7 ms·
The fundamental problem is that we have completely inadequate rail infrastructure in the US. Why is it that everything has to go by truck? Trucks are extremel
by illumin8 15y ago
The fundamental problem is that we have completely inadequate rail infrastructure in the US. Why is it that everything has to go by truck? Trucks are extremely inefficient compared to trains, and are much more likely to be involved in traffic accidents, create congestion on our freeways, and damage our roads requiring tax dollars to repair.
Too many trucks and fatigued drivers is a symptom of the greater problem, which is inadequate rail infrastructure.
- byrneseyeview 15y agoSource? The Economist claims that the US has the best freight rail infrastructure in the world: http://www.economist.com/node/16636101 http://www.economist.com/node/16636101 The "fundamental problem" is probably that America is a really big country, and there are lots of livable places in the US that are far from other population centers.
- sorbus 15y ago"best freight rail infrastructure in the world" and "completely inadequate rail infrastructure" are, sadly, not mutually exclusive.
- joe_the_user 15y agoWell, another fundamental problem is the US government subsidies trucks by providing them with roads. Railroads have to make their own tracks. Truck and cars do pay taxes but they don't pay sufficient taxes to pay the entire cost of roads (http://moderntransit.org/letters/budget.html http://moderntransit.org/letters/budget.html).
- Swisher 15y agoCars don't pay enough...trucks do. Not to mention trucks are providing a service that cannot be done effectively by cars or trains. Railroads make plenty of money on owning the tracks otherwise I doubt they would still be doing it.
- Zakharov 15y agoOn the other hand, railroads don't make enough money owning the tracks to make a significant investment in expanding the rail network.
- w1ntermute 15y ago> The Economist claims that the US has the best freight rail infrastructure in the world We're talking about the greatest country on Earth. Even with the best freight rail infrastructure in the world, it may still not be up to American standards.
- Nicknameless 15y agoI'm not sure how many people living outside of the US would actually consider it to be the 'greatest country on Earth'. I certainly don't want to live there... Not sure if this is just a troll actually. If so, good job I guess.
- w1ntermute 15y agoWhile it may be hip on the net to trash our country, if you ask an average person in a developing country where they want to go, they will invariably want to come here. Even in China, who everyone is waiting for with bated breath to overtake America, people want to come here.
- ahoyhere 15y agoMaybe in developing countries, but that's not the attitude in other first world countries, because they've pretty much all got it better than we do.
- w1ntermute 15y agoHaving been to quite a few other first world countries (Europe and Canada) and having relatives there, I would say that the upper middle class life is most definitely not better anywhere else. In America, you can get a nice big house, a nice big car, and have a comfortable life. For example, I'm in Japan right now, and I miss the central air conditioning (here they have boxed air conditioners in select rooms instead). I miss the ridiculously cheap prices for just about anything I might want to buy. But most of all, while there are certainly advantages to having a convenient public transit system, I have to say that I miss having the wide open road before me and the sweet feeling of metal roaring to go beneath my feet. Of course, things may be different for the poor, since they certainly have it pretty bad in America, but I am fortunate enough to have never known poverty.
- protomyth 15y agoWe actually have a pretty good cargo rail network in the US (compare to Europe where passenger rail is better but not cargo). The US is spread out and trucks are it. They do pay quite a bit of fuel tax, and I am not sure it is the trucks themselves that create the problem. I see a lot of non-truck drivers that cause more congestion.
- bethling 15y agoI used to work at a company that worked in Logistics. I don't know if it's gotten better, but at least at that point there really was no good solution for multi-modal loads. If you wanted to go truck->train->truck, you were on your own for arranging all of the details. It was far easier to just use a truck from point to point than the other solutions. It might have improved in the last 10 years though :)
- protomyth 15y agoYeah, railroads were the most screwed up business in the USA for a long while (I got a story about a "missing" soybean car that is truly unbelievable), but they have actually gotten quite a bit better in the last decade. Some of the railroads now have agreements with different trucks to do complete run. I haven't been near the industry in 3 years, but I know it was getting much nicer than before 2001.
- burgerbrain 15y agoExactly. What really needs to happen is for some state to man up and flat out ban trucks on all state roads travelling more that say 50 or so miles.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Swisher 15y agoWhat are you going to do about the areas that are more than 50 miles from a train depot? Haul it in several smaller vehicles? Sounds efficient...whats better 60,000 lbs hauled at 8MPG in one truck or 10,000lbs hauled at 15MPG in 6 vehicles. There is a reason we are still using trucks...good luck without them.
- burgerbrain 15y ago50 miles everywhere should be sufficient to get it to a train yard. The number could be increased for western states perhaps.
- eropple 15y agoWestern states? How about eastern states? I think you really underestimate how big this country is and how small a 50-mile radius is. That kind of coverage would be absolutely impossible to do. Hence, trucks.
- burgerbrain 15y agoYou're not terribly familar with the existing freight infrastructure in the east coast then. Look at a map of Pennsylvania, one of the larger and more sparse eastern states. 50 miles from any point will get you to Erie, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Allentown, Scranton, etc. All of which you can ship and receive freight by train from. And that is a bad example of a state where it could work. Try looking at Jersey instead!
- alecbenzer 15y agoAren't trucks much more flexible than trains? Roads are already here, they're everywhere, and they go everywhere. Rails would have to be built, and even if they were, they would never be as extensive as roads are. Assuming comparable existing infrastructure, trains might be more efficient, but isn't it much more efficient to use the existing infrastructure, to the point that it mitigates the efficiency of a train?
- totalc 15y agohttp://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=16740 http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=16... According to that 2008 source (which appears to be pro-railroad) freight rail is up to four times more fuel-efficient per ton of freight delivered than freight trucking.
- Duff 15y agoWhy would it? Railroads essentially operate monopolies on transport within a given region, and we're against regulation these days. Plus, those pesky workers know that, so they do inconvenient things like form unions and demand concessions. So instead, we build a giant taxpayer-funded road system, which in turn results in sprawl, which requires yet more road systems.