• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CAFE standards for big rigs.

The train system in the US declined when the trucking lobby got politicians to cut off funding for the train system and give it to the trucking industry.

Do you have a source for this claim?
 
Do you have a source for this claim?

"Some freight really is more suitable for trucks, of course. In most cases you need a truck to deliver freight to the commercial or industrial door. And trucks travel more direct routes than train can. But in terms of shipping, most economic advantages trucks have over trains are due to perverse tax and subsidy structures whereby freight trains actually have to help pay for trucks.

Trucking pays fuel taxes, but those don't cover the cost of truck wear and tear on roads compared to automobiles. Highways and bridges are built to truck standards, requiring much more expense than if they carried cars alone. And highways are not funded entirely by gas taxes -- income and property taxes also pay for maintenance and improvements. Rail freight companies pay fuel, property, and income taxes, but they receive almost no infrastructural support in return.

Railroads received an initial subsidy in the form of huge land grants of stolen American Indian land in the 19th century. Since then, rail freight has received almost no government subsidies.

We need to reverse that -- make trucks pay their fair share, and put tens of billions per year into rail infrastructure. We need to switch 85% or more of heavy truck freight miles to rail, sending freight only the final 50 miles via truck."


We need to prepare for peal oil as the military warned us next year, as they are already doing themselves. Afterall, "Trains carry freight with nearly ten times the energy efficiency of trucks per ton/mile"

Rail freight is more efficient than truck freight | Grist
 
"Some freight really is more suitable for trucks, of course. In most cases you need a truck to deliver freight to the commercial or industrial door. And trucks travel more direct routes than train can. But in terms of shipping, most economic advantages trucks have over trains are due to perverse tax and subsidy structures whereby freight trains actually have to help pay for trucks.

Trucking pays fuel taxes, but those don't cover the cost of truck wear and tear on roads compared to automobiles. Highways and bridges are built to truck standards, requiring much more expense than if they carried cars alone. And highways are not funded entirely by gas taxes -- income and property taxes also pay for maintenance and improvements. Rail freight companies pay fuel, property, and income taxes, but they receive almost no infrastructural support in return.

Railroads received an initial subsidy in the form of huge land grants of stolen American Indian land in the 19th century. Since then, rail freight has received almost no government subsidies.

We need to reverse that -- make trucks pay their fair share, and put tens of billions per year into rail infrastructure. We need to switch 85% or more of heavy truck freight miles to rail, sending freight only the final 50 miles via truck."


We need to prepare for peal oil as the military warned us next year, as they are already doing themselves. Afterall, "Trains carry freight with nearly ten times the energy efficiency of trucks per ton/mile"

Rail freight is more efficient than truck freight | Grist

Perhaps, I should have asked for an unbiased source. Most that I have looked at says that automobiles began the slide as they hurt passenger traffice and then after WWII, passenger traffic dipped significantly and then the Eisenhower Administration built the Interstate System and trucks became more advantageous.
 
"Some freight really is more suitable for trucks, of course. In most cases you need a truck to deliver freight to the commercial or industrial door. And trucks travel more direct routes than train can. But in terms of shipping, most economic advantages trucks have over trains are due to perverse tax and subsidy structures whereby freight trains actually have to help pay for trucks.

Trucking pays fuel taxes, but those don't cover the cost of truck wear and tear on roads compared to automobiles. Highways and bridges are built to truck standards, requiring much more expense than if they carried cars alone. And highways are not funded entirely by gas taxes -- income and property taxes also pay for maintenance and improvements. Rail freight companies pay fuel, property, and income taxes, but they receive almost no infrastructural support in return.

Railroads received an initial subsidy in the form of huge land grants of stolen American Indian land in the 19th century. Since then, rail freight has received almost no government subsidies.

We need to reverse that -- make trucks pay their fair share, and put tens of billions per year into rail infrastructure. We need to switch 85% or more of heavy truck freight miles to rail, sending freight only the final 50 miles via truck."


We need to prepare for peal oil as the military warned us next year, as they are already doing themselves. Afterall, "Trains carry freight with nearly ten times the energy efficiency of trucks per ton/mile"

Rail freight is more efficient than truck freight | Grist

Incidentally, I do think we need to end all subsidies and infrastructure aid to both parties.
 
