Last Spring I got distracted by other things, and failed to respond to two very significant and thoughtful posts in this thread, from Greyhounds (I’m capitalizing his handle, for clarity) and Bruce D Gillings. Both of them were responding to me, so I apologize. I spend too much time these days on political blogs, and not enough on trains.
Anyway, I was thinking this morning about an encounter I had with a trucker back in August, and that reminded me that I had left this discussion hanging. My wife and I had been returning to home in Framingham, MA, with our little Casita travel trailer, from our daughter’s home in Powhatan, VA. We stopped for lunch in a rest area on I81 in PA, parking incongruously alongside the big 18-wheelers because of the trailer.
One of the trucks beside us was a handsome red Kenworth with a sleeper cab and a couple of big long lumps covered with tarps on a flatbed trailer. I was puzzling over the cargo when the driver, a friendly middle-aged fellow appeared. He said he was carrying coils of sheet metal, aluminum, from a mill in Mississippi to a company in northern New York that makes storm doors.
I volunteered that I had often seen special railroad cars carrying sheet-metal coils, and wondered why they would be shipping such a long distance by truck, rather than by rail. As I recall, he said that they do ship by rail, but when time is important, trucks are faster. That fits in well with what Greyhounds said above:
For simplicity we can break down rail freight transportation in to five cost centers. 1) collection - getting the loads to the rail terminal 2) aggregation - holding the loads to make up a train of economical size (to include loading them on the train) 3) line haul - the movement of the train from origin terminal to destination terminal 4) sorting - getting the loads off the train and organized by final destination 5) delivery - getting the loads from the rail terminal to the receiver The railroads have a significant advantage in only #3 . . . It's the other four cost centers that favor trucks. They basically don't exist for truckload freight. A driver just hooks to the load and takes it from shipper to receiver. In other words, it's the terminal costs of rail freight that are the problem.
1) collection - getting the loads to the rail terminal
2) aggregation - holding the loads to make up a train of economical size (to include loading them on the train)
3) line haul - the movement of the train from origin terminal to destination terminal
4) sorting - getting the loads off the train and organized by final destination
5) delivery - getting the loads from the rail terminal to the receiver
The railroads have a significant advantage in only #3 . . . It's the other four cost centers that favor trucks. They basically don't exist for truckload freight. A driver just hooks to the load and takes it from shipper to receiver. In other words, it's the terminal costs of rail freight that are the problem.
Greyhounds goes on to draw the more-or-less obvious conclusion:
Depending on available volume and terminal costs, rail becomes more economical at some distance. That would be the distance at which the line haul savings of rail movement overcome the terminal cost disadvantage of rail movement. There is no magic number of miles for this. It depends on the situation.
Clearly one of those factors is time, and apparently in this example dock-to-dock transport time has overridden even the expected ‘line haul’ savings, in this case over a distance of 1,000 to 1,500 miles. What does that tell us about trucks versus trains? That trucks are more flexible, because they bypass Greyhounds’ steps 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Of course other factors can come into play. A lot of truckloads would drive up over-the-road costs to the point where the highway option might be too expensive, and the shipper might send one or two loads by truck, and the rest by train, assuming the bulk would not be as time-sensitive.
Now Interstate 81 in Pennsylvania is not bad, but in Virginia it’s wall-to-wall trucks, or it used to be. We get off at Harrisburg and head southeast, so I haven’t been down there recently. Have Norfolk-Southern’s improvements over the past decade cut into the north-south truck traffic on I81? The increasing roadway congestion caused by trucks—not to mention the roadway deterioration—has got to be a factor that may not affect individual shipping decisions, but might well begin to influence national policy on shipping, which has (at least in railfans’ minds) favored roads over rails by paying for one and not the other. I have long wondered whether it would make sense for the Federal government to support the rail infrastructure as heavily as it does the highways and air travel.
Bruce D Gillings however suggests a different approach:
the solution is not to have the government take over and own the tracks/infrastructure, but rather to give railroad companies 100% tax credits on infrastructure investment. That would cover maintenance, but more importantly it would cover purchasing of land for updating alignments from 19th Century winding anachronisms into 21st Century iron highways, including the track, signaling, etc; adding/extending sidings and multiple main tracks; purchasing land for new intermodal terminals (becoming prohibitive without such a credit in urban and even suburban places such as the LA Basin’s Inland Empire; Seattle-Tacoma; Denver; MSP; and the majority of Eastern metropolises) and building those terminals; and building rail–rail grade separations. Just as important as the actual money cost is that it would minimize the risk cost that railroads have to pay in the financial markets that truckers do not pay running on publicly-built roads.
