Time for "Mainiacs" to write their elected officials

The state is getting ready to approve a pilot that permits vehicles up to 100,000lbs GVW on I-95. (They are currently allowed on state roads with the use a sixth axle.) This is an increase of 25% increase over current limitations, albeit with the use of an additional axle. Here is an editorial from the Bangor Daily News:

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/120765.html

My objective nature forces me to be ok with the weight changes, provided safety considerations are addressed; Canada has been operating with much the same rules country-wide for ages. However - and this is a big however - Canada taxes the snot out of diesel fuel to provide for road damage. That serves two purposes: 1) it makes truckers pay their fair share and 2) it evens the playing field with railroads. So, if the truckers want to roll heavier, that's cool... but make 'em pay for the priviledge! Ok, end of editorial.

If you live in the state, I recommend you contact your elected officials and the folks at the state DOT to give your two cents. Left unchecked, i.e., without a legitimate increase in user fees, this rule change could do serious (further) damage to railroads operating in Maine.

I don't understand the objections to increasing the weight limit on I-95 to 100K Lbs. These 100KLbs trucks are already on our fragile, narrow, curvy state roads and local roads, thanks to the 80KLbs limit on I-95. Why would anybody in their right mind not want to shift these heavy trucks back onto I-95 where they belong? If anything, this will save towns money because their local roads won't be taking as much of a beating.

As far as Maine's railroads are concerned: I don't really see how this could effect them negatively, positively, or at all. Shifting heavy trucks back onto the highway, where they belong, isn't going to somehow take traffic away from the railroads. Companies that are currently using freight rail are doing so because it's either cheaper than trucks, more efficient than trucks, or the product they're shipping/receiving is too big for trucks. Companies that could use freight rail, but aren't, are using trucks mostly because rail isn't available, isn't cost competitive, isn't necessary due to the smaller size/amount of product, or the railroad's customer service isn't as good. It has nothing to do with some imaginary advantage that the railroads gain from the trucks being forced to use the backroads.

Put these trucks back on I-95 where they belong! It'll improve safety and it'll save us money.

I'm not sure when Maine enacted their liberal weight laws on state roads, but it did have a noticable negative effect on the railroads. MEC was affected much more considerably than BAR. Fuel oil to Jay, Rumford and Shawmut and other destinations all shifted over to truck. Chemicals from LCP in Orrington (with the exception of chlorine) either shifted to truck or faced rate reductions as the rail:truck ratio advantage went from 4:1 to 3:1. 407, you may be right in that opening up Maine's portion of I-95 to heavier trucks without changes in user fees may not have an immediate, significant effect on the rail market, but it stymies growth opportunities for the rail industry. It's also the top of a slippery slope as there is a bill in Congress targeting an increase in weight limits on interstates.

Look at it this way: a truck typically carries 45,000lbs of lading now. Under the revised GVW rule, a truck can carry 60-65,000 lbs. That's a ~40% increase in lading for an incremental increase in operating cost. The threat is obvious.

Lowering the weight limit on the state/local roads back down to 80KLbs would be ideal, and surely that would benefit the railroads, but since that's never going to happen, these trucks should be allowed to use the safest, most efficient route, which is I-95. We shouldn't be compromising on public safety just because it might give the railroads a possible chance to win back some of the traffic they lost.

Believe me, if I had my druthers, the vast majority of Maine's freight would be on the rails instead of on the roads. I think we can all agree on that!

Unfortunately, these trucks are already on the road at 100KLbs, and have been for a long time. I don't understand how switching them from one road to another makes any difference in the ability of the railroads to compete for the traffic. Heck, even if the truckers were forced to run at 20 MPH on single-lane dirt carriage roads, they'd still be able to deliver their cargo faster than PAR...

MEC407 wrote:Believe me, if I had my druthers, the vast majority of Maine's freight would be on the rails instead of on the roads. I think we can all agree on that!

