The economy and the American transportation system

[Stickman]

I think a good public transportation system can do wonders in the United States. It would open up a lot of commuting options for people looking for work and save a lot of time for people who are already working.

[alrightgame]

I think a good public transportation system can do wonders in the United States. It would open up a lot of commuting options for people looking for work and save a lot of time for people who are already working.

Um, this is the reason why the United States leaded for this many years by economic standards. The United States has had an excellent transportation systems for years, but now environmentalists wackos (or people who may be right and the capitalists are just digging themselves to human destruction [I prefer a bit of both, reason to be slightly concerned, but no reason to be so out there to say that "omg wtf pola bares can't swims LOL spear the Conservatives, fix teh environment and liv in huts yoaa!"]) have been putting up walls to keep our transportation system from being used effectively - examples such as tax on car mileage, so called green energy (oxifuckingmoron), and the horrendous pollution tax can prevent our nation from using what makes an economy run: its transportation system.

(Sorry, didn't feel like using periods.)

[Stickman]

Um, this is the reason why the United States leaded for this many years by economic standards. The United States has had an excellent transportation systems for years, but now environmentalists wackos (or people who may be right and the capitalists are just digging themselves to human destruction [I prefer a bit of both, reason to be slightly concerned, but no reason to be so out there to say that "omg wtf pola bares can't swims LOL spear the Conservatives, fix teh environment and liv in huts yoaa!"]) have been putting up walls to keep our transportation system from being used effectively - examples such as tax on car mileage, so called green energy (oxifuckingmoron), and the horrendous pollution tax can prevent our nation from using what makes an economy run: its transportation system.

(Sorry, didn't feel like using periods.)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The system of interstate highways perhaps? I was talking about public transportation, ie. trains, subways, buses, street cars, etc. If not for passengers then at least for freight. This would keep trucks off the roads and reduce traffic for everyone in cars and in addition to that reduce the costs of trade.

I'm not a "wacko" environmentalist but I believe that you can be "green" and still have a good transportation system.

[alrightgame]

It would be an improvement if only the funds were around for something like this to happen. I think the funding costs to build it would outweigh the amount it costs to fix and repair the roads that are already in place.

What would be the cost and practicality of an underground freight system in America? Would the benefits eventually outweigh the cost?

Buses were once great to use, but now they are catching up (past 1.50 per ride here in Iowa City), plus the problem of transporting huge amounts of groceries.

Does congestion actually play a large part in economic transportation?

When are we getting our cheap self-sustaining flying vehicles that was promised in the 1950s?

[RBM]

alrightgame, you need to do some serious reading ( or not :-) ) cause your comments don't stand up to the facts - environmentalists ???

I'd suggest The Oil Drum. You can read about Light rail and transit oriented development (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and electric rail, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and public transportation (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Be warned The Oil Drum is a global community so there will be stories in those links about the US and others.

Anything by Alan S. Drake AKA AlanfromBigEasy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) will be first rate, empirical work:

Consulting Engineer, Founder of "Streetcars Desired Everywhere", an advocacy group in New Orleans

[Stickman]

It would be an improvement if only the funds were around for something like this to happen. I think the funding costs to build it would outweigh the amount it costs to fix and repair the roads that are already in place.

What would be the cost and practicality of an underground freight system in America? Would the benefits eventually outweigh the cost?

Buses were once great to use, but now they are catching up (past 1.50 per ride here in Iowa City), plus the problem of transporting huge amounts of groceries.

Does congestion actually play a large part in economic transportation?


I havn't run the numbers on transportation nor have I seen them myself but those are some good questions. I think it's worth looking into at the very least but that's the job of professional economists.

FYI freight wouldn't use subways, that's ridiculous.

Getting your freight on time is very important for manufacturers and retailers. Congestion will affect that negatively.


When are we getting our cheap self-sustaining flying vehicles that was promised in the 1950s?

????

