Time to rebuild and nationalize Canada's railways, and whatever else it takes, to get these killer monster trucks off our roads

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Time to rebuild and nationalize Canada's railways, and whatever else it takes, to get these killer monster trucks off our roads
NorthReport
Rev Pesky

So far all I've been able to find about the accident is that the bus was T-boned by the truck. That indicates the bus crossed in front of the truck. No indication of whether that  was at a controlled or uncontrolled intersection.

Martin N.

This horrific collision aside, reducing transport truck traffic is an interesting conundrum. Rail mainline congestion is causing severe competitive issues as well as cash flow problems for shippers but secondary lines are not economic without the volumes necessary to pay their way.

Government has a role to play, especially in the rail line to and port at Churchill. The entire rail cockup in Canada is a failure of government to protect our economy in order to allow corporate rent seeking.

Coldwell Coldwell's picture

One of the biggest scandals of modern times was the Liberal government's sell-off of BC Rail in 2003, then the third largest railway in North America.  Under its new American owners, CN, derailments  havesoared, not least because too many railcars are being hauled in the interests of corporate profit.  The NDP rightly denounced the sell-off, including the shady circumstances surrounding the sale and the ensuing criminal proceedings--which conveniently ended with a plea bargain by two low-level ministerial assistants, thereby pre-empting a full airing of the sordid details in open court. 

Where is the NDP on this file?  The Horgan government should be taking steps to re-nationalize this public asset, built by generations of British Columbians going back to the era of Premier Richard McBride.  And it should by now have set up a judicial inquiry into the sale.  The public deserves to know  the truth about the role played by Christy Clark and other Liberal insiders. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

One of the first steps to a carbon strategy is getting a national transportation strategy in place. Rail transport is 1/3 the carbon footprint of road transport. Transit times in theory should be almost equal. Talk to anyone in supply chain management and the big stumbling block is service. Not only does the transit time vary dramatically, but tracking shipments is almost impossible.

Definitely there is a role for government intervention.

lagatta4

Absolutely, and it could become far less, with electrification. I don't remember when the southern Prairies-Mountain line was abolished, but I certainly remember the shutdown of the line between Montréal and Sherbrooke. There used to be a line between Montréal and Boston.

This is such a sad story, but here an utterly disproportionate number of pedestrians and cyclists are killed by large  trucks. Not to mention other sentient beings.

 

NorthReport

Does anyone know what actually happened yet that caused this absolutely horrific accident? I hope the Independent Press, like the Georgia Straight and The Tyee are investigating, as the mainstream press are usually too co-opted by their advertisers to call a spade a spade!

Zablocki said it was too early to comment on the cause of the collision, but he confirmed the semi-trailer was travelling westbound on Highway 335 when it collided with the bus travelling northbound on Highway 35.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/nipawin-humboldt-bus-crash-1....

NorthReport

Thanks for this and of course you are correct!

Come on Claire, we voted you in, and we support you big time, so please start showing some serious leadership here - that's why you are a Cabinet Minister, eh!

Coldwell wrote:

One of the biggest scandals of modern times was the Liberal government's sell-off of BC Rail in 2003, then the third largest railway in North America.  Under its new American owners, CN, derailments  havesoared, not least because too many railcars are being hauled in the interests of corporate profit.  The NDP rightly denounced the sell-off, including the shady circumstances surrounding the sale and the ensuing criminal proceedings--which conveniently ended with a plea bargain by two low-level ministerial assistants, thereby pre-empting a full airing of the sordid details in open court. 

Where is the NDP on this file?  The Horgan government should be taking steps to re-nationalize this public asset, built by generations of British Columbians going back to the era of Premier Richard McBride.  And it should by now have set up a judicial inquiry into the sale.  The public deserves to know  the truth about the role played by Christy Clark and other Liberal insiders. 

NorthReport

Nationally I know Mulroney was involved in dismantling the railroads, probably right after a large political donation was made from Truckers Associations to the Conservatives.

NorthReport

Are there any stop signs at the intersection?

