Railroads Taking On Trucks

[Anonymous]

Referring back to the blog piece linked to the locked thread entitled, “What Changes Must Be Made In The Trucking Industry?”, I have some ideas that pertain to the relationship between railroading and trucking.  I brought this up in the locked thread, but the thread was locked before these ideas could be explored.  I know that many in the trucking industry are passionate about being squeezed by costs and regulations.  If they are passionate about what is happening now, I cannot imagine how they are going to feel as this new pro-rail, anti-truck transportation agenda moves forward as public policy as the FRA alludes to in their new mission statement.

 

In reading the abovementioned blog piece, I must say the first writer has sure put some creative juice into crafting his message to hit all the buttons.  But his vengeance is understandable considering that he is pushing back against this emerging societal message that rail is the Primadonna of “green” transportation, and that trucking should take a back seat and just move freight from the shipper to the nearest railhead, and vice versa. 

 

From sources including the FRA, the Trains article, WIRED UP, and think tanks cited within that article, I keep hearing the message that “we” need to get trucks off the highways and shift their freight to rail so “we” can save fuel.  The objective of getting as much as 80% of trucks off the roads has been often cited.  Nobody seems to be asking why shippers are using trucks instead of rail.  And nobody seems to be concerned about how the truckers are going to survive if 80% of their trucks are removed from the roads. 

 

Railroads and trucking are cooperative partners in the supply chain, but they also compete in certain areas of that chain.  There are places where rail can offer the lowest rate, but trucks can provide higher speed.  Some businesses choose the higher speed over the lower rate simply due to the economics of their business.  Yet the higher speed trucking might use more fuel than the lower rate rail alternative.  Should “we” as a society, who have a collective interest in conserving fuel, step in through congress, and have them force shippers to use the shipping option that uses the least amount of fuel, no matter how fast or slow it is?

 

Or—maybe “we” don’t have to force the shippers to switch from trucking to rail.  Maybe instead, “we” can revise railroad infrastructure to improve service so much that most of the shippers who presently opt for truck will opt for rail instead.  But whether shippers are forced to switch from truck to rail, or whether they are incentivized to do so by rail improvement, trucking loses a lot of business in the deal.

 

It is still an open question of what will need to happen to trucking in the rail terminal-to-shipper delivery / pickup business.  I believe that this component of the transportation would need to be as revolutionized as the rail component, and terminal component.  All three components will have to be dramatically speeded up in order to get the service to exceed the all truck long hauls that are preferred over rail alternatives today.  In the new system, somehow the incoming loads have got to be gotten off of the train instantaneously, and over to the customer’s dock just as fast as the wheels can turn.  Perhaps a whole new form of light rail infrastructure will replace trucking for the customer-to-railhead trip.   

[blownout cylinder]

mmmm--interesting blog piece there--and you are right about his general crabbiness

The thing I'm kinda curious about is how one is going to fund the dang needed infrastructure when the $$$$ flow is not quite up to snuff

The one thing I'm curious about is also just which areas are going to be 'targetted' for the infrastructure projects? It appears that most of this will be in major urban areas---which will make the rural areas that much more the sole province of the trucking industry ---or what?

[Anonymous]

blownout cylinder

The thing I'm kinda curious about is how one is going to fund the dang needed infrastructure when the $$$$ flow is not quite up to snuff

 

It depends on whether we use the carrot or stick approach to get truck traffic onto rails.  With the carrot, we rebuild railroads, develop new, faster trains, and reinvent the terminals, so the whole system will be more attractive to shippers than long haul trucking.

 

With the stick approach, we just add taxes or fees to long haul trucking to make rail the most favorable choice, even if it is slower.

 

So we only need the dollars for the carrot approach, not with the stick.  With the stick, transportation just slows down to save fuel for the nation.

[BT CPSO 266]

It's coming to the point were there not going to be a matter of choice. It's not just fuel efficiency that is a huge plus to trains; other factors like taking through traffic trucking off the interstates, and the cheaper rates and maintenance of the rail infrastructure.

