RME the trouble is the public and therefore the legislators see OTR truckers as nothing more than rejects that refuse to comply with more and more stringent regulations they ram down our throats. The people that write the regulations not once do they ever sit down with the drivers to ask what will this one do if implemented. Instead they listen to groups like PATT CRASH which if they had their ways OTR trucks would be banned entirely. Those groups that do fight for us and do want to improve the truckers image have it hard when the second an accident involving a OTR truck happens before the accident scene is secured the media is trying to blame the truck.
If the FMCSA wanted to listen to drivers they would instead of making a seat belt ticket worth more than a DUI in a truck they would instead make shippers and receivers that delay drivers for hours provide safe secure parking areas so drivers that have burned up their clocks waiting to load and unload would have a safe place to sleep instead of being run off and risk being robbed and killed. One of the biggest issues we have is a lack of safe parking spots for trucks in the NE USA the area around Washington DC near Chicago out west around San Fran the LA area finding a safe parking spot for your break is next to impossible. My drivers are not asking for much just to be treated like a human being at some of these places. You know provided access to the restroom a breakroom with vending machines you know simple things. We are not asking for beds we carry those but to be treated like human beings. We serve one Grocery chain that refuses to allow any OTR trucking companies drivers to use their restrooms and makes the drivers use the parking lot as a restroom. Do you know how degrading that is for a human being. They can not go inside man or woman to relieve themselves instead they are told your an animal do it on the parking lot.
I enjoyed your previous post -- and this one.
I have always considered governors something of an invention of the devil; one of the reasons I was looking so carefully into truck-scale KERS a few years ago was to see whether some of the bad effects of governors (or 'enforcement' of maximum speed via some sort of analogue to valve-pilot tape on the trucks, or one of those rat-you-out GPS fleet apps) could be avoided by making practical recovery to road speed from a slowdown more practical.
I have thought for many years that one of the great things to come out of 'self-driving' technology would be a system that interacts with road profile maps, traffic management, and other things to simplify the experience of truck drivers in that right lane. Even something as simple as California-style on-ramp traffic lights might make the situation better, or more predictable, for truck drivers who want to run at constant speed as much as possible; to date, I've been preaching in the wilderness about the idea that cars should under some circumstances 'yield' to trucks since their mass is less and recovery cushion usually much greater.
With adequate enforcement means, one of the few places I support more 'draconian' enforcement of road laws is with respect to drivers that speed up to block, or 'road hog' other drivers. This is one place that cab cameras like those in the Russian 'fail' videos might be of immense potential use.
The problem with pay by the hour is that it invites too much abuse, and the tools effective in reducing such abuse are almost all objectionally intrusive to driver privacy. As with railroading, I support the idea not only of high demurrage, but of flexibly ramping high demurrage beyond a reasonable unloading/lumping time, as a progressive incentive with teeth to get trucks back on the road. (I confess to getting many implementation-detail ideas from my father's practice as an expert medical witness...)
I think a major part of the 'problem' is that drivers aren't really represented on either side of the 'regulatory' adversarial system. Were they to be the true focus of effective regulation, rather than objects of paternal do-goodiness, we might be able to get somewhere -- and this is far more practical, and reasonably achievable, than widespread catenary or alternative locomotive fuel cycles.
ShadowTCO, I don't want to take this any further off topic than it has already gotten, but if your company ever opens a terminal in the Portland, OR area Hopefully, the East side of town, I would be interested in talking to them.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
RME,
That post was an admittedly cheap shot, in response to a cheap shot, I feel that my other post were well thought out and expressed.
In regards to truck traffic, in the wrong places and wrong times, almost all of that is attributable to the shippers and recievers, and very little of it is under the drivers control. As to the driving in ways that cause problems, truckers aren't perfect, but most of those "problems" are attributable to the autos, I don't use the right lane on urban highways with 3 or more lanes because, motorists very often don't look when merging, and other motorists will speed up to prevent me from changing lanes, to allow other vehicles to merge, simple solution? don't let myself get into that situation, move over to next lane from the right ASAP, rather than when I need to. If I felt I had a fighting chance to change lanes when needed, I would use the right lane, but almost 30 years in the cab has taught me the folly of that idea.
