Truckers Back a National 65-mph Speed Limit
A highway slowdown has begun in response to high energy prices—and the big trucking companies are leading the way. Con-Way Freight, one of the nation's largest trucking firms with 8,500 rigs, has announced it is turning back the electronic speed limiters in its entire fleet from 65 miles per hour to 62 mph.
The company estimates that by keeping its drivers below that speed, it will save 3.2 million gallons of diesel fuel a year, while eliminating 72 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions—the equivalent of removing 7,300 automobiles from the nation's highways. And with diesel fuel at the current price of about $4 per gallon, Con-Way will be saving $12.8 million per year, a significant figure for a company that saw its operating income drop 27 percent last year to $235 million.
Now that fuel for the first time has surpassed labor as the most significant cost for many trucking companies, it's not surprising that they are taking steps to save. But here's the tricky part. They want all of us to do the same.
The American Trucking Associations is calling for a nationwide 65-mph speed limit—not only to save fuel but as a matter of safety. "It would prevent a differential of speeds between trucks and cars, where you have cars weaving in and out to get by trucks," says Clayton Boyce, spokesman for ATA. He says 77 percent of the ATA's member companies have electronic speed limiters set at 68 mph—with many of them, like Con-Way, now opting for even lower speeds.
It probably would take an act of Congress to set a 65-mph national speed limit, because, as we reported here, it was Congress that repealed the much lower 55-mph national limit that was credited in part for the short-lived reduction in national fuel demand in the 1970s.
Last week, the trucking association also renewed its call for a federal regulation that would require that newly manufactured trucks have electronic speed limiters installed that can be set no higher than 68 mph. No problem for the big trucking companies, most of which already are slowing down. But expect resistance from smaller, independent trucking owner-operators. In the Canadian province of Ontario, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is opposing a move for a 65-mph speed limit, disputing the greenhouse gas and safety impact. "OOIDA officials believe that speed-limited trucks will be stuck in the right lane, cause problems with merging traffic, and result in 'elephant races' when trucks cannot pass one another," says the association's magazine, Land Line.
When I asked Boyce of the ATA about the competitive issues at play, he said, "Some independent owner-operators want to drive faster so they can make more miles in a day and earn more money. The large companies understand that they'll save money on insurance, engine wear, maintenance problems, and fuel that make up that difference in distance per day."
I'm sure that many of the independent drivers understand those economics as well, but it is worth pointing out that if the big trucking companies are under financial pressure because of record-high diesel fuel prices—which they most assuredly are—the squeeze is even greater on small businesses without major capital resources behind them. Roughly 500,000, or about 16 percent, of the nation's 3.1 million commercial drivers are independent owner-operators.
It's a tough issue that requires strong leadership, but when every 1-mph reduction in truck speed yields a 0.1-mpg increase in fuel efficiency, it's a problem that can't be ignored. A spokeswoman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that the ATA's petition on speed limiters—which was filed back in October 2006 when diesel was about $2.50 a gallon—is still under review.
Tags: gas prices | fuel efficiency | driving
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (29)
Reader Comments
The big trucking companies may be agreeing on a 65 MPH limit but you journalist's
over generalize everything, they are a smaal portion of the business. There will be a truck strike next week by small trucking companies, and let's see how you like being without food for awhile. We don't need any more laws against trucks. get this
through your head, and the politician's heads, and keep them under lock and key,
before they turn us into a third world nation.
Thank you very much
Frank Frazier Jr.
Nogales Az
Truck Speed Limits
The big trucking companies may be agreeing on a 65 MPH limit but you journalist's
over generalize everything, they are a smaal portion of the business. There will be a truck strike next week by small trucking companies, and let's see how you like being without food for awhile. We don't need any more laws against trucks. get this
through your head, and the politician's heads, and keep them under lock and key,
before they turn us into a third world nation.
Thank you very much
Frank Frazier Jr.
Nogales Az
Truck Speed limits
If the US government passed a speed limit for trucks it would be stepping on the toes of States rights again.
It sounds to me like the free market is working well the way it is. As fuel prices go up the economics will force the speeds down. Any government interference would slow the responsiveness of the system and put the wrong solution in place as prices change again.
Energy Boomer
ATA out to buzz off
Boy are the ATA full of it. If trucks can safely go 70mph than let them.
The National limit was stupid.
