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.
No, that is conjecture.
... and speed
Again. And speed is often not a driving factor, albeit it is the primary trait emphasized by trucking.
... which are the cores problems with rail.
Second, dead-heading isn't contained to trucking.
Never said it was.
It's an issue for all shipping, and always has been.
Finally you get one right.
Rail's solution is to consolidate -- which means delays.
True, but the unit train is not the only innovation.
Customers gladly pay a premium for speed and flexibility in trucking, so dead-heading is built into truck pricing.
Yes. Inefficient. I don't know how "glad" they are to do so.
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)
Interesting.
Very interesting claim. Because we used to have a $10 billion trade surplus with Mexico. Now we have a $40 billion annual trade deficit. Somehow your claims don't add up. Because trucking cargo usually (almost always) represents Goods, as opposed to bulk commodity. And when NAFTA went into force in '93 the trade in goods obviously changed dramatically and have continued to be deleterious for the U.S. since.
There are good reasons for this, but it betrays your notion that rail creates a "more balanced flow."
I never claimed that Rail was what created the more balanced flow, but a less-import dependent economy. I did point to a smarter economic policy, that puts an end to the differential subsidy for importing, as opposed to punishing domestic production with onerous income, capital gains, and payroll taxes. Your synergistic "opportunities" would greatly magnify under the strategic tax policy advocated.
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.
False. Still yours.
The article does not say that there exists overcapicity.
Nor does it say there is currently undercapacity.
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.
In isolated cases that you fail to support with your article. Again you are trying to make your evidence say something it doesn't. So you finally adduce the hearings, which do purport to make such claims. You can probably find something anywhere which says almost anything, but not in the same piece. And this didn't. As you further embellish with still more historiography of your own, and then finally find insert the self-serving testimony from some shippers at a House Hearing:
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 Shortage Government 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 Crunch This shouldn't even be at issue. So, yes, there's a serious need for improvement -- and for far more efficiency.
Again you opine.
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.” 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!)
Sounds like a gripe that is going to be answered with the efforts of the Union Pacific. Note: The problems cited are caused by the strength of the economic recovery and the undue and excessive growth of imports, coupled by staffing problems stemming from a large number of retirements. There are also equipment shortages. The Union Pacific is moving ahead with hiring and with the procurement of 700 additional locomotives. Track construction is proceeding in certain bottleneck areas, and the railroad is also considering double-tracking a large portion of the entire Sunset Route (LA to El Paso) at a cost of about $1.5 billion. Pretty snazzy the way free enterprise works. Unlike your Texas Super Corridor...government hand-outs from the get-go.
If rail can compete, so be it, but it should never come at the expense of our highway system.
Huh? Like since when?
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.
See above. Answered.