The issue of prolonged passing manuevers is in large part due to Insurance companies either requiring commercial vehicle to have governors to offer coverage, or at least giving discounts if so equipped. My old tractor was governed at 65mph, with new tires, with still legal wear on them, my speedometer would read 65, while my GPS would read 63. After I started running through Idaho with a 70 MPH truck limit, and into Utah with an 80MPH all vehicle speed limit, I was able to get the company to resest my govenor for 80 MPH, the plant manager said, you have never given us any troubles, no reason you shouldn't be able to do the speed limit, what a relief. In addition to the small difference in possible passing speeds, you would also have both truck and auto drivers that would speed up when you tried to pass them, which just made the problem worse.
Courtsey on the road by ALL drivers is one of the biggest problems on the highways/roadways.
Yep government regulations are a huge part of the driver shortage. One regulation that I could support, that many in the industry would strongly oppose, is eliminating mileage pay, and figuring pay by the hour. That would reduce speeding, eliminate the incentive to drive too fast for the conditions, and if shippers/recievers were charged an hourly rate for the truck being on their property, it would encourage better shipping/recieving scheduling, and faster load/unload times, improving vehicle/driver utilization.
Those ideas are as likely as yoho1975's ideas to string catenary, use super caps, fuel cells and batteries, but they would go a long ways in improving many problems in the trucking industry, but those would have to be a government mandated change, that evryone would have to do, to keep a level playing field.
challenger3980 schlimm Is SHOUTING online an occupational hazard of the trucking business? Gee Schlim, let me guess, you are one of those that do complain about too much truck traffic. Think that trucks should have a lower sppeed limit than autos, then complain about being stuck behind a slow truck. And you also believe that we don't need trucks, and that trains can do it all anyway(and I have actually had some tell me that, and honestly believe it) You also expect, every on item on your shopping list to be on the shelf, every time you go to the grocery store. Doug
schlimm Is SHOUTING online an occupational hazard of the trucking business?
Is SHOUTING online an occupational hazard of the trucking business?
Gee Schlim, let me guess, you are one of those that do complain about too much truck traffic.
Think that trucks should have a lower sppeed limit than autos, then complain about being stuck behind a slow truck.
And you also believe that we don't need trucks, and that trains can do it all anyway(and I have actually had some tell me that, and honestly believe it)
You also expect, every on item on your shopping list to be on the shelf, every time you go to the grocery store.
In answer to your rather bizarre questions (which have zero to do with my comment above) my responses are, in order: sometimes, no, no, and no.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
YoHo1975 Why not string up the catenary? why not shift to supercaps, fuel cells and batteries.
Where will we get the electricity to energise the catenary, charge the capacitors, store in the batteries?
Because of clean air and "renewable" energy mandates, we cannot use coal, gas and oil. Nuclear (shudder) is feared. In the past hydro-electric power made California's electricity close to the least expensive in the USA. Now California's electricity is, if not the most expensive, darn close too it. Many of the facilities are around 100 years old and very few have been completed completed within the last 50 years. The best locations are already built and there is very vocal pressure from enviromentaltsts to remove the dams and restore the rivers to nature.
Solar and wind are inefficient and often not working when needed. They need back-up. Most often gas or oil, which to prevent outages is usully kept running in a standby mode, so the pollution continues.
Advocates of solar and wind also gloss over the environmental costs. Central solar panel arays needed are huge and destructive to plant and animal life. Concentrated Solar Power desimates bird populations and so far test installations have not ment expectations. It is difficult to find locations for wind generators reasonably close to where the power is needed, they are detrimental to bird populations, noise is a problem and they can also can negatively affect radar and telecommunitations facilities.
In additioal with solar in particualar the environmental and human costs of mining and processing the rare and highly toxic materials needed are usually not addressed. The costs of production and disposal of batteries and hazards in their use are usually not addressed either.
Small solar installations on homes business and government facilities have some use, but how many would be built if it were not for large subsidies?
A government complex in my home town has a solar panel installation that seems sensible although I am not convinced that in the overall picture it is environmentally sound. . Most of the spaces in the parking lot have a carport type roof with solar panels. Because the facilities are closed at night , most electricity use is in the daytime when solar is most available. There is the added advantage that the cars will be cooler in the 100+ degree summer heat.