Not a bad idea. Not sure how we’d convince a recalcitrant Congress, but as Mr Gillings suggests, it may be a question of changing cultures. He says,
At the end of the day, however, it comes down to: is the culture of today’s railroads moving towards meeting shipper needs, or away from it? The world of shipping is changing: as I noted, shipping costs are now evaluated as a part of supply chain costs. And the simplicity and reliability of trucking has a huge advantage over railroads. . .
But the railroads are stuck in “a land-barge mentality.” What’s needed is a “a large-railroad wholesaler/small railroad retailer model, [that doesn’t continue] to screw anyone that doesn’t fit its paradigm of how to ship.”
Small (regional, short-line) railroads can function as feeders and distributors for large railroads. Realistically, they aren’t going to be as flexible as trucks. But the trucks can’t really handle the volume of interstate commerce. Maybe it’s the trucks that have to be the feeders and distributors for the large railroads. That’s the intermodal model, isn’t it? Just get the goods to the intermodal yards, and essentially eliminate the ‘aggregation’ and ‘sorting’ that create railroad molasses.
Seems to me if the big railroads can write off their infrastructure development and maintenance, they’ll be able to out-compete with trucks for long distance shipping, and dropping off containers to waiting trucks will take care of the delays. Everybody wins, except maybe the short lines. But there are still the commodities that can’t be shipped in containers: there’ll still be a place for the short lines.
/Mr Lynn
Electroliner 1935I also would like clarification as to how they hurt your state. Though I keep wondering what the effect of taking all that coal out of Wyoming does to the "wide open spaces"
CSX & NS have been taking coal out of West Virginia for the better part of 150 years in train load quantities - and the state is still there mountains, country roads and all!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I also would like clarification as to how they hurt your state. Though I keep wondering what the effect of taking all that coal out of Wyoming does to the "wide open spaces"
ROBIN LUETHE Unit trains are problimatic to the economy of my state - they contribute some, but after subtracting the negatives not so much as many think.
What state do you represent with your assertion? What are the negatives from your view point?
ROBIN LUETHEUnit trains are problimatic to the economy of my state - they contribute some, but after subtracting the negatives not so much as many think.
Would you please elaborate on this claim? I think it could use some explanation.
Bruce - good post. Cheap trucking serves consumers, although we pay for it in a variety of ways. One of the things I would like to read in the magazine is a very hard hitting ongoing anti-RR series. And I say that as pro Amtrak and pro freight trains. Unit trains are problimatic to the economy of my state - they contribute some, but after subtracting the negatives not so much as many think.
To provide for the future, both the Chair (Democrat) and Ranking Member (GOP) of the House Highway and Infrastructure Committe are in agreement that it is time to shift funding to a VMT (Vehicle Mileage Tax or Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax), as do most of the members of that committee. This method is used experimentally in Oregon.
Bruce D Gillings As of the end of Feb our business is up close to 10% and if we had more capacity we could be doing more like 20% but the trouble is finding 2 things for us qualified drivers or trainees that can make it through our training program. We are trying to lease more Owner Operators as fast as we can but they have to meet our requirements. Our drivers are running more miles if they can while staying in the HOS regulations. At the end of the day, however, it comes down to: is the culture of today’s railroads moving towards meeting shipper needs, or away from it? The world of shipping is changing: as I noted, shipping costs are now evaluated as a part of supply chain costs. And the simplicity and reliability of trucking has a huge advantage over railroads. The complaints about trucking these days are mostly related to capacity from a booming economy. Service has suffered in some instances, but everyone understands why and that it is not the CULTURE of trucking that is the problem; it is a business surge supply and demand issue. The complaints about railroading are legion, and they suggest an industry hell-bent on doing things their way and thinking they are fine. It is a land-barge bulk mentality, and they are trying to fit everyone into that category. That is a cultural issue. And even Matt Rose, while arguing against PSR, leads a railroad that is moving in that direction in long, under-powered trains, mistreatment of crews, cutting back on operating crews and MOW and equipment maintenance. And the industry, rather than break into a large-railroad wholesaler / small railroad retailer model, continues to screw anyone that doesn’t fit its paradigm of how to ship. So perhaps the discussions on trucker taxes vs. railroad tax credits is irrelevant. It sure looks like an industry with a dark future to me.
