| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2005 02:11:05 AM |
| Object: |
WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/08/trucker.rules.ap/index.html
Retailers want 16-hour trucker workday
Critics: 'Sweatshop-on-wheels amendment'
Tuesday, March 8, 2005 Posted: 7:35 PM EST (0035 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wal-Mart and other retailers are lobbying Congress
to extend the workday for truckers to 16 hours, something labor unions
and safety advocates say would make roadways more dangerous for all
drivers.
Rep. John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican whose district includes
Wal-Mart's headquarters in Bentonville, is sponsoring a bill that would
allow a 16-hour workday as long as the trucker took an unpaid two-hour
break. The proposal is expected to be offered as an amendment during
debate over the highway spending bill on Wednesday.
"Truckers are pushing harder than ever to make their runs within the
mandated timeframe," Boozman said. "Optional rest breaks will reduce
driver layovers and improve both safety and efficiency."
Current rules limit drivers' workdays to 14 hours, with only 11
consecutive hours of driving allowed, union leaders and safety
advocates say. That gives truckers three hours to eat, rest or load and
unload their trucks.
Critics of the proposal accuse Wal-Mart of trying to fatten its profits
by forcing truckers to spend more time waiting at the loading dock
without getting paid.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters "hasn't gotten one complaint
from drivers saying they don't have time for a break or a meal," the
union's vice president, John Murphy, said at a news conference Tuesday.
Joan Claybrook, president of the safety advocacy group Public Citizen,
said drivers could end up starting their workday at 8 a.m. and quitting
at midnight.
"This is a sweatshop-on-wheels amendment," Claybrook said. "The last
thing we need is for tired truckers to become even more fatigued and
threaten the safety of those around them on the roads."
The current rule had been struck down in federal court because it
didn't take into account truck drivers' health. In October, Congress
reinstated the rule for one year. If the Boozman proposal is adopted,
it would retain the 16-hour workday regardless of any new rule.
Nearly 5,000 people were killed in large truck crashes in 2003, and
those vehicles were three times more likely to be involved in fatal
crashes than passenger cars, according to the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration.
Wal-Mart spokesman Erik Winborn said the proposal has broad support
among the trucking industry and other retailers.
"We support it because we feel it would actually enhance safety rather
than hurt safety," said Winborn, whose company employs about 7,000
truck drivers.
Wal-Mart employees were Boozman's top contributors in 2003-04, giving
him $48,152 for his re-election campaign, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics. Wal-Mart and its employees gave $44,500 to Boozman
for his first successful bid for Congress in 2001-02, the last year
corporations could give to congressional candidates.
.
|
|
| User: "Kev" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
10 Mar 2005 01:53:38 AM |
|
|
My older brother sometimes drives 14-16 hours a day as he does his own
business. He does not like the driving restrictions they have in place.
Kevin
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Office Jet" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
10 Mar 2005 03:49:06 PM |
|
|
I'm not doing any driving for work right now, but i am working 13 hour
days, and i can tell you how much fun those are....zero, that's how
much.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BlackWater" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
09 Mar 2005 12:57:59 PM |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2005 00:11:05 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/08/trucker.rules.ap/index.html
Retailers want 16-hour trucker workday
Critics: 'Sweatshop-on-wheels amendment'
Tuesday, March 8, 2005 Posted: 7:35 PM EST (0035 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wal-Mart and other retailers are lobbying Congress
to extend the workday for truckers to 16 hours, something labor unions
and safety advocates say would make roadways more dangerous for all
drivers.
Current rules limit drivers' workdays to 14 hours, with only 11
consecutive hours of driving allowed
And when Wal-Mart has to raise prices because of
trucking problems you'll complain about THAT too ...
"Aaaah - WalMart is using its monopolistic powers
to screw the consumers !" .....
The 'consumers', of course, don't give a damn whether
WalMart uses child slave labor just so long as they
can buy underwear for a nickel cheaper ... and, maybe,
so long as it's not THEIR child chained to the counter.
Still, 16 hours is too damned long - unless there are
corresponding increases in the number of days off per
week. Not so terrible driving three of four 16 hour
trips IF you get a decent 3-day weekend afterwards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Magnulus" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
09 Mar 2005 10:50:04 PM |
|
|
I think trucks have their place but trains should be doing the long
hauls. They can move faster, use less fuel, and will clear up the roads
somewhat. Trucks are the most efficient for medium and short trips to
deliver goods from a train depot.
Truckers should never be allowed to drive 16 hours in a day. I think
even 12 is pushing it. They might even want to get people to use short-haul
trucks instead of 18 wheels. They brake better, tear up the road less, etc.
Industry will have to pay more, but I think it would be a small price to pay
to cleanup the nations roads and make them safer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Big Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
10 Mar 2005 10:23:06 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:50:04 -0500, "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
I think trucks have their place but trains should be doing the long
hauls. They can move faster, use less fuel, and will clear up the roads
somewhat. Trucks are the most efficient for medium and short trips to
deliver goods from a train depot.
Truckers should never be allowed to drive 16 hours in a day. I think
even 12 is pushing it. They might even want to get people to use short-haul
trucks instead of 18 wheels. They brake better, tear up the road less, etc.
