Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Aviation
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-19-2016, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Berwick, Penna.
16,214 posts, read 11,265,072 times
Reputation: 20827

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
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).

Here's a relevant link:

Table 1-50: U.S. Ton-Miles of Freight (BTS Special Tabulation) (Millions) | Bureau of Transportation Statistics

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..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2016, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
14,229 posts, read 29,936,310 times
Reputation: 27684
No it won't. Especially since they are already working on driverless truck caravans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2016, 02:20 AM
 
569 posts, read 547,993 times
Reputation: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Thomas View Post
Cargo operations are overall growing but at a slow pace.

Trucking is still the way to go for big companies like Walmart, Costco...etc.

Do you think can there be a development or breakthrough that can help aviation gain an edge over traditional trucking??

Or do you still see moving things on the ground will remain dominant??

I'm including rail too
When the fuel prices are too low, that make truckings seemly jerking too hard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2016, 02:24 AM
 
569 posts, read 547,993 times
Reputation: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow View Post
No it won't. Especially since they are already working on driverless truck caravans.
They could be the new post officers.

I don't need to worry about leaving my wife at home ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2016, 05:09 AM
 
4,231 posts, read 3,535,447 times
Reputation: 2207
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPPU12345 View Post
They could be the new post officers.

I don't need to worry about leaving my wife at home ever.
That's what i thought.

Drivers will be on-demand movers.

It'll be totally their workplace
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2016, 06:02 AM
 
35,309 posts, read 52,069,191 times
Reputation: 30999
Even if air could transport the amount of goods trucking now transports how would you get the products from the airport to the stores?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2016, 01:39 PM
 
Location: The Circle City. Sometimes NE of Bagdad.
24,325 posts, read 25,835,443 times
Reputation: 59544
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
Even if air could transport the amount of goods trucking now transports how would you get the products from the airport to the stores?
I agree, but there are some people looking at the issue locally. Admittedly they need to research it more and build the infrastructure.

SUPPLY CHAIN: Port of Long Beach explores boosting rail, cutting truck traffic - Press Enterprise
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2016, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Berwick, Penna.
16,214 posts, read 11,265,072 times
Reputation: 20827
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..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2016, 06:22 AM
 
Location: Paradise
4,863 posts, read 4,140,516 times
Reputation: 7688
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
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".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2016, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Berwick, Penna.
16,214 posts, read 11,265,072 times
Reputation: 20827
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunetunelover View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Aviation

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top