Time to switch to rail
With all the bellyaching and threats of blackmail (strikes) by intransigent truckers, it makes a lot sense to reinvigorate local production of goods and food, while using rail for long haul. For a rather complete strategic plan on how to do this, see http://www.postcarbon.org/
It's time to actually <i>do</i> something about the nation's "addiction to oil", as Bush puts it.
Traffic system going back to stone age?
Why would we want to put a national speed limit on our highways. That's not moving forward that's going backwards. Do people honestly believe that in the year 2008 we should be setting speed limits that are the same as those in the 1950's and 60's? Interstates are the arteries of our country. Slow them down and you slow the economy down. And no it will not effect fuel prices anyway. First because of the traffic created (it's weaving in dense traffic that causes many accidents by the way), second because oil prices are rising mostly due to dollar inflation and our government overprinting money (oil prices are relatively stable compared to gold prices, notice they have both gone up in unison, if our dollar was as stable as gold oil would be $30 a barrel right now), and third because most people won't follow it just like the 55mph speed limit! Some people say "well if we could just get people to slow down it might work". Well it's not reality and never will be so stop trying to make laws that depend on something that will never happen.
We should be making laws that optimize traffic flow and restore respect for the left lanes which would thin out traffic, reduce accidents, and help the economy by speeding up our internal transportation system. Our speed limits are already under posted (never mind being 85th percentile, they aren't even average speed) combined with cruising in left lanes and not using them as passing only lanes leads to the "cars weaving in and out to get by trucks" the ATA speaks of. Our traffic flow is so inefficient it only takes a few cars to back things up because some people think they can drive in whatever lane they want at whatever speed and are bolstered in their belief by under posted limits. Think about it, there are ALWAYS these packs of traffic moving down the highway of cars scrunched together. There is plenty of room ahead but one guy is blocking the left lane and 5, 10, or even 15 cars are lined up behind him. If something goes wrong all these cars are packed like sardines which makes the accident that much worse. This also causes lots of road rage and people "weaving".
The ATA's plans to implement old outdated policies, that have been an absolute failure in the past, will cause more harm than good, just like prohibition. The 55mph speed limit did an immense amount of damage to the American auto industry resulting in cars that were poor performers both in terms of performance safety and gas usage. After all, they only had to be safe and have decent performance at 55mph. The answer to having safer more efficient cars isn't to lower the bar so that the car of the day with it's poor performance safety and gas guzzling is acceptable, it's creating the demand for a better car by raising the bar. We set our auto industry back 20 years and made our cars the laughing stock of the world and now we are paying the price and scrambling to catch up, and no 65mph speed limit is going save us now.
Sounds like the ATA wants exactly what would be best for its own profit. 65mph is good for them so therefore it should be good for everyone else. If they like it so much let them limit their own vehicles and leave everyone else out of it...but they know independent competition will gain ground.
Why would someone driving a car have to be limited to the same speed as an 18-wheeler? That doesn't even make sense. And they use safety as an excuse to try and make people feel guilty if they don't support it. Why then am I 66% more likely to die on the American interstate for a given mileage driven than the Autobahn, with trucks and all, over half of which has no speed limit (stats from IRTAD). The answer is our traffic flow system is a mess!!
Somebody please get rid of these dinosaurs and bring in some people who will try to work with reality and make our roads fast and safe and optimize traffic flow, moving us forward. Sorry to break it to everyone but gas prices will never be $1.00 a gallon again so people can drive 10mpg gas guzzler super duties without consequence, no matter what ridiculous speed limits are set. Also, don't forget the wonderful field day of speeding tickets (shored up by new technologies such as speed cameras) and jacked up insurance rates that will take money out of the hands of the consumer and put it in bureaucracies and large corporations which will reduce spending and also only hurt the economy.
Supply and demand
John G. wrote;
> Sorry to break it to everyone but gas prices will never be $1.00 a gallon again so people can drive 10mpg gas guzzler super duties without consequence, no matter what ridiculous speed limits are set.
It's hard to believe that people still have no clue that the increasing level of global oil demand and the stagnation of supply have a tremendous influence on oil prices. Overconsumption has brought us to the bind we find ourselves in now. If global oil production peaks next few years, which all indicators point to, those who have significantly reduced their oil consumption will avoid the worst of the economic morass. Those who blindly press on with high-consumptive lifestyles as suggested above will find themselves between a rock and a hard place.