As of the end of Feb our business is up close to 10% and if we had more capacity we could be doing more like 20% but the trouble is finding 2 things for us qualified drivers or trainees that can make it through our training program. We are trying to lease more Owner Operators as fast as we can but they have to meet our requirements. Our drivers are running more miles if they can while staying in the HOS regulations.
At the end of the day, however, it comes down to: is the culture of today’s railroads moving towards meeting shipper needs, or away from it? The world of shipping is changing: as I noted, shipping costs are now evaluated as a part of supply chain costs. And the simplicity and reliability of trucking has a huge advantage over railroads. The complaints about trucking these days are mostly related to capacity from a booming economy. Service has suffered in some instances, but everyone understands why and that it is not the CULTURE of trucking that is the problem; it is a business surge supply and demand issue. The complaints about railroading are legion, and they suggest an industry hell-bent on doing things their way and thinking they are fine. It is a land-barge bulk mentality, and they are trying to fit everyone into that category. That is a cultural issue. And even Matt Rose, while arguing against PSR, leads a railroad that is moving in that direction in long, under-powered trains, mistreatment of crews, cutting back on operating crews and MOW and equipment maintenance. And the industry, rather than break into a large-railroad wholesaler / small railroad retailer model, continues to screw anyone that doesn’t fit its paradigm of how to ship. So perhaps the discussions on trucker taxes vs. railroad tax credits is irrelevant. It sure looks like an industry with a dark future to me.
This has been a great discussion. I really appreciate the input from Shadows the Cats Owner: I think that hearing the trucker side of things is at least as important as the railroad side of things: truckers know what shippers want far better than railroads, and when they forget that, there is always another trucker ready to step in and take over immediately. I deal mostly with the shippers, very little with truckers, but the facilities I’m involved in mostly (a WAG would be 97.5%) use trucking vs. rail. Because they are looking at true supply chain costs of each mode. And much of the time, trucking is cheaper to their supply chain operations, even though trucking rates are higher than rail rates. Read what greyhounds just wrote: he talks about the whole picture. And the reliability/certainty that Shadows the Cats Owner talks about translates into lower supply chain costs as well.
On the other hand, I appreciate that truckers pay a lot of taxes. But regardless of how much, they still don’t cover what it’s “road impact” costs are. I don’t want to say damage, because that implies that trucking is a negative. It isn’t. The nation could survive without railroads, albeit with higher transportation costs. It could NOT survive without trucks. But the reality is that, were truckers to pay taxes or fees commensurate with the wear and tear they do to roads, as well as the first-in design costs (that is, paying for heavier road sections, stronger bridges, etc), their rates would have to increase. The amount that studies suggest varies, so I’m not going to try to pinpoint that number. But it would make railroading more cost-effective, relative to RATES. However, the likelihood of getting trucking to pay the true costs is unlikely, not because trucking companies/truckers are the problem, but because businesses – the shippers – don’t want those costs to rise. The TRUE costs of freight transportation will always end up with the consumers. The question is: will they enjoy lower prices for goods and services but pay the hidden (in their minds) costs of more taxes, both at the gas pump and in other taxes? Or will they pay more for purchasing goods and services directly, a transparent cost? Most Americans are too concerned with who the latest winner of American Idol is than analyzing what the wide-screen television they are watching it on REALLY cost them (meaning that they paid a cheaper cost for the TV, but a higher cost at the pump and on taxes). And businesses know that, whether they are industrial users, retailers/wholesalers, whoever. They know the public won’t make a stink: they don’t want to think that hard.