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/SK-335+%26+SK-35,+Ridgedale,+SK+S0E+1L0/@53.1034397,-104.0265694,460m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x52fde649dbe97077:0x23d0db9d793a946d!8m2!3d53.1037202!4d-104.0265533?hl=en

NorthReport

There does appear to be signs, although can't say for sure that they are stop signs.

Regardless, of who is responsible here, these monster trucks are way too dangerous to be using our consumer  and commuter roads. Enough is enough. It's time to nationalize commercial transportation in Canada!!!

And Transportation Ministers across Canada could start by forcing these massive trucks to stay in the right lanes, the slow lanes, and also keep them off the roads during rush hour traffic. Terrified commuters are at their mercy. What's not to understand about this?  Never mind the platitudes Prime Minister. Time for action is NOW!!!

NorthReport

Let's not jump the gun here. Hopefully the police will be moving thoroughly but quickly with their investigation and let us know what happened, as many Canadians want answers and as soon as possible!

Cause Unknown In Saskatchewan Humboldt Broncos Bus Crash That Killed 15: RCMP

Investigators are still trying to piece together what happened.

The tractor-trailer would have had to yield to a stop sign before crossing over the highway that the hockey bus was travelling on. There is a stand of trees on the southeast corner of the intersection, limiting visibility of the approach on both roads.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/07/cause-unknown-in-saskatchewan-h...

lagatta4

There are also problems with somewhat smaller large trucks. In Amsterdam, they aren't permitted within the city; businesses have to offload their products, say groceries, onto smaller trucks that create fewer problems in terms of safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and even motorists driving small cars. And that also cause less damage to road surfaces. Potholes are far worse in areas where there is a lot of truck traffic - and frequent bus lines, but that is sort of a different problem - in many if not most cases, at least in prewar areas - there was a tramline before and should be again.

There have been commemorations by hockey teams in former Soviet and in Nordic countries.

Rev Pesky

Sad as it is to say, from looking at a map, and watching the CBC video of the intersection taken after the crash, it appears the truck was supposed to stop at the intersection (there are stop signs), but failed to do so. In looking at the results of the crash, I doubt the truck even slowed down. As it happens, there are trees at the intersection, that would have hidden the trucks approach from the bus driver (and hidden the bus from the truck). It's clear to me the truck driver was at fault.

How often would two vehicles meet at that intersection? Given where it is, I would say almost never. 

Speaking of truck in towns, I suspect the reason for the smaller truck in Amsterdam is simply because it's an old city, and there would be many areas which would not be accessible by larger vehicles. Where I live there isn't any place like that. Vancouver and surrounding area is wide open.

cco

lagatta4 wrote:

Absolutely, and it could become far less, with electrification. I don't remember when the southern Prairies-Mountain line was abolished, but I certainly remember the shutdown of the line between Montréal and Sherbrooke.

That one still exists (the tracks). VIA could start service back up on it tomorrow, if they got the funding.

lagatta4 wrote:

There used to be a line between Montréal and Boston.

Not as much luck there -- the tracks have been removed between Vermont and New Hampshire. There's still a line via Portland, Maine, but it'd take longer.

6079_Smith_W

Another good thing would be for VIA to have its own track system rather than being 16 hours late on a holiday weekend because they have to wait for freight trains. Plus there are communities in Manitoba other than Churchill which are only accessible by rail.

Restoring the line between Saskatoon and Regina would be nice right now. Unfortunately the Regina station is now a Casino. The Saskatoon station, which is still in operation, looks like a museum piece from Eastern Europe. It still has a map on the wall with the route between the two cities.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I read somewhere they are planning a VIA rail line for the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. The problem as we all know is the freight trains pay more, and they get priority because the tracks are owned by CN and CP. Hence your 16-hour wait. This new VIA-only track could be very good news for many of us.

For Montreal to Toronto, I find the train expensive and unreliable. The Megabus is cheaper, although more uncomfortable. It gets stuck going up that hill in Kingston some times around Xmas, but I'll still make it to Toronto in 8 or 9 hours for $75 each way. On a good day, it takes less than 6.

From Toronto to Montreal anyway, the plan is to have the new line run through Ottawa. This means it will go up to Hwy. 7 around Peterborough. Once you get past Madoc or so, there is still land up there for $1,000 an acre. Just Google "Land For Sale Hastings County". A stop is planned for Tweed and a number of other burgs along the route.