[Aronnax]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The system of interstate highways perhaps? I was talking about public transportation, ie. trains, subways, buses, street cars, etc. If not for passengers then at least for freight. This would keep trucks off the roads and reduce traffic for everyone in cars and in addition to that reduce the costs of trade.

I'm not a "wacko" environmentalist but I believe that you can be "green" and still have a good transportation system.

The reason the US has such a bare bones public transportation system is a combination of high per capita wealth, an excellent road/interstate system and a low population density. The low cost of gasoline relative to personal income and excellent road system make it incredibly difficult to get people out of personal vehicles. It also takes a high population density to make public transportation cost effective and attractive.

Freight trains are awesome in terms of efficiency but trucking is heavily subsidized by the interstate freeway system. Heavy trucks don't pay anything resembling the wear they inflict on the road system. Contrast that with the rail industry who has to maintain their own rail system. In order to force parity you'd have to tax the trucking industry on the basis of miles traveled. Good luck fighting the Teamsters, you won't win that fight until diesel is $10.00 /gal and long haul trucking has already been killed.

[alrightgame]

alrightgame, you need to do some serious reading ( or not :-) ) cause your comments don't stand up to the facts - environmentalists ???

I'd suggest The Oil Drum. You can read about Light rail and transit oriented development (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and electric rail, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and public transportation (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Be warned The Oil Drum is a global community so there will be stories in those links about the US and others.

Anything by Alan S. Drake AKA AlanfromBigEasy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) will be first rate, empirical work:

Take away America's transportation infrastructure and see how long it takes to fall into a third world country. It was correlation, that countries with a better overall transportation systems do better then those without.

Also, are you saying these demands on lowering energy all around and putting taxes on energy are helping the economy?

[Stickman]

Take away America's transportation infrastructure and see how long it takes to fall into a third world country. It was correlation, that countries with a better overall transportation systems do better then those without.

Also, are you saying these demands on lowering energy all around and putting taxes on energy are helping the economy?

No one is saying we should dismantle America's transportation infrastructure.

[RBM]

Take away America's transportation infrastructure and see how long it takes to fall into a third world country. It was correlation, that countries with a better overall transportation systems do better then those without.

Also, are you saying these demands on lowering energy all around and putting taxes on energy are helping the economy?

Well, first let's note that you've changed your argument - no mention of environmentalists this time.

How are you defining 'transportation infrastructure' - is the car in that ?

If you want to correlate at the country-level, then let's find another US-level country. Errr, you got one, cause I sure don't. Meanwhile any correlation will have to be made a less than country-level - to be intellectually honest.

It's those kinds of apples to oranges comparisons that lead to half-baked conclusions of correlation.

In my view, THERE IS NO HELPING THE ECONOMY. Hell I don't presume that the bottom has even been met yet. You believe in 'green shoot's' ? Try reading shadowstats.com !

'Taxes on energy' - what specifically are you talking about ?

[alrightgame]

Transportation = anything that gets you from point A to B, and is being affected by energy price increases due to not just environmentalists, but by anything that is driving prices up.

Correlation as in third world country without roads and the ability for their people to move around to trade, as opposed with those countries who have roads, and have a decent economy because of it.

I don't know, as I don't know. Taxes on energy seems pretty blunt and self-explanatory. These taxes on energy also get passed as a burden on to transportation.

Also, I never had an argument to begin with, I'm more or less stating what I observe, to which is quite little apparently. I wasn't changing an argument, I was asking a question, which apparently didn't get answered.

[Stickman]

I was asking a question, which apparently didn't get answered.

You can have your flying car after you've cleaned your room.

[alrightgame]

You can have your flying car after you've cleaned your room.
That was quoting another dude, it made sense in the other forum until things were jumbled together happhazardly.

My room is clean.... where is my flying car?

Edit:
This was the question I was asking earlier.
@ RBM
Also, are you saying these demands on lowering energy all around and putting taxes on energy are helping the economy?