I have mentioned this fact in another thread; the key rail routes need more tracks for intermodal trains to pass the slower manifest, coal, grain trains, etc. Treating the major railroad routes more like fast interstate highways would make the trains even faster than trucks and improving intermodal Terminal loading/unloading times. 

After decades of neglect; upgrades are severely needed. If the restructuring of the "Steel Interstate" system should be treated as the construction of the highway interstates. With great investment would rely turn out for the better. 

Short-haul trucking needs to adapted to the changing times. It needs too if the nation's economy is going to thrive and function while meeting quick delivery demands.

[daveklepper]

Not just a matter of fuel economy.   Also: highway capacity, air quality, highway maintenance expense.

[bobwilcox]

 Just let the price of motor fuel continue its long term path up to $4.00, $5.00 and $5.00+ per gallon.  My only wish is that the Commonwealth of Virginia would shift their tax rate from cents/gallon to % of selling price.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Bucyrus

  [snip] With the stick approach, we just add taxes or fees to long haul trucking to make rail the most favorable choice, even if it is slower.  [snip]

John G. Kneiling used to write in the late 1960's and 1970's about how that was the approach taken in Great Britain and the rest of Europe.  He especially liked to point out that the result was just more expensive trucking - that the railroads were still not competitive in the minds of the shippers - unless the railroad intermodal service was improved = faster.

So - Yes, we'll need the dollars for the 'carrot approach'.  But I think the improvements ought to be identified, planned, designed, and funded by the users, such as the railroads and their shippers = the market, not by a government agency that's attempting to predict how this particular market is going to evolve and reshape itself, in all of its variations and nuances in the many different locations all across this vast nation - it's not a 'one size fits all' solution.  That's not to say that there's no role for government agencies, such as 'authority' financing, owning and 'operating' - perhaps via private contractor management - a giant public team track/ intermodal terminal in certain locations, keeping a level playing field, and enforcing the rules and user fee collections or taxes, etc.  But I believe that the community of those users is better at identifying the best and most cost-effective 'fixes' that they actually need to fulfill a demand or solve a problem that is impeding them, and then 'self-financing' it through user fees or a tax, etc.  That helps to assure that it's the actual users - the ones who receive the benefits - are the same ones who mostly pay for it, instead of the public at large, some of which may have no use for the improvement.  That also helps to keep the costs in line with the anticipated benefits, which avoids 'gold-plated' solutions.  Best of all, it does the most to assure that the funding stream will actually be there to pay for the improvement - no need to go begging for a government grant or hoping for a legislative appropriation, etc. - and thus by being a 'stand-alone project, is by definition self-supporting and long-term 'sustainable'. 

- Paul North.

[edbenton]

What do you think CARB in Commiefornia is trying now.  Basically forcing companies to retire perfectly GOOD equipment and replace it with crap just to run their state.  However 90% of the companies are small less than 30 trucks and can not afford to replace everything on the schedule CARB wants.  So the large Companies will get all the Frieght.  Trouble is the big boys do not have enough drivers trailers and such.  What are they goiing to do shove it all on the RR considering that CARB also wants bigger cuts in Emmissions from the RR's than the EPA does.  CARB is going to take the 8th largest ECONOMY and destroy it because they can.  The RR's can not haul the Produce out of the Central Valley they ripped out all the loading tracks.  So how are the RR's supposed to help haul the crap out.  Transloading anytime you reload produce you risk BRUISING THE HELL OUT OF IT.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

edbenton

  [snip] Basically forcing companies to retire perfectly GOOD equipment and replace it with crap just to run their state.  However 90% of the companies are small less than 30 trucks and can not afford to replace everything on the schedule CARB wants.  So the large Companies will get all the Frieght.  Trouble is the big boys do not have enough drivers trailers and such.  [snip]

Longtime Trains columnist John G. Kneiling also liked to point out that in his admittedly cynical view, such environmental and other regulations usually also resulted in 'turfing out' the little guys.  Ed Benton above seems to be providing yet another real-life example of that effect at work in California.