Because of government spending, land values will rise, and development will increase along the route. The return in taxes over the years to all levels of government will be many times over the investment. And the trains will finally run on time.

6079_Smith_W
Martin N.

In my admittedly limited research into high speed rail etc, the conclusion is that the projects always go massively over budget and years past in service dates. Ridership is only half of estimates.

The solution to these obstacles is realistic planning and better utilization to mitigate the huge costs involved by making rail a preferred option. Forcing behaviour change on a long term basis is a daring concept for governments that live by short term mandate.

Rev Pesky

It is clear from the video posted above that Hwy 335 has stop signs at the intersection with Hwy 35. Apparently the trucker is still alive, so eventually we'll hear his story. 

Sean in Ottawa

This is certainly very sad and I do not want to over-use this to promote a policy option that I favour -- rail. The fact that rail is a safer way to move goods than truck and also more environmentally efficient mkaes half the argument relevant.

I agree with all the posts about needing to move back to rail -- and rail can be made safer than it is and was previously. The mismatch in sizes of vehicles on the road is an enherent part of the danger -- which is why the reference to pedestrians and bicycles is so important. the crash is not about the mismatch but it has to do with the volume on the roads that should not be there. Truck safety is another issue

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
the crash is not about the mismatch but it has to do with the volume on the roads that should not be there.

Well, I just have to ask:  do you think the problem that led to this crash was the volume of transport trucks on that road?  Or did you mean the volume of buses?

Having lived in rural areas, I have to think this collision was a pretty big fluke, not at all predicted by the dozens of vehicles crossing that intersection in any given 24 hour period.

lagatta4
Pogo Pogo's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Well, I just have to ask:  do you think the problem that led to this crash was the volume of transport trucks on that road?  Or did you mean the volume of buses?

Having lived in rural areas, I have to think this collision was a pretty big fluke, not at all predicted by the dozens of vehicles crossing that intersection in any given 24 hour period.

The move away from the family farm has hollowed out communities around here, so I would say traffic has dropped if anything.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
the crash is not about the mismatch but it has to do with the volume on the roads that should not be there.

Well, I just have to ask:  do you think the problem that led to this crash was the volume of transport trucks on that road?  Or did you mean the volume of buses?

Having lived in rural areas, I have to think this collision was a pretty big fluke, not at all predicted by the dozens of vehicles crossing that intersection in any given 24 hour period.

Both are issues but I do not know if either in this case apply since I have no idea if rail links would have offered an alternative in these two cases.

However, generally there are many buses between cities used when they should be trains for moving people and trucks when moving goods. You raise a good point by asking the question.

Rev Pesky

I have since read that not only were there stop signs on Hwy 335, but a bit further back from the intersection was a red flashing light to alert drivers to the upcoming stop.

The police have said the investigation is going to be a long one, and I don't blame them given the seriousness of the crash, but it's clear the truck was to stop, and didn't. I doubt it even slowed down. If the truck had stopped, then pulled out into the bus as it travelled through the intersection, the vehicles would have ended up in a different place.

I have been a professional driver, and generally have sympathy for truck drivers because I know what they face everyday on the roads. In this case there are only two explanations. Either the truck driver decided to ignore the stop sign, or went to sleep just before reaching the intersection.

The truck driver was uninjured, so eventually we'll hear his story. It won't be a good one.

Rev Pesky

I'd just like to address the 'truck versus train' discussion.

Trains are very good at transporting large amounts of single items from major centre to major centre. I you have less than a car load (train car, that is), rail becomes very expensive. Back when I worked in  building supply, and we often compared pricing between CL (car load), and LCL (less than car load). Delivering mixed loads of goods is much cheaper by truck than rail, and more convenient as well.

It's not really 'trucks versus trains', they work in a complementary relationship with each other. This is especially true of containers. Rail cars carry containers from the port to whatever city they're destined for, where they are moved to trucks which take them to warehouses for unloading, or directly to the end user.

Rail transports carload quantities very efficiently and cheaply. Less than carload by rail is very expensive and inefficient

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

I'd just like to address the 'truck versus train' discussion.

