4 ms·

> He’s one of some 12,000 truckers who haul the containers from the adjacent ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (where 40 percent of all the ship-borne imports

> He’s one of some 12,000 truckers who haul the containers from the adjacent ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (where 40 percent of all the ship-borne imports to the United States arrive) to the immense complex of warehouses 50 miles east of L.A., where the goods are unpacked, resorted, put back on other trucks, and sent to all the Walmarts, Targets, and the like within a thousand-mile radius. Sounds like a job for a train to me, and then local dispatch to the relevant warehouses.

irrational 5y ago
This was my thought too. All containers go from one port to one huge warehouse? Why is that not done by train? Also, where is this warehouse? I’m thinking that when society collapses, that might be a great place to pick up stuff.
- vidanay 5y ago
  NIMBY. The hurdles to constructing a new rail line are practically insurmountable.
  - crubier 5y ago
    Yet people are fine with building / enlarging roads...
    - artificial 5y ago
      Why not in the middle of the freeway? Sacrifice 2-3 lanes or do it raised, one for freight another for metro. Last mile transportation still needs to be solved, light rail would be awesome to and you and down main streets.
      - johnwalkr 5y ago
        That is not trivial at all. How do you go against status quo which is to add more lanes for cars? How do you get the train from the middle of the freeway or raised portion to outside/ground level? Where do you put railyards to break/make trains to deliver to/from local places? I'm all for freight trains, but there is no way they can simply piggyback on car infrastructure.
        artificial 5y ago
        Let’s hear some ideas, so far it’s how it doesn’t work. California has that in spades.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - giantrobot 5y ago
      Except they're not fine with that. In Southern California it's basically solid humanity from the ocean to the deserts in the east. The existing freeways can't be expanded, there's nowhere for them to expand into. Businesses and houses butt right up against all of the freeways. This is the same problem with rail lines there. There's nowhere to build new rail lines. People live and work anywhere you might want to lay track. Trying to build tracks or roads is complicated by geography. There's tons of hills that are impractical to tunnel through and there's a fairly steep grade from the coast to inland areas. The train tracks exist where tracks are most practical.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      No, they're not. They fight that tooth and nail too. The thing is, you can piecemeal road improvement, a lane here, a better interchange there, etc, so you're not facing too many NIMBYs at once. You can't do that with a new rail line.
- secabeen 5y ago
  There is a train line that helps, but it's not enough. > Also, where is this warehouse? I’m thinking that when society collapses, that might be a great place to pick up stuff. It is a collection of warehouses, not one single warehouse, and they are in Ontario and Redlands, CA. You can seem them clearly on satellite pics surrounding the I-10/I-15 and I-10/CA-210 interchanges: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0825717,-117.4149858,56798m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0825717,-117.4149858,56798m/...
  - irrational 5y ago
    Oh, out by Fontana. My brother used to live there. He called in Fontucky.
- tobylane 5y ago
  I wonder if the rail line is under used therefore investment can’t be justified therefore it’s not all that capable. I don’t know the geography on the ground, probably a lot of level crossings, but what of it could be sped up, run trains closer together?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
toast0 5y ago
There is rail from the ports, but rail is less flexible and harder to expand (and more susceptible to being removed).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
smilekzs 5y ago
This description is not wrong, but not the complete picture either. It is true that trucks have to ferry between LGB (~ Port of Long Beach) and ONT (~ Ontario - San Bernardino corridor along I-10). However, ONT is the very place you have access to cargo planes and train yards! These facilities (and of course the warehouses necessary to buffer between the modalities) take up a lot of land --- land that's not readily available in the costal areas. You can't exactly lay tracks anywhere you feel convenient either, because tracks hate elevation changes --- fat luck for you now, because there's plenty of those between LGB and ONT...
- quartesixte 5y ago
  Yeah it’s an unfortunate consequence of history and geography. That travel from Port of Long Beach to the San Bernardino Valley is not easy. It is constantly congested because the 10, 110, 210, 710, 5, 15, 605, 60, and 91 all connecting POLB to the inner Southern California valleys are also the main arteries for commuters, last mile delivery, and the general populace visiting friends and family. You will get miles long convoys of 18-wheelers at rush hour all trying to get out of the coast. But that is also a journey that includes two passes between two valleys that are separated by not-insignificant hills, so rail will be difficult. And because no one had the real foresight to create a direct rail connection from the ports to the inland valleys, there is now a sprawling suburban jungle that will result in the displacement of at least a million people, thousands of businesses, and a good hundred schools if you attempted to do it now. It’s damned if you do damned if you don’t. The only solution is to somehow get most commuters/passengers off of cars, into mass transit, and turn all the highways into basically trucking arteries.
- quartesixte 5y ago
  > These facilities (and of course the warehouses necessary to buffer between the modalities) take up a lot of land For those who have never been out there, the industrial parks of the inland SoCal valleys span miles in width and length. This is not just a few city blocks of warehouses. These are practically entire towns who only exist for these warehouses.
stefan_ 5y ago
The primary reason we don't transfer goods via train is that from the perspective of truckers, roads magically appear and cost nothing. Toll roads are far and between and prefer to rip off commuters rather than tax trucks what their weight causes in damage.
- ethagknight 5y ago
  This is true. The fact that trains can remain competitive with trucks getting to use and abuse free asphalt is a testament to just how efficient trains are.
  - kazen44 5y ago
    don't trucker pay far higher highway/maintenance tax compared to normal people using the roads. that is atleasy my understanding of how a lot of a highway development gets funded, bussiness pay a lot more highway/road tax.
    - SteveGerencser 5y ago
      From the IRS: The highway use tax applies to highway motor vehicles with a taxable gross weight of 55,000 pounds or more. This generally includes large trucks, truck tractors and buses. The tax is based on the weight of the vehicle and a variety of special rules apply. These special rules are explained in the instructions to Form 2290. So yes, trucks do pay more in taxes, but that doesn't help the "roads are free" or the "you didn't pay for that" mantra.
      - Retric 5y ago
        The US tax code is more complex than any one tax. VA for example charges fees to any car over 25MPG. https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#highwayuse_fee.asp https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#highwayuse_fee.asp Overall looking at all taxes and fees vs costs, semi trucks get a major discount vs the costs they add to the US highway system. They cause a lot of damage and take up a lot of space both from being heavy and driving a lot more miles while being relatively fuel efficient to their weight. This means not only do bridges etc need to be over engineered vs cars but they also need to be repaired more often. States are in a bind because if they raise fuel taxes truckers will largely fill up in another state. The constitution limits what they can do about interstate commerce. Meanwhile cars are paying annual registration and property taxes on top of fuel taxes while generally being driven vastly less.
vondur 5y ago
There is the Alameda corridor which is mostly underground from the port to just outside of Los Angeles. Maybe its at full capacity?