Would this be an opportunity for refrigerated RoadRailer service ?  Load off-the-rail/ on-the-tires at the produce picker's/ processor's warehouse, dray to either an existing intermodal terminal or a new 'team track' operation to assemble into a daily inter-line train to the Midwestern (Chicago) and NorthEastern US points, where it is broken up for final delivery by highway ?

- Paul North.

[Murphy Siding]

     Wouldn't the California example noted above have the self-leveling effect of making produce from other areas and even other countries more cost competitive?

[CNW 6000]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Would this be an opportunity for refrigerated RoadRailer service ?  Load off-the-rail/ on-the-tires at the produce picker's/ processor's warehouse, dray to either an existing intermodal terminal or a new 'team track' operation to assemble into a daily inter-line train to the Midwestern (Chicago) and NorthEastern US points, where it is broken up for final delivery by highway ?

- Paul North.

Interesting point Paul.  Would the equipment (trailers) work with extant rail equipment?  What about the cooling units?  Who would check those en route while on rails?  I like that idea though, but I'd bet someone somewhere looked at it.  There must be a "yeah, but..." somewhere with that.

[Anonymous]

Paul_D_North_Jr

So - Yes, we'll need the dollars for the 'carrot approach'.  But I think the improvements ought to be identified, planned, designed, and funded by the users, such as the railroads and their shippers = the market, not by a government agency that's attempting to predict how this particular market is going to evolve and reshape itself, in all of its variations and nuances in the many different locations all across this vast nation - it's not a 'one size fits all' solution.

 

Well if this is something that should happen, and if we expect to make it happen by private investment, why not just let the marketplace bring it about.  If it should happen, it will happen. 

 

However, what I keep reading about are big plans to force it to happen.  Why do that?  

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Good questions.  Yes - sure seems like it.  Amtrak tagged RR's onto the back of some of its trains for a few years in the mid-1990's.  That can be done in theory with mainline freights, too, but isn't seen in actual practice - they all seem to be dedicated operations. 

In 1999 BNSF started running its ICE = Ice Cold Express using 'ReeferRailers' - see - http://www.qstation.org/ice/reefer_railer.jpg .  See also "Weekly Trains Run Both Ways - Ice Cold Express Puts Reefers on Steel Wheels" at - http://refrigeratedtrans.com/mag/transportation_weekly_trains_run/  - part of the article says -

"Garrity says that Carrier Transicold units were chosen for the fleet, because Carrier seemed to be farther along with its remote tracking and system control at the time the order was placed.

Ice Cold Express keeps track of trailer location and load condition through a tracking and communication system provided by Arinc in Colorado Springs. The Arinc system uses a flat antenna that glues to the trailer roof. Communication equipment hooks directly to the refrigeration unit's microprocessor controls.

The tracking and control system will be implemented in stages. At present, it is a relatively passive system that transmits trailer position and refrigeration condition once a day. "Essentially, the trailer wakes up every morning at 6 am and calls home, sort of 'Hi, I'm here,'" Garrity says. "We can interrogate the unit at any time during the day if we need more information than contained in the daily status report. In addition to location, we get discharge air temperature, box temperature, unit fuel level, and notice of operating mode-continuous run or start/stop. We can command the unit to turn on or off, change temperature, or change operating mode. We haven't implemented it yet, but farther down the line, customers will have access to this same data across the Internet. They will be able to check location and load status, but will not be able to issue commands to the unit." "

See also - http://www.qstation.org/ice/i_c_e.html  

See also -

BNSF Partners with CSXI to Create Seamless Coast-to-Coast Ice Cold Express Service

at - http://www.bnsf.com/media/news/articles/2001/06/2001-06-20a.html 

and

"Refrigerated Intermodal Services
Exel offers transcontinental service on temperature-protected commodities with transit times that are competitive with over the road trucking. If you are looking for dependable refrigerated capacity at a fair price, we can help you." at - http://www.exel.com/exel/ets_core_service.jsp?ID=6 

