"Drive across KS or NE and try to tell me that they couldn’t upgrade and/or increase the number of tracks, and take a look at the number of unnecessary trucks on I-70 and I-80 (which run right along the tracks for 100s of miles). Never underestimate what can happen when driven by economics.
You make my point exactly, KS and NE are no longer the ideal train routes they used to be, farm goods are one thing, cargo dispersment to poulation centers and beyond requires trains whose beds are out dated and short haul, and load exchange, an expense that we circumvented by the “cantainer” era. Load’m in Hong kong. unload’m any where in the US. Killing the long Shoreman Union. Labor will ALWAYS be more expensive than transportation…train era still not happening.
Well, if you are correct consumer goods are about to get much more expensive. That’s OK with me, I think we all buy to much crap anyway; but not everyone is going to be able to afford the increases and it is likely to be inflationary.
I certainly agree that U.S. labor will always be more expensive than transportation (that’s why U.S. manufacturing is dead), the question becomes; what type of transportation will be the cheapest in 20 years?
“Yes I can name some good things about U.S. foreign policy
The Marshall Plan
Philippine independence
And thats without going past 1950 !”
I can agree with those two (they were both WW2 cleanup activities), how about something they’ve done right in the 57 years since 1950? I have trouble thinking of many U.S. actions that I would support during my lifetime. It would be interesting to hear how historians will describe the second half of the 20th century in a couple of 100 years. I’m afraid the chapter will be called, “The decline,” or something similar. So far, the 21st century isn’t looking so hot either.
The cost of ocean transportation from China to the US is miniscule compared to the price of the product. However,for larger items like cars, the dropping dollar will result in more Japanese, European and Korean cars to be built in North America. The UAW will still lose, since those cars will be built in mostly non-union plants.
Rail transport is traditionally cheaper than truck, but in Lean Manufacturing, as practiced by most Japanese firms now, the supply chain is best managed with trucks, and parts plants located close to the assembly plants. Goods are shipped in small batches with Lean Manufacturing.
Bulk commodoties will always be shipped mostly by rail, unless waterways are convenient.
Shipping finished goods across the country will be the battleground between rail and truck, since railways can also do the hub % spoke bit, like Federal Express. Slow speed and lack of flexibility has penalized the railways, but some, like Union pacific, have struck back and developed good intermodal rail/truck systems.
I agree, a weak dollar makes (non-union) U.S. labor more attractive, and the UAW is no longer relevant (about time, they’ve done enough damage already).
I also agree that “just in time” manufacturing is more conducive to trucks than rails, but that usually involves shorter distances between the supplier and the fabricator.
It will be very interesting to see if rail starts winning some long haul market share as fuel prices increase. I don’t think it’s going to happen overnight, but we’ll see.
I agree, a weak dollar makes (non-union) U.S. labor more attractive, and the UAW is no longer relevant (about time, they’ve done enough damage already).
Don’t blame the current GM and Ford crisis on the UAW…GM and Ford upper management have to take a major portion of this problem…When the UAW negotiated with them for their current benefits…GM and Ford were bringing in HUGH profits…They had the money then to shore up the benefits…and they REFUSED to do it…They choose instead to award these OBSCENE BONUS packages to upper management…WELL OVER $100M/yr. Now years later the UAW is being blamed for this problem.
I will agree their benefits package is well over the top…But GM/Ford and Chryco could easily have avoided this problem…but they choose to be greedy.
Agree that the malaise of the US carmakers is mostly management’s fault. When Ford had record losses, its president still made 5 times the salary of Toyota’s president!
Sweden and Germany have very high wages and benefits, but the uunions are more flexible in implementing productivity improvements, and healthcare is a federal government responsiblity in both countries.
It really doesn’t matter if the UAW or management, or both, killed them; they’re still dead. What I actually said was that the UAW (like other american labor unions) is no longer relevant. The sooner that these companies get the rest of their manufacturing jobs moved offshore, the better off they will be. Their management teams have proven that they are not capable of controlling U.S. labor costs (probably a combination of union greed and management incompetence for many years), so they are just getting what they deserve. Personally, I think it is too little-too late and they will all be gone in a couple of decades anyway. Maybe they will end up being purchased by other manufacturers (i.e., toyota), so the names might survive.
I agree that it is dumb (bad PR) to give management bonuses in a dying company, but it probably doesn’t really matter at this point. They probably need the bonuses to keep these guys from bailing out of the sinking ship and going to the asian competitors. Someone has to be left to turn out the lights.