I have argued on Fred’s blog quite a bit, and on other pages, that the solution is not to have the government take over and own the tracks/infrastructure, but rather to give railroad companies 100% tax credits on infrastructure investment. That would cover maintenance, but more importantly it would cover purchasing of land for updating alignments from 19th Century winding anachronisms into 21st Century iron highways, including the track, signaling, etc; adding/extending sidings and multiple main tracks; purchasing land for new intermodal terminals (becoming prohibitive without such a credit in urban and even suburban places such as the LA Basin’s Inland Empire; Seattle-Tacoma; Denver; MSP; and the majority of Eastern metropolises) and building those terminals; and building rail – rail grade separations. Just as important as the actual money cost is that it would minimize the risk cost that railroads have to pay in the financial markets that truckers do not pay running on publicly-built roads. For the most part, today’s railroad C-suite folks are loathe to take the chance given the risk. Just look at UP’s Rochelle ramp: a classic case of “build it and they did not come”. UP has since curtailed or slowed down quite a few infrastructure projects. And being in Wall Street analysts crosshairs, who can blame them? One other item that has surfaced on Fred’s blog is to free railroads from property taxes on their infrastructure. That makes sense – to me, anyway.
In the PSR world of today's railroads - loose car, short distance railroading is much too cost intensive to fit the PSR mold, any way you want to shape it. That being said a short distance shuttle operation of 30-40-50 cars each way falls into the domain the PSR wants to attract and can make profitable.
MrLynnCommon sense tells me that for medium-to-long-distance intercity transport, two guys in a lead diesel running the equivalent of 200-400 truckloads has got to be a lot cheaper than one guy per truck. So apples-to-apples, I'll bet the railroads are doing better than Fred says. True?
No, Fred is bascially correct.
What you say about two rail crewmembers with hundreds of loads being cheaper than one driver per truck is also basically correct. But it doesn't tell the whole story. It only includes the line haul portion, and there's more to the story than the line haul.
For simplicity we can break down rail freight transportation in to five cost centers.
The railroads have a significant advantage in only #3 - which you focus on. It's the other four cost centers that favor trucks. They basically don't exist for truckload freight. A driver just hooks to the load and takes it from shipper to reciver. In other words, it's the terminal costs of rail freight that are the problem.
Since most freight doesn't move long distances, trucks dominate.
I'd like to see the railroads go after the available long haul truck moves first, but to succeed in the shorter haul markets they're going to have to work on all five cost centers. More low cost intermodal termnals to reduce drayage expenses are needed. Trains need to do pick ups and set outs at such terminals. Something the operating departments really don't like.
And, the unions need to come around and admit that shorter trains serving such terminals can safely and efficiently be operated by a one person crew.
I don't see a real break though on this, but incremental progress can well be made.
MrLynn In his March '19 Trains column, Fred Frailey tells us that "In 2016, Class I railroads grossed $70 billion in revenue versus $739 for truckers. And the gap is widening." But how much of that trucker revenue is for short-haul versus intercity, which is where I assume most of the RR revenue is from? How does intercity rail compare with intercity truck shipping? What happens if you subtract bulk rail cargo, like coal, grain, potash, etc., which trucks can't compete with. What are the comparative stats for intercity merchandise shipping? I'm curious, because the trucks have a lot of subsidized infrastructure that railroads don't. So how do profits compare? I looked around on line, but can't find good stats. Anyone know where? Common sense tells me that for medium-to-long-distance intercity transport, two guys in a lead diesel running the equivalent of 200-400 truckloads has got to be a lot cheaper than one guy per truck. So apples-to-apples, I'll bet the railroads are doing better than Fred says. True? /Mr Lynn
In his March '19 Trains column, Fred Frailey tells us that "In 2016, Class I railroads grossed $70 billion in revenue versus $739 for truckers. And the gap is widening."
But how much of that trucker revenue is for short-haul versus intercity, which is where I assume most of the RR revenue is from? How does intercity rail compare with intercity truck shipping? What happens if you subtract bulk rail cargo, like coal, grain, potash, etc., which trucks can't compete with. What are the comparative stats for intercity merchandise shipping?
I'm curious, because the trucks have a lot of subsidized infrastructure that railroads don't. So how do profits compare? I looked around on line, but can't find good stats. Anyone know where?
Common sense tells me that for medium-to-long-distance intercity transport, two guys in a lead diesel running the equivalent of 200-400 truckloads has got to be a lot cheaper than one guy per truck. So apples-to-apples, I'll bet the railroads are doing better than Fred says. True?