Fuel Cells may be viable someday, but current state of the technology are very expensive, often inefficent, not always reliable and the infrastructure to service them (fuel and maintenance) very limited. The advanages of using hydrogen in fuel cells is often touted. There is a well developed distribution system although only adequate for current uses. Hydrogen is the most abundent element, most of it is locked up in non usable forms. Freeing the hydrogen, usually using electricity is expensive and generation of the electricity needed and is often poluting.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
challenger3980Gee schlimm, let me guess, you are one of those that do complain about too much truck traffic.
Maybe. I sure know I'm one. There's far too much truck traffic in the wrong places at the wrong time, often driving in ways that cause problems. Not sure how this is supposed to relate either to the previous points or to use of capitalization instead of boldface/italic for emphasis, though.
In practice, "shouting" on the Internet referred to typing the whole thing with the caps lock engaged, rather than just some phrases. But when there are too many phrases, or every other word capitalized, it gets nearly as exhausting to read. The Forum techs have been kind enough to provide us with legitimate controls for text emphasis -- please use them instead of caps all over the place.
Think that trucks should have a lower speed limit than autos, then complain about being stuck behind a slow truck.
Not really, but I certainly, certainly think that trucks have no business slow-passing anywhere on four-lane Interstates, and further that there should be 'hard' truck no-passing zones anywhere there is more than a casual upgrade in the road profile on such roads. If I were to tot up the time actually saved to driver hours or overall trip times in these maneuvers, which sometimes take upward of 5 minutes to complete, I can't imagine it is particularly great, which makes it worse.
And you also believe that we don't need trucks, and that trains can do it all anyway (and I have actually had some tell me that, and honestly believe it)
Cute attempt at a straw-man argument, but I believe schlimm is already on record as advocating the use of trucks where they are appropriate, including over-the-road in 'competition' with cost-effective trains. Why do you suppose people have been designing optimized intermodal systems -- with the mode changes in domestic service only incidentally related to anything except trucks -- if they thought "we don't need trucks". Can you actually point to anyone posting on this forum who seriously claims rail service can replace trucking, even if fuel goes to multiples of current European level?
Frankly, yes. The computer systems are there to keep up with SKUs, historical buying patterns, warehouse stocking, even weather and more -- if they aren't run properly, it's not the trucker's fault anyway. And I DO expect professional truckers to be able to run an appropriate just-in-time schedule, with adequate slack, that does not make the truck or intermodal part of the run a critical path or showstopper.
The points you are not making in that rather juvenile attempt at an insult post, the points that Shadow's owner has been establishing in numerous and reasonably-documented shape for us, involve the actual ways in which government makes trucking more and more intolerable both for reasons of 'policy' and to enhance their own sense of self-worth or dominance. Personally, I have little more question that the driver's "shortage" is related to a great deal of regulatory crap than that the "nurse's shortage" is a gap between what skilled providers are willing to provide in an often-hostile environment and what penny-pinching bean-counters are willing to shell out for. It remains to be seen just how much the Trump administration is willing to change the regulatory/enforcement mechanisms currently used in OTR trucking, particularly including State-level enforcement efforts.
If I were you, I'd choose my targets more wisely on here.
Mommy's cookies and milk that he is waiting in the basement for?
MOMMY made them(Ooopps, Caps) never mind that a truck brought the flour, eggs, milk and chocolate chips to the store so Mommy could make them
.
Schilm you name one product or service you use every single day that an OTR truck has no part in supporting or delivering to get to your house or workplace besides the air as all of us use the atmosphere here on earth and you can say you won the arguement. Just try and name one product in your daily life that someone like Challenger or one of my drivers has Zero part in getting to you.
Mommy not bring your cookies and milk to the basement yet?
CMStPnP I'd be all for zero emissions California politicians............anyone else?
I'd be all for zero emissions California politicians............anyone else?