"Temperature-Controlled Intermodal - BNSF Temperature-Controlled Intermodal Carrier partners own and operate trailers for nationwide transportation of truckload temperature-controlled shipments. By working with BNSF's Temperature-Controlled Carrier Marketing Team and using our Intermodal line-haul service, partner carriers move their equipment across BNSF's network to supplement over-the-road line-haul operations."

at - http://www.bnsf.com/markets/intermodal/perishables.html 

- Paul North.

[zugmann]

CNW 6000

Paul_D_North_Jr

Would this be an opportunity for refrigerated RoadRailer service ?  Load off-the-rail/ on-the-tires at the produce picker's/ processor's warehouse, dray to either an existing intermodal terminal or a new 'team track' operation to assemble into a daily inter-line train to the Midwestern (Chicago) and NorthEastern US points, where it is broken up for final delivery by highway ?

- Paul North.

Interesting point Paul.  Would the equipment (trailers) work with extant rail equipment?  What about the cooling units?  Who would check those en route while on rails?  I like that idea though, but I'd bet someone somewhere looked at it.  There must be a "yeah, but..." somewhere with that.

 

Triple Crown also has a fleet of reefers.  Satellite-tracked, plus the temperatures are checked and recorded by Triple Crown guys every time you make set offs/pick ups at their terminals.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Thanks, Zug.    I thought so, but I couldn't find anything on the TCS website that mentions it to confirm my aging memory, so I didn't want to say so without being sure.  See "Triple Crown Services - RoadRailer Fleet - Equipment Specifications" at - http://www.triplecrownsvc.com/RRFleet.html and at -  http://www.triplecrownsvc.com/Equipment.html  - which describes only the dry vans.

More interesting for this thread is the following TCS webpage:

http://www.triplecrownsvc.com/OwnerOperators.html 

which has the intro line of "Owner / Operators - Find out more about how you can drive all day and sleep at home most nights."

Then - http://www.triplecrownsvc.com/OOOps.html - which leads to even more pages with details.

- Paul North.

[greyhounds]

It was news to me too that Triple Crown has reefers. 

Anyway, I hope no one decides to "Help" the transition of long haul movements from truck to rail.  Things are going in the right direction now.  Just leave it alone and let it develop.

In another thread I posed the question as to why a large truckload carreir, JB Hunt, had transistioned from being 100% over the road to being primarily an intermodal operation while other motor carriers had not.  (Some of the other larger truckload carriers, such as Schneider, are following business models similar to Hunt.)  I said the reason was that JB Hunt was large enough to deal with railroads.  Most truckers are not.

Here are two items from Marten Transport's web site.  They are particularly important because Marten is a large temperature controlled carrier that is increasingly focusing on rail intermodal for the longer hauls. 

Here's the first.  Check the third bullet point. 

http://www.marten.com/

They've "transformed" themselves from a long haul over the road reefer operation.  Now, just why would a company "transform" itself?  Companies "transform" themselves when they see they're going nowhere good.  Marten aparently saw some real problems ahead for long haul trucking.

He's the second.  It's a explination of why Marten is increasingly using intermodal.to move temperature controlled loads over longer distances.

  http://www.marten.com/uploads/newsletters/2009_Q3_Transporter.pdf

Basically, as I read it, they're saying these long haul perishable loads are going to go intermodal and if we want to stay in the game we've got to be able to offer intermodal. 

Please don't mess this up by trying to "Help" divert the freight from highway to rail.  It's moving in that direction just fine right now.    Marten just started to use IM in 2005.

The BNSF has been fairly agressive working with Temp Controlled carriers such as Marten.  They've got marketing staff assigned to develop this business.  The BNSF marketing folks really don't need anybody's "Help".

