent about posting a topic that calls criticism to one of his articles. However, the last issue of Trains left my head thumping on my desk.

In the last issue, Mr. Phillips concludes very cogently that highway congestion is one of the reasons for the resurgence in rail traffic. Obviously, I do not take issue with this conclusion. However, he sarcastically labels the absence of increase in highway capacity a government failure and basically concludes that government ineptitude is responsible for the industry boom.

Argh! Where to begin? I am really surprised-actually, shocked-to see a Trains article basically concluding that it is governmental ineptitude to refuse to give the trucking industry a substantive advantage over rail by subsidizing it even more than it already has and causing billions of gallons of global-warming producing valuable fossil fuels to be used as a result of greater use of the less fuel-efficient truck.

If highways are the more economical form of transportation, let trucking companies expand the interstate highway system on their own dime. Highway congestion is a good thing; it forces the country to do what it should have done after the 70s oil crisis-allow more fuel-efficient means of transportation to be placed on equal footing with highway transportation.

I look forward to reading Mr. Phillips next article as much as I ever do. But, I am truly taken aback by the conclusion that it is a political failure to allow highway congestion to facilitate the largely privately-funded rail industry to move goods to market in a more fuel-efficient, safer, and more environmentally-friendly manner.

Gabe

P.S.&

2

There is always “up” (not union pacific). [;)]

3

Yep, up it is, at least in Austin, TX. When I got here in 1996, I found I35 to have been doubled-decked to alleviate traffic problems through the city center. Of course there’s slow downs where people try to move over 2 or more lanes to choose upper or lower because of ignorance or lack of foresight.

And some of the toll road plans include the possibility of putting the toll road (on stilts maybe?) above the current free lanes.

Art

4

I agree. If highway capacity were expanded where it is easy to expand it, then the choke points where it cannot be expanded would have even greater congestion.

5

I like Don Phillips’ articles too. I really miss Larry Kauffman though. Wish they would being him back.

6

I was annoyed at Phillips’ subtle hint that raising our taxes to pay for such infrastructure improvements would be a good idea. If the Federal Gov’t wants to encourage infrastructure improvements, they can start by lowering the tax rates on railroads (supported by GoRail.com).

7

I came away from the article with the impression that he was trying to point out the fact that the planners of most local, state and interstate highways allowed the political climate of their times to force their building and spending decisions, as opposed to designing and building a system that is efficient and designed to move cargo.

Or more simply put, it was designed to move votes.

Who here hasn’t witness a highway or major road construction project in their city, and not commented on the fact that, “by the time they get finished, it will be obsolete?”

And note he specifically points out the majority of the density and congestion is in the eastern portion of the US…where the infrastructure seems to have been allowed to deteriorate for a long time.

From another view, looking at a map of those places, one can see that no serious long term design was ever implemented, or at least one that included several states, with the goal in mind on providing an efficient merchandise lane into the major hubs.

Instead, it looks like the places with the most political clout managed to gather the most federal dollars to improve their local highways, which would be fine if the highways that feed those localities were efficient too.

He was pointing out the fact that railroads, by the nature of their business, have to make long term, business driven plans, and part of the reason they do is that they have no other real concern other than efficiently moving merchandise at a profit, and that a lot of businesses are noticing that fact, and taking advantage of a more efficient and less costly way to move their merchandise on long haul moves.

Had the folks who “planed” our highways really saw, or viewed them as merchandise lanes too, instead of commuter corridors where some trucks could go, who knows how it would have all worked out…

8

Many’s the city where you can make equal or better time on surface streets as opposed to the expressways during rush our.

9

I didnt see any stampede to trucks resulting from the latest bout of rail congestion…with all the woes of the trucking industry let alone the unstable cost of fuel…I think this theory borders on being goofy. I generally agree with Don Phillips but he’s way off the mark on this one.