Industry will have to pay more, but I think it would be a small price to pay
to cleanup the nations roads and make them safer.
As you get more life experience you will learn: the "industry" never
pays more; the customer always pays the freight.
That's you and me.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
09 Mar 2005 02:13:44 PM |
|
|
BlackWater wrote:
On 9 Mar 2005 00:11:05 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/08/trucker.rules.ap/index.html
Retailers want 16-hour trucker workday
Critics: 'Sweatshop-on-wheels amendment'
Tuesday, March 8, 2005 Posted: 7:35 PM EST (0035 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wal-Mart and other retailers are lobbying Congress
to extend the workday for truckers to 16 hours, something labor unions
and safety advocates say would make roadways more dangerous for all
drivers.
Current rules limit drivers' workdays to 14 hours, with only 11
consecutive hours of driving allowed
And when Wal-Mart has to raise prices because of
trucking problems you'll complain about THAT too ...
"Aaaah - WalMart is using its monopolistic powers
to screw the consumers !" .....
The 'consumers', of course, don't give a damn whether
WalMart uses child slave labor just so long as they
can buy underwear for a nickel cheaper ... and, maybe,
so long as it's not THEIR child chained to the counter.
Still, 16 hours is too damned long - unless there are
corresponding increases in the number of days off per
week. Not so terrible driving three of four 16 hour
trips IF you get a decent 3-day weekend afterwards.
We had a truck driver carrying gasoline drive off the road because he
fell asleep. Huge fire. I'd like to see trucks for long haul made *less*
competitive with rail because trucks pound the ***** out of the freeways,
are dangerous in accidents with cars, use a lot more fuel than trains,
etc.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BlackWater" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
09 Mar 2005 03:19:48 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:13:44 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On 9 Mar 2005 00:11:05 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/08/trucker.rules.ap/index.html
Retailers want 16-hour trucker workday
Critics: 'Sweatshop-on-wheels amendment'
Tuesday, March 8, 2005 Posted: 7:35 PM EST (0035 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wal-Mart and other retailers are lobbying Congress
to extend the workday for truckers to 16 hours, something labor unions
and safety advocates say would make roadways more dangerous for all
drivers.
Current rules limit drivers' workdays to 14 hours, with only 11
consecutive hours of driving allowed
And when Wal-Mart has to raise prices because of
trucking problems you'll complain about THAT too ...
"Aaaah - WalMart is using its monopolistic powers
to screw the consumers !" .....
The 'consumers', of course, don't give a damn whether
WalMart uses child slave labor just so long as they
can buy underwear for a nickel cheaper ... and, maybe,
so long as it's not THEIR child chained to the counter.
Still, 16 hours is too damned long - unless there are
corresponding increases in the number of days off per
week. Not so terrible driving three of four 16 hour
trips IF you get a decent 3-day weekend afterwards.
We had a truck driver carrying gasoline drive off the road because he
fell asleep. Huge fire. I'd like to see trucks for long haul made *less*
competitive with rail because trucks pound the ***** out of the freeways,
are dangerous in accidents with cars, use a lot more fuel than trains,
etc.
Rail is good ... but it too is an expensive system
to maintain and is hardly accident-free. Put more
trains on the track and you'll have more derailments
and more people struck on the crossings. Also, rail
simply doesn't go everywhere - trucks can. What
trucks consume in fuel and infrastructure they repay
through flexibility - anytime, anywhere.
You complain about truckers falling asleep - and we
all know it DOES happen regularly - but if you look
at the accident stats you'll immediately discover
that the biggest problem with trucks isn't the
trucks or truck drivers ... it's moronic civvies
driving like idiots in their little 4-wheelers.
They constantly cut-off trucks or forget that
trucks can't stop on a dime. Most 18-wheeler
wrecks can be traced to a 4-wheeler.
I suppose that in SOME places, a 'big trucks only'
highway lane might be an answer. Alas, outside of
metropolitan areas, most interstate highways are
just four-laners and you can't restrict the non-
commercial traffic to just ONE lane each direction.
Anyway, it *is* a toss-up between truck and rail
and is likely to remain so. It *should* remain
so because the two systems tend to complement
each other rather than actually compete.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
09 Mar 2005 05:19:32 PM |
|
|
BlackWater wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:13:44 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On 9 Mar 2005 00:11:05 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/08/trucker.rules.ap/index.html
Retailers want 16-hour trucker workday
Critics: 'Sweatshop-on-wheels amendment'
Tuesday, March 8, 2005 Posted: 7:35 PM EST (0035 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wal-Mart and other retailers are lobbying Congress
to extend the workday for truckers to 16 hours, something labor unions
and safety advocates say would make roadways more dangerous for all
drivers.
Current rules limit drivers' workdays to 14 hours, with only 11
consecutive hours of driving allowed
And when Wal-Mart has to raise prices because of
trucking problems you'll complain about THAT too ...
"Aaaah - WalMart is using its monopolistic powers
to screw the consumers !" .....
The 'consumers', of course, don't give a damn whether
WalMart uses child slave labor just so long as they
can buy underwear for a nickel cheaper ... and, maybe,
so long as it's not THEIR child chained to the counter.