Trains are very good at transporting large amounts of single items from major centre to major centre. I you have less than a car load (train car, that is), rail becomes very expensive. Back when I worked in  building supply, and we often compared pricing between CL (car load), and LCL (less than car load). Delivering mixed loads of goods is much cheaper by truck than rail, and more convenient as well.

It's not really 'trucks versus trains', they work in a complementary relationship with each other. This is especially true of containers. Rail cars carry containers from the port to whatever city they're destined for, where they are moved to trucks which take them to warehouses for unloading, or directly to the end user.

Rail transports carload quantities very efficiently and cheaply. Less than carload by rail is very expensive and inefficient

The point I think is the way trucks are used and could be used. Trains, for the most part, with consolidated shipping, can do the heavy lifting and then trucks the last part. The difference is that as things are the last part by truck is being driven by a trucker who has been driving many hours vs a fresh delivery locally by truck. It is not just the size but the fact that these trucks are being driven over great distances.

If you look at how the trucking is done with these large trailors they could be on railcars.

This is not about efficiency but the economics of business going to trucking companies.

Local delivery trucks typically would not need to be as large as they do when the same truck is used from a distant city to another one making all the local stops.

NorthReport

Ralph Nader wrote a book about the Corvair entitled “Unsafe at any speed” and it was taken off the road

Maybe Ralph or another one of those public interest research guys could write one on killer trucks to help get them off the road!

NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Maybe Ralph or another one of those public interest research guys could write one on killer trucks to help get them off the road!

Maybe they could title that book "Typically safe except the one time with Hockey Players".

To be clear, if there is evidence that transport trucks are involved in more fatal collisions per kilometre than other vehicles, let's talk.  But I haven't seen that evidence yet, so it seems a bit early to call them "killer trucks".  If the bus was hit by another bus, nobody would be saying "get killer buses off the road!".

Rev Pesky

From  Sean in Ottawa:

Local delivery trucks typically would not need to be as large as they do when the same truck is used from a distant city to another one making all the local stops.

You make a good point about hours of work. One of the problems is that because truckers are often paid by the mile, they want to get as many miles in as they can. A possible solution to that is to mandate hours of work for truckers. Every truck nowadays has a 'tattletale', a machine that records everything the truck does,  so checking on whether they're following the rules is very simple. 

As far as moving more transportation to railcar from trucks, that's really much more difficult than I posted above.

Even if you have a carload quantity of something to ship, you still have to wait for a train. A rail company is not going to hitch a railcar to a locomotive and send it off to the next city. Trains are built up, and rail companies prefer larger trains that smaller because they're more efficient. 

Containerization has changed that somewhat. A container gets loaded in China, say, is put on a boat. Arrives in Vancouver, and from there is either shipped via truck or rail, or both.

But in the overall scheme of things, trucking is very often much more efficient, and cheaper, than rail.

JKR

Because of the great economic benefits of trucking, I don't think there have been any serious calls to reduce trucking in Canada. However, there are always attempts to increase the safety of trucking. New collision avoidance technology seems very promising.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Wheel guards, at least for any trucks operating in a municipal area, would also be a good "mandatory".

Sean in Ottawa

What economic benfits of trucking?

There is an appropriateness to the locations cargo etc. but I do not beleive there are economic benefits to trucking vs rail anymore than vs ships. There are just loads, distances and locations appropriate to each. At this time loads that could go by rail are going by truck and this is not an economic benefit. It costs the government in road building and maintenance, costs cities in congestion, costs the environment and increases risks and deaths.

Having 20% of Truck hauls return to rail is not something that is economic nonsense -- if you think so then post the data from some neutral site other than trucking advocates. It should count all the issues I raised.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There are just loads, distances and locations appropriate to each.

And, as was mentioned, timing.

Some shippers shipping (let's say) produce might not want to wait until the train has 180 cars.

That's kind of why cars still "beat" the subway, even though they totally cannot, financially.  The next subway train might leave 9 minutes after you even arrive at the station, whereas your car can leave right now.  It would be nice if everyone had all the time in the world, though.  Both for rail transport and public transit.