But, as with JB Hunt, the enabling factor is the size of the trucking company.  BNSF can work with the big guys such as Marten, Stevens, CR England, Central Refrigerated, etc.  But most of the trucking companies are far to small for BNSF to work with effectively.  (That's not a knock on the railroad, it's just a fact of life.  I explained in an earlier thread.  I'll explain again if anyone wants me to.)

So what's gotta' happen is that the little fellas have to give up the ghost (quit being "Zombie" truck lines.)  The freight will shift to the larger reefer carriers, who will put it on the BNSF for the long haul and use their drivers for regional and local hauls. 

This is happening.  Just leave it alone.  You'll screw it up if you get the government involved. 

There is really no problem putting over the road trailers on flatcars.  They basically need "lift pads" which are small metal plates that protect the trailer body where the crane lifts the trailer.  Little or nothing else is required.  When TOFC moved over humps or was "kicked" in flat switching a special built trailer was required.  Those things aren't supposed to happen anymore.

Monitoring the reefer unit is done by satelite.  They can even adjust the temperature or try a restart while the unit roles along on a steel highway. 

 

 

[cbqjohn]

It seems to me that with the introduction of the Interstate system years ago, the RR industry took a terrible beating, their loss of business was largely due to the fact that the trucking industry got "free" road systems (what competition), maintained by we the taxpayers (and don't even try to tell me that the licenses for trucks pay their way), the trucks 'tearell' out of the roads. And tell me that an 80,000 lb (or more) monster roaring up to your rear bumper usually at speeds way in excess of their speed limit, (driven by someone quite often on some stimulant) isn't a cause for concern about the safety of we little autos. Truckers act as if they own the road. Either incease the truckers cost to use the (free to them) roads, subsidize the RR's to improve/expand their roadways to at least the status they were before the trucking industry got their big break,or both.

The trucking indusrtry and  teamsters have had a stranglehold on the country for decades.

A relative of mine owns a trucking company and a freind was with a major trucking firm, and yes it's been tougher than years past with the cost of fuel being so high, but it seems to me the RR's use the same high priced fuel.. Let both indusrties play by the same (equal) rules and let the market determine the best methjod of shipping. I suspect we'll see a proper balance for both industries. As for the loss of jobs, it seems that trains had more personnel years ago, hey, the trucking companies would robotize the driving of trucks NOW if they could.and many of us have had to change careers due "modernization, new forms of competition" etc.

[rvos1979]

Cbqjohn, if you have that mindset about professional drivers, then why are 75% of the car/truck accidents caused by the car? (true study, look it up)

Anyway, more freight will probably only go to rail if a) the price of fuel jumps to around 6 to 8 bucks/gallon,  and b) transit times on rail drops.  Example:  I can drive a load from Neenah, WI to Cherokee, AL in 25 hours, legally, burning about 140 gallons of diesel.  I'm not aware of anything short of intermodal that can go just over 800 miles in that short of a time period. 

[Ulrich]

The railroads have many advantages over trucks...fuel efficiency...the ability to operate with far less labor... are just two of many. However, trucking has one advantage that trumps all: the trucking industry can tap directly in to the entrepreneurial spirit that is the wellspring of all good things in  the US and Canada. Anyone with ambition and modest savings can start his own business...that one fact alone has been the trucking industry's saving grace..

[schlimm]

cbqjohn

And tell me that an 80,000 lb (or more) monster roaring up to your rear bumper usually at speeds way in excess of their speed limit, (driven by someone quite often on some stimulant) isn't a cause for concern about the safety of we little autos. Truckers act as if they own the road.

 

That is certainly the impression.  And although it is true that the fault in car - truck crashes lies with the passenger auto driver about 75% of the time, these are a sampling of the difficulties of two such different vehicle types sharing the road:

Normal 0

1998 -  large trucks accounted for 7 percent of the total vehicle miles traveled but were involved in 13 percent of all traffic fatalities (5,374 of 41,471). In these truck crashes, the car's occupants were much more likely than the truck driver to be killed (78 percent of the fatalities were car occupants) or injured (76 percent of the injuries were sustained by car occupants).  Two-thirds of all police-reported truck crashes involved a truck and another vehicle, and 60 percent of all truck crashes involving a fatality were two-vehicle car-truck crashes.

