View Full Version : How efficient is ship travel compared to air travel?
javna_golina
08-12-07, 09:44 PM
I can remember reading that as oil prices climb, the air industry is very much the 'canary in the mineshaft', ie it will collapse first, and when it does it's a sign the energy crisis has begun.
But how effecient is it compared to ship travel? I am talking mainly in regards to freight and cargo, but I'd also like to hear how it pans out with passenger travel as well.
Facts, figures, articles and websites all welcome:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation
When it comes to transporting goods, isn't efficiency really a tradeoff between time and money?
Definitely the first part of efficiency is time. Obviously air travel has a great advantage there. Air travel has a great disadvantage too--gravity. It takes a lot of work to lift things up against gravity. That costs money, so you have the tradeoff again. But gravity's a law of physics that can't be messed with! The only cheat is lighter-than-air craft like blimps and zeppelins. So far nobody has figured out how to make them really fast, AFAIK, but they should be much cheaper than conventional planes.
As for ships, they are intrinsically the cheapest mode of transportation. Sail ships are absolutely the cheapest, but also the slowest. There was talk some years ago of using sail ships to transport oil from producers to user countries. I don't think anything came of it, probably because merchants objected to the slowness.
filtersweep
08-13-07, 12:59 AM
Since when? Efficiency can also be measured in pure cost, energy expended, etc... the only time "time" becomes significant is if it factors on price or customer satisfaction.
One thing that sucks about ships is that unlike planes, they cannot float over the weather. This makes travel a bit more unpredictable.
wahoonc
08-13-07, 04:16 AM
I don't know about the nuts and bolts of which is more energy efficient per ton, but would bet on ships over aircraft any day. You also have to look at cargo space utilization. Look at the history of transportation, as cheap energy was discovered and utilized "time" became the measured efficiency factor, I think as fuel cost rise time will become less of a factor. We used to move freight by stage coach and wagon, then the trains. I have a book that has the history of one branch of my family. One of the sons left NY to head for the West Coast. He took a bunch of farming and mining equipment with him on the ship, it took almost 300 days to get there. Once he sold the initial stock, he reordered and had half sent by wagon train, half by ship. At one point he was having stuff sent by rail but was complaining about the exorbitant costs:rolleyes: It will boil down to how soon vs how much do you want to pay. We deal with that quite regularly in my wife's bridal shop. The ladies want a particular dress, but have waited until the last minute. Not too many people are willing to double the cost of a dress for a Super Rush Cut and quite often will chose something that is either available from store stock or on a shorter lead time. Our company tracks the cost of all items we have shipped, we actually have different accounting codes to indicate how much we spend on overnight vs ground vs LTL and dedicated full trucks. We have been instructed to utilize overnight as a last resort. In the words of our CFO "poor prior planning does not mean airfreight is the only solution" :D
Aaron:)
Pound for pound, moving things by ship is cheaper than by air. That's a no-brainer.
However, for whatever reason travelling as a passenger by air is considerably cheaper than by ship. It has been this way for a long time and seems that it will remain so in the coming future.
wahoonc
08-13-07, 06:20 AM
Pound for pound, moving things by ship is cheaper than by air. That's a no-brainer.
However, for whatever reason travelling as a passenger by air is considerably cheaper than by ship. It has been this way for a long time and seems that it will remain so in the coming future.
I wonder for how long though. It hasn't been that long since air was considered the premium way to travel and had pricing to match. Now it costs less in many cases to travel by air than by Greyhound:o (and I am being good and leaving the social commentary out of this) My wife has been in the airline industry as a Flight attendant for close to 25 years and has seen and weathered the changes. I suspect as fuel costs escalate, and the economy softens you will see ticket costs on airlines rise and/or seat availability become limited. In which case it will go to the person most willing to pay the premium. I am sure there will be a brief discounting of ticket prices in a vain attempt to attract customers, but it will be short lived. You can only run a business at a loss for so long before it becomes totally unprofitable.
Aaron:)
Pound for pound, moving things by ship is cheaper than by air. That's a no-brainer.