This has been a very interesting discussion, and I've learned a lot about the trucking industry. But no one has answered the questions I posed in the lead post a couple of weeks ago. So I'm taking the liberty of quoting it.
Any thoughts?
My husband has several cousins with actuary math degrees. One of which works for an insurance company that does insurance for non hazmat OTR trucking companies. He called him up and asked what the average increase was for their own polices. He was told between 10 and 15 percent due to higher accident costs. 10 percent if the fleet was self insured for 100k. 15 percent if not.
greyhoundsPlease quit throwing your BS around.
If you actually read what I wrote, rather than letting your temper distort it, you'd see that "greed" was only one of several possibilities, and mostly thrown in as a joke, along with some serious reasons.
BTW, my undergrad degree was a BA, so nothing to throw around. Lighten up.
charlie hebdoYour insurance premium increase is not a valid measure of increase in number of accidents. There could be many reasons: insurance company greed, your firm's recent experience and/or that of smaller firms. See below:
Oh horsefeathers! This is off topic, but I'm going to call BS. This "Insurance Company Greed" accusation has to come from someone who doesn't understand how premiums are set. (I retired from Allstate.)
In the first place, the largest home and auto insurance company, State Farm, is a non profit mutual pool. The policy holders just put money in a managed pool and those unfortunate enough to suffer a loss get paid out the pool. Other insurance companies are organized the same way. I'm insured with such a non profit company, USAA. Last spring my house suffered $31,000 worth of damage in a storm. I was quite happy with the way USAA paid the claim.
Allstate is a for profit company. But insurance is very competitive. It has to compete with the non profit likes of State Farm, USAA, and many other insurance companies organized as non profits. The fact that it can do so is a lesson in the cost of capital and other economic realities.
Insurance premiums are set using a process called "Predictive Modeling". We had platoons of PhD's pouring over statistics trying to predict risks. They were always trying to tweak models to fine tune pricing. If you try to get "Greedy" you'll loose the business. If you charge too little you'll go broke. Got to get it right.
Please quit throwing your BS around.
Shadow the Cats owner Murphy Siding I think the laws of supply and demand will fix quite a bit of the issues with over the road trucking. Eventually, the trucking firms will have to pay higher wages to keep attracting employees. Once the pay level gets up to where a driver can maake a decent living, the incentive to go 100 mph and skirt the logs diminishes. If you are caught going 15 over in a commercial motor vehicle it's a major violation on your driver's license. 2 of those in 2 years is a 6 month unpaid suspension of your license. Also most carrier's out there govern their trucks below 70 mph and the biggest fleets are lucky to break 65 mph. As for pay as long the mega carrier's can keep finding dummies to fill the seats they're not going to change a thing. Until they run out of people who will run at their low pay they're going to bend drivers over .
Murphy Siding I think the laws of supply and demand will fix quite a bit of the issues with over the road trucking. Eventually, the trucking firms will have to pay higher wages to keep attracting employees. Once the pay level gets up to where a driver can maake a decent living, the incentive to go 100 mph and skirt the logs diminishes.
I think the laws of supply and demand will fix quite a bit of the issues with over the road trucking. Eventually, the trucking firms will have to pay higher wages to keep attracting employees. Once the pay level gets up to where a driver can maake a decent living, the incentive to go 100 mph and skirt the logs diminishes.
If you are caught going 15 over in a commercial motor vehicle it's a major violation on your driver's license. 2 of those in 2 years is a 6 month unpaid suspension of your license. Also most carrier's out there govern their trucks below 70 mph and the biggest fleets are lucky to break 65 mph.
As for pay as long the mega carrier's can keep finding dummies to fill the seats they're not going to change a thing. Until they run out of people who will run at their low pay they're going to bend drivers over .
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Shadow the Cats ownerOTR drivers depend on getting miles to get paid. No miles equals they can lose everything.