Tier 4 was an incremental increase, still using diesel technology, Strining Catenary and using super caps, fuel cells and batteries, are a different game plan, requireing massive changes and expenses in infrastructure, that's not even an Apple/Oranges comparison, that's a Rocket/Submarine comparison.
with line powered (most likely overhead catenary) road vehicles, not only do have the catenary to install/pay for, the unspoken trouble is power SUPPLY, not only are you moving the source of the pollution, even if it IS an incremental improvement, but you also need to SUPPLY that electricty. Just stringing the catenary and building the vehicles will not solve the problem. AFAIK, we don't have any where near that kind electricity production surplus. There are areas that on occasion suffer seasonal rolling "Brown Outs" because our production capacity is too close to our demands, where are you going to get that enormous additional amount of electricity to power road vehicles? That is even an issue for Battery powered vehicles, but at least many of those will be charging during off peak demand hours. Just the EIS (Enviromental Impact Study) for a new power plant, can/likely will take longer than stringing your catenary would, THEN the plant actually has to be BUILT.
You work in the "Tech" field, and see rapid advances regularly, well most "Tech" products are, or nearly are "Stand Alone" products. Tech products that do have infrastructure requirements RARELY make generational leaps like what you are suggesting, without being "Backwards Compatable" with current technology, how long were Analog cell phones supported after the Digital cellular technology was developed(and CONTINUES to evolve, we are at Gen 4 cell now I believe), again with phones how long was PULSE dialing supported after TONE dialing was developed?
The changes in transportation that you are suggesting are Generational in nature and MAY eventually come to pass, but if it does happen, there will be a LOOONG coexistince transitional period WITH the existing technology, just as there was with the Steam/Diesel transition on the railroads, it will NOT be an over night, or even a 5 year transition.
If there IS the transportation disruption that you predict, it WILL be because of UNREALISTIC GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, our current system, while certainlt NOT PERFECT, is capable now, and into the foreseeable future of meeting our needs. Such a disruption would likely be instigated by the trucking industry to protest the unrealistic expectations of some government agencies. Make no mistake about it, IF the BIG players got serious about it, the few "Profiteers" in the small firms and O/O's (Owner/Operators) would not be ant where near handling the needs. Hopefully for the rest of the country, the industry would make an example of California, to show what it COULD(very EASILY) do to the WHOLE COUNTRY, and NO, the railroads could NOT absorb enough of the freight to make a noticable difference. This Country NEEDS BOTH modes of transportation, and NEITHER mode is capable of REPLACING the other. Ideally Railroads and trucking would work together even more than they already do, but we do need both.
If you even hear a whisper of such a disruption coming, STOCK UP on FOOD, TOILET PAPER and anything else you deem NECESSARY to your daily life, studies many years ago concluded that if every truck in the nation shut down for just 6 HOURS, it would take over 3 WEEKS for the nation to recover, and as a driver, I REMEMBER that very scenario being discussed, and was a distinct possibility. If that were to occur, the public would quickly be cussing us while parked, and suddenly HUGGING us, once those Big Wheels started rolling again.
Just be GLAD that there are still as many of us willing to do the job as there are, after the changes that I have seen in the last 30 years in the industry, I would NOT reccomend to a Young Person that they consider trucking as a career, and the threat of "Driverless Trucks" would have less than ZERO reason as to why I would not suggest a career in the industry, but Government regulations created by those that have NEVER sat in my seat would be a LARGE part of the reason. Some of the HOS rules over the last 20 years or so have been ABSOLUTELY STUPID, such as for our 34 hour off clock reset REQUIRING those 34 hours off to Include TWO 1:00am-5:00 periods. Finish at 1:05, or need to start before 5:00am and NO 34 hour clock restart. Gee let's NOT get trucks in and out of the cities BEFORE morning rush hour, but rather lets take 4 hours worth of commercial traffic and FORCE it to start just as rush hour is beginning, but NOBODY EVER complains about there being to MUCH TRUCK TRAFFIC, do they? FORTUNATELY, THAT provision in the 34 hour off clock reset rule WAS challenged and ELIMINATED, but it should NEVER have been enacted to begin with. Not surprisingly it was PROVEN to have exacerbated traffic and resulted in MORE collisions, DUH.
Yep, governmental regulations ARE necessary, BUT should also be created by people more knowledgable about the topic than is common, and more often than happens, some should be repealed when their TRUE down stream effects become apparent.
