2xR
******* Derelict *******
Mark Riddig, a reporter/host for LandLine listened to some pointy heads yacking it up on NPR about how trains were so much better than trucks. He got pissed and fired off a letter to them explaining how uninformed they were, and, now how their audience was, as well. He really hit that nail squarely on it head. It's a good read.
I pasted the entire article, but here is the link to the page of origination.
I pasted the entire article, but here is the link to the page of origination.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
I’m a little disappointed with Here and Now:
I wrote this piece to the folks who produce the program “Here and Now” on WBUR, an NPR affiliate in Boston.
They had done a piece about moving more freight from trucks to railroads. But their piece ended up being kind of a teardown of truckers. And I feel pretty strongly about that kind of thing, as most of you know by now. And I like sharing.
So here’s the letter I sent to them, word for word as I sent it.
"I was very disappointed to hear your piece “Roads to Rails” – not only as a listener, but as a journalist who covers the trucking industry.
There were so many fallacies in your guest’s statements that you never even challenged … it was quite disappointing, and not at all up to the standards we’ve all come to expect, especially from programs on public radio.
Here’s a few points you might want to consider the next time you report on this topic:
-You and your guest’s constant references to “scary trucks.” Did you miss the federal statistic – based on actual accident reports – that in 75 percent of truck-car collisions, the car is the one at fault? The statements regarding truck safety during your interview were not supported by the science that has been done on this topic, and amounted to fear-mongering, not reporting.
-I especially was disappointed with your statement that trucks were terrifying drivers on I-81. What was your basis for that statement? Are you terrified, and you’ve simply transferred your feelings to your audience? Have you received complaints? Is your evidence anecdotal, or supported by some kind of statistically valid poll, or scientific study? Is it possible that constant media coverage of so-called “scary trucks” may have affected the general public’s view of trucks?
-I am familiar with Virginia’s plan to move truck freight to rail. But here’s the problem, which you moved past without questioning, once again: What will they do with freight that arrives in Virginia by truck? Move it to rail, then back to truck if rail is not available as it continues to move past Virginia? One state cannot effectively manage a freight solution for products moving in an interstate fashion.
-More than 80 percent of incorporated communities in the United States have no access to rail – how will they get the goods they need if all this freight travels on rail? Did your guest’s estimations of the cost include rebuilding thousands of abandoned rail lines, reacquiring right of away and closing down rail-to-trail projects?
-How will goods get from the rails to the stores? I think trucks would be the answer, as they are now. How many Wal-Marts do you know with a railhead?
-Our economy is based now on “just-in-time” delivery – something rail is very bad at performing. How many businesses will ship by rail if it means radically increased costs and time, if they cannot operate in the “just-in-time” manner they are accustomed to, and that their business models depend on? How will the fuel savings achieved compare with the cost of restructuring the entire system of goods movement that has developed over the past few decades? How will you compel private businesses operating in a legal manner to abandon their view of the best, most efficient and most profitable way of operating their concerns?
-Railroads did not subsidize their competitors through taxes. The interstate highway system – and other highways and roads – are supported, as they have been since day one of the Eisenhower Interstate System – by a dedicated tax, the fuel tax. That was set up specifically to pay for highways by taxing the users. And in fact, the biggest problem has not been others subsidizing the highway trust fund; it’s been diversions from the trust fund for other, non-highway purposes.
-The statement that a particular highway is being “pounded apart” by big trucks ignores the fact that the road was supposed to be built to a standard that would support those trucks. It also ignores the fact that trucks pay 36 percent of the money going into the fund intended to pay for that road – despite the fact that nationwide, they represent a far smaller percentage of the overall traffic. Why are truckers to blame because that state has chosen to divert the money out of highway maintenance from a dedicated fund, in violation of the plan that created the tax? Why are truckers to blame because the state has failed in its duty to maintain the road with the taxes paid for that purpose?
-Your guest’s statements regarding electric rail’s environmental benefits are interesting, but did he miss the fact that nearly all our railroads now not only run on diesel fuel, but in fact, they use a far more polluting version of that fuel than trucks do, with far higher sulfur levels and particulate matter emissions than the fuel now run in trucks. And those are the elements of diesel exhaust that lead to the most illness. If we increase rail now without radical changes to increase electrification – a process far more expensive than your guest indicated – then it will be diesel trains running these routes.
Whatever you think of trains, I find it sad that the only way your guest can make his case for them is to tear down the industry and the workers who have, at very considerable personal sacrifice, kept this country’s freight moving. Based on the facts, the trucking industry deserves better. I hope the next time, you will offer a more balanced report."
Thanks for your consideration.
Mark Reddig
Host, Land Line Now