Your insurance premium increase is not a valid measure of increase in number of accidents. There could be many reasons: insurance company greed, your firm's recent experience and/or that of smaller firms. See below:
[from the abstract of the report cited previously]
"Our results show that accident counts for small carriers did not fall relative to large carriers, and may have increased. Further, drivers for small carriers appear to have increased their frequency of unsafe driving (e.g., speeding) in response to the productivity losses caused by the mandate, which could explain why accidents did not decrease."
jeffhergert Shadow the Cats owner The drivers that want to run OTR are still out there. However what is killing drivers that want to run OTR is the HOS that were imposed on the industry. Finally the FMCSA and Federal DOT are looking at what they did and going we screwed the pooch on the HOS why. Well 1 year after the ELD mandate was imposed guess what they found out about accidents. Instead of going down like they thought they actually INCREASED by 10% overall. That's right the biggest saftey regulation since ABS that was supposed to lower crashes in the industry increased them and the drivers of those accidents reported that it was due to being forced to race the clock of the HOS to try and find a safe place to park. The head of the FMCSA admitted to a motor carrier group his agency dropped the ball on the HOS overhaul and the new one due to be created this year will not be done by people with no experience in the OTR industry at all or influenced by groups such as PATT or CRASH and will not rely on the ATA for the input either. They are going to look at real world data and come up with a workable regulation that will fix most of the problems. Yes, trucking was much better when drivers could keep two sets of logs and thumb their nose at HOS. I remember once working as a weekend clerk for a truck load carrier based out of the Twin Cities area at their North Liberty Iowa terminal. (North of Iowa City on I-380.) A driver came in with what he said was a shut-down load. While signing the fuel ticket he mentioned that according to his log book, he had just crossed the Indiana/Illinois state line. I also remember discussions on here were some of the drivers seemed to be proud of "bending" HOS requirements. Almost to the point that I wanted to say that some of the railroad's problems could be solved if crews could also "bend" HOS. Jeff
Shadow the Cats owner The drivers that want to run OTR are still out there. However what is killing drivers that want to run OTR is the HOS that were imposed on the industry. Finally the FMCSA and Federal DOT are looking at what they did and going we screwed the pooch on the HOS why. Well 1 year after the ELD mandate was imposed guess what they found out about accidents. Instead of going down like they thought they actually INCREASED by 10% overall. That's right the biggest saftey regulation since ABS that was supposed to lower crashes in the industry increased them and the drivers of those accidents reported that it was due to being forced to race the clock of the HOS to try and find a safe place to park. The head of the FMCSA admitted to a motor carrier group his agency dropped the ball on the HOS overhaul and the new one due to be created this year will not be done by people with no experience in the OTR industry at all or influenced by groups such as PATT or CRASH and will not rely on the ATA for the input either. They are going to look at real world data and come up with a workable regulation that will fix most of the problems.
The drivers that want to run OTR are still out there. However what is killing drivers that want to run OTR is the HOS that were imposed on the industry. Finally the FMCSA and Federal DOT are looking at what they did and going we screwed the pooch on the HOS why. Well 1 year after the ELD mandate was imposed guess what they found out about accidents. Instead of going down like they thought they actually INCREASED by 10% overall. That's right the biggest saftey regulation since ABS that was supposed to lower crashes in the industry increased them and the drivers of those accidents reported that it was due to being forced to race the clock of the HOS to try and find a safe place to park.
The head of the FMCSA admitted to a motor carrier group his agency dropped the ball on the HOS overhaul and the new one due to be created this year will not be done by people with no experience in the OTR industry at all or influenced by groups such as PATT or CRASH and will not rely on the ATA for the input either. They are going to look at real world data and come up with a workable regulation that will fix most of the problems.
Yes, trucking was much better when drivers could keep two sets of logs and thumb their nose at HOS. I remember once working as a weekend clerk for a truck load carrier based out of the Twin Cities area at their North Liberty Iowa terminal. (North of Iowa City on I-380.) A driver came in with what he said was a shut-down load. While signing the fuel ticket he mentioned that according to his log book, he had just crossed the Indiana/Illinois state line.
I also remember discussions on here were some of the drivers seemed to be proud of "bending" HOS requirements. Almost to the point that I wanted to say that some of the railroad's problems could be solved if crews could also "bend" HOS.