Still, 16 hours is too damned long - unless there are
corresponding increases in the number of days off per
week. Not so terrible driving three of four 16 hour
trips IF you get a decent 3-day weekend afterwards.
We had a truck driver carrying gasoline drive off the road because he
fell asleep. Huge fire. I'd like to see trucks for long haul made *less*
competitive with rail because trucks pound the ***** out of the freeways,
are dangerous in accidents with cars, use a lot more fuel than trains,
etc.
Rail is good ... but it too is an expensive system
to maintain and is hardly accident-free. Put more
trains on the track and you'll have more derailments
and more people struck on the crossings. Also, rail
simply doesn't go everywhere - trucks can. What
trucks consume in fuel and infrastructure they repay
through flexibility - anytime, anywhere.
You can't replace trucks with trains for everything, but you can for
long haul. You could even get people on the train by making it free and
letting them put their cars onboard.
You complain about truckers falling asleep - and we
all know it DOES happen regularly - but if you look
at the accident stats you'll immediately discover
that the biggest problem with trucks isn't the
trucks or truck drivers ... it's moronic civvies
driving like idiots in their little 4-wheelers.
They constantly cut-off trucks or forget that
trucks can't stop on a dime. Most 18-wheeler
wrecks can be traced to a 4-wheeler.
It doesn't really matter who is at fault, they are just as dead.
I suppose that in SOME places, a 'big trucks only'
highway lane might be an answer. Alas, outside of
metropolitan areas, most interstate highways are
just four-laners and you can't restrict the non-
commercial traffic to just ONE lane each direction.
Anyway, it *is* a toss-up between truck and rail
and is likely to remain so. It *should* remain
so because the two systems tend to complement
each other rather than actually compete.
But that would mean using rail where it makes sense, for anything long
haul. There are trucks doing this now and they are chewing up the
highways and making the highways less safe.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sherman Cahal" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
09 Mar 2005 08:00:13 PM |
|
|
BlackWater wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:13:44 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was
in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
Rail is good ... but it too is an expensive system
to maintain and is hardly accident-free. Put more
trains on the track and you'll have more derailments
and more people struck on the crossings. Also, rail
simply doesn't go everywhere - trucks can. What
trucks consume in fuel and infrastructure they repay
through flexibility - anytime, anywhere.
Do you have any clue to what you said? Rail is FAR safer than trucks
and is the preferred way to submit freight and hazardous cargo across
the US:
HAZMAT INCIDENTS (1999)
Incidents Rail: 1,060.0
Incidents Truck: 14,407.0
Incidents Per Billion Ton-Miles Rail: 11.8
Incidents Per Billion Ton-Miles Truck: 128.4
What should be done is rail be used for long freight trips to
distribution or freight centers, where it would be loaded up on smaller
trucks for shipment to regional centers.
You complain about truckers falling asleep - and we
all know it DOES happen regularly - but if you look
at the accident stats you'll immediately discover
that the biggest problem with trucks isn't the
trucks or truck drivers ... it's moronic civvies
driving like idiots in their little 4-wheelers.
They constantly cut-off trucks or forget that
trucks can't stop on a dime. Most 18-wheeler
wrecks can be traced to a 4-wheeler.
Oh please. Take a look at the statistics for eastern Kentucky and West
Virginia for instance. The trucks are NOT maintained, are dirty to the
point where you cannot see the taillights, and are grossly overweight.
In fact, there was a fatal accident just a few days ago where a coal
truck driver ran over the center line because he was speeding and
creamed a car. The truck could not stop in time for his overloaded
truck and this story is just the same story being played again and
again year after year... If it was on rails, these issues would not be
so severe and would be mostly eliminated...
Anyway, it *is* a toss-up between truck and rail
and is likely to remain so. It *should* remain
so because the two systems tend to complement
each other rather than actually compete.
Exactly. I am a railfan along with a road'geek' and I frequently take
photos of trains -- what I find ironic is trains carrying tractor
trailers or cars.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary V" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
10 Mar 2005 07:55:27 AM |
|
|
Sherman Cahal wrote:
What should be done is rail be used for long freight trips to
distribution or freight centers, where it would be loaded up on
smaller
trucks for shipment to regional centers.
In an ideal world, yes. The problem is that every transfer of cargo
from one carrier to another increases cost - time delays, cost to
handle, risk of damage, etc. Just how many times do you want your
tomatoes dropped by a forklift operator?
Oh please. Take a look at the statistics for eastern Kentucky and
West
Virginia for instance. The trucks are NOT maintained, are dirty to
the
point where you cannot see the taillights, and are grossly
overweight.
In fact, there was a fatal accident just a few days ago where a coal
truck driver ran over the center line because he was speeding and
creamed a car. The truck could not stop in time for his overloaded
truck and this story is just the same story being played again and
again year after year... If it was on rails, these issues would not
be
so severe and would be mostly eliminated...
I'm not familiar with the mines in the area, but I thought the problem
was that rail couldn't go there - couldn't get up the grades?
