The Trucks Are Killing Us.

[elleng]

ACCIDENTS like the one that critically injured the comedian Tracy Morgan, killed his friend and fellow comedian James McNair, known as Jimmy Mack, and hurt eight others on the New Jersey Turnpike last year are going to continue to happen unless Congress stops coddling the trucking industry.

More people will be killed in traffic accidents involving large trucks this year than have died in all of the domestic commercial airline crashes over the past 45 years, if past trends hold true. And still Congress continues to do the trucking industry’s bidding by frustrating the very regulators the government has empowered to oversee motor carriers.

In recent months, Congress has pursued a number of steps to roll back safety improvements ordered by federal regulators. It has pushed to allow truck drivers to work 82 hours a week, up from the current 70 hours over eight days, by eliminating the requirement that drivers take a two-day rest break each week; discouraged the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from investing in wireless technology designed to improve the monitoring of drivers and their vehicles; and signaled its willingness to allow longer and heavier trucks despite widespread public opposition. Congress also wants to lower the minimum age for drivers of large trucks that are allowed to travel from state to state to 18, from 21.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/opinion/the-trucks-are-killing-us.html?

Another form of DEregulation, killing us in many ways.

[PatrickforO]

1. You're NOT cheering me up!

Very good post, though. Scary. This penchant for thoughtless deregulation has to go.

[elleng]

2. Sorry, not cheering myself up either.

I was a regulator, rails and trucks, and watched deregulation creep up, resulting in much of today's economic problems, un-anti-trust for one, and of course safety. Rails complain how EXPENSIVE it is to provide easily done warnings. EAT IT.

[Fuddnik]

12. I was a Locomotive Engineer.

The FRA had become a running joke before I retired.

[elleng]

13. I was at the ICC.

[abelenkpe]

3. deregulation, privatization and monopoly

When will we reverse this horrible trends? They are so destructive. Do democrats want to reverse these trends? Why have they gone on for so long?

70 hours a week is dangerous. There are all kinds of studies showing working more than 40 hours a week reduces productivity and is bad for ones health.

[elleng]

4. Good question, and I don't know if democrats want to reverse these trends;

they've continued under both R and D administrations. (Don't want to dump on a dear one, but dereg began under Jimmy Carter, airlines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act )

[Warpy]

5. Deregulation is killing us

A lot of truckers back east were always assholes. Every time I drove the NJ Turnpike, truckers would think it was the height of wit to box me in, ha ha. The only way to get rid of them, over and over again, was to slowly drop my speed to the point they'd realize time is money and I wasn't worth an expensive laugh.

It's quite different out west, most of them are courteous and careful out here, where distances are enormous and traffic between cities light.

Allowing assholes to be assholes with impunity is killing us. Allowing thieves to set up shop with impunity is killing us.

[elleng]

6. I'm in the east, and I haven't noticed that.

In fact, I often count on truckers to do the right thing, compared with non-commercial drivers.

Will drive from MD to NJ in October for birth of granddaughter, so we'll see!

[SummerSnow]

26. Your'e so right about that NJ Turnpike. The trucks scare me on that road with their speeding.

[villager]

7. Indeed, most of what trucks haul long distance should all be on rails, anyway

Trucking is a protected special interest. The only real need for trucks is to take what is off-loaded at rail hubs to smaller, more specific destinations.

[elleng]

8. Much of my career involved these issues;

I regulated (for the feds) both first, then exclusively rail mergers, with encouragement to approve mergers to enhance movement OFF the roads. We did so, imposing conditions to enhance/duplicate competition.

The physical system doesn't enable EVERYTHING to be hauled via rail.

[villager]

9. Certainly not everything -- but much more could be done via rail

Which would have additional environmental benefits as well!

[A HERETIC I AM]

16. Such as?

It seems to me that everything that makes economical sense to be hauled on the railroads already is.

[villager]

18. Such as?

What do you view as "truck specific" commodities?

[A HERETIC I AM]

19. First of all, you have to understand how long it takes for a container or Piggy Back trailer...

to get from point "A" to point "B" via the railroad.

Moving a trailer via the highways can beat the train hands down, every single time.

Take for example, a load of strawberries just picked in Ventura County, destined for Chicago.

If they go on the rail, the trailer is loaded near the fields outside Oxnard and the trailer is then hauled to an intermodal facility of one of the two major railroads serving SoCal, either Union Pacific or BNSF. That's an hour ride minimum, up to 3 hours depending on where the facility is (Near downtown LA or out in Colton or San Bernardino). Then it sits until it is loaded on the train, a process which takes a couple hours at least before the train is ready to roll. Regardless of which railroad carries the trailer, the train still has to climb up and over several mountain ranges before it gets to the great plains. This means the train has an average speed of around 40 MPH for the first several hundred miles. After two days the train is barely into the great plains.