Jeff
Jeff my husband before he became disabled was an OTR driver his father also. In their combined 35 years out there neither one got a logbook ticket in their combined 4 million miles of driving. Did they push the HOS at times Yes however they ran LEGAL. My husband has been in a fatal accident while driving a CMV he knows the pain of what that brings and what happens afterwards. Yes there where drivers that abused the HOS however they could not have done so without the Carriers forcing the drivers to do so. When the carriers are the one forcing drivers to run illegal and they can by refusing to give them loads they need to feed their families thats where HOS abuse can come into play. OTR drivers depend on getting miles to get paid. No miles equals they can lose everything.
charlie hebdo Shadow the Cats owner Around here we call the truckinginfo page the ATA toilet paper. Why anything that is critical of anything the ATA wants never sees the presses of that rag. The data I am using is coming straight from my insurance company they would know better than some press trying to slant the media coverage as they are doing the payouts for the accidents drivers are getting in. Trucking info was pushing 3 years ago for 18 year old drivers running interstate. That has been one of the ATA's biggest regulatory goals for the last DECADE. To get kids fresh out of high school that are barely old enough to vote driving a vechile that weighs 40 tons down the road with less than 6 weeks of training to boot. So just remember that little tidbit about your sourcing Charlie next time. They are backed by a group that wants teenagers not much older than my oldest child running down the road at 65 MPH in all types of weather being trained by 21 year olds some of which will have less than 6 months total time behind the wheel. Yes you heard right at CR England and Swift and Werner after 6 months total time behind the wheel they will make you a trainer for the guys fresh out of the driving schools. The citation was an article based on a recently published research paper, not something you appear to be familiar with. Nor was it ATA, or office gossip. but then again, you did not read it. Maybe you should stick to dispatching? Accidents did not increase by 10% but accidents did increase slightly on the smaller carriers because they engaged in more unsafe driving because HOS were being more carefully checked. I apolgize to you Charlie however you made no mention of the study in your first posting. This research paper did however hammer home the stupidity of the 14 hour clock home to the FMCSA along with the facts that we in this industry need flexiblity in our HOS regulations finally we are hoping to get back. It helps that the current head while never being in the transportation industry can read with the best of them and seeing that it's not the drivers that causing the delays it is the Shippers and recivicers of the freight that are delaying trucks. Also if accidents were not up 10% then why did my bosses insurance rates jump up more than that for this year. We can tell how much the accident rate was for OTR over the year based upon the quote we get for our insurance plan for the fleet. We hoped for a reduction however it went up by 13% for this year. Oh well maybe next year we finally replace the office air conditioners. accident reductions from smaller firms is that the gains from fatigue reduction were offset by increases in unsafe driving behavior. Hardening the HOS constraint reduces per-worker hours and workers may compensate for this lost income by driving more intensively, namely, covering more miles per hour. Unfortunately, this may also incentivize an increase in unsafe driving behavior, which is more tightly correlated to accident rates than hours of service violations (Craft 2010). After the mandate, unsafe driving violations by owner operators increased by 23.4-33.3%, and speeding between 23.0-31.0%
Shadow the Cats owner Around here we call the truckinginfo page the ATA toilet paper. Why anything that is critical of anything the ATA wants never sees the presses of that rag. The data I am using is coming straight from my insurance company they would know better than some press trying to slant the media coverage as they are doing the payouts for the accidents drivers are getting in. Trucking info was pushing 3 years ago for 18 year old drivers running interstate. That has been one of the ATA's biggest regulatory goals for the last DECADE. To get kids fresh out of high school that are barely old enough to vote driving a vechile that weighs 40 tons down the road with less than 6 weeks of training to boot. So just remember that little tidbit about your sourcing Charlie next time. They are backed by a group that wants teenagers not much older than my oldest child running down the road at 65 MPH in all types of weather being trained by 21 year olds some of which will have less than 6 months total time behind the wheel. Yes you heard right at CR England and Swift and Werner after 6 months total time behind the wheel they will make you a trainer for the guys fresh out of the driving schools.
Around here we call the truckinginfo page the ATA toilet paper. Why anything that is critical of anything the ATA wants never sees the presses of that rag. The data I am using is coming straight from my insurance company they would know better than some press trying to slant the media coverage as they are doing the payouts for the accidents drivers are getting in. Trucking info was pushing 3 years ago for 18 year old drivers running interstate. That has been one of the ATA's biggest regulatory goals for the last DECADE. To get kids fresh out of high school that are barely old enough to vote driving a vechile that weighs 40 tons down the road with less than 6 weeks of training to boot.