Coal and other bulk cargoes are generally carried by ship, barge or
rail whenever that infrastructure is available. That's because there's
so little profit margin that it has to be carried as cheaply as
possible. A freighter on the Great Lakes can carry 1000 or more
truckloads, with a crew of about 20-23. Far cheaper than trucking, and
even less than rail. In fact, coal from ranges in Wyoming is railed to
the Duluth area, then loaded on boats for shipment to power plants and
steel mills on the Lower Lakes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel J. Stern" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
09 Mar 2005 08:11:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, BlackWater wrote:
Put more trains on the track and you'll have more derailments and more
people struck on the crossings. Also, rail simply doesn't go
everywhere - trucks can. What trucks consume in fuel and
infrastructure they repay through flexibility - anytime, anywhere.
Christ, here we go again with the trucking lobby's little chestpounding
routine. It's almost as noxious and just as baseless as "Loud pipes save
lives!".
You complain about truckers falling asleep - and we all know it DOES
happen regularly - but if you look at the accident stats you'll
immediately discover that the biggest problem with trucks isn't the
trucks or truck drivers ... it's moronic civvies driving like idiots
in their little 4-wheelers. They constantly cut-off trucks or forget
that trucks can't stop on a dime. Most 18-wheeler wrecks can be traced
to a 4-wheeler.
Newsflash: Truckers are "civvies" (civilians), too. As for the rest of
this bilge, until you can provide _factual_ support for your assertion
that "most 18-wheeler wrecks can be traced to a 4-wheeler", it remains
nothing more than hot air, guesses, opinions, blameshifting, and denial.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brent P" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
09 Mar 2005 09:01:57 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.10503092108240.29336-100000@ns5.vrx.net>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
You complain about truckers falling asleep - and we all know it DOES
happen regularly - but if you look at the accident stats you'll
immediately discover that the biggest problem with trucks isn't the
trucks or truck drivers ... it's moronic civvies driving like idiots
in their little 4-wheelers. They constantly cut-off trucks or forget
that trucks can't stop on a dime. Most 18-wheeler wrecks can be traced
to a 4-wheeler.
Newsflash: Truckers are "civvies" (civilians), too. As for the rest of
this bilge, until you can provide _factual_ support for your assertion
that "most 18-wheeler wrecks can be traced to a 4-wheeler", it remains
nothing more than hot air, guesses, opinions, blameshifting, and denial.
It's also irrelevant even if he can for at least two reasons.
1) Driving in the USA is a least common demonator affair. I don't like
that it is this way, but to be consistant if something poses a hazard for
the LCD driver, then it gets delt with, removed, whatever. Argue the 4
wheelers suck at driving all you want, but the forces that bring us one
idiotic traffic scheme after another for the LCD driver would justify
removing as many semis from the road as possible. So truckers prove it's the
'4-wheeler's' fault. They'll just be providing reason to remove heavy
trucks from the road the way things work here in USA.
2) No matter what the truckers say, the heavy truck, the semi, etc is an
outlier on the curve of vehicle performance. It is the hazard. It is the
vehicle that can't turn well, it's the vehicle that can't brake well,
it's the vehicle that can't accelerate well. It's also the vehicle that
doesn't match up well wrt to crash equipment. It's the vehicle that due to
lobbying lacks proper under-ride bars, etc. Again, the truckers can blame
the other guy all they want, but it still remains that the semi is the
greater vehicluar hazard.
IMO, the real reason is the great subsidy we all have to pay in taxes for
the trucking industry. I don't buy much. I am sure my taxes pay for a
great deal more than what I save on the shelf price because of trucking's
subsidy. I am sure the damage/wear done to my vehicles from driving on
roads pounded to crap by trucks far exceeds any savings in the goods I
purchase. I'd rather have trucking pay it's share, taxes reduced and the
price of goods reflect the true transportation cost. I'll be ahead in the
end.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BlackWater" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
10 Mar 2005 07:36:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:11:17 GMT, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, BlackWater wrote:
Put more trains on the track and you'll have more derailments and more
people struck on the crossings. Also, rail simply doesn't go
everywhere - trucks can. What trucks consume in fuel and
infrastructure they repay through flexibility - anytime, anywhere.
Christ, here we go again with the trucking lobby's little chestpounding
routine. It's almost as noxious and just as baseless as "Loud pipes save
lives!".
Hey ... if I'm in the 'trucking lobby' why ain't
I getting PAID ???
Sorry bub, but the facts are the facts. Trucks are
BETTER than rail AT LEAST half the time.
I *do* tend to agree with the assertion that 'long
haul' trucking COULD be reduced by increase use of
the rail system. However, as I noted elsewhere, if
we increase rail-system use we also increase rail-
system infrastructure expendatures ... all those
tracks are expensive to maintain and the more traffic
the more maintenence is required. Accidents at
crossings would also increase proportionally to the
number of packages sent by rail.
More rail traffic also requires more engines and
engineers and there are two related issues that
intersect here. Trains block vehicle traffic.
Long trains block it for a long time. MORE trains
block it more often. Not only is ordinary traffic
blocked but also emergency-services traffic. If
we start running twice or thrice the current volume
of rail traffic, one or more 'regular' crossings
will have to be re-done in almost *every* town and
even to an extent in the countryside to create
rail under/overpasses so vehicle traffic can continue
to flow. Such changes are a substantial undertaking
both in terms of material expendatures and planning.