I looked at CARB's website and what they are wanting again. Word to the wise Yoho even running EGR with DPF and SCR on the engines that are made by GE and EMD right now and tweaking the injection the physics of what they want are IMPOSSIBLE from a mechanical design point. They want an over 80% reduction in NOX from 1.3 to .2 grams per grams per HP/hr with a 99+% control rate. For particulate matter they want less than .01 from .03 gram per HP/hr HC they want to cut from .14 to .02 grams per HP/hr. All with 99+% control rates. Sure that can happen and I have a beachfront condo in Maui. Plus they are demanding a cap on greenhouse gases emitted by the locomotives. I emailed the proposed limits to our chief mechanic a Ceritfied Master he went I want what their smoking in CA those standards can not be made in the realms of physics. He might have a clue with a BA in mechaincal engineering.
Paul Milenkovic zugmann Paul Milenkovic What concern is it, to a person self-identifying as being from Germany, whether an American trucking company worker is expressing frustration that the existing EPA standards are economically burdensome, and that the proposed even stricter standards could put her out of work? When these standards are admitted to be stricter than those in Germany? One could ask what concern is it to a university professor as well. I am enjoying this thread. But your above comments are out of line and should be beneath you. It is my concern because I don't want to eat spoiled food. I don't want to have to throw food I just purchased into the garbage, and I don't want to get sick eating spoiled food that I had failed to throw away. It is my concern because someone who comes from a country that has "reasonable" environmental regulations is complaining that a person in my country is too critical of environmental regs from our own government, regs that are much more strict than other countries. If I didn't hear from a person in the trucking industry about their complaints, I would have had no idea why I was bringing home spoiled food from the store. Now that I have heard what the problem is, I look the fresh eggs over more carefully, and I am also much more careful with purchases of fresh meat. This is an upside down world
zugmann Paul Milenkovic What concern is it, to a person self-identifying as being from Germany, whether an American trucking company worker is expressing frustration that the existing EPA standards are economically burdensome, and that the proposed even stricter standards could put her out of work? When these standards are admitted to be stricter than those in Germany? One could ask what concern is it to a university professor as well. I am enjoying this thread. But your above comments are out of line and should be beneath you.
Paul Milenkovic What concern is it, to a person self-identifying as being from Germany, whether an American trucking company worker is expressing frustration that the existing EPA standards are economically burdensome, and that the proposed even stricter standards could put her out of work? When these standards are admitted to be stricter than those in Germany?
What concern is it, to a person self-identifying as being from Germany, whether an American trucking company worker is expressing frustration that the existing EPA standards are economically burdensome, and that the proposed even stricter standards could put her out of work? When these standards are admitted to be stricter than those in Germany?
One could ask what concern is it to a university professor as well.
I am enjoying this thread. But your above comments are out of line and should be beneath you.
It is my concern because I don't want to eat spoiled food. I don't want to have to throw food I just purchased into the garbage, and I don't want to get sick eating spoiled food that I had failed to throw away.
It is my concern because someone who comes from a country that has "reasonable" environmental regulations is complaining that a person in my country is too critical of environmental regs from our own government, regs that are much more strict than other countries.
If I didn't hear from a person in the trucking industry about their complaints, I would have had no idea why I was bringing home spoiled food from the store. Now that I have heard what the problem is, I look the fresh eggs over more carefully, and I am also much more careful with purchases of fresh meat.
This is an upside down world
Nice ducking both the question and the apology you should give for acting as the self-appointed gatekeeper concerning who can post what on here, especially if they reside abroad. Enjoy your eggs!
challenger3980 Why California should base it's standards on what is practical is because that is what is realistically POSSIBLE at present.
Why California should base it's standards on what is practical is because that is what is realistically POSSIBLE at present.
As I recall there were rather a number of years between Tier 4 being proposed, ratified and coming into effect. Not based on the technology available when proposed. So no, not even the existing standards were based on CURRENT practical technologies.
No, that's not the way it's ever worked in the past. That's not how we got a man on the moon, that's not how the transcontinental railroad was built.
Unfunded mandates can be problematic. I never meant to suggest that government agencies were without fault. we are all human.
Sorry if I'm a bit more opptimistic, I work in the tech industry, I've seen it happen. I've worked for a company that took a 1billion dollar risk to launch a statellite with all new technology that nobody though was currently practical and clean the competition's clock. So I reject that notion out of hand.
And of course it doesn't have to be a technical leap. Nor self driving long distance truck. The innovation could be in modality. It could be innovation in getting produce from packing to the train that no longer has leads everywhere. It could be innovation in any number of ways. Ways that CARB may not be able to look at. Ways that may subvert their requirements.