However, for whatever reason travelling as a passenger by air is considerably cheaper than by ship. It has been this way for a long time and seems that it will remain so in the coming future.
airlines are subsidized in many countries
wahoonc
08-13-07, 06:30 AM
airlines are subsidized in many countries
I think ALL public transportation including cars are subsidized in most countries. I know that mass transit in Europe and in the US is heavily subsidized. There is no way it could subsist on just the fares. Ditto cars, we all pay taxes to build local roads and interstates whether we utilize them or not. As well as all the tax breaks and subsidies that the oil companies and auto manufacturers receive. Eventually it will have to come down to what is going to give you the most for your subsidy dollar.
Aaron:)
ya, but airlines are subsidized to the point where they can out compete more efficient methods of moving freight and people than rail or ship despite the huge efficiency advantages rail and ships have, jet fuel is tax free, diesel is taxed
as fuel gets more expensive that will come to an abrupt end, rail in the US is already starting to perk up just trying to keep up with moving coal and other raw materials
I think ALL public transportation including cars are subsidized in most countries. I know that mass transit in Europe and in the US is heavily subsidized. There is no way it could subsist on just the fares. Ditto cars, we all pay taxes to build local roads and interstates whether we utilize them or not. As well as all the tax breaks and subsidies that the oil companies and auto manufacturers receive. Eventually it will have to come down to what is going to give you the most for your subsidy dollar.
Aaron:)
the free market isn't so 'free'. ;)
bike2math
08-13-07, 08:05 AM
Isn't the Diesel that ships use unsuitable for other types of engines though? I thought they used something of a lower grade than what trains or buses used; something closer to heating oil. Certainly it is less refined than Av-gas or Jet-A. Seems like you have to be careful as you are probably comparing apples to oranges here.
cyclezealot
08-13-07, 08:16 AM
We have moved to Europe for 3-4 years. When we came over we considered booking our passage on a freighter. Google something like freighter travel, you will get lots of responses.
Which ever agent we contacted, at the time we found it to be no bargain. ( Freighters normally have several unocuppied berths. ) One way passage from New York to LaHavre was like 1400 dollars a person. We flew. Freighter /cruise travel takes off, i'd hope it would be more cost friendly. We were hoping it might be a relaxing way to preferably get from Like Montreal to LaHavre.
wahoonc
08-13-07, 08:16 AM
Isn't the Diesel that ships use unsuitable for other types of engines though? I thought they used something of a lower grade than what trains or buses used; something closer to heating oil. Certainly it is less refined than Av-gas or Jet-A. Seems like you have to be careful as you are probably comparing apples to oranges here.
Quite often they do use what is known as bunker oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_oil) from my understanding it is what is left over after the other stuff is processed. Also #5,#6 have to be heated prior to use, at room temperature they are heavy almost sludge like. As far as comparison it all comes from the same place and is subject to similar economic factors like supply and demand.
Aaron:)
bike2math
08-13-07, 10:26 AM
Quite often they do use what is known as bunker oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_oil) from my understanding it is what is left over after the other stuff is processed. Also #5,#6 have to be heated prior to use, at room temperature they are heavy almost sludge like. As far as comparison it all comes from the same place and is subject to similar economic factors like supply and demand.
Aaron:)
Unless the bunker oil is what is left over after things like Av-gas are made (I don't really understand how this works, and wikiipedia was suprisingly unhelpful in explaining it to me) in which case the ships are getting their fuel as a result of the airlines getting there's. But I'm confused as to whether they come from the same process or not.
jamesdenver
08-13-07, 10:40 AM
All I know is that I'm not going to spend a week of my vacation on a boat, unless the boat is my destination.
cyclezealot
08-13-07, 11:21 AM
^ and should energy get in short enough supply as some think; we may have no choice. Does not getting from North America to Europe take like 5 days. LA to Tokyo like 7 days.
Since when? Efficiency can also be measured in pure cost, energy expended, etc... the only time "time" becomes significant is if it factors on price or customer satisfaction.
One thing that sucks about ships is that unlike planes, they cannot float over the weather. This makes travel a bit more unpredictable.
But you're talking about physical or mechanical efficiency, which is only one part of the equation for commercial cargo. In this sense, ships and trains are far more efficient, in terms of fuel consumed times distance times weight. But time is money, and the longer the shipment is in transit, the less money the importer makes. At some point trucks become more efficient, then air freight.