Hook a Peterbilt to that trailer in Oxnard, put two drivers in the cab and it can be in Chicago in less than 40 hours. A single driver can do it in 3 days.

A container pulled off a ship in the Port of Long Beach that is put right onto an over-the-road truck will be almost halfway across Arizona before its railroad bound brethren leave the LA metroplex.


So...Which are truck specific commodities? Perishable produce is one. Any time sensitive freight is another.

Railroads are really good at hauling a lot of the same thing loaded in the same place, a long way and delivered to another single place. Think Coal and grains. In fact, that's just about the most efficient commodity to move for a railroad - Coal. An entire coal train can be loaded, moved and unloaded by 5 people or less. They're good at moving containers and trailers, but they don't back those up to the customers docks, so the loading and unloading of the train plus the drayage adds time.

Time that hauling by road does not have to deal with.

And FWIW, I just love these arguments on DU because...well....it's hard to be a liberal! Here's why I say that;

Are you in favor of good jobs a decent wages? Most DU'ers would say yes, of course.

Are you in favor of being environmentally conscious? Of course.

Well, keep in mind that every single container and trailer you see on a train means there is a driver not getting paid.

Sure, more freight on the rails is better for the environment and gets those nasty, pesky, slow moving trucks driven by those dumb, over worked truckers off the nations highways.

More freight on the rails means fewer loads and therefore fewer decent jobs for truckers.

So...pick. Which do you favor? Jobs or the environment (or fewer trucks on the road, whatever the argument is)? Because in this case, there isn't a clear choice.

[villager]

20. Trains move goods at 4x the ton-mile, per gallon

http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-Fuel_savings_potential_trucks_rail_intermodal

So eventually, clinging to a mid-century notion of transportation ideals will have to yield to 21st notions of fuel efficiency, etc.

Short term, we can see about making trucks themselves more fuel efficient, or use alternate fuels, etc. But eventually, the challenge will be to greatly expand the nation's rail system, for both passenger and freight.

And as that happens -- replete with the good jobs that will be needed to make such a transition possible -- more and more goods can/should be shipped via rail, rather than private vehicle.

Entirely and exclusively? Probably not -- especially after the "terminal to terminal" shipping. But eventually and to a much greater degree than currently? Yes.

[A HERETIC I AM]

21. While the tonnage going over the road has been reduced over the years,

I still say that most of the freight that is economical to ship long distances by rail already is.

I drove my first tractor trailer in 1978. Back then, 4 MPG was about average. I got back last Saturday morning from a trip to the Bay area and back to Jacksonville, FL. driving a brand new Volvo like this one;



Average MPG? Over 9. Unheard of 35 years ago.

As far as this statement is concerned;

replete with the good jobs that will be needed to make such a transition possible

You might be surprised as to how FEW long term jobs that will entail.

[villager]

22. I suspect that rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, rails included, will yield far more jobs...

..than expecting everyone to become long-haul truckers, yes?

That said, I applaud the doubling of the mileage, though rails are still more efficient per ton-gallon. It must be kind of fun -- assuming you get all the rest you need -- to cross the country in a Volvo truck cab, however...

[A HERETIC I AM]

23. It's fun the first few times.....

but when you get to the point that you know how many miles across each state it is, it has gotten a bit redundant! I have been cross I-10 more times than I can count, over the years.

I certainly don't expect everyone to become truckers (although, I have long thought it is at least a partial solution for the homeless problem - train the homeless to be truck drivers and they instantly have a comfortable place to sleep every night).

The point I was making about long term jobs is illustrated in your post; Construction jobs do not last that long and I just don't see vast numbers of the unemployed becoming pavement roller operators or rebar specialists. But by the by, ever noticed how many trucks are involved in a road paving operation?

[villager]

28. A single construction job might not last a long time, but many of them, over a couple decades...

...to rebuild our infrastructure, will certainly be on the "boon" side of the economy.

As a writer myself, I keep romanticizing the idea of cross-country on trucks -- at least the first couple of times! Then again, I've driven I-5 so much between the Bay Area and L.A. over the years, that perhaps your I-10 journey becomes as familiar as that, just writ large.

[A HERETIC I AM]

29. Grapevine, Wheeler Ridge, Buttonwillow, Lost Hills, Kettleman City....

Santa Nella......yeah, it gets familiar.

I lived in Palmdale from 01 through 04 and was hauling cars at the time. Up and down the 101, the 5 and 99 more times than is reasonable!

[villager]

30. Yup. Knowing exactly how much longer it was to Pea Soup's, depending which off-ramp you were passing

....and timing the first leg out of L.A for a gas stop at the Lost Hills truck stops, etc.

Back of hand stuff now!

