I received my Trains magazine yesterday, and–of course–read Mark’s article regarding “subsidies for all or subsidies for none,” to paraphrase.
First, I think it was a great article because it really stimulated my thinking on the subject.
I largely agree with the gravamen of the article’s contentions. However, I am curious about what the readers, and Mark, think about the growing phenomenon of highway congestion in relation to the article’s contention?
If conditions stay the way they are now, I think Mark’s contention is unassailable. However, I have seen growing evidence that highway congestion is approaching “the knee of the curve” with regard to how much is required to be spent in order to keep highway congestion at a minimum. In other words, even if the government continues to subsidize truckers through highway construction, the cost of doing so is going to start growing, causing highway taxes to increase and causing a less-favorable environment for trucking.
It is no longer simply a matter of building new highways. There are growing choke points, which either preclude further highway construction or cause it to be considerably more expensive to do so—there are only so many highways you can build in a city.
In short, when highway congestion “redlines,” wont trucking rates rise either as a result of outright congestion or much higher taxes, and rail’s advantage of being able to add capacity more cheaply be able to be taken advantage of even if railroads are not subsidized?
…New TRAINS magazine already…! I look forward to reading the article indicated above, sounds like a good subject to be discussing. I’ll start looking in the mailbox a week or 10 days from now for my issue…
…Ammended: 11-29-04…Wow, new January TRANS arrived today. Can’t remember it being received that early recently…! [:0]
You win the prize “I got mine first this month”. Now you have to send a thank you note to the USPS. A small gratuity is suggested, otherwise the next edition might not get to you until sometime after leaves are back on trees. LOL
Can’t really comment until I get a chance to read his article, but knowing Mark’s attitude toward people who have the audacity to actually drive to work for a living…
Lets not forget not only your ridiculous and unyielding ideas about virtually everything relating to railroads, either…
Most of us have the “priviledge” of driving to work. I miss the times when I have been able to take the train to work…of course when I get to work I get on the train…if there were more trains…
When the new container terminal was built at Long Beach CA about 25 years ago, It was built to be served by trucks, not trains. The trucks haul the containers through on one of the most congested freeway systems in the world between the ships and rail[V] I’m a highway guy but this decision was DUMB[:(]
That *&^%$#@! Post Office!! No longer uses rail effectively, wants to raise postal rates to $0.41 for a first class stamp AND NO TRAINS Magazine, again!!
The problem with the U.S. highway program is one of political spoilage, and this despoilment has caused a circumvention of the two prime directives of developing a national transportation system, namely dispersement and redundancy. When the Interstate Highway system was first devised, it was meant for improving transportation between the major population centers. As the years went by, more and more funds were used for development of urban freeways and less on true interstate freeways. The problem with this urban focus is that traffic is funnelled onto fewer and fewer highways, causing the aforementioned choke points, while at the same time encouraging more growth inducement in areas that can best be described as overpopulat
Another part of the congestion is the % of traffic actually going to a destination in a city as opposed to interstate traffic. A A proposal in Nashville is to tear down the downtown expressways and turn them into boulevards. Long distance travel would require outer belts to be built 35 miles outside the center of the city. Cloverleafs and other high speed designs take up too much room, valuable real estate that could easily be put to other uses. Then yuu add many additional side streets for pedestrians and local traffic. All this depends on a new 30-50year plan for the future of the city.
Railroads may have a difficult time reclaiming ROW if the former belt line track is taken up by an interstate or some other highway construction.
Congestion here is an issue because of the geography of the city. It was a huge error to allow major interstates like I-40 &65 to run together, forming a loop around the downtown area. Planners may not have forseen the transformation of the riverfront area from industrial use to sports, commercial & other uses. THere will be more residential units built than factories. TDOT will not be able to add many more lanes, so money & time will go to restoring the railroads. Some of the short lines may be state owned anyway, like our Nashville & Eastern.
Is Interstate 80 congested across Nebraska and impossible to expand??? I don’t think so. Whether freight comes into a large city like Chicago by truck or Intermodal, it still gets delievered locally by truck. Some Intermodal transfers in the Chicago area are done by truck, making local congestion even worse. Both trucking companies and railroads are building terminal/transfer facilities farther and farther out in the boonies, which also increases congestion on both urban and regional highways and roads.
I keep seeing the topic of leveling the playing field coming up, but I don’t see anyone suggesting how this would be done. If the freight railroads are subsidized equally, do I get to drive my high-wheel sportscar on them anytime and anywhere I want?? Or If trucks pay the full cost of the Interstates, are other uses prohibited?
Let’s suppose the field were level and costs and subsidies were comparable. In many of the articles I’ve read about trains loosing business to trucks, the other issues were speed and consistent delievery times. During the 60s & 70s the railroads got caught up in terminal to terminal rather than door to door times. Some were more concerned with the minimum hp/ton they could get away with than getting the trains across the road. Except for bulk commodities, trucks did it faster, cheaper, and more consistently, so the ‘market’ made them the winner.
Should the government subsidize the old mainframe computer makers to level the playing field against PCs and mini-computer servers(which run sioftware components like UNIX and TCP/IP which were developed in University’s with government grants)???
I think some of you are missing at least part of the real message. Part of a level playing field is money to help upgrade railroads(similar to highway aid), or if it is to be equal payments model having truckers pay their fair share for highways (versus private autos using the same highways). Perhaps the more important view is the transportation policy behind rail. At one time railroads regularly received significant benefits from the government including government charters, land grants, financial assistance and later grant programs. They were seen as critical transportation which they were and are.
How should the government place the railroads on an equal footing? Treatises could ber written on the subject (and have been). Obviously capacity issues on mainlines and choke points at junction points and terminals need to be addressed. Take a look at the Alameda Corridor or the new flyover in KC as examples. But, perhaps more important, railroads need the ability to easily create new tracks and connections without the massive red tape that exists now to reach customers with direct rail. If we truly want an efficient rail system that serves its goal of mizimizing pollution and maximizing utility at least those customers using significant bulk products (coal, ores, aggregates, metals, plastics, chemicals, etc) need direct rail service. Distribution centers should have rail service. Transloading adds significant costs to the system that can only be solved by removing the truck from that equation, not in all cases but in many…
No, you don’t get to drive your high wheel sports car on a subsidized railroad. Presumably in a democracy, with a true level playing field, you would be able to enjoy your present highway with far less congestion and possibly also enjoy a decent commuter or intercity train ride.
“The cause of highway congestion is simply political malfeasance. If engineers were allowed to plan transportation systems and infrastructure development free of political input, there would be no such thing as choke points or congestion.”
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride…
Since when has any goverment handed a blank check, with no strings attached, to any one?
I guess it would all depend on how u interpert the work “congestion”. For instance if a certain highway like I95 (which attracts thousands of travelers a day) gets heavy traffic then it just might decrease the highway taxes for construction; since many people are paying those “high” tolls. However, congestion can be bad because, it would call for more road maintainence, and possibly road expansion. At the same time this road (I95) will not might but WILL face mile or more traffic jams. Then with that u have an envornmental issue as well.
The term congestion applied to rail terms is slightly different. I would say congestion on the rails is more of a bad thing than it is good. This si so because, if u have congestion on a mainline for instance, the railroad will run into the following problems. Increased wait time on sidings (costing the railroad money), the railroad’s coustomers would start screaming about how long it’s taking for the railroad to ship their goods to the given destination. Given this the train crews might have to make up for track time. This in turn might cause possible desasters like a derailment per chance.