2003- Eight members of a Chicago women's cultural organization returning from a Japanese garden in Rockford were killed Wednesday after a tractor-trailer slammed into their mini-bus on the Northwest Tollway in southwest McHenry County.   Fifteen other people were injured, six critically, in the crash that involved three tractor-trailers, a pickup truck and the mini-bus, said Illinois State Police spokesman Doug Whitmore.  The mini-bus was stopped on Interstate Highway 90 in eastbound traffic about ½ mile west of the Belvidere toll plaza.

2007 - A Rockford woman was among three people killed Wednesday in a fiery crash on Interstate 39 that, police say, was triggered when a man fell asleep at the wheel.  Caryn J. Casey, 21, died in the accident, La Salle County Coroner Jody Bernard announced today. 
The seven-vehicle crash, about a half-mile north of U.S. 6, shut down the interstate for hours.  Also killed were Donald W. Rautio, 67, and Faye C. Rautio, 65, from The Villages, Fla.  The seven vehicles were heading south on I-39 toward a construction zone when the accident happened about 1:15 p.m. Wednesday, according to reports released Thursday by the Illinois State Police.  Semitrailer driver William Hinds, 42, of Springfield told police he fell asleep at the wheel of his truck as it was heading into a construction zone, slamming into the rear of a Ford Explorer driven by Michael Swiersz, 51, of Danville, reports say.  Swiersz told police he watched as Hinds failed to slow down in the construction zone and tried to avoid a collision by driving into the median when his vehicle was struck. The impact pushed Swiersz’s Explorer off the road, overturning it, according to reports.  Hinds, meanwhile, kept driving south, hitting a Toyota Camry driven by Donald Rautio, forcing the Camry into a Ford Taurus, driven by Casey, who was attempting to merge into the right lane, reports say.  Hinds’ semitrailer and Casey’s Taurus burst into flames as they struck the rear of another semitrailer, driven by Roberto Barragan, 56, of Savanna.  Barragan’s truck then collided with the rear of a sixth vehicle, a Dodge Caravan driven by Michael L. Weaver Kaufman, 36, of St. Louis.  The Caravan was pushed into a cargo trailer of another vehicle driven by Rachel M. Chleborowicz, 39, of Machesney Park.  Casey’s and Hinds’ flaming vehicles kept moving before finally coming to rest in the median.

[blownout cylinder]

IIRC there was some kind of talk about a dedicated lane for trucks on some interstates a few years back. It soon developed into an idea for fully dedicated highways for trucks much like RR's.

Meh--I'm almost wondering about those dang Australian Road Trains

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

A general perception of truck drivers by the public at large is that they're a bunch of cowboys who act like they own the road and everybody else should get out of their way.  I believe that the majority of over the road drivers operate safely and courteously but it only takes a few horror stories to make them all look like bad eggs.  As long as that perception exists, truck drivers are going to have a very hard time clearing their name and restoring their reputation.

[blownout cylinder]

Typical.

A few get to make the rest work hard doing a simple thing.

Until those who do the wrong thing are actually dealt with that perception will continue to exist. Companies that do not look after their vehicles so that wheels don't fall off and things should be penalized like idiot motorists who insist on driving falling apart cars. And they should be dealt with as well. I've been doing a lot oof driving all over the place and in all kinds of weather and have not seen massive amounts of stupidity on either side---then again maybe my routes keep me from major highways like our dear 400 series -----

[carnej1]

blownout cylinder

IIRC there was some kind of talk about a dedicated lane for trucks on some interstates a few years back. It soon developed into an idea for fully dedicated highways for trucks much like RR's.