Same with business travel. If a salesman is making $200 a day, he can drive a car. If his regional manager is making $500, it's more efficient to fly him on a commercial airline and get him a rental car at the airport. If the CEO's salary is $100,000 a day, it suddenly makes sense to fly him by corporate jet with a helicopter waiting at the airport.
wahoonc
08-13-07, 01:44 PM
Unless the bunker oil is what is left over after things like Av-gas are made (I don't really understand how this works, and wikiipedia was suprisingly unhelpful in explaining it to me) in which case the ships are getting their fuel as a result of the airlines getting there's. But I'm confused as to whether they come from the same process or not.
Bunker fuel (#5 and #6) are the (as I understand it) the leftovers from the processing of crude oil to produce the other types of fuel, av gas, gasoline, heating oil, kerosene and diesel. The quite often will add recycled motor oil to the mix, thin it and to get rid of it. Bunker fuel is cheaper then JP-4, but also doesn't have as many BTU's per pound. It used to be used primarily to fuel power generation stations and central heating plants. From what I understand that usage has been pretty well done away with in favor of natural gas. Bunker fuel is high in sulfur and pollutes like crazy when burned. But a ship on the highs seas can get a way with it.
Aaron:)
Bunker fuel (#5 and #6) are the (as I understand it) the leftovers from the processing of crude oil to produce the other types of fuel, av gas, gasoline, heating oil, kerosene and diesel. The quite often will add recycled motor oil to the mix, thin it and to get rid of it. Bunker fuel is cheaper then JP-4, but also doesn't have as many BTU's per pound. It used to be used primarily to fuel power generation stations and central heating plants. From what I understand that usage has been pretty well done away with in favor of natural gas. Bunker fuel is high in sulfur and pollutes like crazy when burned. But a ship on the highs seas can get a way with it.
Aaron:)
actually it has more btu's per gallon than lighter fuels, which is normal.........as you go up the fuel scale the btu's drops while the volatility increases and flashpoint decreases
heating oil = 139,000 btu per gallon
gasoline = 124,000
diesel = 139,000
bunker oil = 149,600
propane = 91,000
source eia.doe.gov
[QUOTE=Roody;5056106]... Sail ships are absolutely the cheapest, but also the slowest. There was talk some years ago of using sail ships to transport oil from producers to user countries. I don't think anything came of it, probably because merchants objected to the slowness....[QUOTE]
http://skysails.info/index.php?id=13
This looks interesting..
This thread is very interesting to me as -- a long time ago -- I used to work at sea. I don't know if ships are a more efficient means of transportation compared to airplanes, but the experience of travel by sea is an amazing one (unless you get stuck on some "luxury" cruise liner...) My longest trip: I travelled to Portugal from Canada once. It took seven days and was an experience I'll never forget.
Unlike airplanes, where you are meant to suffer unbearably for short periods of time, ships allow you to pack a box of books and spend some time thinking about things. You can't see land after the first 12 miles, so visually it's like entering a dense fog... Life proceeds at a completely different pace and you learn to mark it differently. You measure it by chapters of books, long, long conversations, endless myopic day-dreaming.
I think for most people the experience would be earth-shattering, considering how tied we all are to time-tables and schedules.
However, to my mind, ships and the sea are a great strengthening experience... one that's I'd love to experience again.
Another thing to remember is that airplanes release their CO2 high in the atmosphere where it reputedly does more damage.
Some 16,000 commercial aircrafts pump out 600 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. It is estimated that by 2020 airplanes will be the single biggest contributor to global warming. It is expected to be bigger than all the other sources of carbon emissions combined. Ground level emissions are less harmful than the carbon emissions by airplanes, for the simple reason that they are deposited directly into the atmosphere.
The emissions from a single transatlantic flight is double than that coming from an average car in the US for a whole year!
Burning aircraft fuel has a "radiative forcing ratio" of around 2.7; which means that the total warming effect of aircraft emissions is 2.7 times as great as the effect of the carbon dioxide alone. Also the contrails i.e. the artificial circus clouds made by the exhaust of aircraft engines; produce water vapour that forms ice crystals in the upper troposphere that trap's the earth's heat.
source: http://www.4ecotips.com/eco/article_show.php?aid=671&id=287
Bikepacker67
08-13-07, 04:42 PM
Another thing to remember is that airplanes release their CO2 high in the atmosphere where it reputedly does more damage.
source: http://www.4ecotips.com/eco/article_show.php?aid=671&id=287
But on the other hand, cargo ships have practically no emission standards.
wahoonc
08-13-07, 05:20 PM
gerv,
interesting point, but if you compare passenger miles the aircraft is probably more efficient than the single occupant vehicle being driven for that year;) ... that being said, all forms of infernal combustion need to be curtailed, whether planes, trains or automobiles. I have seen a theory that in the not to distant future carbon credits will be the new monetary standard...and I think cyclists will come out way on top with that one. Psst...wanna buy some unused carbon credits;);):D
Aaron:)
Based on cost per ton per mile, ships (or barges) are the least expensive mode for moving freight.
