EU plans to ban cars from cities by 2050

[Tempest]

Quote:
Fossil fuels, and basically anything that comes out of the planet that we use for energy is in finite supply.

Sure, but there is a LOT of it out there.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natur...df/chapter3.pdf

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: kb01
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Yes but having lived within five or so miles of midtown Manhattan or Center City Philadelphia all my life, Ill say that without a car to get you to some of the mass transit access points, youre either paying a fortune for taxis, spending a substantial amount of time taking non-optimal bus routes, etc.


Where in Philly did you live?

When I lived in South Philly, a car was nothing but a nuisance and I only took a taxi a few times over the course of about 5 years. I don't think I ever had to walk more than 2 or 3 blocks to catch a bus, trolly, or subway. Finding adequate parking and dealing with traffic was much more work.


Suburbs just outside. Few miles from the bridge now, few miles from the Lincoln Tunnel then. Both get you pretty much into the center of town as soon as they spit you off.

Not everyone wants to live in the city. LOTS of folks can live in real homes just outside of town and be VERY close.

THe greater the radius of the population center, the less practical (and more expensive) it is to have readily available mass transit at all times. Works great at the center of the orange and blue line in Philly, the chicago loop, DC Metro Centerish area, etc., etc. The more branches/connections, etc. the more people you have to have to run the system, the more expense, less convenience if not, etc.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
If it costs more to ship by truck than train, then it is a poor argument that we should ignore that fact just because it creates jobs.


It absolutely does cost more to ship by truck than by train. It also wastes a lot more dino juice....

Can you explain to me why trucks are so prevalent?

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Can you explain to me why trucks are so prevalent?

Apparently businesses care more about how long it takes to ship their goods than the cost it takes to ship it....

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Can you explain to me why trucks are so prevalent?

Apparently businesses care more about how long it takes to ship their goods than the cost it takes to ship it....


This is hardly businesses' fault, they are simply doing what market demands, and that is cheap, disposable goods that are used up quickly and thrown away with more cheap goods replacing them quickly. When that hot iPhone, or other electronic gizmo is released, all stores want that as fast as possible, because if they wait, the fad can move on to something else.

We consume this stuff so fast that trucking will have to stay for now.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Can you explain to me why trucks are so prevalent?

Apparently businesses care more about how long it takes to ship their goods than the cost it takes to ship it....

Not just businesses. Amazon has a pre-paid 2 day ship program for their customers. This has been going on for some time.

Try doing that with train based shipping.

 

[grampi]

Like I said, when the price of quick shipping becomes too high and bringing down those costs becomes more of a priority, then a more cost effective means will be utilized...

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That was my point America and its populace is not the same as Europe. The first cartoon is depicting the USA.

Yes, but the original article is about the EU, not the US.

The original article wasn't about US trucking vs trains either, but we have that discussion going too. Point is I wasn't responding directly to the article anyway, but to others' posts.

the response to this thread should have been "Good to know about the EU proposals that will not be effective for another 40 years" and move on.

 

[kb01]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2


Suburbs just outside. Few miles from the bridge now, few miles from the Lincoln Tunnel then. Both get you pretty much into the center of town as soon as they spit you off.



That makes sense, I thought you lived in Philly and not the suburbs.

I was trying to figure out where you lived that you were more than a few blocks from a bus or trolley stop. I've lived all over the US and Philly has the most comprehensive transit system that I've ever experienced.

Things get a little trickier with the suburbs but it can still be pretty decent given how low density the surrounding counties can be. I was able to commute from South Philadelphia to North Wales for about two years, without needing a car (it took longer than driving but was nice to not deal with traffic). I eventually moved to Mt. Airy and it was still better than most of the previous places I lived (it helped that I lived on a block that was between a train station and a bus stop).

I know a few people who live in Conshohocken and Norristown and they use SEPTA to get too/from work, so it's not totally impossible to be car-less outside of the city-proper.

I now live in a city with a bus system which is virtually useless for those of us who have jobs. I think it's more designed to get people to and from social services than for people who need to be at work at consistent times.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That was my point America and its populace is not the same as Europe. The first cartoon is depicting the USA.

Yes, but the original article is about the EU, not the US.

The original article wasn't about US trucking vs trains either, but we have that discussion going too. Point is I wasn't responding directly to the article anyway, but to others' posts.

the response to this thread should have been "Good to know about the EU proposals that will not be effective for another 40 years" and move on.



So now you are dictating what all should be discussed in the thread

.

 

[maersk]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
In what way are we less efficient? Please provide your information source.


Well, the almost ubiquitous use of torque converter automatics, most passenger cars being gasoline powered, that sort of thing. Likewise the preference for OTR vs rail shipping of freight, etc.

Originally Posted By: Tempest
People always say that the US is using more resources than other places. And they are right. The one thing they never bother to look up is that we are also generating a large chunk of the world's wealth! So we are in fact, being very productive with the energy we use.


The one does not necessarily follow the other. Generating a lot of both real and apparent wealth, if you're going through proportionally more resources to do it than other nations is obviously being less efficient. That was the original argument and not necessarily whether the US is efficient or not.