Meh--I'm almost wondering about those dang Australian Road Trains

Everything I've read about the Road trains in OZ indicates that they primarily operate on wide open roads well away from urban area....I guess you could operate such monsters on dedicated truck tollways in North America...are there any U.S states that allow supersized triples (3 40-53 foot trailers)?

[expresslane400]

Trucks and railroads do burn the same fuel but truck fuel has lots of taxes in every gallon. Trucks are taxed for every gallon burned in every state that truck runs. Trucks do pay for the roads but the people in power do not spend the money to maintain the roads.

    The market will take care of things if those same people in power would stop messing with the market. Shippers use trucks because they want to. They also use rail for the same reason. I hope we never make a shipper use one mode over the other because it is more "green". We still have a free country at least for now.

[BT CPSO 266]

expresslane400

Trucks and railroads do burn the same fuel but truck fuel has lots of taxes in every gallon. Trucks are taxed for every gallon burned in every state that truck runs. Trucks do pay for the roads but the people in power do not spend the money to maintain the roads.

    The market will take care of things if those same people in power would stop messing with the market. Shippers use trucks because they want to. They also use rail for the same reason. I hope we never make a shipper use one mode over the other because it is more "green". We still have a free country at least for now.

 

 

Although we can't make the shipper chose one mode over the other. Congress may not have any choice then to either take steps to move more of the nation's freight to rail. There is no reason why we can't upgrade the railroads to make an intermodal shipments like a movement between Charollete NC to New Jersey on CSX that takes 12-24 hrs. instead of 5 days. One of the main reasons trains take so long is that they don't operate many of them as fast high priority freight. If the infrastructure is upgraded enough trains would be faster and more and more shippers will use rail as an option.

Many drivers don't want to have to deal with the rigs on the highways; whether it's a safety hazard, slows them down, or simply want their tax dollars going towards something that could improve their commutes. Local short-hauls are not a problem but the large amounts of interstate trucking movements is simply too much. It is all the what is best for our nation's economic survival and sustainability.

[edbenton]

You are all speaking like the TYPICAL car commuter.  Get these BIG NASTY TRUCKS OUT OF MY WAY.  Here is a little WAKE UP CALL FOR ALL OF YOU.  The Avarage OTR driver is a person that makes 50K a year is MARRIED and has 2 kids at home.  While on the road they deal with More traffic in a week than you would see in a YEAR deal with more customers face to face than anyone that works in an office.  They also have to deal with not enough PARKING spaces in the Northeast Cities that were built for Horse and BUGGIES.  Politicans that would rather use the trucking industry as a Mobile ATM than stop raiding the Highway Trust fund.

 

Oh yeah and they are the ENGINE that keeps this country RUNNING with out them this ENTIRE NATION WOULD STOP IN LESS THAN A WEEK.  NYC would be out of FOOD IN LESS THAN A WEEK ALOT OF THE MAJOR CITIES ARE IN THE SAME BOAT.  FACTORIES WOULD SHUT DOWN WITHOUT THE JIT DIELIVERY SCHEDULES THAT TRUCKERS MEET WITH IN ONE DAY.  NO GAS IN THE SERVICE STATIONS WHY NO PIPELINE RUNS TO THE CORNER STORE.  Yet all I am hearing FROM THE IDIOTS HERE IS GET RID OF THEM AND GO BACK TO THE RAILROADS.  I AM A MEMBER OF ALOT OF TRUCKING BOARDS AND THE IDUSTRY AS A WHOLE IS GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF BEING PUSHED AROUND BY EVERYONE.  YES YOU MAY NOT GET 2 DRIVERS TO AGREE WHO IS THE BEST TO DRIVE FOR HOWEVER IF THEIR COMPANIES TOLD THEM TO SIT WHILE WE TEACH THIS NATION A LEASON THEY WOULD.

The only thing that we would not shut down would be anything healthcare like meds.  Beyond that anything is fair game.