Wow, this thread is getting more play than I thougt it would.
PRICE and COST are, of course two different things. Why it costs more to travel by Greyhound bus or by train than it does to travel by air is a mystery.
When I studied logistics at the university, the age old rule of thumb for transportation COST was, from cheapest to most expensive:
1) Pipeline
2) Ship
3) Rail
4) Road
5) Air
Now, for whatever crazy reason, when you cost out sending freight, for example, from west to east in the USA, trucking is nearly the same cost as rail.
Even more mysterious is from a PRICE standpoint for passenger travel, the list is almost nearly reversed.
Wow, this thread is getting more play than I thougt it would.
PRICE and COST are, of course two different things. Why it costs more to travel by Greyhound bus or by train than it does to travel by air is a mystery.
When I studied logistics at the university, the age old rule of thumb for transportation COST was, from cheapest to most expensive:
1) Pipeline
2) Ship
3) Rail
4) Road
5) Air
Now, for whatever crazy reason, when you cost out sending freight, for example, from west to east in the USA, trucking is nearly the same cost as rail.
Even more mysterious is from a PRICE standpoint for passenger travel, the list is almost nearly reversed.
It's really expensive to ship people by pipeline. Those damned pipefitter unions always getting in the way. ;)
Why is this? It seems moving a huge amount of goods via rail should be cheaper than road... with road we have smaller units making more trips, on a network of roads that require vast amounts of upkeep.
It's really expensive to ship people by pipeline. Those damned pipefitter unions always getting in the way. ;)
Why is this? It seems moving a huge amount of goods via rail should be cheaper than road... with road we have smaller units making more trips, on a network of roads that require vast amounts of upkeep.
The way it was explained to me is that the rails from about Chicago eastward to the Atlantic are owned by several different corporations. Each one charges a toll of some sort for the trains that pass over their share of the rails. Thus, the cost of rail freight eastward is not really that practical. Also, for the most part, you have to truck the goods to rail loading stations anyway, so unless you are shipping many railcars of some huge bulk commodity, it really doesn't pay to mess around sending it by rail.
In addition to rail being complicated and expensive, terribly unpredictable, and terribly slow, there is a lot more damage and a lot more "shrink" (stuff getting stolen) when going by rail than by truck in the USA.
In the USA AT THIS POINT IN TIME, rail is not really very practical or cost effective for transport of goods or passengers.
The way it was explained to me is that the rails from about Chicago eastward to the Atlantic are owned by several different corporations. Each one charges a toll of some sort for the trains that pass over their share of the rails. Thus, the cost of rail freight eastward is not really that practical. Also, for the most part, you have to truck the goods to rail loading stations anyway, so unless you are shipping many railcars of some huge bulk commodity, it really doesn't pay to mess around sending it by rail.
In addition to rail being complicated and expensive, terribly unpredictable, and terribly slow, there is a lot more damage and a lot more "shrink" (stuff getting stolen) when going by rail than by truck in the USA.
In the USA AT THIS POINT IN TIME, rail is not really very practical or cost effective for transport of goods or passengers.
There are exceptions. Coal is shipped west to east by rail. Automobiles are also shipped by rail. I often must stop my bike to wait on a train going west from the auto plants near my house. Close to 200 freight cars, each loaded with 14 shiny new Cadillacs. I've wondered about "shrink" on those trains. Each train is carrying millions of dollars worth of autos.
wahoonc
08-14-07, 03:35 AM
Another thing to consider is that trucks are heavily subsidized by everybody (and the trucking lobby will vehemently deny that) heavy rail is not as far as I know. I was watching a couple of long freight trains the other day...:rolleyes: by my best guess that 106 car train was carrying enough product to keep at least 300 trucks off of the road. I was reading a paper from Energize America (http://www.ea2020.org/drupal/) (downloads are here (http://www.ea2020.org/drupal/node/8)) one of several things they are calling for are the increased use of rail, but they also wanted to INCREASE truck size. But in light of the recent bridge collapse in MSP I think that portion of their paper needs to be heavily revised. There is no way that our road system can survive and onslaught of 55 ton trucks when it is already crumbling under the current loads of 40 tons. I have not fully read the paper(s) but it is an interesting perspective.
