geoffand wrote:CHIP72 wrote:
However, for most goods, a company is going to ship their goods by either truck or rail, and infrastructure improvements on either mode will not change the mode choice decision. The reasons for that are A) some goods are time-sensitive and/or high value and trucks are usually more economically feasible to use than trains to transport those goods
The argument of time is a valid one, but rail could certainly be "made faster" by increasing capacity coupled with large intermodal facilities capable of a quick turnaround time. Intermodals should serve a city, without the need of using an Interstate to get the freight to market.
Okay, so you're saying companies shouldn't follow an economic model that minimizes costs? The private sector doesn't think that way. What I'm saying above isn't what I THINK or WANT to have happen, it
IS what is happening.
I can tell you for a fact that in North Jersey, the lack of space and high land values are making it exceedingly difficult to expand goods movement operations, whether they be intermodal rail, warehouse/distribution, or even the Port of NY/NJ. What may be ideal doesn't work in practice when most available land is already developed or is available in relatively small tracts that cost lots of money.
In addition, as I said above,
the reality is some goods are not economically feasible to ship by rail, at least in today's economy. Take some perishable food products. Is a company going to wait a number of days for all the trains to come in to be broken down and built back up to create a long enough train to ship that perishable food by rail? Or are those companies going to ship out that food as quickly as possible by truck? They are going to do the latter.
geoffand wrote:CHIP72 wrote:
and B) trucks are more economically feasible for shorter haul trips (<500 miles) than trains, again because of the time factor. The second factor is an issue in the Northeast Corridor and areas near the Corridor that are well interconnected in the highway system (like where I live, Harrisburg) because the NE markets and their ports are all within 200-300 miles of each other.
I'd put that at less than 200 miles. 500 miles is certainly worthy of putting on a train, especially if the freight isn't time sensitive. Speaking of time sensitivity concerning the railroad, I see a ton of FedEx, UPS, and USPS trucks parked on top of trains...
The portion in italics is a key point, because just like there are goods that aren't economically feasible to ship by rail, there are also goods that aren't economically feasible to ship by truck. Coal and other similar heavy, raw materials that are typically shipped in large bulk are the best examples. And those products
are currently shipped by rail, even in cases where the distance is less than 500 miles. The 500 mile factor, which again I've heard many times from people in people in the rail industry and occasionally the truck industry (the truck industry will tell you a higher number, like 700-800 miles), deals with goods where rail and truck could compete for the same goods. It takes too long to accumulate enough goods/railroad cars to put together a train for relatively short haul (<500 miles) trips to go to market, a truck (or trucks) can do the same job more quickly and cheaply than a train can. Furthermore, a truck has a lot more flexibility to getting to different places within the market than a train does.
As for UPS, FedEx, USPS, etc. shipping by rail, they are following the same economic model as other shippers. It is most cost-effective to ship packages that are not time sensitive and are being shipped long distances by rail. However, when you are talking about short distance moves, those packages are going by truck. When you are talking about long distance moves that are time sensitive (such as many packages people send at Christmas), those goods go by air for the bulk of the trip and then truck for the final few miles.
geoffand wrote:CHIP72 wrote:
The bottom line is the U.S. needs to improve BOTH its highway and rail infrastructure to ensure goods can continue to be shipped in an efficient manner. Focusing on one mode or the other would be a huge mistake with serious negative implications for the national economy.
The only problem is, highways get most of the attention and $$. Re-building I-78 is not going to improve the movement of goods. Adding capacity to rail lines will not only provide benefits to freight movement, but serve people as well. Same concept as freight, people should make the "long haul" from their work town to home town on rail, and then go to the market, pick up Johnny from soccer and go to the Y by car. Better yet, walk to the Y. Stay off the highways--keep it for people and companies who have no choice but to use them.
I agree with most of the above, except the part about the I-78 improvements not helping (or more accurately, not deterring) the movement of goods. I can tell you there are THOUSANDS of trucks everyday that come from all along the I-78 and I-81 corridors in Pennsylvania, plus many trucks from other places beyond Pennsylvania that use those corridors, that travel into the greater NYC area. Not all of them use I-78 in northeastern Jersey, especially inside I-287, but many of them do, and if I-78 fails or has its capacity reduced, that will have a significant, negative impact on the North Jersey/NYC area economy and the national economy. Those trucks will divert to other roads, but they will make those other roads more congested, which in turn makes the travel time longer (but not long enough in most cases to make rail a better alternate for 200-300 mile trips), which in turn makes the shipment costs higher, which in turn makes the goods themselves more expensive for consumers at market.
It should also be noted that the Class I railroads (i.e. your Norfolk Southern, CSX, etc.) have been reluctant to accept public (federal/state) subsidies to fund needed infrastructure improvements, due to regulations with using federal funding. That is beginning to change. Nonetheless, the railroads are starting to have trouble keeping up with demand. I found out recently that NS is likely to have capacity issues within 10 years on its line between Harrisburg and Reading,
which happens to be NS' mainline into the greater New York area. This is a major, major issue that needs to be addressed in some way, and I'm hopeful the state of PA (and possibly Amtrak), along with NS, will find a way to make it happen.
Don't misinterpret any of my comments above; I WANT to see as much diversion as possible to rail to alleviate highway congestion. However, in transportation you need to be aware of economic realities. Economic development doesn't serve the transportation system (well, in most cases at this time - this will probably need to change in the future to some degree, in the form of private transportation financing of the highway network); the transportation system serves economic development.
P.S. Modifying land use patterns will be the ultimate key in making the transportation system more transit-friendly. (Transportation and land use are permanently joined at the hip to each other.) The problem is too many people like living in single-family units on relatively large lots in areas that have low traffic volumes (in many cases on the root - or route - of all evil in transportation IMO, cul-de-sacs). Those people don't see that as a problem though, they see that as desirable. As long as people prefer non-transit friendly land use patterns, it's going to be tough for municipalities to totally change their land use patterns/zoning. Of course, the rest of us can live in areas that are compact, transit-friendly, and near where we work (if we don't work at home) and not complain so much when the price of fuel goes through the roof.
Highly unlikely, but one can dream...