Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[edwaleni]

Oklahoma needs to stick to updating the US-75/US-69 corridor between DFW and KCMO.  NAFTA traffic is looking to avoid OKC and Tulsa while heading north.

Serious question, and I've actually been wondering this for a long time:  Why not just use I-35 for DFW-to-KC traffic?  Isn't that what it's there for?  Is OKC traffic really that bad?  Are trucking companies that hard up to avoid the Kansas Turnpike tolls?  And if the latter is a concern, is Oklahoma really going to do this without building a new turnpike and letting US 69 be a side road, if they ever do it at all?

It's an honest question.

For the most part, most logistics using trucks do use the I-35 routing.

However at many times I-35 south of OKC gets congested.  In the last few years there have been many truck accidents where the northbound side gets closed for hours at a time causing several miles of backups.

A recent UPS order I made was sourced in the DFW metro. I followed its path and I thought it would interchange in OKC to go east.  Instead they took it all the way from DFW to KCMO in a single day's drive.  Looking at time to arrive, they had to have used I-35.

Today I-35 is the fastest way to go if no obstacles come into play.  If OK does upgrade the 69-75 corridor and remove the local speed traps and increase the grade separations, it will be possible to cut the time by 30 to 45 minutes.

[bwana39]

Oklahoma needs to stick to updating the US-75/US-69 corridor between DFW and KCMO.  NAFTA traffic is looking to avoid OKC and Tulsa while heading north.

Serious question, and I've actually been wondering this for a long time:  Why not just use I-35 for DFW-to-KC traffic?  Isn't that what it's there for?  Is OKC traffic really that bad?  Are trucking companies that hard up to avoid the Kansas Turnpike tolls?  And if the latter is a concern, is Oklahoma really going to do this without building a new turnpike and letting US 69 be a side road, if they ever do it at all?

It's an honest question.

For the most part, most logistics using trucks do use the I-35 routing.

However at many times I-35 south of OKC gets congested.  In the last few years there have been many truck accidents where the northbound side gets closed for hours at a time causing several miles of backups.

A recent UPS order I made was sourced in the DFW metro. I followed its path and I thought it would interchange in OKC to go east.  Instead they took it all the way from DFW to KCMO in a single day's drive.  Looking at time to arrive, they had to have used I-35.

Today I-35 is the fastest way to go if no obstacles come into play.  If OK does upgrade the 69-75 corridor and remove the local speed traps and increase the grade separations, it will be possible to cut the time by 30 to 45 minutes.

No they didn't. It followed the US 69 corridor on the UPRR.  Very few UPS trucks do longhaul. Most of the trailers are put on rail cars for long segments. Your package almost surely went via rail.

[sprjus4]

Per Google Maps, between Dallas and Kansas City.

US-75 / US-69 / I-44 / I-49 - 8 hours 2 minutes, 508 miles
I-35E / I-35 - 8 hours 16 minutes, 552 miles
I-35E / I-35 / I-335 / I-470 / I-70 - 8 hours 19 minutes, 556 miles

Using a 70 mph speed limit, the US-75 routing would be reduced to 7 hours 15 minutes. Considering Oklahoma will begin posting 75 mph on interstate highways in the near future, this would likely be reduced further. An interstate upgrade of US-75 and US-69 between I-45 and I-44 would be a logical extension of I-45.

[armadillo speedbump]

No they didn't. It followed the US 69 corridor on the UPRR.

I'm curious how you know this, since the Union Pacific railroad doesn't offer intermodal service from Texas to Kansas City.  And in the distant past when it did, that was routed via St. Louis because of low volumes and took more than a day's transit time.   

few UPS trucks do longhaul. Most of the trailers are put on rail cars for long segments. Your package almost surely went via rail.

There are plenty of UPS truck long hauls.  While they use railroad intermodal in some lanes, there aren't that many market pairs that railroads even offer intermodal.  Mostly long distance and high volume lanes.  Transit times, reliability issues, and once a day (or less) schedules are also limiting factors to rail use.

[bjrush]

I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper

[Plutonic Panda]

I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper

By what measure are you concluding roads will never pay for themselves? You posted some perfectly valid points about the benefits of rail and then shift to an anti road vibe where make half true statements. Rail projects costs in the billions as well so how do those pay for themselves if roads don’t?

I was always under the impression roads and rail, well basically all infrastructure, pays for itself in the way of allowing society to function and prosper.

[sparker]

I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper

By what measure are you concluding roads will never pay for themselves? You posted some perfectly valid points about the benefits of rail and then shift to an anti road vibe where make half true statements. Rail projects costs in the billions as well so how do those pay for themselves if roads don’t?

I was always under the impression roads and rail, well basically all infrastructure, pays for itself in the way of allowing society to function and prosper.

The UPS/rail joint operation works just like any other "hub and spoke" system; air freight functions much the same.  Trucks handle the short haul, but rail is used to get the goods between widely-spaced metro areas.  But that all depends upon the railroad following a strict scheduling regimen regarding these particular movements.  DFW-KC is ideal, because the UP (former MKT and MP) trackage it uses (and, yes, it goes up the 69/75 corridor) isn't on their transcontinental container routes, which tend to clog up rail traffic.  But on those transcontinental routes (in UP's case, either L.A.-El Paso-DFW or Oakland-Salt Lake-Omaha-Chicago) where UPS trains have to queue between cargo coming out of West Coast ports, the service is parsed out into stuff that has to "be there yesterday", which will be, size permitting, placed on over-the-road trucks, and other less time-sensitive cargo will go by rail.  Generally speaking, by and large the majority of UPS cargo on N-S corridors tends to go by rail regardless of time sensitivity, while E-W corridors receive the "split mode" approach.  The only general N-S rail corridors that regularly exhibit the issues endemic to E-W corridors in general are those paralleling I-85 and/or I-95 on the East Coast (CSX or NS); split-mode is largely utilized there as well.     