Rail works, but definitely could use some tweaking. And I am eagerly awaiting the return of passenger rail to this country...I just hope I get to see it in my lifetime.
Aaron:)
oldfool
08-14-07, 07:14 AM
Another thing to consider is that trucks are heavily subsidized by everybody (and the trucking lobby will vehemently deny that) heavy rail is not as far as I know. .......
.............Rail works, but definitely could use some tweaking. And I am eagerly awaiting the return of passenger rail to this country...I just hope I get to see it in my lifetime.
Aaron:)
I would like to know which part of the trucking industry is getting the subsidy because it sure wasn't the part I drove for from 1993 to 2001. Same for the Airlines. I have never been able to find out who gets the money or how. I don't consider mail contracts or tax deductions as a subsidy. As near as I could tell every obstacle possible was thrown in front of trucking.
I apologize if it seems I am being critical or picky but I would sincerely like to know.
By the way, rail travel is still alive but "it ain't cheap" (quote from my local bar-b-cue man when asked to deliver). Go to http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak. I haven't been on a train in 20 years (time flies) but I plan to in the fall. Even though the price of the ticket with a senior discount seems high it is still cheaper than the cost of gas alone for my planned trip. I have traveled by rail in the U.S. and Japan and it is my preferred method next to bicycle. My last trip was on the Sunset Limited (Amtrak) in coach and I loved it. My next choice would be Zeppelin but the Hindenburg pretty much took care of that.
I would like to know which part of the trucking industry is getting the subsidy because it sure wasn't the part I drove for from 1993 to 2001. Same for the Airlines. I have never been able to find out who gets the money or how. I don't consider mail contracts or tax deductions as a subsidy. As near as I could tell every obstacle possible was thrown in front of trucking.
I apologize if it seems I am being critical or picky but I would sincerely like to know.
.
The trucking companies get a huge subsidy, probably the biggest subsidy of any industry in America. That's the roads they travel on. I know, I know, they pay taxes and user fees at a higher rate per vehicle than passenger vehicle users. But, the bulk of the road building is still paid for by motorists (and carfree cyclists). Trucking companies never had the huge capital expenses of building an infrastructure, and by paying taxes instead, they avoid interest payments. Furthermore, the roads have to built to much more expensive standards to handle trucks, so taxpayers are footing the bill for that too.
The railroad companies, on the other hand, mostly pay for their own infrastructure. They even pay for the grade crossings, gates and signals wherever the tracks cross a highway. Notice that you have a state highway department and a county one, but there are no state and county railway departments.
oldguy52
08-14-07, 09:06 AM
I would like to know which part of the trucking industry is getting the subsidy because it sure wasn't the part I drove for from 1993 to 2001. Same for the Airlines. I have never been able to find out who gets the money or how. I don't consider mail contracts or tax deductions as a subsidy. As near as I could tell every obstacle possible was thrown in front of trucking.
I apologize if it seems I am being critical or picky but I would sincerely like to know.
By the way, rail travel is still alive but "it ain't cheap" (quote from my local bar-b-cue man when asked to deliver). Go to http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak. I haven't been on a train in 20 years (time flies) but I plan to in the fall. Even though the price of the ticket with a senior discount seems high it is still cheaper than the cost of gas alone for my planned trip. I have traveled by rail in the U.S. and Japan and it is my preferred method next to bicycle. My last trip was on the Sunset Limited (Amtrak) in coach and I loved it. My next choice would be Zeppelin but the Hindenburg pretty much took care of that.
I'm with you oldfool. Made my living in the trucking biz since 1974 and NEVER saw a check FROM the guv'mint. Saw a heckofalot of checks TO the guv'mint though, big ones too, some of 'em. License plate: $2000 - $2500, Fed heavy vehicle use tax: $550 per unit, Fuel tax $0.244 per gallon (fed) + another $0.20 in MN - $0.444 total. 125,000 mile Yr. / 5.5 MPG * .444 cents per gallon = $10,090.90. + extra taxes for states that have other "extra" charges. Plus tolls which, for example, have tripled on the tollways in IL recently, another 3 - 4000 per year, per unit in our case.