Then there's the ever-present NOISE issue related to
rail traffic. Lots of people don't like it - to the
point of restricting train speeds and/or whistle
use in their cities.
Finally there's the 'new' issue of terrorism. Trains
are very vulnerable to terrorism. They travel fixed
routes, often a fairly predictable times. They carry
a VERY large amount of cargo - sometimes highly
toxic or explosive. Simply pulling a heavy vehicle
onto the track or yanking-up a rail *anywhere*, a
terrorist can de-rail a train. This can result in
considerable loss of life and/or considerable economic
losses and/or considerable disruption in local vehicle
traffic/access. A truck accident may block *a* road,
spill *some* toxics, lose *some* money or cause *some*
impediment to commerce - but a five-mile-long train
can do all these on a grand scale.
One *might* argue that the high number of trucks create
more 'pinpoint' problems that, cumulatively, add up to
as much of a problem as the occasional train crash. May
be true, may not be. Depends on how you look at things.
'Pinpoint' problems can usually be circumnavigated
quite easily. A stalled/wrecked/loading/unloading train
cannot.
So, I'd say that MORE long-distance cargo COULD take
advantage of the rail system ... but the more you do
so, the more you amplify the inherent problems o
rail transport. In the end, it may be a no-gain
strategy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
10 Mar 2005 11:48:45 AM |
|
|
BlackWater wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:11:17 GMT, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, BlackWater wrote:
Put more trains on the track and you'll have more derailments and more
people struck on the crossings. Also, rail simply doesn't go
everywhere - trucks can. What trucks consume in fuel and
infrastructure they repay through flexibility - anytime, anywhere.
Christ, here we go again with the trucking lobby's little chestpounding
routine. It's almost as noxious and just as baseless as "Loud pipes save
lives!".
Hey ... if I'm in the 'trucking lobby' why ain't
I getting PAID ???
Sorry bub, but the facts are the facts. Trucks are
BETTER than rail AT LEAST half the time.
Better in what way? Given all the factors as they exist, trucks best
trains in many ways that might not be true if some of the factors were
changed.
I *do* tend to agree with the assertion that 'long
haul' trucking COULD be reduced by increase use of
the rail system. However, as I noted elsewhere, if
we increase rail-system use we also increase rail-
system infrastructure expendatures ... all those
tracks are expensive to maintain and the more traffic
the more maintenence is required.
That's probably not linear.
Accidents at
crossings would also increase proportionally to the
number of packages sent by rail.
People might not run the tracks when the train is coming if they had
more trains to deal with, saw what happens more on the news when you do
run the tracks but get unlucky.
More rail traffic also requires more engines and
engineers and there are two related issues that
intersect here. Trains block vehicle traffic.
Long trains block it for a long time. MORE trains
block it more often. Not only is ordinary traffic
blocked but also emergency-services traffic. If
we start running twice or thrice the current volume
of rail traffic, one or more 'regular' crossings
will have to be re-done in almost *every* town and
even to an extent in the countryside to create
rail under/overpasses so vehicle traffic can continue
to flow. Such changes are a substantial undertaking
both in terms of material expendatures and planning.
Of course there would be more money available to fix crossings if there
were more trains to pay for them.
Then there's the ever-present NOISE issue related to
rail traffic. Lots of people don't like it - to the
point of restricting train speeds and/or whistle
use in their cities.
Ever hear the Seattle Mariners home games?
Finally there's the 'new' issue of terrorism. Trains
are very vulnerable to terrorism. They travel fixed
routes, often a fairly predictable times. They carry
a VERY large amount of cargo - sometimes highly
toxic or explosive. Simply pulling a heavy vehicle
onto the track or yanking-up a rail *anywhere*, a
terrorist can de-rail a train.
This is true. Of course rail cars can be made more robust than those on
the road, to whatever degree is likely to be needed. Instant
communication to all engines to stop all trains in the area if there is
a derailment is clearly needed.
This can result in
considerable loss of life and/or considerable economic
losses and/or considerable disruption in local vehicle
traffic/access. A truck accident may block *a* road,
spill *some* toxics, lose *some* money or cause *some*
impediment to commerce - but a five-mile-long train
can do all these on a grand scale.
As long as the train isn't hit by another going the opposite direction,
this should be containable.
One *might* argue that the high number of trucks create
more 'pinpoint' problems that, cumulatively, add up to
as much of a problem as the occasional train crash. May
be true, may not be. Depends on how you look at things.
They make that argument against gasoline pipelines but clearly over time
the pipelines are safer, even allowing for the occasional megafire.
'Pinpoint' problems can usually be circumnavigated
quite easily. A stalled/wrecked/loading/unloading train
cannot.
We've repeatedly seen problems on our interstates which take out all the
lanes in one direction, and when flammable or toxic materials are
involved, all the lanes in all directions. Blocking all the lanes of I-5
for day is not good for the economy and that's just a point source, one
tanker truck and a sleepy driver.
So, I'd say that MORE long-distance cargo COULD take
advantage of the rail system ... but the more you do
so, the more you amplify the inherent problems o
rail transport. In the end, it may be a no-gain
strategy.
