I'm looking at all the remarks along here, and two things stand out.

They are that we are overdependent on road transport, and overdependent on oil to operate that transport.

I think it's time to reconsider both issues.

First, we've gone about as far as we can with cars and roads. Too many times, we've found that bigger roads lead to bigger traffic jams; in some cases, traffic and travel times on the expanded road are slower than they were before.

On top of that, in many places you don't have room to make roads bigger anyway. Whey they were new, and in earlier expansions, the roads were surrounded by trees and cows. Today the trees and cows have been replaced by houses, office parks, distribution centers, shopping centers, and so on. Those are a bit more expensive to bulldoze than the trees and cows.

There is also the question of paying for maintenance. We have all sorts of deferred maintenance issues as it is--and those new roads or new lanes won't stay new forever.

Cars are at their limits, too. You can spend all sorts of dough to buy a Corvette or Bugatti or some other rocket, but it won't be any faster in service than a 1957 VW Bug. Either you get stuck in traffic with everybody else, or if you do have a place to let the machine out, you get some unwanted attention from the Highway Patrol.

A long auto trip also means you feel like a pretzel after several hours. It can be the most comfy car around, but you'll still come down with pretzelitis! I know, I had to deal with it regularly on trips to Charleston, W.Va. for staff meetings (310 miles) or to Wheeling, W.Va. to visit relatives before too many of them moved to cemeteries (224 miles).

The "Freedom to come and go when you want" is questionable, too. If you have a job, you have a fellow in your life called a Boss who has a lot to say about where you go, when you go there, and what you do when you're there.

That's until you retire--and then your wife tells you where to go!

OK, that's silly, but it, and the comfort issue, and road hazards, too, should tell us that freedom isn't one size fits all, or even is the same at all times. Who's to say freedom from black ice, whiteout fogs, crazy drivers, decaying night vision, and pretzelitis are bad things?

Then there's the matter of oil dependency. Our driving is what drives that, with motor fuel being something like half of our total oil demand, very nearly more than everything else combined--chemicals, plastics, heating, power generation, and even other transportation modes!

Maybe we should look at what our oil dependency actually costs (see link below).

Even if these numbers are really only half of what's here, we've got a serious problem. . .caused by us hiding the costs, instead of honestly looking at them.

And recently, we're finding out what a security risk it is as well.

Finally, let's remember one more thing--the current oil price situation is only the fourth (or fifth) time we've been in this fix in the last 50 years. . .

1973--First Arab-OPEC oil embargo over support for Israel.

1979--Second Arab-OPEC oil embargo regarding Iran.

2007-2008--Oil price runup that triggers the Great Recession, knocking down the house of cards that was the real estate business at the time.

2022(a)--Oil price panic, partially due to our support of a country under siege from a large oil country that doesn't like us either.

2022(b)--Rebuff of presidential request for oil production increases from OPEC to help offset the problems of the earlier oil price problem from the support for the country against an OPEC member oil country. Part of that was caused by the current president, back before he was president, being one of a number of people who wanted to hold this country accountable for human rights violations, including a strong allegation that the prince running said country had an American journalist executed and then had the body cut up into pieces to be disposed of in the sea. Gas prices went back up after going down a bit.

In essence, we're looking at worldwide oil blackmail.

Does a return to rail service and getting away from oil look that expensive now?

http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

Get someone to donate enough money and they'll change the "science" to whatever you want... That's how we got the current "science" in the first place.

Some parts of the preservation movement are subject to Federal Railroad Administration regulations that require similar breaks. If your Museum or Tourist RR provides a 40 ton airconditioned metal boxcar for their required sleep breaks, you may have to stop using a Diesel generator to power the airconditioning (or winter heat) and pay the electric company or send the people to a lodging place. Of course, that's much more expensive, and the purpose of the fine is to skew the economics in favor of the government's preferred alternatives

Sounds like he needs to travel with a pet (dog, cat, parakeet, whatever).

I have yet to read anyone offering anything resembling a solution to any of these problems that are within reach of anyone in preservation, so what's the point? The election is over, let's give it a rest.

If only that were true for the the Southeast Railway Museum, the Savannah Roundhouse, the Blue Ridge Scenic Railway, the SAM Shortline, the narrow gauge loop in Tifton, and everyone else in Georgia!

How’s that affecting those operations?

You don't understand cost. Our economy is built on getting people and things where they need to be, when they are needed, not imposing ancillary or opportunity costs.

An example:

Almost thirty years ago, two friends and I decided to take advantage of a confluence of events. Labor Day weekend, 1993 Notre Dame played Northwestern (quite the surprise that day, the Wildcats won) on Saturday in South Bend, The Bears played the Vikings Sunday afternoon, The White Sox played I forgot on Sunday night and the Cubs played the Vikings on Monday

We considered flying, but that would have made the trip too expensive for our planned visit to the Chicago Chop House. Amtrak meant driving two hours to Harrisburg, and either being chauffeured (necessitating two round trips between Scranton and Harrisburg) or paying for parking and risking theft or damage in Harrisburg. Additionally, the length of the trip meant either paying a cash depleting premium for a sleeping car or arriving bedraggled, with issues getting between South Bend and Chitown.