irrational 5y ago

This was my thought too. All containers go from one port to one huge warehouse? Why is that not done by train? Also, where is this warehouse? I’m thinking that when society collapses, that might be a great place to pick up stuff.

vidanay 5y ago
NIMBY. The hurdles to constructing a new rail line are practically insurmountable.
- crubier 5y ago
  Yet people are fine with building / enlarging roads...
  - artificial 5y ago
    Why not in the middle of the freeway? Sacrifice 2-3 lanes or do it raised, one for freight another for metro. Last mile transportation still needs to be solved, light rail would be awesome to and you and down main streets.
    - johnwalkr 5y ago
      That is not trivial at all. How do you go against status quo which is to add more lanes for cars? How do you get the train from the middle of the freeway or raised portion to outside/ground level? Where do you put railyards to break/make trains to deliver to/from local places? I'm all for freight trains, but there is no way they can simply piggyback on car infrastructure.
      - artificial 5y ago
        Let’s hear some ideas, so far it’s how it doesn’t work. California has that in spades.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    Except they're not fine with that. In Southern California it's basically solid humanity from the ocean to the deserts in the east. The existing freeways can't be expanded, there's nowhere for them to expand into. Businesses and houses butt right up against all of the freeways. This is the same problem with rail lines there. There's nowhere to build new rail lines. People live and work anywhere you might want to lay track. Trying to build tracks or roads is complicated by geography. There's tons of hills that are impractical to tunnel through and there's a fairly steep grade from the coast to inland areas. The train tracks exist where tracks are most practical.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    No, they're not. They fight that tooth and nail too. The thing is, you can piecemeal road improvement, a lane here, a better interchange there, etc, so you're not facing too many NIMBYs at once. You can't do that with a new rail line.
secabeen 5y ago
There is a train line that helps, but it's not enough. > Also, where is this warehouse? I’m thinking that when society collapses, that might be a great place to pick up stuff. It is a collection of warehouses, not one single warehouse, and they are in Ontario and Redlands, CA. You can seem them clearly on satellite pics surrounding the I-10/I-15 and I-10/CA-210 interchanges: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0825717,-117.4149858,56798m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0825717,-117.4149858,56798m/...
- irrational 5y ago
  Oh, out by Fontana. My brother used to live there. He called in Fontucky.
tobylane 5y ago
I wonder if the rail line is under used therefore investment can’t be justified therefore it’s not all that capable. I don’t know the geography on the ground, probably a lot of level crossings, but what of it could be sped up, run trains closer together?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