I don't think so. If you could put your car on the train and take a
trip, even one of 60 miles, that would be one less car on the roads.
Trains could be used to make a major dent in the long haul traffic on
our interstates. Trains can also use combined grid electrical power and
generated power on board allowing the train to start up using power from
the grid and slow down generating power to the grid.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott en Aztlán" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
10 Mar 2005 10:25:20 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:48:45 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in
confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote:
Sorry bub, but the facts are the facts. Trucks are
BETTER than rail AT LEAST half the time.
Better in what way?
Better in the sense that they give a bunch of otherwise unemployable
Union fucks a paycheck.
--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
10 Mar 2005 02:35:28 PM |
|
|
BlackWater wrote:
Finally there's the 'new' issue of terrorism. Trains
are very vulnerable to terrorism. They travel fixed
routes, often a fairly predictable times. They carry
a VERY large amount of cargo - sometimes highly
toxic or explosive. Simply pulling a heavy vehicle
onto the track or yanking-up a rail *anywhere*, a
terrorist can de-rail a train. This can result in
considerable loss of life and/or considerable economic
losses and/or considerable disruption in local vehicle
traffic/access. A truck accident may block *a* road,
spill *some* toxics, lose *some* money or cause *some*
impediment to commerce - but a five-mile-long train
can do all these on a grand scale.
One *might* argue that the high number of trucks create
more 'pinpoint' problems that, cumulatively, add up to
as much of a problem as the occasional train crash. May
be true, may not be. Depends on how you look at things.
'Pinpoint' problems can usually be circumnavigated
quite easily. A stalled/wrecked/loading/unloading train
cannot.
So, I'd say that MORE long-distance cargo COULD take
advantage of the rail system ... but the more you do
so, the more you amplify the inherent problems o
rail transport. In the end, it may be a no-gain
strategy.
It depends on whether you think terrorism is likely to
be centralized or distributed, I think. If it's centralized
then things are going to be planned; they'll look up
timetables and the like. If it's distributed then
they'll just plant bombs and wait until a target
comes along.
On the basis of current al-qaida and Iraqi activities,
it seems as though distributed is the current model.
Not to say there won't be flagship events a la 9/11
and Madrid, but the "They seek him here, they seek
him there, the Frenchies seek him everywhere" approach
of the Scarlet Pimpernel looks more likely.
The flip side is that fixed targets are easier to
attack, as with oil pipes in Iraq. But are we
envisaging a future in which the US is getting
close to civil war? If so, an awful lot of
infrastracture is already vulnerable; I don't
think rail adds much to the problem.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
10 Mar 2005 10:01:39 PM |
|
|
"chris.holt" wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
Finally there's the 'new' issue of terrorism. Trains
are very vulnerable to terrorism. They travel fixed
routes, often a fairly predictable times. They carry
a VERY large amount of cargo - sometimes highly
toxic or explosive. Simply pulling a heavy vehicle
onto the track or yanking-up a rail *anywhere*, a
terrorist can de-rail a train. This can result in
considerable loss of life and/or considerable economic
losses and/or considerable disruption in local vehicle
traffic/access. A truck accident may block *a* road,
spill *some* toxics, lose *some* money or cause *some*
impediment to commerce - but a five-mile-long train
can do all these on a grand scale.
One *might* argue that the high number of trucks create
more 'pinpoint' problems that, cumulatively, add up to
as much of a problem as the occasional train crash. May
be true, may not be. Depends on how you look at things.
'Pinpoint' problems can usually be circumnavigated
quite easily. A stalled/wrecked/loading/unloading train
cannot.
So, I'd say that MORE long-distance cargo COULD take
advantage of the rail system ... but the more you do
so, the more you amplify the inherent problems o
rail transport. In the end, it may be a no-gain
strategy.
It depends on whether you think terrorism is likely to
be centralized or distributed, I think. If it's centralized
then things are going to be planned; they'll look up
timetables and the like. If it's distributed then
they'll just plant bombs and wait until a target
comes along.
On the basis of current al-qaida and Iraqi activities,
it seems as though distributed is the current model.
Not to say there won't be flagship events a la 9/11
and Madrid, but the "They seek him here, they seek
him there, the Frenchies seek him everywhere" approach
of the Scarlet Pimpernel looks more likely.
The flip side is that fixed targets are easier to
attack, as with oil pipes in Iraq. But are we
envisaging a future in which the US is getting
close to civil war? If so, an awful lot of
infrastracture is already vulnerable; I don't
think rail adds much to the problem.
Mass transit is very vulnerable to attack. Cars are not.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brent P" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
10 Mar 2005 10:45:52 PM |
|
|
In article <42311823.E12EE6F@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>, Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' ) wrote:
Mass transit is very vulnerable to attack. Cars are not.
Exactly how are interstate overpasses, critical bridges and tunnels, that
sort of thing not as vulnerable to attack than their rail counterparts?