Perhaps, I should have asked for an unbiased source. Most that I have looked at says that automobiles began the slide as they hurt passenger traffice and then after WWII, passenger traffic dipped significantly and then the Eisenhower Administration built the Interstate System and trucks became more advantageous.

Only because trains have to pay for their own infrastructure cost. If the trucking industry had to pay their full share of infrastructure costs that supports them, and given that trains are 10 times more energy efficient, they could not compete with long distance freight transport by rail.
 
Ridiculous straw man? You libs always tell us drilling new wells to increase supply will not effect gas prices. As for trains replacing trucks theres a reason they can't, it's called JIT, just in time. It is how company's keep cost down by not having to warehouse and handle goods. They want stuff coming off the truck and going on the shelves or bolted on to whatever they are producing. You libs have absolutely no comprehension of what it takes to run a business. you are all theory, all pie in sky wouldn't it be swell if BS.

No, they say it wont have significant impact on price. Because the amount of supply we can actually increase is insignificant compared to our demand.

I'm not sure why people are discussing trucks vs. trains... neither are going to disappear.
 
Last edited:
Re Rail decline Vs automobiles:

"...As early as the 1930s, automobile travel had begun to cut into the rail passenger market, somewhat reducing economies of scale, but it was the development of the Interstate Highway System and of commercial aviation in the 1950s and 1960s, as well as increasingly restrictive regulation, that dealt the most damaging blows to rail transportation, both passenger and freight (some also cite the Great American Streetcar Scandal). There was little point in operating passenger trains to advertise freight service when those who made decisions about freight shipping traveled by car and by air, and when the railroads' chief competitors for that market were interstate trucking companies. Soon, the only things keeping most passenger trains running were legal obligations... "

Rail transport in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...The Great American streetcar scandal (also known as the General Motors streetcar conspiracy and the National City Lines conspiracy) refers to allegations and convictions in relation to a program by General Motors (GM) and a number of other companies to purchase and dismantle streetcars (trams/trolleys) and electric trains in many cities across the United States and replace them with bus services; a program which has been blamed by some for the virtual elimination of effective public transport in nearly all American cities by the 1970s. The lack of hard information about what occurred has led to intrigue, uncertainty, inaccuracy and conspiracy theories. The story has been explored many times in print, film and other media, notably in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Taken for a Ride and The End of Suburbia.... "

Great American streetcar scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GM, Firestone and Chevron (then Standard Oil) were all convicted.
 
When did we have "reasonable" sandards? Do you believe that 54 or 55 mpg by 2025 is a "reasonable" standard? I do not. I don't want to drive an itty bitty Smart Car down the freeway and get hit by a semi. My chances of survival are about nil. Secondly, making semis have similar goals will mean that trucks will need to be the size of a former full-sized Lincoln, but it will take 50 semis to carry the load of 1 semi of today. I doubt they can get a Lincoln Town Car to get 200 mpg.

If your concern was national security rather than destroying private enterprise, may I suggest that we allow full development of all types of energy in the U.S. rather than attempting to make the error of picking winners and losers.
How will the big liberal gubermint maintain our safety if we have to drive little bitty paper cars that get 55 mpg?
 
How will the big liberal gubermint maintain our safety if we have to drive little bitty paper cars that get 55 mpg?


Biggggggg bumpers! :sun

Bumper20111.jpg
 
There are no railroads in the US between those destinations?
I tried to be so clear about how things work in the real world in my last post and you ask a stupid question like this? Are you really this dumb or just pretending? Before I try to explain why trains can’t do what trucks can please tell me you are over 10 years old.
 
That should make Liberals feel right at home for blindly supporting Obama's failures.

Do you know anything at all about supply and demand? CAFE standards do more to improve prices at the pump than the conservative campaign slogan of drill baby drill. I'll take the lower prices, but that's just me.
 
I tried to be so clear about how things work in the real world in my last post and you ask a stupid question like this? Are you really this dumb or just pretending? Before I try to explain why trains can’t do what trucks can please tell me you are over 10 years old.

I pitch my questions to your demonstrated level of ignorance. I now realise I have overestimated your ability for which I apologise. Do try to respond appropriately.
 
WTF is going on here??? Private Industry backed these standards:

CAFE Regulations Set Standard of 54.5 mpg by 2025 | New Car Pricing Insider | Tips on buying a new car from insiders

In addition we won't actually be at 55MPG; CAFE is much different from the EPA standards we use when buying a car.