So just remember that little tidbit about your sourcing Charlie next time. They are backed by a group that wants teenagers not much older than my oldest child running down the road at 65 MPH in all types of weather being trained by 21 year olds some of which will have less than 6 months total time behind the wheel. Yes you heard right at CR England and Swift and Werner after 6 months total time behind the wheel they will make you a trainer for the guys fresh out of the driving schools.
The citation was an article based on a recently published research paper, not something you appear to be familiar with. Nor was it ATA, or office gossip. but then again, you did not read it. Maybe you should stick to dispatching?
Accidents did not increase by 10% but accidents did increase slightly on the smaller carriers because they engaged in more unsafe driving because HOS were being more carefully checked.
I apolgize to you Charlie however you made no mention of the study in your first posting. This research paper did however hammer home the stupidity of the 14 hour clock home to the FMCSA along with the facts that we in this industry need flexiblity in our HOS regulations finally we are hoping to get back. It helps that the current head while never being in the transportation industry can read with the best of them and seeing that it's not the drivers that causing the delays it is the Shippers and recivicers of the freight that are delaying trucks. Also if accidents were not up 10% then why did my bosses insurance rates jump up more than that for this year. We can tell how much the accident rate was for OTR over the year based upon the quote we get for our insurance plan for the fleet. We hoped for a reduction however it went up by 13% for this year. Oh well maybe next year we finally replace the office air conditioners.
tree68 BaltACD Figures lie, liars figure. Everybody parses numbers to 'prove' their point of view. The graph - based on a chart from the highway safety folks covering 30 or 40 years - was pretty simple. A downward trend (deaths per mile) bottomed out and started upward again. Miles driven dropped sharply. The "why" would be up for discussion. I might still have that publication, and the graph I put together, but I have no idea where.
BaltACD Figures lie, liars figure. Everybody parses numbers to 'prove' their point of view.
The graph - based on a chart from the highway safety folks covering 30 or 40 years - was pretty simple. A downward trend (deaths per mile) bottomed out and started upward again.
Miles driven dropped sharply.
The "why" would be up for discussion.
I might still have that publication, and the graph I put together, but I have no idea where.
I am not doubting what you saw -
What I am say is the EVERYONE that publishes numbers (or graphs etc. derived from numbers) is presenting those numbers to 'prove' their own point of view or thier own conclusions from the numbers they present.
A person that is FOR something would be dumb beyond belief to present numbers that shoot down what they are for. While some numbers may be against the proposition, they will be hidden or otherwise discounted as the favorable numbers are presented.
BaltACDFigures lie, liars figure. Everybody parses numbers to 'prove' their point of view.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68Not much different than 1974, when the speed limit was reduced to 55 MPH (and gas prices went nuts). NHTSB (or whatever their letters are) numbers showed that a ten year decline in accidents per mile driven ended and the accident rate actually rose. The only reason actual deaths dropped was because people were driving less because of gas prices, not because of the 55 MPH speed limit. Miles driven dropped as well. I would opine that fatigue became a larger factor, as drivers had to spend more time on the road to reach their destinations. It was about the same time that such facts as most accidents occur within 25 miles of home, and most fatal accidents occur at speeds under 45 MPH disappeared from traffic safety messages.
NHTSB (or whatever their letters are) numbers showed that a ten year decline in accidents per mile driven ended and the accident rate actually rose.
The only reason actual deaths dropped was because people were driving less because of gas prices, not because of the 55 MPH speed limit. Miles driven dropped as well.
I would opine that fatigue became a larger factor, as drivers had to spend more time on the road to reach their destinations.
It was about the same time that such facts as most accidents occur within 25 miles of home, and most fatal accidents occur at speeds under 45 MPH disappeared from traffic safety messages.
Figures lie, liars figure.
Everybody parses numbers to 'prove' their point of view.
Not much different than 1974, when the speed limit was reduced to 55 MPH (and gas prices went nuts).
Shadow the Cats owner Finally the FMCSA and Federal DOT are looking at what they did and going we screwed the pooch on the HOS why. Well 1 year after the ELD mandate was imposed guess what they found out about accidents. Instead of going down like they thought they actually INCREASED by 10% overall.
Once again, your comment is inaccurate by being incomplete.
https://www.truckinginfo.com/324416/eld-adoption-fails-to-reduce-number-of-truck-accidents
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.