And now somebody driving 15,000 mile Yr in his 30 MPG Honda is gonna' try to tell me that he is subsidizing the trucking biz??? Ha ha ha 15,000 mile Yr / 30 mpg = 500 gallons * $0.35 cents per gallon (yes, gas tax is cheaper than diesel tax) = $177, let's throw in another hundred for a license plate. Wow, a whopping $277 per year. That certainly is a generous subsidy.
One more small snag is, has anyone here tried to run a train without trucks lately ??? .... Darn tough to do.
There's a reason why trains haul mostly bulk commodities .... that's what they're good at. Find me a smaller town, off a main line, that even has rails to it, let alone service anymore. It wasn't economically viable anymore, so they stopped doing it.
Rik
edit: Oops, forgot excise tax on puchase price per vehicle at 12%. a fairly hefty number at $150,000 per truck price.
I'm with you oldfool. Made my living in the trucking biz since 1974 and NEVER saw a check FROM the guv'mint. Saw a heckofalot of checks TO the guv'mint though, big ones too, some of 'em. License plate: $2000 - $2500, Fed heavy vehicle use tax: $550 per unit, Fuel tax $0.244 per gallon (fed) + another $0.20 in MN - $0.444 total. 125,000 mile Yr. / 5.5 MPG * .444 cents per gallon = $10,090.90. + extra taxes for states that have other "extra" charges. Plus tolls which, for example, have tripled on the tollways in IL recently, another 3 - 4000 per year, per unit in our case.
And now somebody driving 15,000 mile Yr in his 30 MPG Honda is gonna' try to tell me that he is subsidizing the trucking biz??? Ha ha ha 15,000 mile Yr / 30 mpg = 500 gallons * $0.35 cents per gallon (yes, gas tax is cheaper than diesel tax) = $177, let's throw in another hundred for a license plate. Wow, a whopping $277 per year. That certainly is a generous subsidy.
One more small snag is, have you tried to run a train without trucks lately ??? .... Darn tough to do.
There's a reason why trains haul mostly bulk commodities .... that's what they're good at. Find me a smaller town, off a main line, that even has rails to it, let alone service anymore. It wasn't economically viable anymore, so they stopped doing it.
Rik
Again, even though it pays higher user fees per vehicle, the trucking industry only pays for a fraction of the expenses of road building and maintenence. The railroads pay almost all of their own costs. This obviously has a lot to do with the economic viability of the two industries.
Of course, the trucking industry does pay for big ad campaigns to convince us otherwise. Evidently their ads have got most of the "old" truckers fooled (old guy and oldfool, that is :)).
palmersperry
08-14-07, 09:31 AM
Pound for pound, moving things by ship is cheaper than by air. That's a no-brainer.
However, for whatever reason travelling as a passenger by air is considerably cheaper than by ship. It has been this way for a long time and seems that it will remain so in the coming future.
If you take a 747 across the Atlantic (New York <> London), then the airline needs to keep you fed and "entertained" for about 7.5 hours. If you where to take the Queen Mary 2 across the Atlantic (New York <> Southampton) then Cunard would need to keep you ned and entertained for 6-7 days. ie: Cunard have to ply with you with more food and drink, and have to have more staff onboard to deal with you.\
Admitedly this isn't quite a fair comparison, as the QM2 is something of a premium product!
oldguy52
08-14-07, 10:00 AM
Again, even though it pays higher user fees per vehicle, the trucking industry only pays for a fraction of the expenses of road building and maintenence. The railroads pay almost all of their own costs. This obviously has a lot to do with the economic viability of the two industries.
Of course, the trucking industry does pay for big ad campaigns to convince us otherwise. Evidently their ads have got most of the "old" truckers fooled (old guy and oldfool, that is :)).
Sure, and I wonder what kind of infrastructure trucking could have built with all that tax money if they had gotten land granted for right of ways and didn't have to build to allow room for all those automobiles. "Course, if that was more expensive, I guess you could probably tell me who would end up paying those extra costs in the end.
If you can figure out how to get by somehow without trucks in your life, more power to ya, but I'd like to watch you do it if you don't mind.
I'm not anti-train, but I can see their limitations.