Isn't that the way anyone on here would want it? I know I would. Thats the way it should be, but inorder for railroads to make a profit, they pruned their branchlines WAY WAY back. In doing this they gave up their ability to deliver a car "to the door" and with that alot of their carloadings. And you need to originate carloadings inorder to have any business.

I live right on Main Street in a quiet little town, or it used to be that way, then the interstate exit went in a few miles away and now all night all I here is Hannaford trucks racing by, heading for the distributing center. The worst part is that PAR's tracks run less than 2500 ft from the distribution center. But no siding exists, and none ever will. It is much cheaper for Hannaford to truck all my food into the state on their own fleet than it is to ship by rail. Our problem here in the good 'ol state of Maine is that we don't tax truckers enough. Sure a higher diesel tax would hurt the RR's some but nowhere near as much as trucks (trains have a HUGE efficiency advantage!) And we don't tax highway usage enough, trucks can go from the Maine/NH border all the way to the end of the toll road in Augusta for $20. It's crazy. (Maine Toll Calculator http://www.maineturnpike.com/traveler_s ... le_class=5 )

However, I agree 100%, since any business railroads lose to rucks is almost guaranteed to stay there trucks should be using the best roads available, for the reasons MEC said.

MEC407 wrote:Put these trucks back on I-95 where they belong! It'll improve safety and it'll save us money.

I agree with Cowford...you can't underplay the possible negative effects here when you allow that sort of productivity improvement against the biggest competitive advantage railroads have over trucking- weight capacity...especially in Maine with the (heavy-loading) paper industry providing the biggest source of railroad traffic. As he said, its a slippery slope which could lead to some big hits against the rail industry in Maine and the rest of the U.S., especially if combined with initiatives to increase rail regulation.

Paper, this has to be one of the least likely business to go to trucks, If paper goes over then Maine railroads need to pack it in. For one thing most papermills are not located on the interstate, so this will have little effect on that traffic. Also paper in the state of Maine moves SLOW over the rails. Most of PAR's rails into and out of maine are 25 or slower. And unless I'm mistaken MMA's former CP line isn't exactly "speedy" and this wouldn't be effected by the new law anyway, as MMA's paper goes out to Canada, AWAY from the turnpike.

Paper, this has to be one of the least likely business to go to trucks

Least likely would be coal or grain... paper, not so much. While this is a SWAG, I'd say that only about 25% of paper produced in the US moves by rail. Rail handles a higher proportion of heavier loading papers (such as paperboard) and a minute segment of light loading papers (such as tissue). To QB's point, the it's the (present) weight capacity advantage that keeps the paper moving rail. The majority of the national boxcar fleet is ~150,000 lbs cap'y. Compare that with an interstate truck of ~45,000 lbs cap'y. That is a 3.3 trucks:1 boxcar ratio. Using a tri-x trailer with hhigher GVW. The ratio slips to 2.3:1. Another way to look at it: a truck rate from a to b is $1,000. The rail rate is $2,800. At a 3.3:1 ratio, rail has a ~15% cost advantage. Ok, the trucker switches to a tri-x trailer and adjusts his rate to $1,100 for the incremental cost. At a 2.3:1 ratio, the truck's rail-equivalent cost is $2,530, 10% BELOW rail. About the only thing a rail carrier can do is invest in new high-cap'y 100-/110-ton boxcars.... at $80-90k a pop.

PS: Kevin, I didn't follow your last point. Are you assuming that MMA paper is CONSUMED in Canada? If so, this is not the case. MMA paper goes down the Eastern Seaboard and Midwest to the best of my knowledge... I-95, or I-95 to I-90, etc.

LOTS of paper ALREADY is going by truck, and has been for years.
Go to Madawaska, Hinckley, Woodland, or most any other and you'll see row after row after row of box trailers- loaded, loading, or waiting for a load.