10

Gabe,

Let’s put two and two together…

  1. Where does most highway congestion take place? In urban areas, right?

  2. Railroads are slowly foregoing carload freight (e.g. serving various urban production/distribution/warehousing sites via one and two car sidings) in deference to unit train logistics with consolidated terminals. Thus, much former carload traffic is now hauled intermodally, and as such more trucks are used to cover that last mile between production/distribution/warehousing centers and railroad aggregation sites.

1 + 2 =…

  1. So, perhaps the reason we see more trucks plying urban roadways is due to the increasing shorthaul opportunities given to truckers by the railroads.

E.g. railroad aggregation consolidation has caused more trucks to enter the suppy chain, taking care of that “last mile” link between railhead and the customer’s dock.

Ergo, Don Phillips is way off. He has no clue. The increase in highway congestion is mostly urban, not OTR. It is shorthaul congestion. Thus, there is no connection between highway congestion and the supposed increase in rail carloadings. Rail carloadings, such as they are, are more and more dependent on imports at the detriment of domestic production. Most domestic production takes place in relative close proximity to urban areas. Thus, import traffic provides a longer average haul for railroads than does domestic production (which may explain the rationale behind cross subsidization [;)]).

If there has been a de facto shift of OTR traffic to rails, it is a function of fuel price and labor shortages in the trucking industry, not of supposed long haul highway congestion, because long haul highway congestion does not exist.

Since railroads are focused on long hauls at the detriment of short hauls, there is no way one can make that kind of analytical blunder unless they are

11

Rail carloadings, such as they are, are more and more dependent on imports at the detriment of domestic production.

Unless I miss my guess, the bulk of those imports are arriving in containers, which must be delivered from the point the RR stops its long-haul to the final destination. It is shorthaul congestion.

Thus, there is no connection between highway congestion and the supposed increase in rail carloadings.

I dunno - I see a correlation there…

12

Phillips column is trying to correlate a cause and effect - highway congestion causing increased use of rail, and that is what my statement (which you highlighted in red) refers to. I suppose I should have stated it thusly: “Thus, there is no connection between highway congestion as a causal factor of increased rail carloadings.”

I wrongly assumed most readers would understand the context of the statement. After all, I also addressed the observation you made, aka railroads are partly to blame for increased urban road congestion, e.g. Railroads = Cause, Road Congestion = Effect. We agree on that po

13

[quote user=“futuremodal”]

Phillips column is trying to correlate a cause and effect - highway congestion causing increased use of rail, and that is what my statement (which you highlighted in red) refers to. I suppose I should have stated it thusly: “Thus, there is no connection between highway congestion as a causal factor of increased rail carloadings.”

I wrongly assumed most readers would understand the context of the statement. After all, I also addressed the observation you made, aka railroads are partly to blame for increased urban road congestion, e.g. Railroads = Cause, Road Congestion = Effect.

14

He has annoyed me more than once with his ranting about how the government should do this and do that. As politcal advocate for railroading, I place little credit in anything he writes. If we are going to subsidize railroads just because the Europeans do (a point of one of his previous articles) then we might as well just get rid of Staggers while we’re at it.

In this case, he fails to see that the reason the rail industry is so healthy right now is because the government backed off - no one was around to force the companies to do things that were political favors for the voters. This is one of Amtrak’s biggest problems - the government pays the bills so the the government gets to decide who does what when. This changes every election, so naturally the railroad is at loose ends.

As for the congestion in the urban areas causing more shippers to use rail, I would tend to agree with FM that the traffic jams are in the cities, not the country. It is intra-city traffic that causes this, not inter-city traffic. Railroads can do little to lighten that type of traffic becuase they are geared to long-haul inter-city trains. It may be that shippers are using rail because the railroads are just that much better at hauling a whole lot of stuff from one point to the other. And they are getting better then ever at it.

15

It should be noted that Futuremodal is once again expressing his opinions as statement of fact. He provides no citation for his opinion that congestion is not a problem out in the boonies. Do not forget that his world view does not extend very far past the Idaho state line, and to compare traffic in that area to conditions east of the Mississippi is simply ludricrous.