In The Right Lane
I drive 45. Be carefull when passing my home on wheels.
Peak Oil and Speed Limits
I think going to a 55 mph (88 kph) speed limit is the best thing for now. It will reduce fuel consumption significantly and help to stave off the coming energy crisis a little longer. It is still much faster than by horse and wagon, which until recently, was the prime mode of transport. With the post-carbon era upon us I suspect that '55 MPH' will appear very fast to those in the future unless going by train. International travel will be interesting too - sailing ships!
split speed limits
Reducing the speed limit for the sake of fuel savings is fine, however, I would be against it if there are split speed limits. All that split speed limits do is create a road hazard.
62 MPH limit makes sense
Conway Freight is on to something when they set their trucks' limit at 62 mph. That is the speed which provides the greatest increase in fuel economy while producing the least slowdown in transport speed.
I have kept close track of my fuel usage for years and have determined that 62 mph provides fuel economy almost equal to 55 mph. It is the point just before the fuel economy curve begins a steep down turn. When traffic is light, I drive 62, and find myself in company with many trucks these days. When traffic is heavy, I speed up to keep pace with the flow of traffic.
At highway speeds, the engine is primarily trying to overcome wind resistance, which is an exponential function. A good test to demonstrate this is to get on a bicycle and notice how much more power it takes to go only a little bit faster. One only requires 50 watts (1/15 hp.) to go 10 mph, but to double that speed to 20 mph requires 250 watts, five times as much power.
Before the 55 mph speed limit, cars and trucks traveled at different speeds, which resulted in much weaving. The 55 mph limit put everyone at the same speed, which created more smooth traffic flow. A 62 mph limit should be across the board, so that everyone is on the same track. A 62 mph limit would be the quickest, lowest cost way to reduce fuel consumption.
Conservation is the only answer to Peak Oil
Conservation is the only answer to the Peak Oil energy crisis. Conway Freight has it right. Scientific and government studies indicate that there are no real alternatives to oil. Solar, wind, hydrogen, nuclear, coal to liquid, and geothermal will yield little. Most of them yield electric power which is not useful for planting, harvesting, transportation, and heating. As global oil production declines, we are in trouble. For a review of these studies, see: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
Electronic govenors
If you put everybody at 62 mph then all your going to get is a big traffic jam of trucks and cars its bad enough out on the road now . It seems now when you go to pass another truck you look in your mirror and here comes a car going about 75 or 80 and you have to stay in line and loos all of your momentum then pull out and get it back . I pull 50 to 60 thousand pounds all day and i keep my truck right in the torque curve where it pulls the best. If you pull a lot of weight and you get the truck below the torque curve your just going to make the truck work all the more harder and burn more fuel. I can do 65 all day and still have cars going around me like I'm sitting still very seldom do i pass a four wheeler . Their is no need for 4 dollar a gallon diesel fuel when the oil from the Alaskan oil field is going to Japan because the government says its to dirty and will cost to much to clean up well Japan has a lot more stricter pollution rules then we do.
I think we should just shut the country down for a few days and see what happens to the cost of fuel .
I have friends who work in the oil industry and the last crunch we had it wasn't true the United states wasn't low on oil the tanks were full and we wouldn't let the tankers come into port to drop their oil they just sat out in the harbor .
In the late 80 ,s the fuel tankers out in California would come back to the yard with gas in the tanker yet and the guys would take the extra gas and put it in 55 gallon drums and take it home or go out in the field and dump it .
What the problem is the United states needs to make more oil refineries and stop oil companies stop shutting down their oil refinery plants just so they can get the price of fuel up.
Look people every quarter of the year the oil companies come out and say we made a record profit last quarter well look who gave them that profit we did .
When Catrina hit fuel went up why because we didn't have their refineries to produce the gas and fuels we need.
i agree we need better vehicles that get better gas and fuel mileage and become a lot less dependant on foreign oil.
You right foot controls your speed!
Why do you need the government to tell you slow down to save fuel? The government doesn't drive your truck, you do. Simply slow down and save fuel.
If your trucking company can gain an advantage against its competition through driving slower, saving fuel giving you the ability to offer lower freight rates, then you do it. Some companies may wish run faster and burn more fuel, but offer a little quicker delivery times.