[combustor]

One factor in the massive amount of wasted energy on transportation is caused by the massive waste of money on social welfare programs (e.g. 'great society').
Putting "public" housing in major cities and attracting the dregs of society to urban centers, and encouraging a welfare lifestyle with handouts has made our cities virtually unlivable for the producers who work there. The scarcity of uninfested neighborhoods causes inflated real estate prices within the city, and consequently many have no choice but to buy in the 'burbs and commute to work.

[themuzicman]

If public transportation were efficient and convenient and cost effective, it wouldn't need government tax money to subsidize it.

[Causa Mortis]

If public transportation were efficient and convenient and cost effective, it wouldn't need government tax money to subsidize it.

Except for three major major problems:
1. Capital indivisibilities and risk will largely preclude all but huge firms from being willing to take the risk.
2. Eminent domain and various property rights issues. You'll get one goddamned curmudgeon that will refuse to sell and screw up the whole subway system.
3. Using public transportation has 3 positive externalities: lower pollution, less traffic, less imported oil. Goods with positive externalities will generally be underproduced under a pure market system.

Also, you could make your same argument for government involvement in building bridges.

[blueback]

If public transportation were efficient and convenient and cost effective, it wouldn't need government tax money to subsidize it.
Technically, the OP didn't make enough of an argument for you to rebut anything. But, anywho, there are plenty of examples of things that are very good ideas, and require government subsidies. So that's not even a good rebuttal.

The good thing about public transportation is that it would free up capital to be invested into non-transportation related activities. The bad thing is that the system is more brittle and less likely to survive shocks. There is always a trade off in flexibility and efficiency.

That being said, I support a coherent and extensive public transportation system. I think we need more of it than we have, but that doesn't mean I think we should outlaw personal transportation. It's not a dichotomous choice.

For example, if New Orleans had had a strong rail network going into and out of the city, it could have operated as a conveyor belt, ferrying people out of the city and bringing supplies in. Instead we had a highway chocked to uselessness. Public transportation really shines when everyone wants to do the same thing at the same time. However, there is much less profit potential in shared goods, so the corporations don't support it, and our government is pretty much run by corporations, so it is unlikely to happen.

[Corbu]

Public Transportation is not sustainable in low density areas as identified by Aronnax. Should those who live in rural areas subsidize or provide offset for public transport in areas that provide no benefit to their area?

[Undead Bonzi]

One factor in the massive amount of wasted energy on transportation is caused by the massive waste of money on social welfare programs (e.g. 'great society').
Putting "public" housing in major cities and attracting the dregs of society to urban centers, and encouraging a welfare lifestyle with handouts has made our cities virtually unlivable for the producers who work there. The scarcity of uninfested neighborhoods causes inflated real estate prices within the city, and consequently many have no choice but to buy in the 'burbs and commute to work.

Actually our inner cities were destroyed by the advent of roughly three things. #1. The Automobile. #2. The Suburb. Live outside the city and drive to work hooray! A crappy cookie cutter house with a picket fence became the American dream. The demands of #1 and #2 were met by the creation of the interstate system. In dense cities these interstates were plowed through the poor minority communities for financial and legal reasons. These functioning and viable communities were destroyed and replaced with megalithic public housing which was just as megalithic in its failure.

The end result is the mobilization of the middle class, white flight to the suburbs and the destruction of most functioning poor class neighborhoods in cities to be replaced by public housing. Public housing, crime, welfare and dead cities are the end result of a much longer process, not the cause.

If public transportation were efficient and convenient and cost effective, it wouldn't need government tax money to subsidize it.

Yeah! Wait...is this forgetting that we completely subsidize roads and interstates with the exception of a few toll roads and bridges? Is this forgetting that the US had an extensive and functional privately operated public transit system (trolley, light rail, rail) until the automobile companies bought them out and closed them down while at the same time lobbying for government funded roadway systems upon which their new cars could drive? Could it be that privatized public transit always fails because roads are subsidized and most people don't realize how much they are paying indirectly to use roads?