Rik
something about america stopping when the trucks stop... no doubt its true, but trucks are a symptom of sprawl too. we're so spread out, and we need the same stuff everywhere, that once roads started going in it was logical to move to trucks... of course when we pissed away the railroads in favor of automotive transport we really didn't do the previous system any favors... certainly lobbying and special interests had a voice there.
oldfool
08-14-07, 12:51 PM
Again, even though it pays higher user fees per vehicle, the trucking industry only pays for a fraction of the expenses of road building and maintenence. The railroads pay almost all of their own costs. This obviously has a lot to do with the economic viability of the two industries.
Of course, the trucking industry does pay for big ad campaigns to convince us otherwise. Evidently their ads have got most of the "old" truckers fooled (old guy and oldfool, that is :)).
Railroads were built on land granted by the government and what wasn't granted was outright stolen. Built by near slave labor, I might add, and at a tremendous loss of life. The RR took the land on both sides of the track and made huge profits then ran it into the ground. Graft, corruption and out right banditry reigned supreme. Rail is not paying it's on way and eventually the tax payer is going to have to foot the bill for the economy to survive. There is loss of track every day at a time when new road beds should be being built. When was the last time a new rail line was built in the U.S.? Without trucks and I mean big trucks the RR's would have no load. Without trucks the economy would collapse.
Without Interstates there would be no trucking industry as we know it today. The trucking industry was an outgrowth of the building of the interstates for national defense. These magnificent roadways that go from border to border are owned by the military. That was very evident during the "Bushes" first gulf war. I do not like the trucking industry but we have become super dependent upon it. As the infrastructure now stands, without trucks California would be out of toilet paper in one week give or take a day or two. While waiting to be inspected one night I roughly counted 4 trucks a minute passing through the weigh station in the Banning Pass going into California. I was there for an hour and it never slowed down. That is over 900 trucks in 4 hours through that station. When it would get backed up on to the highway they would let a 100 or so bypass. so in 4 hours or so 1200+ go in. Without those truck they would have plenty of food but it would be rotting in piles. The trucking lobby is driven by greed just as the oil and pharmaceutical lobby is. Bigger heavier trucks means more profit. But it is a short term solution. Smaller trucks are not the answer either. It would take 20 one ton pickups to replace one truck and I have counted over 1000 trucks loading produce in an 8 block area in Los Angeles. At 100 pounds a piece that's 400 bicycles per truck or 40000 bicycles. Can you imagine the number of porti pottys that would require?
No easy answer and it's frustrating for an "old" man.
These are all my on opinions but they are backed up by unverifiable facts and rumors.
We are all in this together
We have met the enemy and he is us
Walt Kelly
Sure, and I wonder what kind of infrastructure trucking could have built with all that tax money if they had gotten land granted for right of ways and didn't have to build to allow room for all those automobiles. "Course, if that was more expensive, I guess you could probably tell me who would end up paying those extra costs in the end.
If you can figure out how to get by somehow without trucks in your life, more power to ya, but I'd like to watch you do it if you don't mind.
I'm not anti-train, but I can see their limitations.
Rik
It always comes to this with trucks: "I'd like to see you get along without them." This is as true as it is obvious, so you'll get no argument. Nevertheless, the trucking industry does get large subsidies, probably the largest of any industry but health care. We're talking many billions of dollars. Like you, I also wonder how the two industries would compare if truckers had to build their own roads, while railroads only paid a user fee for government-built tracks?
(OTOH, rail companies also make money on the tracks they built, by charging user fees to other railroad lines.)
As for land grants to the railroads: They were granted large tracts for right-of way in the last half of the nineteenth century. At the time, this was "empty" land in the west, and worth pennies an acre or less. The railroads sold the land and repaid their investors a long time ago. This subsidy probably would have also amounted to billions of dollars in real terms, but it's long gone.
Railroads were built on land granted by the government and what wasn't granted was outright stolen. Built by near slave labor, I might add, and at a tremendous loss of life. The RR took the land on both sides of the track and made huge profits then ran it into the ground. Graft, corruption and out right banditry reigned supreme. Rail is not paying it's on way and eventually the tax payer is going to have to foot the bill for the economy to survive. There is loss of track every day at a time when new road beds should be being built. When was the last time a new rail line was built in the U.S.? Without trucks and I mean big trucks the RR's would have no load. Without trucks the economy would collapse.