Every driver behind the wheel has the ability to slow down. Con-Way Freight is showing you the way and the government had nothing to do with it. The government doesn't need involved in this at all.
Truckers Need to Observe Law
I am so damn tired of trucks pulling right in front of me in order to pass some other truck that is driving 1 mph slower than they are. Often I have to apply brakes in order not to hit them. They disobey the law by improperly passing without sufficient time and distance and then one is herded around a bunch of trucks in a convoy. The pulling in front of me was dangerous and now the "close in" packed traffic is dangerous.
With this proposal this will only get worse. The Cops need to ticket such individuals for cutting in, but they never do. If it takes a little time and judgement and doesn't invovle a radar gun, they are not going to bother. Too much work!
Anyone interested in safety, knows what I am talking about and slowing down cars is not the answer. The Trucking industry needs to look in the mirror to find the real problems out there and stop trying to scapegoat everyone else.
Are you kidding?
Our speed limit on Interstates in Missouri was once 65 for trucks and 70 for everyone else. Truckers ignored it, as they would another ill-conceived national speed limit aimed at slowing "everybody" down.
The trucking industry wants legislation to increase safety? Here are some suggestions:
- Restrict all trucks to the right lane of four-lane highways, and the right two lanes of six-lane highways. Period. (The trucking industry fought this successfully in Missouri).
- Make it illegal for trucks to ride more than one mile in the passing lane. If you can't pass in a mile, move your @$$ over. Trucks being passed by anyone should be required to slow down 5mph. When one truck is passing another, ticket both when there's a violation of these.
- Wanna save fuel? Rebuild the railroads. Mandate use of trains for all large freight shipments where destinations are over 500 air miles apart.
- Require all trucks to have GPS technology that tracks and logs travel. Issue citations to companies when their trucks are in obvious violation of the speed limit. You've travelled 400 miles in 5.5 hours? 160 miles in 2 hours? Cha-chingggggg....
- Drive more than 10 hours in any given 24? Ticket. Drive more than 650 miles in a day (65 mph x 10 hours)? Ticket plus out-of-service. Violate an out-of-service order? Logbook violations? 72 hours in the slam, no questions asked, and your truck is impounded.
- No trucks on the road anywhere during peak traffic hours, 6-9 am and 4-7 pm. Sound stupid? So does driving 65 mph across Montana.
Some of the biggest jerks on the road drive 18-wheelers. Having the ATA tell the rest of us to slow down and be safe is like hearing a Bill Clinton speech on marital fidelity.
Energy Conservation
Anyone who was around in the late 60's, early 70's during the first "gas crisis" will tell you it didn't work. Did prices go down?... NO... Why? Because as soon as people started conserving energy, all the energy companies said "oh my, our profits are down because we're not selling as much as before, so we have to raise our prices", and the Government let them. The result was the energy companies had more energy to sell at even higher prices than before "the crisis". It's all big business and politics. As long as the oil industry lobbiysts keep flooding the politicians with contributions, nothing will change. As long as the oil companies continue to control every drop of oil from the time it's pumped out of the earth, until you pump it into your fuel tank, prices will continue to rise. Alternative fuels will go nowhere until the oil companies figure out how to control it like they do crude oil now, then and only then, will any serious development take place of alternative fuels. They're milking crude oil for all they can get, for as long as they can get it. When crude oil is depleted from the earth, then they'll look for other ways to make money. Right now they're on easy street raking in Billions every quarter.
ATA is a front
The ATA is a front for the big trucking companies to get their agenda through. ALL the data on speed differentials (one speed for cars, another for trucks) has proven that it is dangerous. This clown (clayton boyce) is saying that cutting all trucks back to 65 eliminates speed differentials? does he get to just make up his own definitions? Clayton Boyce you are a hypocrite and a career politician; stop pretending that you are trying to do something for the environment, or for safety, because most of us can see through you and that you are only trying to do something for your friends at Schneider, JB Hunt, Swift, and the like. They can't keep drivers because drivers know that a truck cut back to 65 can't get out of its own way, let alone out of the way of the super fast Four Wheelers. Why don't you try to get all the cars in the country cut back you hypocrite! That would certainly save gas and make the roads safer.