If everything were privatized you would see our glorious interstate road system fall flat on its face in a head to head battle with rail and buss. A single fast rail line can carry more people faster/farther/cheaper and require less land that a eight lane interstate if you take into account the indirect costs of the subsidized roads and the cost of operating a private vehicle.

[eagleseven]

I've lived in two large cities, and one suburb, and was well-served by public transportation in all three. We already have a good transportation system, especially considering the great size of our country.

If I need to travel a long distance, I can go via plane, train, automobile, or greyhound.

If I need to travel a short distance, I can take light rail, subway, rapid transit, or buses wherever I need to go.

[knick4life]

Public Transportation is not sustainable in low density areas as identified by Aronnax. Should those who live in rural areas subsidize or provide offset for public transport in areas that provide no benefit to their area?

At the federal level, rural states are always being subsidized, not doing the subsidizing. They consistently get a higher rate of return on their tax money. Here's a chart from Fiscal 2005 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Alaska, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, West Virginia, Alabama and Louisiana were the biggest winners that year. Meanwhile, states with urban centers like NY, California, and Illinois all took in far less than what they put in.

This pattern repeats itself every year.

[deinotes]

I've lived in two large cities, and one suburb, and was well-served by public transportation in all three. We already have a good transportation system, especially considering the great size of our country.

If I need to travel a long distance, I can go via plane, train, automobile, or greyhound.

If I need to travel a short distance, I can take light rail, subway, rapid transit, or buses wherever I need to go.
Have you been to another developed country and looked at their public transport system ?
In most western countries the public transport system is a whole lot better.

[themuzicman]

Except for three major major problems:
1. Capital indivisibilities and risk will largely preclude all but huge firms from being willing to take the risk.
2. Eminent domain and various property rights issues. You'll get one goddamned curmudgeon that will refuse to sell and screw up the whole subway system.
3. Using public transportation has 3 positive externalities: lower pollution, less traffic, less imported oil. Goods with positive externalities will generally be underproduced under a pure market system.

Also, you could make your same argument for government involvement in building bridges.

I didn't say that the government shouldn't run it. I'm just saying that any system that is really worth the money and time would pay for itself.





themuzicman added to this post, 4 minutes and 51 seconds later...

Technically, the OP didn't make enough of an argument for you to rebut anything. But, anywho, there are plenty of examples of things that are very good ideas, and require government subsidies. So that's not even a good rebuttal.

I don't think I said "good idea". I said "efficient, convenient and cost-effective."

The good thing about public transportation is that it would free up capital to be invested into non-transportation related activities. The bad thing is that the system is more brittle and less likely to survive shocks. There is always a trade off in flexibility and efficiency.


"Free up capital" What capital would that be? (Yes, Parking garages have a lower TCO than public transit.)

That being said, I support a coherent and extensive public transportation system. I think we need more of it than we have, but that doesn't mean I think we should outlaw personal transportation. It's not a dichotomous choice.

For example, if New Orleans had had a strong rail network going into and out of the city, it could have operated as a conveyor belt, ferrying people out of the city and bringing supplies in. Instead we had a highway chocked to uselessness. Public transportation really shines when everyone wants to do the same thing at the same time. However, there is much less profit potential in shared goods, so the corporations don't support it, and our government is pretty much run by corporations, so it is unlikely to happen.

LOL.. Yeah, instead of highways choked with cars, you have a million or so people desperate to get out of town all crowded into a few areas, being taken away 300 at a time. That would be much better





themuzicman added to this post, 9 minutes and 45 seconds later...


Yeah! Wait...is this forgetting that we completely subsidize roads and interstates with the exception of a few toll roads and bridges? Is this forgetting that the US had an extensive and functional privately operated public transit system (trolley, light rail, rail) until the automobile companies bought them out and closed them down while at the same time lobbying for government funded roadway systems upon which their new cars could drive? Could it be that privatized public transit always fails because roads are subsidized and most people don't realize how much they are paying indirectly to use roads?