The best alternative? Renting a car, where mechanical issues would not result in being stranded in a cornfield in the middle of nowhere (before pervasive reliable cell phone service). Even had we not had the advantage of an employee concession of unlimited mileage from Mark's dad who worked for Avis, the cost was an absolute winner and it was coupled with convenience. We were able to get from Scranton to South Bend in about ten hours, including kidney tap breaks. A couple more hours to Chicago.

The calculation would still be the same. We weren't regular travelers, needing to get to a meeting or conference, and being told miss more time from home.

And of course there was no Amazon Prime, promising next day delivery.

I can't believe you don't get this.

Some things might be more important than money. Not all costs are in money.

I can only say I'm glad you weren't running things during WW II.

A couple of questions about the competitive situation between railroads (then and now) and road transport.

You clearly think railroads should make money, be profitable. Nothing wrong with that; that's largely how they were built, and in turn how they helped build the nation.

But are highways profitable? Are they even self-sustaining financially?

Does road transport really play by the same economic rules as a rail line?

I'll wait for your answer.

They were SUPPOSED to be. That's how the concept was originally pitched to the public 100 years ago: Highway fuel taxes would end up being a replacement for highway and bridge tolls charged in the past, and the funds raised would be devoted to highway construction and maintenance. Meanwhile, bicyclists and horse carriages would reap the benefits for free.

Why, yes, I DO have some of the old lobbying propaganda from the League of American Wheelmen promoting road paving and improvements, why do you ask? <:-)

The reality today, of course, is that 1) even incrementally raising highway fuel taxes to adjust for inflation is seen as political "suicide," and 2) "progressive"-minded politicians see the funds from highway taxes as a slush fund to raid for their own pet projects, or at least competing modes of transport such as mass transit, Amtrak, etc.

The question I would ask is, do you actually believe any modes of transport should be self-sustaining? Or do you believe it is the societal role of government to provide access to all modes of transport, via whatever "wealth transfers" deemed needed and prudent?



It depends. The barrier for access is much higher--you have to have the equipment to run on a railroad track, which is MUCH more expensive than a bicycle or automobile or even a big truck, and then you have to gain access to a rail line to use--or build your own.

There were distortions in the earliest days, with some states subsidizing the initial construction of rail lines just as many did with canals, and the later land-grant programs, but for the most part rail lines today are taxable real estate taxed by governments as commercial property, unlike the airports, ports, and highways used by competing modes of transport.

The later-day model adopted by the European Union and partner countries is that of a compromise between capitalist free-market and socialism: The nation owns and administrates the rail infrastructure network, but franchises rail services to private operators. Results from this transfer away from nationalized rail services has been mixed at best, with some yearning for the "simpler" days of British Rail, Japanese National Railways, Deutsche Bundesbahn, etc.

The average OTR truck pays close to 40 percent per year of all their revenues just in taxes. In Illinois were I live it's 62.7 cents a gallon plus 24 cents for the federal government. Now that is for a vehicle that might get 8 mpg. Now if you're say Prime or JB Hunt you are paying a few hundred million dollars in fuel taxes a year. I think my friend said this year his company was expecting between 30 to 40 million dollars in fuel taxes as the fiscal year ended was the amount for the fleet. That was for 600 trucks. This carrier overall has an operating ratio of the lower 80s. Don't even get my opinion on toll roads. What the Penn turnpike and NY thruway charge are just short of extortion.

The thing to remember about "gouging" truckers is that trucks do the vast majority of highway damage. Wear and deterioration go up geometrically with weight, not proportionately.

I've heard arguments that if we were "properly" assessing highway fuel taxes to pay for roadwork, we'd be assessing all truck fuel another $1-2 a gallon at minimum.

If you question this, find a section of Interstate with relatively little truck traffic as part of the total traffic, and compare it with the numerous sections of Interstates that are effectively "conveyor belts" of big trucks........

That's Just Wonderful!!!!

It still Does Not Make UP For The FACT That Roads Are Cross Subsidized By MORE THAN HALF By Non Transportation Taxes, Tolls And User Fees -such as Property Taxes, and other funding from the General Revenue pool.

Your wonderful trucking company is getting a FREE RIDE on other's backs!

HIGHWAYS DO NOT PAY PROPERTY TAXES. But Railroads Do!

Don't get me started on river and barge giveaways.

Why do airports get $$$ From NON airline sources?

Brian

I appreciate the spirit, but we do need to be accurate!

The actual cost recovery ratio for roads is on the order of 67%. That leaves a subsidy level of 33%, which is still substantial, and amounted to about 47 cents per gallon in 2019.

