Thanks for posting that comparison from the Department of Transportation, Roody. One of the reasons that so much goes by truck is because USA rail is NOT that cost effective.

If you are in the midwest and want to ship west AND you have a lot of freight (114,000 lbs) and you are going to one destination, like a port, then rail might make sense. OH, but remember that rail cars are very unpredictable so you won't know exactly when your rail car is going to arrive for you to load. it can be anywhere within a two or three week window. This means you can't guarantee the arrival either. So, if you are willing to contend with unpredictable rail delivery and have a lot to ship and you don't mind your product being damaged (and often stolen - called 'shrink'), then you can save a little money by going rail.

Now, if you are going EAST, it is a different story. For some crazy damned reason, rail costs going east are not as cost effective as going west. This was explained to me that the rails going east are owned by several different corporations and each one wants a fee as the cars pass over it. I don't know for sure. I only know that rail going east is expensive and it is a hassle. So a lot of goods go by truck.

I like the idea of rail too. I have seen rail used effectively all around the world. In the USA, however, that is NOT the case. Beyond the equipment being shabby and in poor condition, the whole USA rail system is a mess and simply is not practical for most producers and for most goods.
You obviously know a lot about this topic. So can you explain why the trainloads of Cadillacs I see are always headed EAST? Maybe GM has ironically found a way to make eastward train cargo pay off for them?

You obviously know a lot about this topic. So can you explain why the trainloads of Cadillacs I see are always headed EAST? Maybe GM has ironically found a way to make eastward train cargo pay off for them?

The reason likely is that GM has HUGE quantities of cars that they send over rail. The same would be for large shipments of commodoties like grain, coal, lumber, etc. Also, I believe that GM has a rail hub at their plant.

However, MOST manufacturers do not have consistantly large loads of product going to the same location east at the same time. Also, most manufacturers don't have a rail hub on their premises or near their plant, so they have to truck to a rail hub and transfer the load to rail. Thus, it is not practical or affordable for them to rail transport.

You obviously know a lot about this topic. So can you explain why the trainloads of Cadillacs I see are always headed EAST? Maybe GM has ironically found a way to make eastward train cargo pay off for them?
Read the two-part article about coal trains from the Powder River, WY shipping coal, 24/7 365 days a year to East Coast utilities. The article was in two issues, a month or so ago. Go to the library, the article is not on line.

Dozens of those coal laden 100+ car trains pass through my town everyday headed East. And the empties come back going West everyday too.
In your case, GM cars maybe headed East to a rail hub/classification yard from where the Cadillacs will go in all directions. Another possibility is that nobody in the West buys Cadillacs anymore.

When it makes economic sense, especially when the tracks go right from producer to customer with thousands of tons of freight, it is not a hard decision.

mike, much as I'm not an admirer of "neoliberal"/right wing economist Milton Friedman, I think his statement quoted in someone's sig here on bikeforums applies. Something to the effect that it's a fallacy to assume one person can only get rich by impoverishing another. In fact, China has the resources, labour force and intellectual capital, that if they want to build a car for every Chinese citizen they can probably find a way to do it.

No, you don't get rich by "impoverishing another person", you get rich by stealing from millions of people. That's the basis of capitalism. You lock up the land and charge people money for space to exist. Then they have to work so you pay them less than the actual value of what they produce. That is how you get rich. If you were a self-employed bike mechanic, you'd be lucky to make enough to live on. But if you hired 10 bike mechanics for less than you'd pay yourself, then you might even be able to buy a house while all the people working for you have to live like college students and eat ramen noodles every night.

Here, let me give you an example about capitalism that illustrates how it is killing us. Suppose you owned a forest in Northern California. The trees take hundreds of years to grow. In the long run, logging only as many trees as the forest can naturally replace would insure that the forest would generate income for a very long time. But, the ammount of money you can get this way is much smaller than if you clearcut all the trees and invested that money elsewhere. So what do you? You liquidate your assets and re-invest them. This is a true story - this is exactly what happened when that uber-capitalist Charles Hurwitz did a hostile takeover of Pacific Lumber.

THOR29-Your thoughts are amusing. Getting rich by 1.) SAVING 2.) BUYING and HOLDING real estate for a long time and 3.) Using tax advantaged vehicles like 401's and the like IS NOT stealing! You can and will get rich doing these things WITHOUT stealing. Capitalism isn't all bad. And the alternatives suck.

No, you don't get rich by "impoverishing another person", you get rich by stealing from millions of people. That's the basis of capitalism. You lock up the land and charge people money for space to exist. Then they have to work so you pay them less than the actual value of what they produce.

Hey, no fair, you're not talking about capitalist theory, you're talking about capitalist practise :)

Actually "pure" free-market capitalism can't exist...there's too much incentive to break the rules because you can get richer by cheating than by playing fairly, plus a variety of accidental and deliberate distorting factors always come into play. So no market is ever totally "free", ie. free of externalities, with all players on an even field.