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.
Freight rail traffic is considerably lower cost than trucking. Yet railroads are hugely profitable because of capacity restraints and lack of competition allow them to charge a premium. Put in rail that connects these smaller regional railroads to one another. They would quickly become profitable and a third competitor would be introduced into the market. The rail industry is more about freight than it is passengers.
Show us how much oil subsidies please. Then apply that figure the the ethanol subsidies, and then add in the farm subsidies, and you may be talking some savings to taxpayers.
So you're supporter of subsidies. I am not. If billions there don't matter (but you believe, actually help), then it shouldn't with what is undeniably the future either.
America started to go down the drain with its infrastructural investment in the 1950s. Of course, we shouldn't care about the billions and trillions spent in oil rich nation countries either, adding to massive trade deficits, debt and wars (proxy or otherwise). Should we?
Trains are horrible only because the government has so heavily invested in roads and neglected our rail network (or flat out discontinued it in areas). We need roads, but we shouldn't need as many as we do now. The government's aggressive subsidy approach to cars has caused the cost of owning a car and living 45 mins from work possible. Had the government not gotten involved, we'd probably have streetcars in every city (even small ones like we used to), strong regional rail (HSR) to connect cities and better planned suburbs....plus less people on the roads, which includes keeping freight on rails like it should be (with the exception of local delivery from rail to businesses).
Moving freight by train is a losing proposition for most shippers in the US. They make sense when it comes to iron ore or coal, or liquid bulk, but one must rememeber that a receiving facility must have a rail head off the trunk line.
A 18 wheeler can cross the country in 5 to six days. A train takes weeks beacuse it has to make too many stops, drops and reloading, not to mention the damage from "humping" and other rail practices. Companies do not hold inventories any more for storage reasons, so they would rather have a truckload delivery of 45,000 lbs every week rather than one rail car of 160,000 lbs every four weeks.
The US rails system, particularly in the NOrtheast is in shambles. The highest speed Acela can get is about 80 mph and that is only on small stretches of rail. The government has been woefully neglectful with regard to the rail system. The US has designed its commerical systems mostly around truck deliveries and not rail.
It's too late. It may make sense for passenger service to be re-evaluated but it has to be privatized because the people who use it must pay for it, otherwise it will end up as Amtrak is now, a loser.
Gosh, I guess some conservatives think that people having to spend less on transportation, and therefore have more disposable income to spend on their local business, is a bad thing?
Moving freight by train is a losing proposition for most shippers in the US. They make sense when it comes to iron ore or coal, or liquid bulk, but one must rememeber that a receiving facility must have a rail head off the trunk line.
A 18 wheeler can cross the country in 5 to six days. A train takes weeks beacuse it has to make too many stops, drops and reloading, not to mention the damage from "humping" and other rail practices. Companies do not hold inventories any more for storage reasons, so they would rather have a truckload delivery of 45,000 lbs every week rather than one rail car of 160,000 lbs every four weeks.
The US rails system, particularly in the NOrtheast is in shambles. The highest speed Acela can get is about 80 mph and that is only on small stretches of rail. The government has been woefully neglectful with regard to the rail system. The US has designed its commerical systems mostly around truck deliveries and not rail.
It's too late. It may make sense for passenger service to be re-evaluated but it has to be privatized because the people who use it must pay for it, otherwise it will end up as Amtrak is now, a loser.
Thank you for highlighting every problem with America. They happen to exist because oil companies and their lobbies took over the governance. Now, we're way behind the rest of the world. Our railway system is a joke. Trucking industry will be fine for a while, but as Warren Buffet noted, its only a matter of time. Cheap oil is bound to be history.
Moving freight by train is a losing proposition for most shippers in the US. They make sense when it comes to iron ore or coal, or liquid bulk, but one must rememeber that a receiving facility must have a rail head off the trunk line.
A 18 wheeler can cross the country in 5 to six days. A train takes weeks beacuse it has to make too many stops, drops and reloading, not to mention the damage from "humping" and other rail practices. Companies do not hold inventories any more for storage reasons, so they would rather have a truckload delivery of 45,000 lbs every week rather than one rail car of 160,000 lbs every four weeks.
The US rails system, particularly in the NOrtheast is in shambles. The highest speed Acela can get is about 80 mph and that is only on small stretches of rail. The government has been woefully neglectful with regard to the rail system. The US has designed its commerical systems mostly around truck deliveries and not rail.
It's too late. It may make sense for passenger service to be re-evaluated but it has to be privatized because the people who use it must pay for it, otherwise it will end up as Amtrak is now, a loser.
You're right, it is too late. Our rail system is in shambles and to try to re-route our freight back to rail would likely cause a large impact to many businesses, and the business models they use (not to mention the investment that would be needed is far too large).
I'm curious as to how the energy crisis will impact this mess we're in. I can see people zipping around in electric-based cars for short distances, but what about all this freight? I fear that the point of no return has already come and gone.
You're right, it is too late. Our rail system is in shambles and to try to re-route our freight back to rail would likely cause a large impact to many businesses, and the business models they use (not to mention the investment that would be needed is far too large).
I'm curious as to how the energy crisis will impact this mess we're in. I can see people zipping around in electric-based cars for short distances, but what about all this freight? I fear that the point of no return has already come and gone.
We saw a glimpse of the realities in summer 2008 when gas prices hit a record high. That was just a taste of things that are sure to show up in all its glory, and then these same people will be pointing fingers elsewhere.
Moving freight by train is a losing proposition for most shippers in the US. They make sense when it comes to iron ore or coal, or liquid bulk, but one must rememeber that a receiving facility must have a rail head off the trunk line.
A 18 wheeler can cross the country in 5 to six days. A train takes weeks beacuse it has to make too many stops, drops and reloading, not to mention the damage from "humping" and other rail practices. Companies do not hold inventories any more for storage reasons, so they would rather have a truckload delivery of 45,000 lbs every week rather than one rail car of 160,000 lbs every four weeks.
The US rails system, particularly in the NOrtheast is in shambles. The highest speed Acela can get is about 80 mph and that is only on small stretches of rail. The government has been woefully neglectful with regard to the rail system. The US has designed its commerical systems mostly around truck deliveries and not rail.
It's too late. It may make sense for passenger service to be re-evaluated but it has to be privatized because the people who use it must pay for it, otherwise it will end up as Amtrak is now, a loser.
How is that an argument against not adding more track to areas that need more freight service? As I mentioned railroad traffic is at capacity on national railroads. Regional railroads can't compete because they can't connect all the way to coal producing areas, agricultural producing areas and ports. These 4 big railroads charge whatever the hell they want to charge.
The lawsuits would tie up a project for years, maybe decades costing millions. Does this sound like something an investor wants to tie up his money in ???
And yes it would really improve the economy and peoples lives but it won't happen here in California.
This fly must be something "Special" that gives power to the Liberals, NOT !!!!
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.