When CAFE Meets EPA: A Tale of Two Fuel Economy Standards - AutoObserver

Excellent articles. I just don't get the whole troglodyte wing of the conservative party that shuns efficiency and science that is so important in enabling our economy to prosper. Especially since the price of oil has such a great effect on our entire economy.
 
The standards would move the average mileage from 6 to 8. You don't think that's reasonable?
Given the demands of the industry and the technology necessary to achieve this 33% increase in efficiency - how are you competent to judge if this is 'reasonabe' or not?
Perhaps you can offer some concrete suggestions to that effect.
 
There are no railroads in the US between those destinations?
Cetain demands can be met by intermodal/rail.
Certain demands can not.
Under ~1000 miles it is virtually always cheaper to move something OTR than by rail; in all cases it is faster.
Over ~1000 miles, rail is cheaper in most cases - but only if your destination is near a ramp. Try sending a rail box to Butte MT.

Bulk freight requires a siding or a transload. Both are expensive, and unless you;re shipping 4-6 truckloads at a time, the cost of bulk is prohibitive.
It is also slow as hell.
 
This is one of the best ideas I've seen yet. I've yet to figure out why I have to take my poor little Prius in every 6 mos to have it's emissions checked whlle being run over on the way there by an 18 wheeler belching more diesel fumes than Saudi Arabia

And PLEASE stop with the "trucks move America" business. Trains get 486 mpg on tracks they maintain themselves, everything that removes trucks from the roads and puts it back on rails will save us fuel. Where I live they built an Allison Chalmers plant about 10 years ago. Great idea, huge factory, mucho jobs, but placed 10 feet from a RR track they decided to have no RR spur, opting instead to debouch some 100 big trucks daily into the thousands of cars arriving/leaving 24/7 on a TWO LANE ROAD
 
And PLEASE stop with the "trucks move America" business. Trains get 486 mpg on tracks they maintain themselves...
That's not exactly the stat. The CSX can move 1 ton of intermodal freight for 486 miles on 1 gallon of diesel.
100 cars, 2 containers per car, 53,000lbs per container, 1405 miles (Detroit to Miami). Do the math.

everything that removes trucks from the roads and puts it back on rails will save us fuel.
You know that one rail container = 2 trucks on the road - right?

Where I live they built an Allison Chalmers plant about 10 years ago. Great idea, huge factory, mucho jobs, but placed 10 feet from a RR track they decided to have no RR spur, opting instead to debouch some 100 big trucks daily into the thousands of cars arriving/leaving 24/7 on a TWO LANE ROAD
Its a good bet then that it was less efficient/more costly to ship rail flatcar than OTR truck.
 
"Raising fuel economy by 10 miles per gallon nationwide will deliver real benefits. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, estimates that it will save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020--about half of what the United States imports from the Persian Gulf."

The New CAFE Standards - Technology Review
 
Arguing against the benefit of these regulations has little merit when the companies themselves supported them as I cited earlier. This is something which all Americans should be able to agree on in principal. If you don't like government involvement thats one thing, but arguing the economics, ability of the industry, and the necessity of this is not debatable.
 
Arguing against the benefit of these regulations has little merit when the companies themselves supported them as I cited earlier. This is something which all Americans should be able to agree on in principal. If you don't like government involvement thats one thing, but arguing the economics, ability of the industry, and the necessity of this is not debatable.

Agreed, but some people are low slearners.
 
This is one of the best ideas I've seen yet. I've yet to figure out why I have to take my poor little Prius in every 6 mos to have it's emissions checked whlle being run over on the way there by an 18 wheeler belching more diesel fumes than Saudi Arabia

And PLEASE stop with the "trucks move America" business. Trains get 486 mpg on tracks they maintain themselves, everything that removes trucks from the roads and puts it back on rails will save us fuel. Where I live they built an Allison Chalmers plant about 10 years ago. Great idea, huge factory, mucho jobs, but placed 10 feet from a RR track they decided to have no RR spur, opting instead to debouch some 100 big trucks daily into the thousands of cars arriving/leaving 24/7 on a TWO LANE ROAD
Trains get 486MPG? You have a link for that?????
 
Back
Top Bottom