Policy Activists: Truck Loads Already Too Large

Monday, May 4, 2009

As a transportation bill moves through Congress, activists petition to fight big
rigs carrying larger loads, calling it a public health crisis.

At a news conference on Monday, the Truck Safety Coalition led by advocate Joan Claybrook introduced families whose loved ones had been lost to highway fatalities due to commercial truck accidents. One victim's father expressed that larger trucks would be a greater hazard than currently exists.

Truck cargo industry group Coalition for Transportation Productivity instead calls for tractor-trailers to add an axle, thus giving them 22 wheels instead of 18. They are pushing for higher load limits as cargo demand increases and safer roads based on fewer trucks being on the road and more even distribution of weight.

Trucking Industry Shrinking, Nearshoring on the Rise

Trucking Industry Shrinking, Nearshoring on the Rise
October 3, 2008

As over 3000 trucking firms are expected to shut down in the next year and others scaling down operations, capacity may be strained. And as extra shipping fees are being added on, wholesale prices will probably inflate and retailers will not be able to pass too many costs onto the consumer. Small businesses in the same region are advised to pool their resources to have better standing with the trucking companies.


Local manufacturing looks like it will be on the increase though since the prices of cargo transport from China has tripled in the last 5 years; not counting the ocean freight costs from other nations as well. And since oil prices are not likely to dip to pre-2007 levels either, many companies seek to avoid outsourcing, thus cutting their delivery times. Volkswagen, Ikea and others have already begun increasing output at their plants and building new ones in the US. At the same time, food retailers are focusing more on pushing local produce, and imports of out-of-season items may be more costly and less commonly found.

Railroad Superiority?

---

Railroad Superiority?
July 20, 2008

In the age of rising fuel prices, there is much scrutiny of the nation's transportation system. As the saying goes, desperate times call for desperate measures.

Although many Americans feel that they are hostage to foreign powers that control the flow of crude oil, they are yet to widely endorse alternatives. One school of thought promotes alternate fuel sources. Other opinions support re-examination of the ways America moves people and goods. In either case, as America's dependence on foreign produced items continues to grow, transporting these goods is major business.

A prime example is the transport of container goods. Short haul transport is best managed by truck. However, as distances grow, and America is by no means a small country, so do the options. When time is the primary concern, air freight is the preferred mode of transport. However, air transport is far too prohibitive, both in terms of cost and capacity, for large loads. The choice is either truck or railroad.

The US interstate highway system is quite extensive and is home to thousands of transport vehicles, as well as private. However, the number of trucks is continually growing, requiring expansion of the roadways due to sheer capacity and the necessary maintenance. Construction of additional lanes, to accommodate the increased volume, will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. As transportation bonds are but one of a plethora of proposed legislations that are presented to the voting public, choices have to be made and questions are raised. Could alternate modes of cargo transport serve the needs of the American consumer? Does an increase in road traffic have negative environmental effects? Are other resources being under utilized?

Proponents of railroad transport have the answers to these questions. They feel that America lags far behind European nations in terms of railroad usage. While it is true that the distances are far greater between points in the US, it still does not negate the fact that railroad lines are dedicated modes of travel, virtually undisturbed by other vehicles. Supporters state that rail transport is far more efficient than trucks and certainly would save taxpayers money. Industry analysts claim that increased train usage could greatly reduce the number of trucks on the nation's roadways, thus reducing fuel consumption and contributing to a healthier environment. Similarly, the costs associated with increased rail usage are far less than the costs necessary for upkeep and expansion of the roadways.

What is clear is the need for increased joint studies by legislators and industrial leaders to define where America is going and how it is going to get there.

Clean Truck Program Requested Agreement Opposed by the IMCC

Clean Truck Program Requested Agreement Opposed by the IMCC
Sunday, March 16, 2008

An agreement being sought after by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and their terminal operators, aiming at implementing the ports' Clean Truck Programs, has been opposed by the American Trucking Associations' Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference (IMCC), which has filed written comments before the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) calling for the rejection of such an agreement. The agreement would grant anti-trust immunities to both parties, which would enable them to discuss and settle on the criteria and procedures upon which they determine whether trucks, cargos, and equipment are to be admitted or not to any terminal at the port.

The IMCC has opposed the agreement on the basis that it would be unreasonable under the Shipping Act to let port tenants abuse such a “blockade provision”, which would leave the door open for them to enforce an unlawful concession on passers-by. The IMCC has further stated that such an agreement between the ports and their terminal operators should also be rejected on the foundation that it fails to include or mention motor carriers with a lawful right to access the port by authorizing terminal operators to unlawfully block port drayage operators.

On February 19th, the Port of Long Beach approved its own version of the Clean Truck Program, which does not require port trucking companies to use only employee-drivers. On the other hand, the Port of Los Angeles has been on behalf of the idea that port trucking companies should use only employee-drivers, and the IMCC says that including such a requirement in the Clean Truck Program of the Port of Los Angeles is not out of the question. With its own Clean Trucks plan, the California Air Resources Board is already taking certain measures to ban high-polluting trucks.

The IMCC believes that the ports may claim their role as sole proprietors in an attempt to be exempted from preemption by federal law. The IMCC has argued against such a claim stating that the goals of the ports' Clean Truck Programs are not proprietary in nature as they do not take into account the ports’ obtainment of goods, but instead seek to affect broader social regulation such as the income, health, and well-being of truck drivers.

The above comments filed by the IMCC only seek to convince the FMC to reject the requested agreement between the ports and terminal operators. However, they also provide a further insight into the kind of argument to which IMCC can resort in case of any future litigation.