Now if you are regarding the number of people in train car, there may be
a better chance for harming more people because of single occupant
vehicles on the roadway. But that's about it. A loaded school bus is just
as a good target out on the road with the commuters in the morning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Russotto" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
14 Mar 2005 09:30:49 AM |
|
|
In article <cr2dnY6IcrEdv6zfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <42311823.E12EE6F@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>, Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' ) wrote:
Mass transit is very vulnerable to attack. Cars are not.
Exactly how are interstate overpasses, critical bridges and tunnels, that
sort of thing not as vulnerable to attack than their rail counterparts?
There's a lot more redundancy in the road system, and a lot less
damage that can be done by any one action.
Destroy a chunk of I-95, you cause reduced capacity and traffic jams.
Destroy a section of the Northeast corridor, and the trains simply
can't get from one place to another.
Local mass transit in Philadelphia has a single point of failure which
can (and often does) take out the whole system. It's called the
"union contract".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brent P" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
14 Mar 2005 09:56:25 AM |
|
|
In article <jYadnQShiKW0M6jfRVn-gQ@speakeasy.net>, Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article <cr2dnY6IcrEdv6zfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <42311823.E12EE6F@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>, Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' ) wrote:
Mass transit is very vulnerable to attack. Cars are not.
Exactly how are interstate overpasses, critical bridges and tunnels, that
sort of thing not as vulnerable to attack than their rail counterparts?
There's a lot more redundancy in the road system, and a lot less
damage that can be done by any one action.
Change the measure from deaths and vunerablity to inconvience.
Destroy a chunk of I-95, you cause reduced capacity and traffic jams.
Destroy a section of the Northeast corridor, and the trains simply
can't get from one place to another.
So the stuff moves by truck instead of rail jamming the roads.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Russotto" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
14 Mar 2005 11:10:00 AM |
|
|
In article <q9mdnTDT5cq0KajfRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <jYadnQShiKW0M6jfRVn-gQ@speakeasy.net>, Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article <cr2dnY6IcrEdv6zfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <42311823.E12EE6F@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>, Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' ) wrote:
Mass transit is very vulnerable to attack. Cars are not.
Exactly how are interstate overpasses, critical bridges and tunnels, that
sort of thing not as vulnerable to attack than their rail counterparts?
There's a lot more redundancy in the road system, and a lot less
damage that can be done by any one action.
Change the measure from deaths and vunerablity to inconvience.
So major damage to infrastructure is mere "inconvenience"?
Destroy a chunk of I-95, you cause reduced capacity and traffic jams.
Destroy a section of the Northeast corridor, and the trains simply
can't get from one place to another.
So the stuff moves by truck instead of rail jamming the roads.
Jamming the roads MORE than taking out a similar chunk of Interstate
would.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brent P" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
14 Mar 2005 11:20:45 AM |
|
|
In article <ub2dnSKP99r1WKjfRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net>, Matthew Russotto wrote:
There's a lot more redundancy in the road system, and a lot less
damage that can be done by any one action.
Change the measure from deaths and vunerablity to inconvience.
So major damage to infrastructure is mere "inconvenience"?
That seems to be your arguement. That traffic will be rerouted, there
will be traffic jams, etc, simply inconvience. If I am reading it wrong,
let me know.
Destroy a chunk of I-95, you cause reduced capacity and traffic jams.
Destroy a section of the Northeast corridor, and the trains simply
can't get from one place to another.
So the stuff moves by truck instead of rail jamming the roads.
Jamming the roads MORE than taking out a similar chunk of Interstate
would.
Taking out a 'similiar chunk of interstate' would cause considerable
traffic jams. There are parts of the interstate system that lack suitable
redundancy and are jammed consistantly. For instance, I80 between IL and
IN. Take out such a 'similiar chunk' and there will be considerable
problems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Harvilla" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
14 Mar 2005 07:04:47 PM |
|
|
Brent P wrote:
Taking out a 'similiar chunk of interstate' would cause considerable
traffic jams. There are parts of the interstate system that lack suitable
redundancy and are jammed consistantly. For instance, I80 between IL and
IN. Take out such a 'similiar chunk' and there will be considerable
problems.
Even there, you have plenty of redundancy. Those who know the area well
enough, even truckers, can bail out of a jam on 80/94 and take several
possible routes: US 12, US 20, I-90 (Indiana Toll Road), US 30, 159th
St. on the Illinois side (which becomes 165th St. as it enters Indiana),
and probably a few others I haven't yet thought of.
--
Larry Harvilla
E-mail: roads AT phatpage DOT org
also visit: http://www.phatpage.org/
Highways section in progress.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brent P" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
14 Mar 2005 08:05:19 PM |
|
|
In article <nvmdnZNfxps2qavfRVn-rQ@giganews.com>, Larry Harvilla wrote:
Brent P wrote:
Taking out a 'similiar chunk of interstate' would cause considerable
traffic jams. There are parts of the interstate system that lack suitable
redundancy and are jammed consistantly. For instance, I80 between IL and
IN. Take out such a 'similiar chunk' and there will be considerable
problems.
Even there, you have plenty of redundancy. Those who know the area well
enough, even truckers, can bail out of a jam on 80/94 and take several
possible routes: US 12, US 20, I-90 (Indiana Toll Road), US 30, 159th
St. on the Illinois side (which becomes 165th St. as it enters Indiana),
and probably a few others I haven't yet thought of.