I also doubt self driving long haul trucks will be a reality in the next five years, but I also don't see that industry thriving in it's current model much longer. I believe their will be a transportation disruption at some poin.
Your wanting driverless trucks. One small issue with driverless trucks they will have no clue what to do when there is a mechiancal issue a blown tire someone dive bombs them to make an exit in a city or on the highway. They also can not refuel themselves hook or unhook a trailer open or close the doors and when going across say Wyoming are going to have ZERO clue what to do when a 80 MPH crosswind hits you on Elk Mountain. There are times even a driver with 1 million accident free miles can not handle everything Mother Nature or other drivers throw at them. Then throw in animals that love to play lets commit suicide things like elk bison moose deer things that destroy equipment. We just had to bring home a truck on his way back from Idaho. Why he was coming back on Rt 30 in Wyoming and a 750 lb bull elk stepped out in front of him at 5 am. Truck might be a total. Driver is still in the hospital in SLC with injuries. We are getting him home next week via Amtrak he can't bend his leg his femur was broken so flying him home was out but we can get him a sleeper car room and get him home that way.
CA wants zero emission trucks. All they are doing is moving the emissions from one point to another if they go with battery powered models. Also lithium batteries as we have seen if they do fail burn and do so very hot. Now if we go with Fuel cells your talking about needing close to 380KW of power to equal what one of our engines produces. Yeah that is the size of engines we run. In english measurements that is about 510 HP is our new fleet standard as of this week. Why so much HP we have been running a test of 25 trucks set at that and they have been getting 2 tenths better MPG than our old standard of 450 HP. So as we get the trucks in for services we are resetting the HP and torque on them.
There is no way in Hades your going to get what CA wants all your going to do is move the source of pollution to another area.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
YoHo1975 And that's not a bad thing, because "the people" don't know much of anything about environmental sciences and these agencies are tasked with doing that learning. That's the way this works. Just like how the Federal government hires generals and soldiers to go plan and fight wars, because you kinda want someone who knows what they're talking about doing that. And while it's never a bad idea to walk a mile in another's shoes. these agencies are responsible for the health and livelihood of all their constituents. Sure, CARB is a thorn in the side of OTR trucking. But they are a godsend to the people just trying to not have asthma attacks every day in Modesto. They're responsible for weighing the costs in healthcare, remediation, property destruction and on and on. OTR trucking and diesel locomotives don't exist in absentia. Further, I don't quite understand why the State of California should set it's standards based on the currently practical limitations of Diesel engines. It is not written in the cosmic tablet that Diesel engines shall henceforth be the only source of locomotion for the shipping industry. Why not string up the catenary? why not shift to supercaps, fuel cells and batteries. Or revisit a new version of steam. There's also driverless car and driverless truck experiments which have the potential to lead to far more tightly tuned engines with much narrower operating envelops as the consistency of the driver increases. California likes Silicon Valley thinking. Go big or go home. for profit industry generally has an innovation wall, especially in the current shareholder driven atmosphere. They are by definition risk averse. A series of carrots and sticks to goose things along is not unwarranted. As for OTR fleets deciding California isn't worth it. Someone will pick up the slack. There's too much money to be made and the production can't transition easily...hell, maybe a few more salad shooters will start going past my house and over the hill. I wouldn't complain about that.
And that's not a bad thing, because "the people" don't know much of anything about environmental sciences and these agencies are tasked with doing that learning. That's the way this works. Just like how the Federal government hires generals and soldiers to go plan and fight wars, because you kinda want someone who knows what they're talking about doing that. And while it's never a bad idea to walk a mile in another's shoes. these agencies are responsible for the health and livelihood of all their constituents. Sure, CARB is a thorn in the side of OTR trucking. But they are a godsend to the people just trying to not have asthma attacks every day in Modesto. They're responsible for weighing the costs in healthcare, remediation, property destruction and on and on. OTR trucking and diesel locomotives don't exist in absentia. Further, I don't quite understand why the State of California should set it's standards based on the currently practical limitations of Diesel engines. It is not written in the cosmic tablet that Diesel engines shall henceforth be the only source of locomotion for the shipping industry. Why not string up the catenary? why not shift to supercaps, fuel cells and batteries. Or revisit a new version of steam.
