The Greening of Trucking

Much of my email in the past week consisted of press releases disguised as news articles regarding carriers slowing down trucks. If the news reports are to be believed, the major carriers are concerned about becoming more 'green' in their operations. If I sound less than impressed with these announcements, its because I realize some things the casual reader would have no way of knowing.

The idea major carriers are slowing down to 'go green' is a ridiculous title for these articles as the issue is simple financial and political expediency. The Greening of trucking is a political ploy designed to convince some in Congress to look favorably on other issues these carriers want addressed to squeeze a few more cents per mile out of the system. No one disagrees that the price of diesel is far too high and that there is no good reason for it. That said, fuel subsidies negotiated into nearly every load pay the vast majority of the increase on loaded miles. In fact, in many situations the high price of diesel actually makes money for the carrier which contracts to haul the load. In effect, the higher the price goes, the more nearly the fuel surcharge alone can pay for the entire cost of fuel.

Major carriers are taking advantage of the attention generated by recent independent trucker demonstrations around the country to turn the situation to their advantage. In this case, some of these major carriers created the very system that threatens the small independent operator's existence. That these independent truckers are hurting-and badly-is not in question. They are in many cases not getting the fuel surcharge that is paid to the carrier or the freight broker. High fuel surcharges are so attractive that the entire trucking industry has come to the attention of private equity investors who have been buying up carriers, both small and large. The fuel surcharge, amounting to as much as $3 a gallon, is being siphoned off the top by brokers and carriers who lease owner-operators to haul the freight. Even those carriers who say they are paying the surcharge to the truckers are often correspondingly lowering the rate per mile they pay them so there is no real benefit to the trucker. These big players are not at all happy that the TRUCC Act shows a good chance of being passed into law.The profits the new breed of investors have come to expect show every chance of dropping once they cannot take advantage of the truck owner.

Lowering the governed speed of the company trucks will definitely save fuel. It will also lower the wages of the drivers as they are paid by the mile and have a limited amount of hours they can drive. Once again, while the carrier gains, the driver loses. And the number of individual trucks affected is questionable.
Consider that many of the routes the specified carriers haul are dedicated or intermodal routes: these are trucks that often never see the open interstate, driving mostly within the city on surface streets or secondary roads in stop-and-go situations. Most are averaging a speed of far less than 60 miles an hour in most configurations. Far fewer trucks that they would have the public believe are going to be slowing down on the interstate-it's more of a publicity ploy than anything. Some carriers have quietly been shedding themselves of company road drivers in favor of leased owner-operators and will tell you they have no control over the speed of the privately-owned truck they have hauling their freight.

The freight situation is still far below what the industry would consider normal at the present time. As trucking is one of the first indicators of a slowing economy, one can guess that there won't be a huge upturn in the economy in the immediate future. It's a good time for trucking to make a highly-visible but meaningless gesture. That means fewer trucks on the highways. If drivers quit because they are making less money, carriers couldn't be happier-they don't need them anyway, and a voluntary termination beats paying unemployment any day.

This isn't the first time some major carriers have turned 'Green' concerns to their benefit: as over-the road drivers must sleep in their truck, and must idle the truck for heat and air conditioning, this is fuel used to which no rate or surcharge is attached. It is a net loss to the carrier. Even though carriers have tied bonuses to lack of idling, there are situations and specific drivers who either choose to idle or are forced to idle for health reasons or extreme conditions. A stopped truck quickly reaches the outdoor temperature without heat, and well above ambient temperature in hot weather due to solar gain and trapped engine heat. It is not unusual for the interior bunk area to reach well over 120 degrees quite quickly during the day in many areas-a time when many drivers are forced to try to sleep. Owner-operators primarily have invested in auxiliary power units to keep their sleeping conditions bearable, absorbing the up to $9000 cost.

Company drivers don't have that option and large carriers are unwilling to put that kind of investment into a truck just for what they see as driver comfort. Some carriers have therefore welcomed local and state idling restrictions-they don't care that their driver is miserable and cant get adequate rest for health or safety. Likewise, they have pointed them to the Idle-Aire solution-a system available in some areas that can cost a driver as much as $26 a rest period-and which the carrier doesnt reimburse. These same carriers have attempted to manipulate public funding for auxiliary power units to their own benefit and have no intention of installing them unless the taxpayer pays.

All of this is designed to make it appear these carriers are attempting to operate 'Green'. And for all the effort and sacrifice they are evidencing by voluntarily slowing a few trucks down, they have several agenda points in mind:

First, they want to enforce a lower speed limit on all trucks. The cited carriers already have governed speeds not much higher than what they propose to lower it to. Under the guise of safety, this reduces their competition to driving no faster than they do. They are also rumbling about limiting ALL vehicles to 65 mph-which would reduce the speed differential between cars and trucks that has proven so dangerous in most studies.

Second, they want longer, heavier trailers. The stated idea is that pulling more weight increases fuel efficiency as fuel consumption will be lower than if the load were hauled in two trucks. The proposed increase is to raise weight limits to 97,000lbs from 80,000lbs. This is highly questionable as a fuel-saving measure as most existing company trucks are spec'd to provide barely enough power to haul 80,000lbs. There are no valid studies to see if there will be an actual fuel savings. There will be an employment cost savings, however, as fewer drivers will be needed. This is hardly a Green issue.

A second wish on the carriers list is to be able to haul 33 ft double trailers, again increasing capacity with a single truck and driver. Drivers themselves see this as a safety concern in many areas as roads other than interstates were not designed for this combination. Congestion and access would be nearly impossible in many areas. As it is virtually impossible to take double trailers into large cities, additional space must be provided to break down the two units into single trailers before delivery ,securely store the dropped trailer and reverse the process a little later Is the state or federal government going to provide this space? States have been reluctant to allow double trailers on any but STAA designated routes and the Interstates. This is not something that states are going to be eager to do without serious arm-twisting from Washington. Additional specialized training is also required to train drivers to haul double-trailers. Carriers are already resisting efforts to strengthen extremely weak training requirements. There is already a shortage of parking for trucks-and double trailer trucks take even longer spaces. Where will they park? Again, the savings to the carrier in terms of reducing numbers of drivers is the underlying issue.

Then, there is the question of bridges and roads not being able to carry the additional weight. Bridges in particular are in seriously poor shape across the county. How will either state or federal highway funds be stretched to upgrade them? Likewise, the sad shape many highways are already in makes it hard to envision how they will be able to handle even heavier loads. States that currently allow heavier loads, even with additional axel configurations show the damage these heavier loads can do. How is this of benefit to the taxpayer if he must shell out more and more money for road repair just so a private equity group can increase their returns?

So, these press release/news stories must be taken with a large helping of salt. It may be an ingenious method of phrasing the argument for longer heavier trailers, but it's not a Green issue-it's an issue of profits. The American Trucking Association spent much of last week, with their well-funded lobbyists in tow, in Washington DC. The ATA is the major association for large trucking interests, including major carriers, shippers and investment representatives. They are counting on these press releases to help convince Congress and the general public that these are good moves from an ecology standpoint. This is how politics is played in the well-funded sector of transportation.. It's up to all of us to become well enough informed on the issues to enlighten Congress to the weskness of their arguments.