[Plutonic Panda]

I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper

By what measure are you concluding roads will never pay for themselves? You posted some perfectly valid points about the benefits of rail and then shift to an anti road vibe where make half true statements. Rail projects costs in the billions as well so how do those pay for themselves if roads don’t?

I was always under the impression roads and rail, well basically all infrastructure, pays for itself in the way of allowing society to function and prosper.

The UPS/rail joint operation works just like any other "hub and spoke" system; air freight functions much the same.  Trucks handle the short haul, but rail is used to get the goods between widely-spaced metro areas.  But that all depends upon the railroad following a strict scheduling regimen regarding these particular movements.  DFW-KC is ideal, because the UP (former MKT and MP) trackage it uses (and, yes, it goes up the 69/75 corridor) isn't on their transcontinental container routes, which tend to clog up rail traffic.  But on those transcontinental routes (in UP's case, either L.A.-El Paso-DFW or Oakland-Salt Lake-Omaha-Chicago) where UPS trains have to queue between cargo coming out of West Coast ports, the service is parsed out into stuff that has to "be there yesterday", which will be, size permitting, placed on over-the-road trucks, and other less time-sensitive cargo will go by rail.  Generally speaking, by and large the majority of UPS cargo on N-S corridors tends to go by rail regardless of time sensitivity, while E-W corridors receive the "split mode" approach.  The only general N-S rail corridors that regularly exhibit the issues endemic to E-W corridors in general are those paralleling I-85 and/or I-95 on the East Coast (CSX or NS); split-mode is largely utilized there as well.   

Thank you for the information. That is very interesting and if you don’t mind me asking, how do you know this? Did you have a career in this field or just a hobby?

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
My academic training is in the field of public policy; specifically transportation policy -- including a sub-specialty in freight movement in and between metro areas (not too many of us out there plowing that particular field!).  The evolution of UPS over the years has always been intriguing, particularly after about 1996, when FedEx made a major effort to carve out a big slice of the package-delivery world for themselves (FE has a much greater reliance on long-distance trucks -- usually by contract -- than does UPS).  I'm pretty much retired from the field, but occasionally I'll write position paper(s) on a case-by-case basis.  Got a few other irons in the fire in a largely unrelated field (that utilizes UPS and FedEx regularly -- so I try to keep up with what's going on with them at any given time). 

[bjrush]

I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper

By what measure are you concluding roads will never pay for themselves? You posted some perfectly valid points about the benefits of rail and then shift to an anti road vibe where make half true statements. Rail projects costs in the billions as well so how do those pay for themselves if roads don’t?

I was always under the impression roads and rail, well basically all infrastructure, pays for itself in the way of allowing society to function and prosper.

Diminishing returns. I don't think the incremental improvements from a new interstate roughly paralleling an existing interstate-quality facility just a few dozen miles to the east or west had the same economic impact as when the first one was put in (thinking specifically of all the proposals fanning out from DFW, but many other examples available). You can drive between any major US city on an interstate. While adding a few more lanes here and there is likely justified, adding new interstates between cities that aren't directly connected likely doesn't pass economic muster given the costs are extremely high and benefits low. Conversely building parallel tracks is still expensive, but an order of magnitude cheaper than interstate construction, and would likely bring similar benefits via efficiency.

Much infrastructure doesn't pay for itself. Think of the water line running down a cul-de-sac to serve 4 houses. That's why the holy grail of PPP has largely gone quiet. Investors don't see a return on investment. Connecting places is fine, but we shouldn't pretend it's on an economic basis. Just like we don't build city parks based on a ROI approach, we build them because we've decided they are an important amenity. That's more of a justification for I-49 between TXK and Ft Smith than a sliced and diced economic analysis. Those can say anything, it's all in the assumptions.

[rte66man]

I am assuming bjrush is talking about railroads here.

Indeed. I know it's heretical on this forum, but rail is much more fuel efficient, less labor intensive, more reliable, and cheaper than truck if they're going to the same place. Especially when you factor in the need to build billion dollar roadways which will never in a million years pay for themselves. Spend 1/10 of those billions and add parallel tracks and replace at grade crossings and you will improve commerce for much cheaper

Emphasis added.  That statement is only true for intermodal hauls to/from major terminals. I can speak from experience that UPRR is not especially interested in mixed short hauls.  They have raised their per car rates so high that my company has been forced to return to trucking product in some markets. They've also discontinued our 3/week unit trains in favor of a daily pickup. Better for them, not as good for us.

[mvak36]

https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/construction-on-bella-vista-bypass-i-49-interchange-still-on-track-near-bentonville/48660

Apparently they stopped construction for a few weeks on the SPUI project because an employee tested positive for COVID. Other than that, the rest of the article didn't give any new information.

[US71]

https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/construction-on-bella-vista-bypass-i-49-interchange-still-on-track-near-bentonville/48660

Apparently they stopped construction for a few weeks on the SPUI project because an employee tested positive for COVID. Other than that, the rest of the article didn't give any new information.

Everything is back to what passes for normal.  I'm hoping to get up that way soon to update the I-49 Fakebook page.

[mvak36]

https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/construction-on-bella-vista-bypass-i-49-interchange-still-on-track-near-bentonville/48660

Apparently they stopped construction for a few weeks on the SPUI project because an employee tested positive for COVID. Other than that, the rest of the article didn't give any new information.

Everything is back to what passes for normal.  I'm hoping to get up that way soon to update the I-49 Fakebook page.

Yes you are right. I probably should have worded my post better. The article did say they started work on the project again after the Memorial Day weekend.