And the discussion was about hauling freight, not generating wealth.

Someone, somewhere has to take a stand and force an incentive on the private sector to prepare for the future in good time. There will eventually come a day when absolutely everyone realizes oil (how much of it will be left by then) is far too valuable to just keep burning. At least in the irresponsable rate and fashion we are now, at least.

Anyway, I don't see what skin it is off your nose what will happen in the EU in 4 decades' time. It's not like it will impact you, negatively - at least.

Maybe we happen to like Central Planning, maybe that's just the way we roll in the old country.

You should be glad, oil prices will come down.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
And the discussion was about hauling freight, not generating wealth.

Freight is moved to generate wealth. So, moving freight in the most efficient manner increases people's wealth. So, why would an entire nation (the wealthiest on the planet), be using the least efficient mode of transportation.

You are simply looking a gallons/mile/tonnage, when there is much more that goes into it.
Quote:
Someone, somewhere has to take a stand and force an incentive on the private sector to prepare for the future in good time.

Who are these people that have perfect insight to the future?

And these are not good times.

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Like I said, when the price of quick shipping becomes too high and bringing down those costs becomes more of a priority, then a more cost effective means will be utilized...

I'll make a deal with you...

You stop requiring that the World's resources be wasted, by asking that things like fresh foods and pharmaceuticals be available to you, and I'll stop operating a company that ensures that they are.

Do we have a deal?

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: grampi
Like I said, when the price of quick shipping becomes too high and bringing down those costs becomes more of a priority, then a more cost effective means will be utilized...

I'll make a deal with you...

You stop requiring that the World's resources be wasted, by asking that things like fresh foods and pharmaceuticals be available to you, and I'll stop operating a company that ensures that they are.

Do we have a deal?


That's a ridiculous statement. All I'm trying to point out is it would be more energy efficient to ship goods via rail vs OTR semis.

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: grampi
Like I said, when the price of quick shipping becomes too high and bringing down those costs becomes more of a priority, then a more cost effective means will be utilized...
I'll make a deal with you...

You stop requiring that the World's resources be wasted, by asking that things like fresh foods and pharmaceuticals be available to you, and I'll stop operating a company that ensures that they are.

Do we have a deal?
That's a ridiculous statement. All I'm trying to point out is it would be more energy efficient to ship goods via rail vs OTR semis.

Corporations will not spend a penny more than is absolutely necessary in order to achieve their desired revenue and service goals. They've already made it quite clear what the optimum transportation mode is in most cases. In many instances, railroads can't price their services low enough to even make it on the shipper's radar. And that's for just the minor percentage of markets that the railroads provide service to. Railroads have tried, repeatedly, to compete head-to-head with truck transport, and failed again, again and again.

The railroads have finally come to understand and accept this, as exhibited by where their infrastructure investments are being made. Railroads are moving away from marketing their services directly to customers, and are beginning to solicit trucking companies for their business, in those limited circumstances where it may be cost effective as a part of the overall service. This is an unusual situation, as it gives the trucking industry a position to demand a higher level of service than the average shipper is able to demand. A look at what railroads are lobbying against is also telling. Then you've got the federal government's studies on rural transportation which only reinforce the massive advantages provided by trucks, that simply cannot be overcome by railroads, under any circumstance.

There are many, many, many people, who know the business far better than you, who've long since recognized the economic dangers in taking such a simplistic view of freight modalities and their use.

 

[Whimsey]

Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: grampi
Like I said, when the price of quick shipping becomes too high and bringing down those costs becomes more of a priority, then a more cost effective means will be utilized...
I'll make a deal with you...

You stop requiring that the World's resources be wasted, by asking that things like fresh foods and pharmaceuticals be available to you, and I'll stop operating a company that ensures that they are.

Do we have a deal?
That's a ridiculous statement. All I'm trying to point out is it would be more energy efficient to ship goods via rail vs OTR semis.

Corporations will not spend a penny more than is absolutely necessary in order to achieve their desired revenue and service goals. They've already made it quite clear what the optimum transportation mode is in most cases. In many instances, railroads can't price their services low enough to even make it on the shipper's radar. And that's for just the minor percentage of markets that the railroads provide service to. Railroads have tried, repeatedly, to compete head-to-head with truck transport, and failed again, again and again.

The railroads have finally come to understand and accept this, as exhibited by where their infrastructure investments are being made. Railroads are moving away from marketing their services directly to customers, and are beginning to solicit trucking companies for their business, in those limited circumstances where it may be cost effective as a part of the overall service. This is an unusual situation, as it gives the trucking industry a position to demand a higher level of service than the average shipper is able to demand. A look at what railroads are lobbying against is also telling. Then you've got the federal government's studies on rural transportation which only reinforce the massive advantages provided by trucks, that simply cannot be overcome by railroads, under any circumstance.

There are many, many, many people, who know the business far better than you, who've long since recognized the economic dangers in taking such a simplistic view of freight modalities and their use.