There's also driverless car and driverless truck experiments which have the potential to lead to far more tightly tuned engines with much narrower operating envelops as the consistency of the driver increases.
California likes Silicon Valley thinking. Go big or go home. for profit industry generally has an innovation wall, especially in the current shareholder driven atmosphere. They are by definition risk averse. A series of carrots and sticks to goose things along is not unwarranted.
As for OTR fleets deciding California isn't worth it. Someone will pick up the slack. There's too much money to be made and the production can't transition easily...hell, maybe a few more salad shooters will start going past my house and over the hill. I wouldn't complain about that.
Yoho1975,
You just lost all credibility, at least with me, with this post.
Why California should base it's standards on what is practical is because that is what is realistically POSSIBLE at present. WHO is going to pay to string up all of your proposed catenary? what do you do in the mean time? that would be a long term project, not something that goes up over night, IF it were to happen.
Unfunded mandates are a Fool's Errand, just ask the railroads about PTC.
Stringing catenary, may be possible for the railroads, but is totally impractical for highway vehicles, especially to extent of replacing trucks. There are some cities, such as Seattle that have overhead powered electric buses, but those are on very limited routes, not system wide, I WONDER WHY?
There is no getting away from diesel powered commercial vehicles in the near future, so it makes sense to lower the emissions from those as much as practical, within AVAILABLE technology, and adjust standards as technology devolopes. For profit industry is NOT innovation adverse, untold amounts of money are continually spent looking for improvements, when was the last time you saw a Steam Locomotive or Sailing ship in REVENUE service, not just excursion/tourist service? Even with that large profit increasing potential, it took DECADES for the Diesel to replace the Steam locomotive. Many/Most railroads would have Dieselized over night, but the cost and infrastructure changes were to overwhelming to do so, and that technology was, and still IS evolving. Standards should encourage improvement, but are meanigless if unattainable, does the PTC deadline sound familiar?
If you're ready for the government to get more of your paycheck than you do(and I am sure that the number here in the 50%+ tav bracket is VERY SMALL) and for $18.00 gallons of Milk and $12.00 loaves of bread, then advocate stringing that catenary, shift to super caps, fuel cells and batteries NOW. We can't even properly fund our SCHOOLS, and maintain our roads and other infrastrutcure now, and people are already complaining that taxes are too high as it is.
For the near future those pie in the sky ideas are just dreams, wake up.Some day we MAY see driverless trucks, I have been driving truck for almost 30 years and have about another 15 expected, left in my career, I am NOT in the LEAST bit worried that I will lose my job to a self driving truck in that time frame, too many of the people predicting that happening don't even know what the big red and yellow mechanical buttons on the dash are for, but theyclaim that trucks will be driving themselves within 5 years, hey I got a bridge for sale, interested?
Yoho our emissions are already 99% cleaner than what they were just 10 years ago in terms of NOX CO2 CO PM already. However in order to do that the industry as a whole gave up MPG cargo capacity reliabity in the engines added thousands of dollars to the costs of buying and repairing the equipment. We also now risk fires from regenerations when the DPF filters fail if they crack. Everytime CARB demands something from the OTR industry it shudders and goes how much is it going to cost us. 20 years ago CA was a state where money could be made running into and out of it reliably and there were plenty of drivers that loved to go into and out of there due to the rates.
As for your claim the people have no clue about enviromental science I am only 6 hours away from getting my BA in it as a so my boss has someone here with one. As for the air quality in Modesto car exhaust has more NOX than OTR truck exhaust. As for CARB weighing the costs to the industry. They never have asked what it would cost the OTR industry to comply with their outlawing of older trucks unless you installed a complaint engine or DPF retrofit kit. A new engine is about 40 grand a DPF kit was about 15 grand plus labor to install it.
CA make like Silicon Valley thinking going big or going home trouble is what happens when their ideas fail. Your left with one hell of a mess that someone has to clean up.
Also most coolers around the Imperial valley ripped out their Railroad access in the 90's so their is no way to load Railroad cars with produce anymore at the coolers. Also UP and BNSF would have it hard to beat 48 hours after the doors are shut to Chicago. That is the time it takes to move a load of produce with a team 64 hours to NYC. They can cross the nation in less than 3 days. Those times are from one of my teams at our company.