Without Interstates there would be no trucking industry as we know it today. The trucking industry was an outgrowth of the building of the interstates for national defense. These magnificent roadways that go from border to border are owned by the military. That was very evident during the "Bushes" first gulf war. I do not like the trucking industry but we have become super dependent upon it. As the infrastructure now stands, without trucks California would be out of toilet paper in one week give or take a day or two. While waiting to be inspected one night I roughly counted 4 trucks a minute passing through the weigh station in the Banning Pass going into California. I was there for an hour and it never slowed down. That is over 900 trucks in 4 hours through that station. When it would get backed up on to the highway they would let a 100 or so bypass. so in 4 hours or so 1200+ go in. Without those truck they would have plenty of food but it would be rotting in piles. The trucking lobby is driven by greed just as the oil and pharmaceutical lobby is. Bigger heavier trucks means more profit. But it is a short term solution. Smaller trucks are not the answer either. It would take 20 one ton pickups to replace one truck and I have counted over 1000 trucks loading produce in an 8 block area in Los Angeles. At 100 pounds a piece that's 400 bicycles per truck or 40000 bicycles. Can you imagine the number of porti pottys that would require?
No easy answer and it's frustrating for an "old" man.
These are all my on opinions but they are backed up by unverifiable facts and rumors.
We are all in this together
We have met the enemy and he is us
Walt Kelly
Old fool, very interesting observations. :)
One question--Do you know which subsidies rail is receiving when you say they're not paying their own way?
lyeinyoureye
08-14-07, 04:02 PM
Even more mysterious is from a PRICE standpoint for passenger travel, the list is almost nearly reversed.I think that's because air and auto are the number one and two respectively most subsidized forms of personal transportation in the states. If we actually incorporated the cost into up front fees w/o passing it through the veil of taxation we would see something like $10/gal gas and $300 for a flight from LA to SF.
oldfool
08-14-07, 07:39 PM
Old fool, very interesting observations. :)
One question--Do you know which subsidies rail is receiving when you say they're not paying their own way?
Google government bailouts. There is a ton of boring stuff about who got what including RR's.
Also read the disclaimer at the bottom of my post.
wahoonc
08-14-07, 08:08 PM
I am not going into the whole argument on who pays for what on roads. But it is a proven fact that trucks do more damage than what they pay in road use fees. IIRC the ratio is about 5,000:1 as in one 40 ton truck making a pass over a given stretch of highway does as much damage as 5,000 passenger cars passing over the same piece of road. I don't think by any stretch of the imagination do trucks pay 5,000 times more than a car to use the roads and given the number of miles they are driven in a year compared to the average car. No this country can't live without the trucks we have put most of our eggs in one basket so to speak. But as fuel continues to increase in cost trucks will become less and less viable. We will most likely go back to local sourcing of some items, raise the prices on some and do with out others. The trucking industry was built on the back of cheap energy and probably won't survive when the costs escalate. But there will other problems to worry about at that time.
Aaron:)
actually new railroad track has been built recently, its been struggling to keep up with coal and other raw material shipments
some power plants consume a whole trainload daily, so don't discount trains too much, trucks can't do the job, you like having your lights on? yes?
anyone ever heard of a little company called Berkshire Hathaway? well, guess what it bought into recently in a big way? yep, american railroads, now why would they do that I wonder?
in the face of oil getting scarce it means someone is betting on the future, and a future with improved rail travel
CrimsonEclipse
08-14-07, 10:21 PM
To the point:
For people (in the USA), rail is cheapest for shorter distances, air for trans Atlantic or
trans Pacific. People need flight attendants environment conditioning, and don't stack
very well (unless dead....in which they become cargo)
For cargo, ship, by a WIDE margin. Massive cargo capability with minimal crew.
The main difference is all cargo must be durable (non-perishable).
I work in the aviation industry, it is the most disfunctional industry out there. I wouldn't
use it as a canary for anything, because it is a retarded canary. It has been suffering
from fuel prices for years. They just cut wages (by over 50% in many cases) and cut
'frills'. Can you name a Low Cost Carrier (LCC)? Easy, they are ALL LCC's now!
An energy crisis is difficult to see because everyone passes the buck. All companies
pass the price on to the consumer (except in aviation where they pass the buck
from the employees). Food and other need to have items become more expensive.
It will be a 'bubble' reaction, just like the dot com pop and the present real estate 'bang'.
A USA recession will cover up any crisis for a few more years.
CE
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.