The other tough competitive dynamic that the trucking or intermodal industry holds over railroad carload for handling Maine's originated paper traffic is that dry van (trailer or container) business outbound out of New England is backhaul (whether over-the-road or intermodal) with the headhaul being the merchandise brought into southern New England for poplulation consumption (ie., high demand eastbound, lower demand westbound which creates more competition/lower rates west). So with trucking's flexibility to a greater degree and rail intermodal to a lesser degree, these carriers are able to triangulate with an inbound headhaul load delivered to southern NE, empty re-positioning move to Maine, outbound backhaul paper load west/south at reduced rates. Rail carload just does not have the network or logistical flexibiity to replicate the trailer/container-based OTR or intermodal network in terms of balancing loads east/west. Now add the weight capacity productivity improvement on the trucking (and intermodal) side of the equation and that's pretty formidable competition which I'd have to believe would lead to further reduced rail carload marketshare with Maine's outbound paper traffic.

The Maine printing paper segment moves to the large printing plants via OTR, intermodal and/or boxcar to PA,VA, NC, SC, TN, KY, IN, IL, IA, AR, MS, NV, and OR. One "lingering" advantage boxcar has with these printing plants is that the facilities were designed to have paper received on one side of the printing plant via boxcar and come out as finished product on the other side of the plant and be loaded on trailers/containers for delivery. Receiving paper via trailer/container creates backward flow logistical issues, though, that has not stopped shifts from boxcar to trailer/container with a big acceleration during Guilford's 1980's labor issues. Trailer/container-based transportation is faster and more reliable, may allow smaller order quantity and inventory, and probably has lower damage incidence, too. Boxcar, with its weight advantage, competes on a price advantage. Diminish its weight advantage and you diminish rail carload's competitive advantage.

Further to QB's points - while "heavy" trucks operate in Maine intrastate service, they haven't penetrated the Maine paper market as the traffic is interstate in nature. (If you heavy-loaded a tri-x dry van trailer at a mill, you'd have to lighten it before it crossed the state border.) If a higher GVW rule was adopted on the NATIONAL interstate system, you'd start to see tri-x trailers migrate into Maine and start picking off additional rail traffic. I don't know paper densities for all the mills in Maine, but I'd assume all of the current shippers could take advantage to a greater or lesser degree.

Cowford wrote:PS: Kevin, I didn't follow your last point. Are you assuming that MMA paper is CONSUMED in Canada? If so, this is not the case. MMA paper goes down the Eastern Seaboard and Midwest to the best of my knowledge... I-95, or I-95 to I-90, etc.

No No, but most of MMA's traffic moves over the old CP line to Montreal. This would include the paper. And as far as IN MAINE, which is what were talking about, paper is the absolute lifeblood of the railroads in the state. If paper traffic moves over to truck then the railroads will have to pack it in! I said that before and I stand by it. I think a simple look at the situation and you will agree.

Cowford wrote:Least likely would be coal or grain... paper, not so much.

Again I was talking State of Maine, where i don't see a whole lot of coal and grain on the rails When i go outside and catch a train headed north I see...(give ya a guess )
BOXCARS-and these are all empty, headed to the mills. And when I see a southbound you know what I see...(have another try)
you guessed it BOXCARS full of outbound paper. In Maine paper is the least likely major commodity to go to truck as it is really the only major commodity on the rails here in the Pine Tree State.

oibu wrote:LOTS of paper ALREADY is going by truck, and has been for years.
Go to Madawaska, Hinckley, Woodland, or most any other and you'll see row after row after row of box trailers- loaded, loading, or waiting for a load.

Ya, again here in Maine the paper is split about 50/50 between road and rail.

Cowford wrote:Rail handles a higher proportion of heavier loading papers (such as paperboard) and a minute segment of light loading papers (such as tissue)

but the heavy stuff moves by rail!

Of course one way or the other, the big threat to railroading in northern ME right now is Burkhardt's STB filing. Relative to that, what the truckers can or can't do is a relatively moot point.

oibu wrote:Of course one way or the other, the big threat to railroading in northern ME right now is Burkhardt's STB filing. Relative to that, what the truckers can or can't do is a relatively moot point.

And just a guess, but that filling will help to gain support for the new highway regs. No rail service=must have better options for truckers Which would figure. The state is just so ANTI-BUSINESS!!! and yet the trucks always seem to get off easier.