If everything were privatized you would see our glorious interstate road system fall flat on its face in a head to head battle with rail and buss. A single fast rail line can carry more people faster/farther/cheaper and require less land that a eight lane interstate if you take into account the indirect costs of the subsidized roads and the cost of operating a private vehicle.

I didn't say to privatize anything. In fact, I never said that the government shouldn't do public transit. All I said was that if it were efficient, convenient and cost-effective, it wouldn't need to be subsidized. There are reasons to do public transit. But cost-effectiveness and efficiency aren't among them.

Same thing for roads. There are good reasons to make roads. We should keep in mind why we make roads when we do, and make decisions about how and where and when to make them accordingly.

[Hamburglar]

Take away America's transportation infrastructure and see how long it takes to fall into a third world country. It was correlation, that countries with a better overall transportation systems do better then those without.

Also, are you saying these demands on lowering energy all around and putting taxes on energy are helping the economy?

Bullshit- America lead the world with dirt paths, horses and wagons. Our intrastate and international trade would fall a bit, but that would not decline the status of our nation into a 3rd world country. Just because it takes longer to transport things does not directly correlate with socio-economic status. We are an industrialized advanced economy. 3rd world implies that there is no industrial base-not gonna happen.

Anyhow-back to the op...Stickman-you are extremely correct, but as others have posted this would require a fundamental shift in the way that the cities are planned. Fortunately most cities in America follow the Chicago school of city planning- A vibrant core, fueled by concentric circles of development. Public transportation is essential to this system (Cities in Europe and most of the world follow this model. Cities in the west, however tend to follow the Los Angeles model, which is of decentralized city-suburbs. They are completely non-conducive to public transportation because everybody is going different places at different times and for different reasons. If you can imagine it's like little bubble cities connected by a highway system. So places like LA are actually trying to redevelop in to the more traditional Chicago model, of developing a vibrant downtown that is a mix of business/industry/entertainment/residence (i.e. Live Work Play). This would support a public transpo system, and get people out of their vehicles. But in many of our cities we do have excellent public transpo- New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, etc, etc...Public transportation, in conjunction with a vibrant urban business core (dependent on development/redevelopment) will continue to be the operating standard of functioning happy cities- LA is a huge failure in this regard (among others like water, high taxes, etc.).

[Corbu]

At the federal level, rural states are always being subsidized, not doing the subsidizing. They consistently get a higher rate of return on their tax money. Here's a chart from Fiscal 2005 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Alaska, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, West Virginia, Alabama and Louisiana were the biggest winners that year. Meanwhile, states with urban centers like NY, California, and Illinois all took in far less than what they put in.

This pattern repeats itself every year.

thanks for the info on this. I guess I am not seeing that happen where I live. I see people bailing out of a rural area, a decline in tax dollars, reduced services and increased burden on those who remain. Public Transportation is a great idea but it needs to be self sustaining.

I am not a financial person by any means, but believe that the return on federal tax dollar more accurately reflects how efficiently the tax dollars are spent.
Footnote 3 "Return on federal tax dollar is an imprecise measure of federal spending patterns. It is calculated by dividing adjusted federal spending by federal tax burden."

[Aronnax]

"Free up capital" What capital would that be? (Yes, Parking garages have a lower TCO than public transit.)



The big area public transportation frees up capital in is road construction and maintenance. Personal vehicles simply cannot compete with public transportation in terms of persons carried per sq ft of road. There's also a practical upper limit to road size, this becomes a huge issue in metropolitan areas where real estate is at a premium.

Total cost of ownership for parking structures is lower? I'd love to see you present any evidence that's true. Parking structures hold about 90 vehicles per story, have a substantial height limit because of loading and take a skyscraper footprint out of a downtown area. Contrast that with the TCO of 2 buses per story of structure.