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

What economic benfits of trucking?

From what I understand of capitalism, if it was cheaper to ship via rail, shippers would ship via rail. We don't need any central data centre to tell us the specific economics of it. If rail was cheaper, that's the way goods would be shipped.

I am not opposed to changes in rules and regulations that would increase the safety of truckers and trucks. So, fewer hours on the road per week, better pay, better enforcement of mechancial safety issues, etc. Still, the fact is, per mile driven, highway truckers are the safest people on the road.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

If you want the shit that you buy in a nice convenient location, a truck has to bring it there. If people didn't consume so much shit, we wouldn't have so many trucks on the road. Instead of pontificating on Canadian transportation policy, why not try consuming less shit? You never know, that week off at home watching Coronation Street could turn into a week in the south of France.
 

Rev Pesky

From progressive17:

If you want the shit that you buy in a nice convenient location

I'll just point out that there isn't a single city in the world that produces enough food for the people who live there. That means, perforce, that the people either have to travel to the food, or the food has to travel to the people.

It is much cheaper, and more efficient, to have the food travel to the people, but it's true, that does require many trucks travelling from the farm to the market.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

What economic benfits of trucking?

From what I understand of capitalism, if it was cheaper to ship via rail, shippers would ship via rail. We don't need any central data centre to tell us the specific economics of it. If rail was cheaper, that's the way goods would be shipped.

I am not opposed to changes in rules and regulations that would increase the safety of truckers and trucks. So, fewer hours on the road per week, better pay, better enforcement of mechancial safety issues, etc. Still, the fact is, per mile driven, highway truckers are the safest people on the road.

Seems to me you are conflating systemic bias and even the nature of federal funding and a present economic proposition with an overall economic benefit.

How much do the trucks pay the roads for the damage they do? Issues of funding create market bias.

Here read this quote:

"Do you need freight transportation for long distances, hazmat materials, or extremely heavy items? Shipping by train offers huge cost savings over traditional truckload shipping. Not to mention it's better for the environment too! Intermodal freight shipping involves the combination of rail and truck freight shipping services. Almost always, a rail shipment will need the help of a truck. The truck takes the freight from the rail hub to its final destination."

https://www.freightcenter.com/services/intermodal/rail-freight

lagatta4

That is true even in terms of societies where passenger and freight rail service has been preferred, but it means shorter truck journeys as a rule,  and often smaller trucks. And such countries tend to impose more safety features on trucking - and on rail.

If not, this becomes the kind of absurdist argument according to which not only cyclists (bicycle and parts manufacture) but even pedestrians become polluters (footwear production and repair). When we know the elephant in the room, a terrible planning choice.

NorthReport

This is the direct result of what happens when you let the screaming right-wingers dismantle government protections, regulations, and control. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
This is the direct result of what happens when you let the screaming right-wingers dismantle government protections, regulations, and control.

Which specific protection, regulation or control went missing and caused this accident?

Which specific screaming right winger made that happen?

If you have absolutely no idea, and were just pumping your fist in the air defiantly, feel free to ignore those two questions.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What economic benfits of trucking?

There is an appropriateness to the locations cargo etc. but I do not beleive there are economic benefits to trucking vs rail anymore than vs ships. There are just loads, distances and locations appropriate to each. At this time loads that could go by rail are going by truck and this is not an economic benefit. It costs the government in road building and maintenance, costs cities in congestion, costs the environment and increases risks and deaths.

Having 20% of Truck hauls return to rail is not something that is economic nonsense -- if you think so then post the data from some neutral site other than trucking advocates. It should count all the issues I raised.

I take it that you feel that governments should build more rail capacity for transport instead of subsidizing truck transport? How much would that cost governments and which governments are about to take on those costs? I think the provincial and federal governments aren't in a position to take on the costs of moving 20% of truck hauls to rail. I don't think anyone has done a cost-benefit analysis on such an initiative. It would be interesting to see such a cost-benefit analysis done. It seems to me that a lot of economic decisions are made by our governments for political reasons and they often don't make economic sense.

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa:

Here, read this quote.

The quote you posted is almost exactly what I said in post #28.

