That's relatively easy when he says: " to describe the role that rail network could play in a more efficient overall national transportation system. "
This does not mean that he diagnoses the Rail networks and industry as inefficient...but points to the RR networks as the component that can make the "overall national transportation system" "more efficient."
This is not linguistically a close call. This is straightforward and undeniable plain meaning of Gerard's study.
I have no issue with the idea that "There's always room for improvement, especially in rail."
But it still does not justify your earlier claim that disparaged Rail. Not by a longshot.
As for your core problem with the Texas road that it may be "facilitating still more imports of goods..." I can only wonder how you process the fact that rail feeds the import frenzy as much as trucking.
Who is against efficiency? Not me. I am against a system which subsidizes imports over domestic production. And it sounds like we agree that the trucking industry is in fact a beneficiary of public subsidy by free use of the roads. So we don't need more of either you're saying?
I'm also amazed by the notion that greater domestic "production of goods" would be somehow benefit from a decrepit highway system.
Your ideas don't comport with what I advocate, and your intellectual confusion is palpable. You are ignoring the greater economic utility to the transportation system by a more balanced flow. To eliminate the gross waste of dead-heading which you completely omit in your attempts. And a large increase in domestic production of goods would also simultaneously reduce import demand by satisfying it internally. Less unbalanced and wasteful stress on the system.
You need to distinguish better between your hysterias.
That seems to be your problem.
One last thing: When I called your post no. 174 childish it was a statement of fact.
No. It was a statement of OPINION which you brazenly insist is fact. And it's an "out there" opinion at that.
You wrote, "B'wahahahahahahaha! TOTALLY BOGUS B.S."
Yes, one of the finer features of Free Republic is bringing down the haughty self-important to the level of us poor benighted plebians.
Then you call me a "cheap-shot provocateuer" and say I'm throwing "insult bombs" because I wrote that your post was childish?
You never supported your position...and all your articles still fail to support your position...as you say "there is always rooms for improvement." You fail to make a case for the extremist position of the Rail networks being dead. If you note, your own Norfolk story indicates there is an overcapacity problem. Not a deficiency. Not congestion. None of that. I was entitled to amusement at the mischaracterization, and was right to condemn the argument you made. I didn't condemn you personally. That is what you did. Ad hominem attacks, insults, and still no support for an extreme position. That's pathetic. You, my friend, are the excitable one around here, not I
You are ignoring the greater economic utility to the transportation system by a more balanced flow. To eliminate the gross waste of dead-heading which you completely omit in your attempts.This is nonsense. First of all, a "more balanced flow" means more centralization and less flexibility and speed, which are the cores problems with rail. Second, dead-heading isn't contained to trucking. It's an issue for all shipping, and always has been. Rail's solution is to consolidate -- which means delays. Customers gladly pay a premium for speed and flexibility in trucking, so dead-heading is built into truck pricing. Otherwise, for shippers dead-heading represents opportunity. There were times I have made more money on shipping than on product through open return routes -- on any mode, rail, ocean, air, or road. Btw, measured by merchandise value, trucking has a greater balance of movement to/from Mexico than rail, which has only half as much value on inflows as outflows (see here). There are good reasons for this, but it betrays your notion that rail creates a "more balanced flow."
Then you wrote,
And a large increase in domestic production of goods would also simultaneously reduce import demand by satisfying it internally. Less unbalanced and wasteful stress on the system.Talk about palpable. And as for this, you again read an article incorrectly:
If you note, your own Norfolk story indicates there is an overcapacity problem. Not a deficiency. Not congestion. None of that. I was entitled to amusement at the mischaracterization, and was right to condemn the argument you made.The mischaracterization is yours. The article does not say that there exists overcapicity. It states that there was such a problem previous to deregulation. Unfortunately, rail recovered from the old regulatory regime not by filling the empty glass but by trading it for a smaller one. Following deregulation the industry dumped half its track mileage. Much of this trackage was redundant, but it has led to severe limits on growth and, worse, on competition. Rail's gains have been recovery, not growth. All the efficiencies McCoullough points to are internal. Overall, rail revenues have been stagnant, with nominal increases only in the last two years. In 1987, rail GDP was $32 billion and trucking $82.5b. In 2004, rail was $50b and trucking $225. Those are not happy numbers for rail, and it's not a happy situation for the national transit system. As one observer told Congress:
What has been rational and profitable from a railroad shareholder viewpoint, has also resulted in a downscaling of America's overall rail network. (From testimony before the House Committee On Transportation And Infrastructure On The U.S. Rail Capacity ShortageGovernment regs, price regimes, and labor rules near killed the railroad, and did kill private interstate passenger rail. Since deregulation what the rail freight industry has done to improve is impressive, but it's insufficient and falls far short of where it should be to compete effectively with highway transit. Norfolk Southern's innovations in dispatch should have come years ago, but even with it the industry is incapable of moving goods the way the economy demands. Here again from the House of Representatives:
A second method of overcoming the physical limitations of existing or improved infrastructure is to expand its throughput capacity “virtually” through the use of more efficient signal systems and other technologies that allow smaller and more frequent operating windows on the route for each train. (From Subcommittee on Railroads Hearing on The U.S. Rail Capacity CrunchThis shouldn't even be at issue. So, yes, there's a serious need for improvement -- and for far more efficiency. Just ask one of the industry's own biggest clients, UPS:
Allow me to give you an example of how our system interacts with that of the railroads. A national hair products manufacturer uses UPS for its’ nationwide shipping needs. Their Southern California distribution location supplies products to much of their West Coast retail beauty salon customers. UPS uses the rail network to feed these packages to UPS hub locations in the Pacific Northwest. This customer has had repeated service problems and delays in this region and recently stated, “Taking a week into Oregon and Washington (from California) simply does not work. Other carriers get to these locations in 2 days via truck. At this rate, we might be forced to make changes. Certainly I see excuses, but no solution being suggested by UPS.”If rail can compete, so be it, but it should never come at the expense of our highway system.
Unfortunately, this scenario is all too common on today’s rail network. When our customer confronts us with this feedback, we are left with few alternatives. UPS wants the railroads to succeed and to continue our mutually rewarding transportation partnership. But the bleak current service picture forces us to be responsive to our customers’ needs and find an alternative transportation mode. Our marketplace dictates a quick and appropriate response. Along the same vein, we wish the railroads had the ability, and desire, to respond to our needs. (From Testimony to Before the Subcommittee on Railroads Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure U.S. House of Representatives April 26, 2006 ** note: .pdf file!)
The UPS testimony is revealing and worth a full read. I'll leave you with one other excerpt from it:
Whether as a result of 1990’s rail mergers or other reasons, there has been little new rail capacity. Regrettably, the railroads have been unable to make adequate capital investments, technological enhancements and innovative solutions in responding to new market conditions. I stress the word adequate. It’s not as if the railroads have not been investing – as you will hear today from industry representatives. Rail performance clearly underscores, however, that it simply has not been enough. Spot investment – a few miles of track here, fixing a bottleneck there – will not make our rail system more efficient and the national economy will suffer for it. As an aside, the proposed Railroad Infrastructure Tax Incentive legislation is NOT sufficient. We need to devise a more comprehensive solution.
Nothing illustrates the current challenges we face more than time in transit, which remains a significant issue for railroad customers like UPS. Since the passage of the Staggers Act, the efficiency and speed of our nation’s transportation system generally has increased. The lone exception, however, is railroad velocity. I’d ask you to consider what other mode of transportation in the United States moves slower than it did 30 years ago? And demands on an already overburdened rail network are increasing.