[alrightgame]

Bullshit- America lead the world with dirt paths, horses and wagons. Our intrastate and international trade would fall a bit, but that would not decline the status of our nation into a 3rd world country. Just because it takes longer to transport things does not directly correlate with socio-economic status. We are an industrialized advanced economy. 3rd world implies that there is no industrial base-not gonna happen.



Yeah, lets see how well that would swing when having to transport good to thousands of people on a daily basis. Horse and buggy wouldn't work. People would be going hungry in the city in a week without interstate highways. The only way we are able to keep up with demand in things like a grocery store is because they are delivered on time and in a hurry.

[Hamburglar]

In case you were unaware. There is this movement in America-usually on saturday and sundays where farmers bring their product to market in local communities.....aka The Farmer's Market. As I said America did just fine w/o the interstate highway system...and my point ultimately was that we would not be reduced to a third world nation simply because our highway infrastructure was allowed to fallow. Dirt is still acceptable to drive on (even though it may drive up the costs of transportation). We still have these things called trains which can move massive amounts of goods and materials in a relatively short period of time. Did you know we ship produce across the planet on container ships? No roads needed...OMG

[sfawkes]

Freight trains are awesome in terms of efficiency but trucking is heavily subsidized by the interstate freeway system. Heavy trucks don't pay anything resembling the wear they inflict on the road system. Contrast that with the rail industry who has to maintain their own rail system. In order to force parity you'd have to tax the trucking industry on the basis of miles traveled. Good luck fighting the Teamsters, you won't win that fight until diesel is $10.00 /gal and long haul trucking has already been killed.

The efficiency differences between long haul trucking and rail actually prevent them from being direct competitors. In North America the tonnage being carried by rail exceeds that being shipped by truck by a wide margin, because, as you said, rail is much more efficient. Actually rail is orders of magnitude less expensive. Usually loads hauled via truck are piecemeal loads going to a number of out of the way locations that rail doesn't even reach. Comparing the trucked freight to the rail is similar to comparing air freight to ground freight. They are simply different markets.

I should also point out that although the interstate highway system is subsidised, it is very inexpensive. The amount of tax dollars that go towards maintaining old highways is minimal and is largely paid for by taxes on fuel. So in effect highways are paid for by those that use them on a per mile basis.

[Aronnax]

The efficiency differences between long haul trucking and rail actually prevent them from being direct competitors. In North America the tonnage being carried by rail exceeds that being shipped by truck by a wide margin, because, as you said, rail is much more efficient. Actually rail is orders of magnitude less expensive. Usually loads hauled via truck are piecemeal loads going to a number of out of the way locations that rail doesn't even reach. Comparing the trucked freight to the rail is similar to comparing air freight to ground freight. They are simply different markets.

The reason there are "out of the way locations that rail doesn't even reach" is because trucking is cheaper than establishing and maintaining a rail line to those locations.


I should also point out that although the interstate highway system is subsidised, it is very inexpensive. The amount of tax dollars that go towards maintaining old highways is minimal and is largely paid for by taxes on fuel. So in effect highways are paid for by those that use them on a per mile basis.

Maintaining the road system is quite expensive and exceeds the revenue generated by fuel taxes. The fuel tax is static, the cost of upgrades and maintenance varies with the cost of a barrel of oil (asphalt + heavy equipment). Fixing the fuel tax, making it percentage based with the percentage pinned to the number of sq ft. of road in the nation, is the kind of confrontation politicians go out of their way to avoid. It's a problem the public has no idea exists and changing the gas tax will upset a lot of voters. Furthermore City, County and State road systems are frequently paid for by income tax, property tax, and sales tax. The portion covered by fuel tax simply isn't enough to maintain the existing network of roads.