YoHo1975 Shadow the Cats owner Here in the USA emissions limits are changed by unelected officals that all they have are college degrees and not one of them have ever worked a day in the real world. I have a very good friend who works for CARB. Wife and Kids. family up in Mt. Shasta City. Get's up before 6am each day, Buys from local business. Busted his ass to get a degree. Really smart. Knows the science, savvy with the government agency. Enjoys having solid meaningful work. When I meet him for lunch or a drink, I always thought it was in the real world. I had no idea that UC Davis and the CARB office building were portals to another dimension...
Shadow the Cats owner Here in the USA emissions limits are changed by unelected officals that all they have are college degrees and not one of them have ever worked a day in the real world.
Here in the USA emissions limits are changed by unelected officals that all they have are college degrees and not one of them have ever worked a day in the real world.
I have a very good friend who works for CARB. Wife and Kids. family up in Mt. Shasta City. Get's up before 6am each day, Buys from local business. Busted his ass to get a degree. Really smart. Knows the science, savvy with the government agency. Enjoys having solid meaningful work.
When I meet him for lunch or a drink, I always thought it was in the real world. I had no idea that UC Davis and the CARB office building were portals to another dimension...
She means that they have not worked in any business or industry that has to meet the requirements. And that while the requirements have the force of law most are not actually laws passed by the people or their electred representatives. In California a very general environmental law is passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. The bureaucrats determine the specific requirements.
This is very different from for inststance the California Vehical Code and Criminal laws , where very specific, although sometimes confusing or contridictory laws are passed by the Legislature.
A lot of Environmental laws and regulations are what I call "feel good environmetalism". They sound like the should be right , but there is no vetting to determine that the cure isn't worse than the disease.
Shadow the Cats ownerVolkner just yesterday I had to deal with 3 federal and state agencies that I would rather walk barefoot over red hot razor wire while holding a rabid wolverine on my body than deal with. They are FMCSA EPA and IL Sec of State.
I won't comment as I don't know the procedure. I personally would differentiate between the rules and the people who enforce them.Regards, Volker
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Paul MilenkovicThe quoted sentence is a patronizing thing to say about an American complaining about a state of affairs in America, especially for persons outside America who are spared this in their home country?
The remark wasn't meant in a patronizing sence. If it was understood this way I apologize. I know how difficult working with the bureaucracy can get when I had to apply for building permits. Inspite of all problems with EPA one should consider their merits and remember how L.A. looked 40-50 years ago. How long we are spare has to be seen. The EU has set NOx limits for the air in cities which are not met on regular basis in many of them. So what are the measures.
Paul MilenkovicAs to the 10 ppm vs 15 ppm sulfur standard, the one point on which European rules are more strict,
It is not the question which is more strict but the timing. We had lower sulfur content before the lowest NOx limits came into force. I already said a few posts ago that Germany has the advantage of having to import crude and can choose low sulfur crude. Perhaps the higher sulfur content (50 ppm) let VW fail meeting the EPA limits. Thats no excuse.Regards, Volker
Paul Milenkovic VOLKER LANDWEHR It would be easier to discuss these matters if you left your contempt for EPA out of this discussion. What concern is it, to a person self-identifying as being from Germany, whether an American trucking company worker is expressing frustration that the existing EPA standards are economically burdensome, and that the proposed even stricter standards could put her out of work? When these standards are admitted to be stricter than those in Germany? The quoted sentence is a patronizing thing to say about an American complaining about a state of affairs in America, especially for persons outside America who are spared this in their home country?
VOLKER LANDWEHR It would be easier to discuss these matters if you left your contempt for EPA out of this discussion.
It would be easier to discuss these matters if you left your contempt for EPA out of this discussion.
The quoted sentence is a patronizing thing to say about an American complaining about a state of affairs in America, especially for persons outside America who are spared this in their home country?
Just my opinion (but others may share it): since when are observations by a non-American (with considerable knowledge) deemed off limits? I guess they are for you, which says a great deal. This is especially true when Herr Landwehr merely suggested that the person who some feel is Mrs. Ed Benton continues to vent often contrafactual grudges against any regulatory body.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.