Rev Pesky

As far as subsidies to trucks, we shouldn't forget that in order to establish rail transport in Canada, huge tracts of land were given to the rail companies, as well as right of ways that mean the train doesn't stop for you, you stop for the train.

Back when, WAC Bennett dumped large amounts of money into BC Rail in order to provide subsidised transport for lumber mills and forestry operations in northern BC. If you get a chance, read up on the Dease Lake Extension. At one point they were dumping lifts of plywood into the muskeg to try and float the tracks over top. An interesting idea, but one that cost the citizens of BC a fair bit.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:
I'd just like to address the 'truck versus train' discussion.

Trains are very good at transporting large amounts of single items from major centre to major centre. I you have less than a car load (train car, that is), rail becomes very expensive. Back when I worked in  building supply, and we often compared pricing between CL (car load), and LCL (less than car load). Delivering mixed loads of goods is much cheaper by truck than rail, and more convenient as well.

It's not really 'trucks versus trains', they work in a complementary relationship with each other. This is especially true of containers. Rail cars carry containers from the port to whatever city they're destined for, where they are moved to trucks which take them to warehouses for unloading, or directly to the end user.

Rail transports carload quantities very efficiently and cheaply. Less than carload by rail is very expensive and inefficient

That is just wrong.  I currently am moving goods to points across Canada from parcel delivery to ocean containers.  LTL (less than truck load) rates are 25% better using an intermodal service - as long as you are travelling a distance of over 1000 miles.  There are a number of companies that specialize in single skid shipments (Western Canada Express).  Many truck companies such as Vitran will provide rail service as an alternative, again at a better rate.  

The problem is not dollars to dollars, rail wins, it is the soft issues.  It is a bit rougher ride so you have to ensure your goods can handle it. I have shipped quartz countertops which are quite brittle, but had no issues as long as the goods were loaded on frames properly. The big issues are timing and service. Rail lines are structured around commodities and customer service and deadlines are secondary. I have had a container from Ontario coming to BC seperated and left on a siding in Alberta for 2 weeks, with no communication and little response.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

I take it that you feel that governments should build more rail capacity for transport instead of subsidizing truck transport? How much would that cost governments and which governments are about to take on those costs? I think the provincial and federal governments aren't in a position to take on the costs of moving 20% of truck hauls to rail. I don't think anyone has done a cost-benefit analysis on such an initiative. It would be interesting to see such a cost-benefit analysis done. It seems to me that a lot of economic decisions are made by our governments for political reasons and they often don't make economic sense.

Actually many countries have undertaken similar studies. Here is one from South Africa. Look at page 10 costs incurred per year - capital vehicle, infrastructure, operating cost.

I do not think there is any evidence that there would be a cost other than to the trucking companies losing business for such a transfer -- the savings on road infrastructure offset to a greater degree the costs of rail increase. Shipping could be reduced as an overall cost which provides savings to the public as well.

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/publications/fre...

Sean in Ottawa

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

I take it that you feel that governments should build more rail capacity for transport instead of subsidizing truck transport? How much would that cost governments and which governments are about to take on those costs? I think the provincial and federal governments aren't in a position to take on the costs of moving 20% of truck hauls to rail. I don't think anyone has done a cost-benefit analysis on such an initiative. It would be interesting to see such a cost-benefit analysis done. It seems to me that a lot of economic decisions are made by our governments for political reasons and they often don't make economic sense.

Actually many countries have undertaken similar studies. Here is one from South Africa. Look at page 10 costs incurred per year - capital vehicle, infrastructure, operating cost.

I do not think there is any evidence that there would be a cost other than to the trucking companies losing business for such a transfer -- the savings on road infrastructure offset to a greater degree the costs of rail increase. Shipping could be reduced as an overall cost which provides savings to the public as well.

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/publications/fre...

You have to see the difference in issues between the economics based on current system bias for users and the economics for this as policy for governments who have some control over the existing biases.

Pogo Pogo's picture

We also need to look at this in relation to the changing logistics world.  More and more distribution is going to third party distribution specialists.  Bigger warehouses and more opportunities for shipping efficiencies should help resolve some of the difficulties presented by train transport.

Pages