Beside that, whether it is urban or rural congestion, who is to be faulted? We have historically given the responsibility for building and maintaining roads to various levels of government. We know that government “transportation” agencies are mainly focused on roadways. I think it is quite reasonable to say that neither the bureaucracy or the governing leaders are doing their job.

16

Fair enough, but I see you’re from WI. Where are the major backups? Johnson’s Crack (yes I know it is ‘creek’) or Milwaukee? Portage or Madison? The point of traffic backing up is the same no matter where you live, I suspect. Urban areas have more trafffic than rural areas do.

I suppose one might make the argument that the government agencies aren’t doing their job, but what exactly constitutes a job well done? If we are to build freeways until there is no traffic congestion you would see 10 lane freeways statewide. Even I, pro-industry ruin-the environment-at-every-turn zealot that I am, would question the rationale behind digging under thousands of acres of farmland to put up more freeways. I think if the agencies maintain what has been built then they are doing their jobs. Eventually, an alternate form of transportation must come into play or we might as well just pave over Wisconsin and move south. My argument is that the open market is already doing that. Shippers are using rail because rail has a good service to offer - and it must be better than trucks because trucks used

17

[quote user=“solzrules”]

Fair enough, but I see you’re from WI. Where are the major backups? Johnson’s Crack (yes I know it is ‘creek’) or Milwaukee? Portage or Madison? The point of traffic backing up is the same no matter where you live, I suspect. Urban areas have more trafffic than rural areas do.

I suppose one might make the argument that the government agencies aren’t doing their job, but what exactly constitutes a job well done? If we are to build freeways until there is no traffic congestion you would see 10 lane freeways statewide. Even I, pro-industry ruin-the environment-at-every-turn zealot that I am, would question the rationale behind digging under thousands of acres of farmland to put up more freeways. I think if the agencies maintain what has been built then they are doing their jobs. Eventually, an alternate form of transportation must come into play or we might as well just pave over Wisconsin and move south. My argument is that the open market is already doing that. Shippers are using rail because rail has a good service to offer - and it must be better than tru

18

A lot of good comments and some truth in each and every one. Possibly the one just before this reply is the best.

We may be misunderstanding what Don meant and he may wish to clarify in a future issue.

19

(1) As to FM’s comment, it is interesting and a worthy subject to debate. However, driving between Indy and Chicago, I think congestion certainly is not limited to Chicago–heck, “cruise control” is now obsolete.

Moreover, even though intermodal containers still have to traverse the particular city they are dropped off in, there is still a gained efficiency. For instance, one intermodal container heads from New York to Chicago via rail and the other via truck. The one via truck has to pass through New York, Pittsburgh, Clevland, Chicago, etc., etc. Where as the one traveling via rail only has to pass through Chicago. Thus, intermodal rail clearly lessens highway congestion–even if the cities are the only spot where they are congested. I think Mr. Phillips is right in this contention.

(2) It may very well be that I do not understand the full point of Mr. Phillips’ point. I can more than understand that it is very very very difficult to convey complex points in the short space alloted to him in Trains. My only point in posting this topic is that I do not believe it is government incompetence to refuse to expand highway capacity.

If highways are the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly means of relieving increased congestion, then I can be persuaded otherwise. However, in the absence of such a demonstration, let it go to rail.

Gabe

20

Adding or expanding expressways in urban areas has the same effect as the string used to made rock candy (The string causes a discontinuity in the supersaturated sugar water that initiates the rock candy formation). Expansion or completion of a new road system usually coindcides with the co-location of added office buildings or factories. This adds vehicles to the road load to the extent that the traffic density remains the same after completion of the construction project as existed prior to the start of construction. Adding road infrastructure will not relieve urban congestion, just increase the expanse of bumper-to-bumper traffic.