[schlimm]

edbenton

You are all speaking like the TYPICAL car commuter.  Get these BIG NASTY TRUCKS OUT OF MY WAY.  Here is a little WAKE UP CALL FOR ALL OF YOU.  The Avarage OTR driver is a person that makes 50K a year is MARRIED and has 2 kids at home.  While on the road they deal with More traffic in a week than you would see in a YEAR deal with more customers face to face than anyone that works in an office.  They also have to deal with not enough PARKING spaces in the Northeast Cities that were built for Horse and BUGGIES.  Politicans that would rather use the trucking industry as a Mobile ATM than stop raiding the Highway Trust fund.

 

Well, as so many of the posters here like to say, "Let the market decide!"  By that line of reasoning, if you and other truckers find the conditions intolerable, you are free to choose some other line of work. However, I think there are additional ways of protecting/improving your conditions, wages, etc. besides "giving it away."

[blownout cylinder]

expresslane400

Trucks and railroads do burn the same fuel but truck fuel has lots of taxes in every gallon. Trucks are taxed for every gallon burned in every state that truck runs. Trucks do pay for the roads but the people in power do not spend the money to maintain the roads.

That's the thing--up here all taxes--even fuel taxes--fall into general revenue. Then it gets divied up---which usually means that highway infrastructure gets a pittance of what actually is derived from the taxes generated through fuel and other related aspects....then again---what if it still under what is needed?

[BT CPSO 266]

edbenton

You are all speaking like the TYPICAL car commuter.  Get these BIG NASTY TRUCKS OUT OF MY WAY.  Here is a little WAKE UP CALL FOR ALL OF YOU.  The Avarage OTR driver is a person that makes 50K a year is MARRIED and has 2 kids at home.  While on the road they deal with More traffic in a week than you would see in a YEAR deal with more customers face to face than anyone that works in an office.  They also have to deal with not enough PARKING spaces in the Northeast Cities that were built for Horse and BUGGIES.  Politicans that would rather use the trucking industry as a Mobile ATM than stop raiding the Highway Trust fund.

 

Oh yeah and they are the ENGINE that keeps this country RUNNING with out them this ENTIRE NATION WOULD STOP IN LESS THAN A WEEK.  NYC would be out of FOOD IN LESS THAN A WEEK ALOT OF THE MAJOR CITIES ARE IN THE SAME BOAT.  FACTORIES WOULD SHUT DOWN WITHOUT THE JIT DIELIVERY SCHEDULES THAT TRUCKERS MEET WITH IN ONE DAY.  NO GAS IN THE SERVICE STATIONS WHY NO PIPELINE RUNS TO THE CORNER STORE.  Yet all I am hearing FROM THE IDIOTS HERE IS GET RID OF THEM AND GO BACK TO THE RAILROADS.  I AM A MEMBER OF ALOT OF TRUCKING BOARDS AND THE IDUSTRY AS A WHOLE IS GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF BEING PUSHED AROUND BY EVERYONE.  YES YOU MAY NOT GET 2 DRIVERS TO AGREE WHO IS THE BEST TO DRIVE FOR HOWEVER IF THEIR COMPANIES TOLD THEM TO SIT WHILE WE TEACH THIS NATION A LEASON THEY WOULD.

The only thing that we would not shut down would be anything healthcare like meds.  Beyond that anything is fair game.

 

 

I am simply looking towards a revived transportation system. We know that truckers have families to support, but with more short-haul they would be closer towards their homes. Although, changes would have to be made in he terms how they are payed a decent wage.

We all know how important trucks are to the nation. This nation would stop in less than a week without railroads too. We are trying to change how that freight is moved over long distances and what needs to improve on the rail and trucking ends. Issues need to be addressed on both ends. For rail it's more improved and faster infrastructure for JIT freight, and trucking needs to adjust how truckers are payed and treated to make short-hauls a better investment.

We are more looking towards Transportation Reform for America. It's an issue that needs to be dealt with.