. I was a Divisional Transportation Manager for a major pharmaceutical/consumer goods company. We shipped goods by sea containers, piggy back(truck trailers on trains), trucks and even rail road box cars. We used the mode of transport that provided the service needed at the best cost for that service. There is NO one type of transportation method that fits all needs and is cost effective.

Whimsey

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: grampi
Like I said, when the price of quick shipping becomes too high and bringing down those costs becomes more of a priority, then a more cost effective means will be utilized...
I'll make a deal with you...

You stop requiring that the World's resources be wasted, by asking that things like fresh foods and pharmaceuticals be available to you, and I'll stop operating a company that ensures that they are.

Do we have a deal?
That's a ridiculous statement. All I'm trying to point out is it would be more energy efficient to ship goods via rail vs OTR semis.

Corporations will not spend a penny more than is absolutely necessary in order to achieve their desired revenue and service goals. They've already made it quite clear what the optimum transportation mode is in most cases. In many instances, railroads can't price their services low enough to even make it on the shipper's radar. And that's for just the minor percentage of markets that the railroads provide service to. Railroads have tried, repeatedly, to compete head-to-head with truck transport, and failed again, again and again.

The railroads have finally come to understand and accept this, as exhibited by where their infrastructure investments are being made. Railroads are moving away from marketing their services directly to customers, and are beginning to solicit trucking companies for their business, in those limited circumstances where it may be cost effective as a part of the overall service. This is an unusual situation, as it gives the trucking industry a position to demand a higher level of service than the average shipper is able to demand. A look at what railroads are lobbying against is also telling. Then you've got the federal government's studies on rural transportation which only reinforce the massive advantages provided by trucks, that simply cannot be overcome by railroads, under any circumstance.

There are many, many, many people, who know the business far better than you, who've long since recognized the economic dangers in taking such a simplistic view of freight modalities and their use.

I agree with everything you've said, but the reason the rail industy can't compete with the trucking industry is because the railroad system in this country is sorely outdated. If railways were expanded to meet the needs of the shippers, railroads would be very competitive with trucking. As it is, it's pretty tough to compete with railways that were designed 100+ years ago...

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: rshunter
Corporations will not spend a penny more than is absolutely necessary in order to achieve their desired revenue and service goals. They've already made it quite clear what the optimum transportation mode is in most cases. In many instances, railroads can't price their services low enough to even make it on the shipper's radar. And that's for just the minor percentage of markets that the railroads provide service to. Railroads have tried, repeatedly, to compete head-to-head with truck transport, and failed again, again and again.

The railroads have finally come to understand and accept this, as exhibited by where their infrastructure investments are being made. Railroads are moving away from marketing their services directly to customers, and are beginning to solicit trucking companies for their business, in those limited circumstances where it may be cost effective as a part of the overall service. This is an unusual situation, as it gives the trucking industry a position to demand a higher level of service than the average shipper is able to demand. A look at what railroads are lobbying against is also telling. Then you've got the federal government's studies on rural transportation which only reinforce the massive advantages provided by trucks, that simply cannot be overcome by railroads, under any circumstance.

There are many, many, many people, who know the business far better than you, who've long since recognized the economic dangers in taking such a simplistic view of freight modalities and their use.

I agree with everything you've said, but the reason the rail industy can't compete with the trucking industry is because the railroad system in this country is sorely outdated. If railways were expanded to meet the needs of the shippers, railroads would be very competitive with trucking. As it is, it's pretty tough to compete with railways that were designed 100+ years ago...

Despite the views held by many, today's railroads are anything but antiquated. The only thing they have in common with the operations of even a few decades ago is the fact that they use locomotives and rail-cars, and are running on steel rails. Those basic details are still the same only because they work so well. Everything else has been modernized, revolutionized and computerized. Literally billions upon billions of dollars have been invested by railroads in just the last few years. Capacity is constantly being added where it is advantageous for their operations.

These facts don't change the demands of supply-chain logistics. They just make railroads better able to serve those markets in which their competitive advantages are considered to be beneficial by the customer. What the final customer needs, and is willing to pay for, dictates which advantages are of primary importance. Historically, those customer needs, despite repeated government attempts to dictate priorities, have been the final word in business decision making. A new round of governmental meddling will not magically rewrite those trends.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
I have had considerable experience in the area of Transport Logistics - at Policy level in two Countries, and at Operating and Ownership levels too. I have also researched the same matter Internationally as a Consultant for various Industries and Governmental Inquiries. Developments in overall efficiency over the last 30 years have been truely amazing!

Intermodal systems are now much more refined (an anybody here remember the pre Container World?) and efficient than ever before - in developed Countries. This experience is being transferred into developing Countries at a rapid rate!

One size does not fit all and integrated systems such as is progressively used here in Australia can work well. We have one of the most efficient rail systems (bulk freight) anywhere - it still needs the "support" of the Road Transport network to survive!

However - here in OZ OTR Trucking is still a mainstay in the efficient movement of food and "living" commodities and this has been demonstrated to all and sundry during the recent weather "incidents" in this Country over the last year or so! The same applies elsewhere of course

This is a very complex subject indeed and the most efficient "Policy" is dependent on the respective Continent, Cultural issues and the economic "health" of the "subject Country"