I have a favor to ask: A lot of posts have made reference to mileage/fuel economy at different speeds and/or with cars of various vintage, effects on accident/death rates, road capacity at different speed limits, et cetera… Can anyone give me some citations, or copies of source material, that actually sets out this information in a factual/analytical/citable way? I would like to join the discussion, but I feel the need for data… Thank you for indulging my compulsive tendencies. MartyB < resod25600@mypacks.net >
You can Google the ups and downs, pros and cons all over the net of 55 mph and get what ever you want for conclusions on it’s efficacy. So much of the conclusions you can dRAW FOR safety is tainted by inclusion of airbags, head restraints and all the other mandated safety features in use now that MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO statistically conclude that 55 is safer…same with more efficient cars in general today vs yesterday…and the beat goes on and we all argue out point of fews from our own preconceived ideas and look for “facts” that back us up.
Each country publishes accident and fatality rate per million miles or kilometers. The Germans are the most precise, since they are forever defending their “no speed limit” policy on the autobahns. ADAC is the German Auto club. AAA in the US has many statistics, as of course NHTSA.
The Dutch government (federal, small counry) has conclude that 140 km/hr (87 mph)is a reasonable speed on their expressways; it keeps drivers alert and makes maximum use of expensive roads.
Fuel mileage (consumption)is always measured against the value of TIME, by no matter who or where. As the automobile developed, we went from the first speeding ticket fo 8 mph to the present.
That was about 1902, I believe when the first speeding ticket was handed out to a motorist. The speed limit in those days was determined by bicycles and trotting horses.
If you really want to see how well the 55 mph works, come to Chicago and take I-90 West. Through the western suburbs the posted speed limit is 55. If you attempt to travel at that speed (even in the right lane) you will be greeted by tailgaters, flashing brights, being cut off, and of course the finger. Most drivers are moving at speeds from 65 mph to 90 mph. Even the trucks are moving at 65 mph. Once you pass the Elgin area and the speed limit increases to 65 mph traffic actually slows down to about 70 mph. 55 didn’t work, doesn’t work, and won’t work!
Personally, I thought the limit had been raised to 60 in most states. I think the 55 limit should be a thing of the past. 60 should be the new limit for two-lane highways and 70 should be the limit for interstates. It is 60 for two-lanes in Missouri. But quite honestly, does it make a lot of difference when we’re paying $3.00 and more per gallon for gas? I keep reading about how the auto makers of the U.S. COULD be making more fuel-efficient cars. But if you go to the car web sites (Honda, Toyota, Ford, GM, & Chrysler), what you’ll see is just more SUB type vehicles and what few “fuel efficient” cars they do have are butt ugly. As I’ve posted before, I’d buy a Prius for the mileage alone, but the looks are nothing to brag about. Same can be said for the God-awful looking Civic. Even the non-hybrid Civic makes me ill. What’s with our car companies? They complain about weak sales but then offer customers little in the way of incentives to buy? If they can’t give us better mileage, then you’d think they could give us something to be wowed about. Looks like NEITHER are what they are offering.
They should take the lead from cell phones and other handheld electronics and start producing cars that have “skins”. If you don’t litle the way it works - pop off the shell and pop on a new one! That could create a whole new market for automobile accessories!
They should take the lead from cell phones and other handheld electronics and start producing cars that have “skins”. If you don’t litle the way it LOOKS - pop off the shell and pop on a new one! That could create a whole new market for automobile accessories!
It depends what part of the country you are in; many of the western interstates have 75 mph limits (so most people drive 75-85), a lot of mid-west/southern states seem to have about 65 mph limits (so most people drive 75-85), most NY highways (except the NY thruway) have a 55 mph limit (so most people drive 75-85). Here in CO, a lot of two lane county roads have either 55 or 65 mph limits (which are usually more or less obeyed). The point is that people (on average) are usually going to travel at a speed that is appropriate for the type of road.
I agree that people have very little incentive to slow down with $3 gasoline, when it gets to $6 you may see some impact.
It would be much safer for everyone if everyone drove THREE MPH. That’s it, let’s make the national speed limit 3 and just think of all of the gas and lives we’d save! Yeah, great idea.
Most people will drive the speed that they feel is reasonable for the road. Yes there will be a few amphetamine-crazed maniacs who will try to break the sound barrier, and there are a few bluehairs who will think that anything above 4 MPH will give them a heart attack. The biggest impact to gas mileage is the rate of accelleration, not speed. And the best ways to make the roads safe are (1) get rid of idiots and (2) have everyone drive at the same speed. Notice I did NOT say have everyone drive 55. If everyone is driving 70, and 70 is an appropriate speed for a normal driver, then everyone needs to drive 70. Case in point: I-75 through Atlanta…it’s posted at 55 or 65 (depending on where you are), yet everyone drives 70+. And as long as you don’t have some idiot trying to do 90, or weaving like a sine curve, or yakking on their cell phone while trying to prove the Big Bang theory while eating a Big Mac and reading the newspaper, then it will be safe.
I still remember a speed study done in the mid-1990’s for I-285 around Atlanta: one part had an average speed of 92 MPH. That’s one reason why I no longer live in Atlanta…