Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Climate Change and Environmental Issues "Greener" Trucking - Or Something Else ?

This whole discussion should be moot. Without government interference, there would be exactly the roads, railroads, airports, sea ports and canals required to satisfy the Free Market, no more and no less.

Just as Demoncrats, (and watermelon liberatti) can't think in scales larger than one note !

Water - regardless of where in America you're at - is a vital issue. Whether its storm/runoff control or drought, water quality or storage its at the forefront of a lot of urban planning. Or don't you read the news Greger ? Canals, (not ala the Tombigbie or the Panama) but of a size more akin to those of the 18th and 19th centuries -cement lined with automated barges and locks - might serve to move both water and freight. (They could even be "green", i.e. powered by solar and fuel cell technology since speed isn't an issue.)

What "existing rails" ? Most local-serving roads have been abandoned or torn up ! And where is there a "heavy rail" engineered for 200 mph speeds ? Or freight cars either ? Any idea what it takes to engineer a "road" for that sort of load ?

Care to start building freight-capable roads into suburban areas ? Cost just as much for those ROWs as for a canal - with no "green benefit" - as a teaser either !

Sure we can "slow trucks down" to save fuel. Are you old enough to recall "Drive 55" ? Will that mantra really "save fuel" ? I don't think so. Or not nearly so much as the "cost" of the time lost doing so. If it did we'd still be "Driving 55" on highways engineered for safe travel at 75mph with vehicles meeting 1960 engineering standards !

Of course you could just agree with the Obama Administration and the ATA and decree all trucks become mobile 65mph roadblocks on the interstates. Care to estimate what the "cost" of that will be - in blood - with a 25mph + mix of relative vehicle speeds on the same roadway ? BTDTGTTS ! (NJDOT tried this scheme back in the Sixties. Lots of wrecks resulted.). The cars - and passengers - generally lost !

Alas, there are no "magic bullets" in anybody's ammo box ! Having made major strides in fuel efficiency, what remains is incremental - and increasingly expensive/unit "saved". If we're going to keep the industry capitalist, then "solutions" have to be economically viable. The proposal presented/threatened by the OA - like all of its other "economic solutions - isn't. >Mech

Hmm......

And what other completely nonsensical "solutions" can you contribute, Sir ? >Mech

Irked,

Can't argue with that ! Trouble is government, (or rather politicians ) just can't keep their hands out of the public's cookie jars if they think there's even a crumb in them ! >Mech

Why should there ever be a "public cookie jar". That's just more stealing money from those who can and do for the benefit of those who could but won't.

Aside: What a disgusting metaphor! The "public" getting their hands all over cookies I'm expected to eat?

Anything any Individual should wish to have or do will be provided by the Free Market at an equable cost. Each Individual should have the Right to chose to pay for just those goods and services they deem worthy of their hard-earned wealth.

Yes it is. and there really isn't enough og it in south Texas to fill hundreds of miles of ridiculous 19th century style brick lined aquaducts for the porpose of transporting frieght at 4MPH. Nor is there enough of it in any of the desert regions. Water also has a tendency to freeze in the winter, and the Great plains run uphill a mile between the Mississippi and Denver. Water don't run uphill y'know. Then it's another mile up to get across the Rockies. Your Barge Canal theory is as dumbassed a scheme as I ever heard of.
There's still plenty of Railroad tracks and right of ways that can easily be upgraded for high speed rail, both for freight and passenger service. The day will come when your gas guzzler will be too expensive to drive around. Maybe not in your lifetime, maybe not even in mine. But that day is coming. Truckers and lone commuters in 10mpg pickemup trucks will be a thing of the distant past. Digging barge canals to fill with precious fresh water is not going to be an option either.

Downright spooky1

I give on the extra special acronym, dude. Ya wanna spell it out for me?

---You have to include a little piece of what you are replying to in order for anyone to know WHO and WHAT the reply pertains to.

BTW OTROO R ADB. IMNSHO.
By the way, over the road owner operators are a dying breed.
In my not so humble opinion.
Back when Diamond T, REO, Mack Trucks and White Freightliners were the main trucks on the road and Mack introduced the more efficient more powerful Maxodyne diesel engine, trucks were workhorses, not horribly expensive, not horribly luxurious. But truckers demanded more. Not just a sleeper in back of the cab, but a luxury apartment. They needed more speed, more power, MORE CHROME. Single axles couldn't pull the newer larger loads so everything became tandem. Trailers were extended a few feet at a time form 40 to 53 feet in length. Truckers needed more power. They asked for it and they got it. Fuel was cheap and speed was easy to come by. They got everything they asked for, including the price tag.
Old truckers never die. They just get a new Peterbilt.

If the regulations get too skewed against owner-operators you will see pressure to reverse it because a larger trucking company cannot always fulfill the demand properly.
There are some jobs which can only be fulfilled properly with the use of a single owner-operator.

But a lot needs to be done to change the truck manufacturing industry, and some outfits, or at least one anyway, are attempting to go with the change, and the change is increased efficiency.

A more fuel efficient truck benefits everybody.
Yes it does cost more at first, but contrary to Mech's assertion I think that eventually the more fuel efficient models will become competitive, because they will have to.

Again, I cannot emphasize this enough apparently:
The days of super cheap and readily available liquid fuel are coming to a gradual close.
It's all uphill from here, so ALL vehicles HAVE to become more efficient. There's no way around it.
Trucks will HAVE to be able to generate that 500 horsepower and 1500 foot pounds of torque with less fuel one way or the other, or else the cost of shipping by truck will no longer be economically feasible.

I could be wrong but I happen to believe that implementation of some kind of diesel-electric powertrain can be an answer and I believe that eventually it will be implemented at a competitive price.