Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 2013out of 20 billion tons of freight moved, about 6 million tons was moved by air.
2013 freight moved in (millions of tons)
13,955 Truck
1,858 Rail
808 Water
6 Air, air & truck
1,554 Multiple modes & mail
1,539 Pipeline
333 Other & unknown
20,063 Total
So what do you think the answer is?
The comparison posted above is also inaccurate because it doesn't differentiate between tons (weight of freight shipped) and ton-miles (1-ton unit of freight moved 1 mile). Using a weight-alone (or shipments-alone "standard", a light truck or a van delivering small shipments of groceries to a C-store or prescriptions to a pharmacy carries a disproportionate share of influence when compared to a a "unit train" moving 8000 tons of coal between one mine and one generating plant -- several hundred miles apart, or a coastal freighter moving large shipments in bulk between two American ports (and I can guarantee you that coal will never move by air).
Trucks carry more than railroads by about 3 to 2; railroads surged for a while after 1990, but have fallen back in recent years, mostly due to the "war on coal", which has hit the barge carriers and lake ships even harder.
Truck ton-miles outnumber air ton-miles by a factor of about 220 to 1; but it's nice to be able to get Chilean tree fruit (peaches, plums, etc.) at a not-too-bad price in the off season (and a lot better opportunity for the Chileans than what Salvador Allende had in mind).
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-19-2016 at 05:14 PM..
The point a couple of people seem to be missing here is that freight which is of low intrinsic value and/or not very sensitive to time constraints can't justify the high energy consumption and costs associated with air carriers.
And speaking as one who has followed the rail industry for over fifty years, it will be very interesting to see if the handful of remaining major carriers make a play for even intermediate-distance container traffic. As recently as a few years ago, Norfolk Southern wouldn't solicit container/TOFC traffic at Pittsburgh unless it was destined beyond the traditional gateways of Chicago and St. Louis. But that might change if the completion of PANAMAX diverts trans-Pacific traffic to South Atlantic Seaboard ports and frees up track capacity on the Western Transcontinental routes.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-20-2016 at 03:05 PM..
The point a couple of people seem to be missing here is that freight which is of low intrinsic value and/or not very sensitive to time constraints can't justify the high energy consumption and costs associated with air carriers.
And speaking as one who has followed the rail industry for over fifty years, it will be very interesting to see if the handful of remaining major carriers make a play for even intermediate-distance container traffic. As recently as a few years ago, Norfolk Southern wouldn't solicit container/TOFC traffic at Pittsburgh unless it was destined beyond the traditional gateways of Chicago and St. Louis. But that might change if the completion of PANAMAX diverts trans-Pacific traffic to South Atlantic Seaboard ports and frees up track capacity on the Western Transcontinental routes.
Additionally, many former freight rail tracks are being "converted" to mass transit (with so much federal monies going to multi-modal transportation). I suspect that may also have an impact on rail transport in the future. Either we are going to build new rails ( EXPENSIVE!!) or the existing system is going to have to "share".
Additionally, many former freight rail tracks are being "converted" to mass transit (with so much federal monies going to multi-modal transportation). I suspect that may also have an impact on rail transport in the future.
That really shouldn't be much of a problem if you look a little closer. To cite one example, At one time Chicago was a major terminal for 25-35 major railroads; its now down to six, two of which are Canadian. Where two roads merged, the principal line of one was retained for the freight traffic, and the secondary turned over to METRA for commuter service. In other instances, the freight roads served older warehouse and industrial districts, and much of the freight had been lost to either trucking or containers, the latter of which was trucked to an "intermodal facility" further outside the center city.
Quote:
Either we are going to build new rails ( EXPENSIVE!!) or the existing system is going to have to "share".
That is the message that's been concocted and sent to a younger and more-impressionable group that wants a French/Japanese-style "High Speed Rail" Network in America -- and probably got its biggest hype seven years ago when our "New Age President" made one journey by rail for his inauguration. He has not made any use of Amtrak since that time, and probably for good reason.
The Amtrak Northeast Corridor has seen perhaps a 50% improvement in start-to-stop speeds, and a near-doubling of top speeds since its inception. And the new project now underway in California has the potential to improve upon that. But land-use patterns in most of the built-up areas of the country are such that a completely new system can't be built "from scratch", and the concept of freight and high-speed-passenger service sharing trackage fell out of favor after an accident in Maryland over thirty years ago.
We will continue to see improvements, but they will be slow in coming, highly expensive, and marginal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.