toast0 5y ago

There is rail from the ports, but rail is less flexible and harder to expand (and more susceptible to being removed).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

smilekzs 5y ago

This description is not wrong, but not the complete picture either. It is true that trucks have to ferry between LGB (~ Port of Long Beach) and ONT (~ Ontario - San Bernardino corridor along I-10). However, ONT is the very place you have access to cargo planes and train yards! These facilities (and of course the warehouses necessary to buffer between the modalities) take up a lot of land --- land that's not readily available in the costal areas. You can't exactly lay tracks anywhere you feel convenient either, because tracks hate elevation changes --- fat luck for you now, because there's plenty of those between LGB and ONT...

quartesixte 5y ago
Yeah it’s an unfortunate consequence of history and geography. That travel from Port of Long Beach to the San Bernardino Valley is not easy. It is constantly congested because the 10, 110, 210, 710, 5, 15, 605, 60, and 91 all connecting POLB to the inner Southern California valleys are also the main arteries for commuters, last mile delivery, and the general populace visiting friends and family. You will get miles long convoys of 18-wheelers at rush hour all trying to get out of the coast. But that is also a journey that includes two passes between two valleys that are separated by not-insignificant hills, so rail will be difficult. And because no one had the real foresight to create a direct rail connection from the ports to the inland valleys, there is now a sprawling suburban jungle that will result in the displacement of at least a million people, thousands of businesses, and a good hundred schools if you attempted to do it now. It’s damned if you do damned if you don’t. The only solution is to somehow get most commuters/passengers off of cars, into mass transit, and turn all the highways into basically trucking arteries.
quartesixte 5y ago
> These facilities (and of course the warehouses necessary to buffer between the modalities) take up a lot of land For those who have never been out there, the industrial parks of the inland SoCal valleys span miles in width and length. This is not just a few city blocks of warehouses. These are practically entire towns who only exist for these warehouses.

stefan_ 5y ago

The primary reason we don't transfer goods via train is that from the perspective of truckers, roads magically appear and cost nothing. Toll roads are far and between and prefer to rip off commuters rather than tax trucks what their weight causes in damage.

ethagknight 5y ago
This is true. The fact that trains can remain competitive with trucks getting to use and abuse free asphalt is a testament to just how efficient trains are.
- kazen44 5y ago
  don't trucker pay far higher highway/maintenance tax compared to normal people using the roads. that is atleasy my understanding of how a lot of a highway development gets funded, bussiness pay a lot more highway/road tax.
  - SteveGerencser 5y ago
    From the IRS: The highway use tax applies to highway motor vehicles with a taxable gross weight of 55,000 pounds or more. This generally includes large trucks, truck tractors and buses. The tax is based on the weight of the vehicle and a variety of special rules apply. These special rules are explained in the instructions to Form 2290. So yes, trucks do pay more in taxes, but that doesn't help the "roads are free" or the "you didn't pay for that" mantra.
    - Retric 5y ago
      The US tax code is more complex than any one tax. VA for example charges fees to any car over 25MPG. https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#highwayuse_fee.asp https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#highwayuse_fee.asp Overall looking at all taxes and fees vs costs, semi trucks get a major discount vs the costs they add to the US highway system. They cause a lot of damage and take up a lot of space both from being heavy and driving a lot more miles while being relatively fuel efficient to their weight. This means not only do bridges etc need to be over engineered vs cars but they also need to be repaired more often. States are in a bind because if they raise fuel taxes truckers will largely fill up in another state. The constitution limits what they can do about interstate commerce. Meanwhile cars are paying annual registration and property taxes on top of fuel taxes while generally being driven vastly less.

vondur 5y ago

There is the Alameda corridor which is mostly underground from the port to just outside of Los Angeles. Maybe its at full capacity?