On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:11:17 GMT, "Daniel J. Stern"
Hey ... if I'm in the 'trucking lobby' why ain't I getting PAID ???
Sorry bub, but the facts are the facts. Trucks are BETTER than rail AT LEAST half the time.
I *do* tend to agree with the buttertion that 'long haul' trucking COULD be reduced by increase use of the rail system. However, as I noted elsewhere, if we increase rail-system use we also increase rail- system infrastructure expendatures ... all those tracks are expensive to maintain and the more traffic the more maintenence is required. Accidents at crossings would also increase proportionally to the number of packages sent by rail.
More rail traffic also requires more engines and engineers and there are two related issues that intersect here. Trains block vehicle traffic. Long trains block it for a long time. MORE trains block it more often. Not only is ordinary traffic blocked but also emergency-services traffic. If we start running twice or thrice the current volume of rail traffic, one or more 'regular' crossings will have to be re-done in almost *every* town and even to an extent in the countryside to create rail under-overpbuttes so vehicle traffic can continue to flow. Such changes are a substantial undertaking both in terms of material expendatures and planning.
Then there's the ever-present NOISE issue related to rail traffic. Lots of people don't like it - to the point of restricting train speeds and-or whistle use in their cities.
Finally there's the 'new' issue of terrorism. Trains are very vulnerable to terrorism. They travel fixed routes, often a fairly predictable times. They carry a VERY large amount of cargo - sometimes highly toxic or explosive. Simply pulling a heavy vehicle onto the track or yanking-up a rail *anywhere*, a person can de-rail a train. This can result in considerable loss of life and-or considerable economic losses and-or considerable disruption in local vehicle traffic-access. A truck accident may block *a* road, spill *some* toxics, lose *some* money or cause *some* impediment to commerce - but a five-mile-long train can do all these on a grand scale.
One *might* argue that the high number of trucks create more 'pinpoint' problems that, cumulatively, add up to as much of a problem as the occasional train crash. May be true, may not be. Depends on how you look at things. 'Pinpoint' problems can usually be circumnavigated quite easily. A stalled-wrecked-loading-unloading train cannot.
So, I'd say that MORE long-distance cargo COULD take advantage of the rail system ... but the more you do so, the more you amplify the inherent problems o rail transport. In the end, it may be a no-gain strategy.
