Economics 101, as the cost of a good or service (movement of goods in this case) increases people will move to equivalent alternatives that are less expensive. I think we are going to see a shift back to more local consumption of locally produced goods to eliminate the high transportation costs. Also trains can move more tonnage of cargo per gallon of fuel that trucks can. As fuel prices rise the trucking industry becomes less competitive against rail. I am not saying that the trucking industry is going to disapear, I am saying if they dont find ways to reduce the costs of a ton x mile shipped they will price themselves out of a significant portion of their current market share.

 

The rail system couldn't even come close to replacing the trucks. The rail systems are already running at capacity, at least in our region. If you have ever shipped or received products by rail you find out that unless you are a large customer of the rail road it is a PITA!! Even the local consumption of goods requires high transportation cost. There is no way around it. Reminds me of the sign that says "If you bought it a truck brought it".

 

duffman, do you realize the railroad industry is already pushing infrastructure limits on how much they can move? and the "express trains" still are slower then trucks as well as you actually INCREASE the number of drivers when you start relying on trains because of all the local trucks it takes to move the containers to and from the trains. And thats not even touching things like the automotive industry (and others) practice of "just on time" delivery and the fact that your car or truck was actually "built" in 3 dozen different towns or cities and probably at least 4 different countries (yes even your ford F250 was built in actually 6 differnt countries, your exhaust system for instance has parts built in canada, US and Mexico and all assembled at a plant in TN then shipped to the asembly plant) The reason for this wide spreading of building stuff is if you try to make the entire production of just say a vehicle in one town like KC you will make the jobs market highly favorable for the employees which although this is good for wages it is also bad for wages meaning that in any one location there is not enough people to man the factories to manufactur all the parts used in a car thus the job market would be favored towards employees making the wages probably triple or higher and thus probably doubling the cost.
Saying that truck driving jobs are going to drop requires ONE thing and that is a major slow down or outright stoppage of the economy and at that point it's not just truck drivers that will be looking for work. My wife actually worked with a lady with your attitude that says exactly what you just did "truck driving is a dying proffession, we don't need them thats what we ahve railroads for" and shows a total ignorance of how things are made and moved and how you get the things you need in the world today. You want less drivers on the road, ok one very simple way, go back to third world status. I do believe if EPA isn't stopped we will be in third world status soon and that is actually what other countries, the UN and anyone that thinks the things like the kyota accords has in mind to reduce competition for their products by US companies.

 

To say that railroads are incapable of expanding is being very naïve. If they have profits flowing in that exceed the market average then they will expand, if they don’t someone else will come in and do it instead. If you reread my post I never said that trucking would disappear, I said it would become leaner or lose market share. Leaner can mean a bunch of things from more fuel efficient tractors, ensuring the load is up to the GCWR, moving to more B & C Trains on the road or even simply slowing down. To deny that rail will become more competitive against roads over long distances and that production wont shift to it’s most efficient form is wishful thinking, it always has, it always will.

Why did Ford move to a model that outsourced parts from all over the place? It was entirely to reduce the cost of building a car. Those UAW workers thought they would have high paying jobs forever because the UAW would protect them. Boy have we seen that that is not the case and Michigan as a state is a shell of its former self. One thing that the Big 3 are good at and that is cutting costs, if that means going back to a centralized base of manufacturing then they will do it, if they don’t then they will go out of business because somebody else will figure out how to do it cheaper and will force them out.

All that other stuff you put at the bottom is irrelevant to the topic. The days of cheap oil are forever gone, to deny that is a refusal to accept the existence of the world that exists outside your borders.

If the U.S. can not figure out how to become a more efficient economy in the face of rising oil prices then they deserve to become a third world country, that is economic Darwinism and how free markets work.

 

YOu better hope your wrong if the US becomes more efficient and stops doing the outsourced works or turns into a third world economy Canada will be no better off then Mexico is now. and NO they can NOT return to centralized base of manufacturing at best they will actually outsource even more of it. to think otherwise and not realize exactly how many people it would take in a central area to do something as simple as build a car is hoping on the collapse of an industry too much. Trains can NOT expand all that much it takes way to much to add to the infrastructure and they have given up way to much land to be able to expand all that much. And Railroad infrastructure has only ONE use, railroads nothing else can use it and thus it's limited, were as Roads can be used for truck transportation, can be used for mass transit as well as private cars.
I have been listening to how railroads were going to take over for 20 yrs, and how the trucking industry has to get leaner and meaner for 40 yrs, well this thread brings it up big time, leaner meaner means telling EPA get OUT OF THE WAY. Epa has done more to cost efficiency then anything else that can be done. In fact the ONE thing that is affecting how the trucking industry can be leaner is blocked in all aspects by the federal government in stopping increased weight, and length (I do understand that increasing weight restriction would mean more damage to roads, I am not ignorant just stating that is not an option) I am friends with several railroaders and I can tell you even they understand that what your proposing is just not feasible. yes industry as a whole is going to have to figure out how to be leaner and believe it or not thats what spreading out did, but it also increased the need for transportation services, unfortunatly it also basically cost shifts from the industry to tax base cost do to the increased need to keep the roads etc maintained.
It's people that don't understand what most of the rest of the worlds REAL intentions are that will bring this country down, that and people that just hate anyone and everything about the US and are jealous of it and look at means to destroy it all in the name of doing good.

 

Rail would have taken the same kick in the teeth that every other alternative to oil did in the mid 80s when the price crashed. Rails biggest advantage is its ability to move more tons per gallon. Cheap oil in the 80s ruined the U.S., killing any advancement in high efficiency transportation infrastructure like Europe has built. You have been set back literally 20 years. No different in Canada either.

I am pretty confident that the U.S. will be ok, outsourcing out of the country can only go so far before the government walls itself in with trade barriers.

Your assumption that the auto industry can not recentralize assumes that Ford controls the supply of their parts. Nothing is stopping their suppliers to relocate close to the assembly plants, they are not subject to UAW-Ford labour problems, that’s why Ford went to outsourcing, to shed labour costs.

As to Canada, we are an oil exporter; we are going to be ok.

 

I don't think anyone will deny the fact that rail is competitive. The problem is rail capacity. Sure it can expand, but that takes literally decades. They have been trying to run a new line here to make it more efficient to get coal to the upper Midwest. They have been trying since the early 90's at least, might be longer. Same people that fight drilling oil fight rail expansion. Doesn't mean it wont happen, but it definitely isn't as easy as you make it seem.