Here's the biggest problem caused by trucking and why it ends up being subsidized (even with fuel taxes in place): wear on the roads is more strongly related to vehicle weight rather than miles driven. There's something called "fatigue cycles to failure" that relates loads in the elastic region of the material with the number of loading cycles it endures before material failure. For very light loads the number of cycles is nearly infinite and as load increases the number of cycles to failure decreases and the change is exponential. You can put thousands of car miles down a road and create less wear than what a tractor trailer will create in a few dozen miles. There's also the issue of material consumption: roads capable of supporting something with a GVW of 60,000 lbs require more road base, asphalt and concrete than a road suitable for vehicles with a GVW of 12,000 lbs. The higher capacity significantly increases the cost of road construction, capacity that wouldn't be needed if heavy trucks weren't sharing the same road as passenger vehicles.

TL; DR~ Revenue generated by fuel taxes increase linearly, wear due to weight increases exponentially. Large trucks are heavy and wear roads out significantly faster than passenger vehicles. Heavy trucking requires heavy duty roads and this cost is pushed onto the majority who don't need those kinds of roads.

[sfawkes]

Aronnax
Whether our road system is expensive or not is a vague assertion I suppose. I would say that compared to the amount that we pay for defense, healthcare, education and so on the cost of our transportation infrastructure is a bargain.

I would agree that the heavy trucks require a more expensive roads than those with only small vehicle traffic. However, from what I understand the wear and tear on all but the most heavily traveled freeways is primarily caused by thermal expansion and contraction. In most cases the loads caused by traffic are well under the Fatigue Limit allowing for, as you said, a near infinite number of cycles. This is why completely abandoned roads break down quite quickly.

Because of the fact the North America developed with the automobile, especially in the west, we just do not have the sort of clustered high density population centers that exist in Europe making rail transport effective. We transport our goods over the road because we transport our people on roads. If we were to try and use rail to transport more of our goods, the cost would be prohibitive because of the sheer number of lines that would need to be built. I have the same opinion about light rail.

[RBM]

Light Rail Now (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is an org with some pertinent data.

[Aronnax]

sfawkes~

Sorry for the long response time, I've been busy.

I'm not sure where you got your information from but road wear on high traffic roads is primarily due to vehicle weight, not weather. On heavily traveled roads wear is proportional to axle load^n, where n ranges from 3.2 to 5.6, depending on vehicle configuration ("Asphalts In Road Construction" by R. Hunter). The negligible wear range is around 1500 lbs/axle, it rapidly takes off from there. Weathering is a significant factor, particularly in areas with lots of moisture and freeze/thaw cycles but weathering strongly interacts with mechanical wear. Depressions and gouges in the asphalt caused by wear interact with freeze/thaw opening up the road and allowing greater wear to occur (the larger the hole the easier it is for tires to move pieces off of the lip of a depression).

If commercial traffic actually paid in what it took out of the road system many long distance truck routes would become economically unattractive. This kind of change would make rail transport the more cost effective solution, even if it required new tracks. Trucking would still exist but primarily as intercity distribution or acting as secondary transportation from centralized rail transit points to small communities.

Trucking is cost effective because it's very good at externalizing cost, has a great lobbying organization and is efficient enough to transport goods at a reasonable rate. What am I getting at then? The most cost effective solution isn't always what the free market chooses because the free market tends to ignore externalized costs. We won't see a change until the public makes a conscious decision to change the infrastructure (unlikely) or there's a big change in internal costs (like the price of diesel fuel).

[sfawkes]

Aronnax

I take it your either a civil engineer or you have an unhealthy interest in road construction : ). It seems I was mistaken on the effect weather has on roads. I do also agree that commercial traffic is reducing its expenses by moving a large portion of its cost to the taxpayer.

I would be interested to see if there have been any studies done on the total actual cost of commercial traffic. A quick internet search yielded nothing.

Using rail hubs and distributing goods to smaller trucks for final delivery is not a good idea in many situations. Every time some cargo needs to be loaded or unloaded there are terminal fees and delays. When the product in question is perishable food or material for a Just In Time manufacturing environment one-step door to door delivery is necessary. I, for one, need my fresh picked oranges still warm from the California sun when it's snowing outside.