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.
We export high dollar goods, that pay good wages, etc.
We import items that take so much hand labor, and sell at prices that do not allow good wages, and profits due to our pay scales in the U.S. These jobs are so low paying, that in this country we cannot find people to work at those wages which would be below minimum wages to be able to compete on the world market.
We have to import, or we could not export. The countries that we import from, in turn buy a lot of exports from the U.S.
We have exported some jobs overseas where the prices were too low, and took too much labor to produce them at a profit. Now we are not really exporting jobs, but learning how to automate and still able to make a profit.
We import jobs into the U.S., and those jobs are well paying often paying more than American companies pay. Automobile, electronic, high speed train, and many other fields are hiring 1,000,000 plus Americans in this country at good paying jobs, each and every year of late and it will continue in the future.
Speaking from the viewpoint of both a logistics graduate and a person with both rail and trucking experience, there are a lot of factors at play here.
Rail freight traffic is especially subject to distortions in interpretation because of how it's measured; carloadings are still considerably fewer than in the peak years of World War II, because the average freight car now has nearly twice the capacity. But ton-miles (one ton of freight carried one mile) are at least 50% greater than that war-induced peak. And intermodal container) traffic continues to set new records, on an absolute basis nowhere near as subject to differences of interpretation due to the size of the vehicle.
To cite a well-known example, shipments of dressed meat from the Plains states to the East Coast deserted the rail carriers almost completely upon the completion of the Interstate Highway System, but much of that traffic has slowly found its way back; however, refrigerated trailers or containers on flat cars, with "beef in boxes" rather than full sides suspended from overhead hooks, have become the rule, and freight forwarders, who specialize in consolidating and delivering smaller shipments, have taken a larger role.
Pictures of New York harbor prior to about 1960 usually show "car floats" being moved by tugboats from freight yards in New Jersey to small yards in both Manhattan and the outlying boroughs. But again, the practice quickly dried up after the reconstruction and expansion of the superhighway network. And the end of dirt-cheap oil that began in the early Seventies led to the expansion of intermodal-based systems that take advantage of both modes. Containers, either from the U S interior or transshipped from West Coast ports now tie up at "distribution centers" close to the same communities (Albany, Harrisburg, Richmond) that used to have large warehouses "breaking bulk" from carload shipments. Unfortunately, this does not reduce the impact of congestion caused by the need for local pickup and delivery, and there is very little incentive for reducing car size in order to serve our local shopping malls and "big box" retailers.
The picture is about to change again in the very near future. Completion of the PANAMAX project (widening and deepening of the Panama Canal), originally scheduled for 2015, but pushed back by a year or so, will encourage containerships to move directly from the Pacific to East Coast ports. New York-area harbors will require improvements, which will likely raise environmental concerns, but Hampton Roads, Charleston, Savannah and even Florida are all making a play for the prospective traffic. And that may aggravate, rather than reduce congestion along the Eastern Seaboard.
And as for the railroads, the much-smaller number of major carriers made large improvements in operating efficiency once regulatory and work-rules reform allowed them to seek new markets after 1985. If PANAMX reduces the congestion which has been an obstacle on the Western transcontinental main lines for over twenty years, I don't expect them t waste any time in seeking new business to fill that unused capacity. Unlike in 1975, they now have something to sell which many shippers actually want to buy.
Thirty years ago I drove an 18 wheeler around Europe for a year, and have a maintained a casual interest in the trucking industry. Can you tell me why you don't see "Super Single" tire configurations on US trucks?
They've been in use in Europe for at least 30 years, and last I looked, a few years ago, seemed to be increasing in popularity considerably.
There's a claimed fuel economy gain of 4-7%, which might amount to 1,000+ gallons a year, plus, a one large aluminum wheel vs two smaller steel wheels configuration will yield about a 1,000 lb weight advantage. I believe they also provide better drive axle torque when turning. Originally in Europe there were fears of safety issues with blowouts etc. but these seem to be unfounded.
With respect to the OP comment of seeing more trucks on the road, he doesn't say if he was traveling day or night. Stand at the side of I 95 in the Mid-Atlantic region during the overnight hours, and you'll find that at some times trucks outnumber cars by a factor of maybe 10 to 1. The equivalent of a whole trainload of trailers whizzes by every few minutes.
I used work for a company that regularly shipped both time sensitive, and not so, product from California to Baltimore, by both truck and train, and while I'm not sure of the cost differential, truck was both much quicker and more reliable. A truck could leave CA on Friday afternoon and be at the Baltimore warehouse by 6.00am Monday.
If a train was routed thru Chicago, and a lot are, it could be a nightmare. Trailers/containers sometimes/always had to be offloaded one train and transferred to another. A container could sometimes take several days just to traverse Chicago.
Things have picked up and seem to be steadily improving but your perspective depends on where you are and your individual circumstances.
I'm in Indianapolis and the economy here is excellent. Indy is a major crossroads and truck traffic is high. Everyone I know here who wants to be employed is working, although maybe their jobs aren't the best. My 48 year old girlfriend with no college education just got a considerably better offer.
That wouldn't happen where I am from in Tennessee, where there are few jobs of note available and the economy remains stuck in a rut.
Thirty years ago I drove an 18 wheeler around Europe for a year, and have a maintained a casual interest in the trucking industry. Can you tell me why you don't see "Super Single" tire configurations on US trucks?
They've been in use in Europe for at least 30 years, and last I looked, a few years ago, seemed to be increasing in popularity considerably.
They are not accepted in the USA because they cause excessive damage to roads, and if a tire is blown, it can cause more accidents. On a normal 18 wheeler, the weight distribution is on multiple tires, and if one tire blows out, it is much safer than the Super Single tire setups. This is especially true, for trucks in snowy and icy conditions which all long haul truck drivers have to be prepared for.
I see dump, mixer and fuel trucks with super singles all the time. They are running single duals basically two rear axles with one set of tires on each axle for a total
of 4 tires vs the traditional dual duals basically dual axles with traditional "dually" tires or 8 rear tires. So super singles are allowed on some vehicles.
They are not accepted in the USA because they cause excessive damage to roads, and if a tire is blown, it can cause more accidents. On a normal 18 wheeler, the weight distribution is on multiple tires, and if one tire blows out, it is much safer than the Super Single tire setups. This is especially true, for trucks in snowy and icy conditions which all long haul truck drivers have to be prepared for.
Not so sure about that. I noted in my original post that it had been a concern originally in Europe but has been found not to have been borne out by the stats.
While it's true that a blow out effectively disables an SS combination in as much as the vehicle cannot limp to a repair facility, it's also true that blow outs are much less frequent on SS in part because they eliminate two of the most frequent causes of blow out, stones getting caught between dual tires, and mismatched tire pressure on duals. Granted, SS are not right for every application, but are now preferred for many, particularly liquid tankers such as gasoline, and short to medium haul applications, where the truck returns to base about once a week, which with shorter overall distances in Europe is more frequent.
I see dump, mixer and fuel trucks with super singles all the time. They are running single duals basically two rear axles with one set of tires on each axle for a total
of 4 tires vs the traditional dual duals basically dual axles with traditional "dually" tires or 8 rear tires. So super singles are allowed on some vehicles.
I'm in the mid-Atlantic, and don't think I've ever seen them, but am not always looking. What part of the country are you in?
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.
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.