2019 (rounded)
Highway Revenue: $172.6 billion
Highway Spending: $258.1 billion
Subsidy (non-Highway):$85.5 billion

Source: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformat ... 9/hf10.cfm

Home Page: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformat ... tics/2019/

It's worth noting that's essentially cash flow accounting. Full cost accounting would include depreciation charges and all that deferred maintenance that's out there. One could also include a number of externality charges, among them unrecovered accident costs, air pollution charges and the like. Most of these might be controversial, but I would be bothered by the cost of oil wars and our military presence in the Middle East.

By the way, I deliberately used 2019 because 2020 was even worse--but I think that's because of the pandemic, where there was a big loss of highway revenue due to the shut down state of much of the economy, while the cost of infrastructure like this is pretty constant. In short, 2020 may be something of an outlier, while 2019 is more typical.

As noted in an earlier post, what we're going through is only the fourth or fifth oil price crisis in just under 50 years. I'm old enough to have seen the first one back in 1973, and remember gas being at 35 cents per gallon--and we thought that was high! I had relatives who said we'd never see European gas prices of $1 per gallon! I wonder if those relatives recall saying that then!

This imbalance has been around for a long time. Check out these movies from the 1950s; in particular, check out the first one at about 13:00--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG1LUPWGXoU

Should we have listened to General Electric instead of General Motors?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alMQmQsC6gU

I plan to add some more material later. I do think we have some serious problems in our economy that go beyond railroads. P. Cook alluded to them in another thread where he commented that we were dealing with crumbs from a pie baked back in the 1940s.

I have reason to at least partially agree with him--I just need to get back when I have a bit more time!

I think we all would agree that the economy would be more efficient if there were no modes of freight transportation being subsidized. Given that subsidies distort economics. That political philosophy would have had to be instituted at the end of WWII.
But, I don't believe passenger transportation, air or ground, can exist without subsidies.

Getting back to diesel fuel, given that fuel costs are at least trending up, what is the best strategy. Purchase all the fuel you will need next spring, now or delay until the late winter. And hope the price comes down. Or buy a percentage each month until you start running again in May.

And I can't believe you didn't read what I wrote about opportunity and ancillary costs. Opportunity costs aren't monetary. The very point of my response was that not all costs are pecuniary.

The internet has lowered search (which can be money, time or effort) costs; ironically creating both Amazon and the boutique "maker" revolution. All products have four economic utilities; time, place, possession and form.

The car minimizes losses to time and place. When I went to Penn State and had to get a bus home; I had to get a bus to Harrisburg for three hours; sit in the station for five hours, then get a bus to Wilkes Barre (another two plus hours) and call the folks for the 30 minute ride to secret location. Forget a train. There hasn't been passenger rail to State College for decades. If I had a car, two hours and change mostly on I-80. I lost hours of the greatest part of my life sitting in a station, when I could have been studying, partying or chasing women.

I don't think railroads should be profitable; I think they must be profitable; we know what happens when they are capital starved- The World War I and 1976 federal takeovers. The last thing we need is another Henry Carter Adams dictating fees from giant tariff books. With that in mind, I don't want any business exacting economic rents because there's government imposed barriers to entry.

I have no idea idea what your World War II ad hominem is supposed to mean, since as a general rule, I don't think centralized command and control of economies is ever a good idea-Wassily Leontiff seemed to think linear programming was the answer, it was wrong and impractical, but that's beyond the scope of this-suffice it to say I'd decline to be in charge of "things". I would like to think I wouldn't have deprived persons of Japanese ancestry of their liberties based on inflamed suspicions without due process. Let the record show that the foiled attack on Horseshoe curve made Germans more dangerous.

Are highways "profitable"? Who actually knows. Nobody publishes real financial statements: Here's PA's ponderous 869 page executive budget; skip to page 632 and look at all the various funds and programs that affect transportation.

https://www.budget.pa.gov/Publications% ... 022-23.pdf


You tell me if that's "profitable"?

Now I do know when they jacked up the gas tax and other motor vehicle fees about ten years ago some of the money went to buy SEPTA locomotives and pay for municipal transportation subsidies. I have no idea if my county or municipal taxes are used for roads or bridges; or what even determines what makes a road a state or county responsibility.

No since highways are generally monopolies, they should be making money (economic rents) because of their extractive power. Politicians love to gush about "public investment" but that is just spending. I know in Pennsylvania, we have some of the highest gasoline taxes in the country.

https://www.wgal.com/article/pennsylvan ... s/39959750

If you want to cut down on the subsidies and cross-subsidies, I'm good with that. I'm sick of the politicians showing up with hedge clipper sized scissors, silver shovels and novelty checks to open buildings and roads because "I bring you jobs and this wonderful thing", with the rubes not figuring out they picked a million dimes out of a million pockets to back up that $100.000 check, they didn't reach into cornucopia to get it.

Now it's possible that we aren't accurately balancing benefits and costs because so many decisions are political rather than economic. In a world where there was no I-81, I might have gone to either of the two Wilkes Barre colleges (Kings and Wilkes, both private and more expensive, or to Bloomsburg, about 50 minutes from home). I do know this; I have a friend and a boss, both just got terminal cancer diagnoses. People may not believe they will die, but they know it and that's why time is so highly valued.