[A HERETIC I AM]

31. Ahhhh...Pea Soup Anderson's! I spent a month there one afternoon!

Way back when I was a neophyte OTR driver I discovered that Anderson's had a cocktail lounge and I could walk over from the TA! As a 28 year old, I wasn't convinced (yet) that Scotch would hurt me! I...how shall I say....'painted' the parking lot at about 3 am!

They have been doing a fair amount of repaving up that way (back to the jobs issue!! LOL) and man, did I-5 need it.

BTW, I'm curious how low the San Louis Reservoir is. I used to go up and over that way all the time, but it has been years now.

Any idea? I've seen it really low, but with Oroville and Folsom and the rest, iut must be pretty low.....


Well...doing a quick search to remind myself of those names, led me to this;

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.action

So San Louis is at 20%...HOLY FUCK! That's damned near empty.

[StoneCarver]

10. Is this the right post for economy?

This seems like it should be on a different board. Just sayn'.
Stonecarver

[jtuck004]

11. Since a better economy, more profits, is given as the reason for fucking working people over

like this, yes.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

15. Yes, because it concerns a Federal safety regulatory agency.

I've started lots of similar threads in the Economy Forum based on that premise.

They owe their clout (if any) to the Administrative Procedure Act, which in turn got its inspiration from the Commerce Clause.

Hope this helps. Best wishes.

[Flying Squirrel]

14. Trucks don't kill people

People with trucks kill people

Dang truck control freaks...

[A HERETIC I AM]

17. A couple things about the hours of service mentioned in the article are misleading or wrong.

The article states;

It has pushed to allow truck drivers to work 82 hours a week, up from the current 70 hours over eight days, by eliminating the requirement that drivers take a two-day rest break each week

First of all, there is no requirement that a driver take a "two day rest break each week". That provision does not exist.

What does exist is a relatively new provision that allows a driver to "reset" his accumulated hours by taking a 34 hour break. A recent stipulation required that the 34 hour period encompass two periods between 2 AM and 5 AM (or thereabouts) in order to address the circadian rhythm issue.

Even though 70 hours seems like a lot, when divided by 8 days it equals 8.75 hours a day. So a driver could work for 8 hours and 45 minutes every day, day in and day out and never exceed the 70 hour rule. That total BTW includes ALL time on duty - loading and unloading, fueling, getting a tire repaired etc. as well as driving.

The article also states this;

But before his official work day began, the driver, the board found, had spent 12 hours driving his own vehicle from his home in Georgia to pick up his truck at a Walmart facility in Delaware, and had been awake for 28 consecutive hours at the time of the crash.

THAT is the fault of his dispatcher. He should have been required to take a 10 hour break when he got to the terminal in Delaware. They HAD to know where he lived and how far he had to drive his personal car.

Part of the problem with hours of service is that American truckers have for years used a paper log book to record their hours on duty and driving. It is basically the Honor System, in that we rely on the individual driver to tell the truth. There is an old saying that another 70 hours only costs you $1.49 at the truck stop. In other words, one can avoid having his log book be over hours by simply buying another one.

There is a move by many fleets to go to electronic logs, but paper logs books are still widely used. My firm uses them. In fact, I have yet to drive a truck with an "E" log system.

Just for comparison, trucks in Europe have been using on-board, built-in-at-the-factory tachographs and/or electronic logging devices for decades. They record everything the truck does, from how long it sat still with the brakes locked and the engine off to how long it sits with the engine idling to how long and at what speed it was driven. Also, it has been the case for years that no European truck maker can sell a truck that can run faster than 110 KPH, if I am not mistaken. The vast majority of trucks in the EU run about 100K (62MPH)

One final thing.

I have looked for but can not find, any study that shows the correlation between trucking accidents by Union vs. Non-Union firms. Most Unionized trucking companies compensate their drivers in a way that means they don't have to push the limit or exceed their hours of service or lie on their logs. In other words, they can make a living without killing themselves or anyone else.

[Roland99]

24. "divided by 8 days it equals 8.75 hours a day"

I must be missing something. Weeks have 7 days so that's 10hrs/day unless a truck driver's week is 8 days?

[A HERETIC I AM]

25. The hours of service limit is 70 hours in 8 consecutive days....

for companies that operate 7 days a week.

A company that does not operate every day can require it's drivers to use a maximum 60 hours in 7 days.

Here is a page that describes the rules pretty well;

http://www.truckingtruth.com/cdl-training-program/page93

A driver can drive up to 11 hours after having at least 10 hours off duty.
A maximum of 14 hours total driving and on duty, not driving (loading, fueling, etc.) from the moment he initially starts his on-duty day.

So even though I can run 11 hours a day and spend a further 3 hours a day doing other things, if I did that I would reach the 70 hour limit BEFORE the 8th day, forcing me to take at least a day off, if not the full 34 hours for the reset.

[Roland99]

27. Ah ok...thanks for the info!