Into other jams because the alternatives are filled with people who know
the area.... ;) I don't have to go into IN often, the last time on the
way back, I decided to get off the interstate at route 30 and cut across
as the radio was stating there was a backup ahead... it was midnight
sunday-into-monday. Thankfull because of the hour, route 30 wasn't too
bad.... just hard to pass the slow trucks in my friend's van.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BlackWater" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
12 Mar 2005 12:19:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:45:52 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:
In article <42311823.E12EE6F@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>, Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' ) wrote:
Mass transit is very vulnerable to attack. Cars are not.
Exactly how are interstate overpasses, critical bridges and tunnels, that
sort of thing not as vulnerable to attack than their rail counterparts?
You've gotta quit sniffin' that tetraethyllead ... it
will make you see giant spiders - and make you blind
to certain practical issues too it would seem.
The issue is "concentration of assets". A terrorist
can wreck a few cars - but that's all they will
accomplish for their trouble. Now if they attack a
bus or ship or train - especially a train full of
toxic chemicals - they can strike a major blow. More
terrorist bang for the buck, so to speak.
Now if you are regarding the number of people in train car, there may be
a better chance for harming more people because of single occupant
vehicles on the roadway. But that's about it. A loaded school bus is just
as a good target out on the road with the commuters in the morning.
A school bus is 'mass transit'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brent P" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
12 Mar 2005 05:28:35 PM |
|
|
In article <423331d1.2103144@news.east.earthlink.net>, BlackWater wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:45:52 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:
In article <42311823.E12EE6F@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>, Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' ) wrote:
Mass transit is very vulnerable to attack. Cars are not.
Exactly how are interstate overpasses, critical bridges and tunnels, that
sort of thing not as vulnerable to attack than their rail counterparts?
You've gotta quit sniffin' that tetraethyllead ... it
will make you see giant spiders - and make you blind
to certain practical issues too it would seem.
You want to turn this into an insult exchange pisswater?
The issue is "concentration of assets". A terrorist
can wreck a few cars - but that's all they will
accomplish for their trouble. Now if they attack a
bus or ship or train - especially a train full of
toxic chemicals - they can strike a major blow. More
terrorist bang for the buck, so to speak.
A few cars? You haven't seen big city rush hours traffic jams have you?
Do buses use a different road system in your universe? Buses use the
same damn bridges too ya know. And they go over them at about the same
time every day.
Now if you are regarding the number of people in train car, there may be
a better chance for harming more people because of single occupant
vehicles on the roadway. But that's about it. A loaded school bus is just
as a good target out on the road with the commuters in the morning.
A school bus is 'mass transit'.
Which means attacking road infastructure is just as viable as attacking
road infastructure. You've just proved my point and invalidated yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brent P" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
12 Mar 2005 07:23:12 PM |
|
|
In article <VumdnQFOvcG-5q7fRVn-qw@comcast.com>, Brent P wrote:
Which means attacking road infastructure is just as viable as attacking
_rail_ infastructure. You've just proved my point and invalidated yours.
correction above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BlackWater" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
14 Mar 2005 06:11:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:23:12 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:
In article <VumdnQFOvcG-5q7fRVn-qw@comcast.com>, Brent P wrote:
Which means attacking road infastructure is just as viable as attacking
_rail_ infastructure. You've just proved my point and invalidated yours.
correction above.
Noted ... the previous edition didn't make much
sense.
Still, I'll note that RAIL infrastructure is easier
to damage than ROAD infrastructure. There are MANY
roads - and they're big wide strips 25 to 100 feet
wide. Aerial bombing ? Rail is far more concentrated.
You can destroy track or a rail bridge and nothing
is gonna move for days or weeks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brent P" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
14 Mar 2005 09:53:59 AM |
|
|
In article <42357e39.2144433@news.east.earthlink.net>, BlackWater wrote:
Still, I'll note that RAIL infrastructure is easier
to damage than ROAD infrastructure. There are MANY
roads - and they're big wide strips 25 to 100 feet
wide. Aerial bombing ? Rail is far more concentrated.
You can destroy track or a rail bridge and nothing
is gonna move for days or weeks.
I suggest you pay closer attention to the road system and it's BRIDGES.
What do you think is going to happen if just a section of interstate
bridge is sent tumbling down?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Russotto" |
|
| Title: Re: WalMart wants truckers working 16 hour days |
14 Mar 2005 11:08:01 AM |
|
|
In article <q9mdnTHT5coKLqjfRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <42357e39.2144433@news.east.earthlink.net>, BlackWater wrote:
Still, I'll note that RAIL infrastructure is easier
to damage than ROAD infrastructure. There are MANY
roads - and they're big wide strips 25 to 100 feet
wide. Aerial bombing ? Rail is far more concentrated.
You can destroy track or a rail bridge and nothing
is gonna move for days or weeks.
I suggest you pay closer attention to the road system and it's BRIDGES.
What do you think is going to happen if just a section of interstate
bridge is sent tumbling down?
Same as the tire fire in Philadelphia some years ago which took out an
elevated section of I-95 for months. Traffic will be routed around
it. There's rarely just one bridge, or even just one suitable for
trucks.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