More people die running into trucks than trucks running into them. Have you ever driven a truck Mr. Boyce? I have and it wears you out to have hundreds of cars passing you all day. I have driven trucks cut back to 63 and trucks that could roll 80. And I wouldn't drive another truck cut back to 65 for all the tea in china. its flat out dangerous to be going that slow and not have the ability to get out of the way. People tend to speed up when you pass them. So if you've got just enough to get by, and then the person gases on it - you are hosed! They hang you out to dry and everyone starts passing on the right and your lucky to ever get back over. That is unsafe! and so are people like you Mr. Boyce who are so-called experts touting your "news-speak" for the unwashed masses. We let people drive cars that aren't governed at any speed limit. Why? Because this is still America, and people can make decisions for themselves. So can truck drivers. What's the difference? One crazy driving four wheeler can cause a truck to wreck and take out all kinds of innocent people. So stop spreading propaganda that the trucks are to blame when it all goes wrong. "If only that truck was going slower" Yeah, tell that to the person who ends up way under his trailer because they didn't expect him to be going so slow.
Another split unenforceable limit ??
IF there is something for a particular driver to gain from slowing down in a safe manner , not blocking any lanes then I'm all for it . But trying to make all slow down will not work and is stupid .
There are many stretches of western US freeways where 80 mph is the safe speed for all and a lower limit there would be ignored making these stretches less safe for us all . On busy stretches of freeways restrict the lanes large trucks can drive in not there speed .
Speed limits
Once again, the American Trucking Association has demonstrated why the men behind the wheel refer to it as the Anti-Trucker Association. If the ATA leadership believes drivers of four-wheeled vehicles will willingly join their speed-limited big trucking company bretheren in obeying a new national speed limit, then I have several bridges in the desert southwest to I'd like to sell them. Motorists know on the interstate system and many other well-engineered American highways, speeds in excess of 65 mph are not unreasonable and, therefore, to be expected. The ATA may be right in suggesting there are benefits to the owner-operator or independent trucker for running at a lower speed. However, it is his decision, not his competitors' decision. If the benefits truly outweigh the costs, he will not need to be told to run slower. As for Con-Way, I would love to see a mass resignation of their drivers. I know I'll never drive for them and I'm very economical driver.
Speed Limits and ATA CEO
The ATA has to be out of it mind to push for a National Maximum Speed Limit of 65 mph (NMSL). You have to consider who their CEO is - former Kansas Governor Bill Graves. Back in 1996 when states were permitted to set their speed limits after 22 years of federal micromanagement he wanted to keep Kansas' speed limit at 65/55 mph. He got something put in the highway bill delaying implementation and permitting a governor to prevent a given state from reverting back to their pre 1974 speed limit (namely Kansas). Kansas speed limit pre 1974 was 75 mph on Interstate highways, 70 mph including 2 lane highways.
What happened ? Kansas went to a 70 mph speed limit for Interstates and 65 mph for two lane roads which is too slow especially for Western Kansas. The speed limit was passed by the KS legislature as a compromise. The governor grudgingly signed knowing well that he wanted to stick to the old Federal Limits. Neighboring states to Kansas except for Missouri are 75 mph. A special note, Oklahoma is 75 mph for turnpikes but 70 mph for interstates.
Even though Texas is not a neighbor of Kansas, they have the most reasonable speed limits in the country. They have an 80 mph limit for a few select interstates, 75 mph on other interstates and 70 mph including 2 lane highways. Nevada is the next reasonable state with a 75 mph limit on interstates, 70 mph on 2 lane roads, a ban on speed cameras and no points for going a little bit over the limit.
Another concern, organizations like National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - an arm of the US-DOT (NHTSA) want to increase the number of speed cameras. The illustrious governor of Arizona is pushing for them very hard. They are the first state to use them on freeways outside of construction zones. If the NMSL comes back, I am sure speed cameras will be pushed or even mandated by the Federal Government.
The NMSL was a failure and bred contempt towards law enforcement and traffic laws at the time along with breeding poor driving habits such as poor lane discipline as in left lane hogs. I have driven in foreign countries like New Zealand and drivers there have much more courtesy towards other drivers such as staying out of the passing lane on multi-lane highways except to pass as intended.
My Thoughts
I suppose I read this article a little late, but here are my thoughts.
I am an owner/operator who by personal choice and economics has reduced my speed. Until the outrageous hike in fuel prices I ran the posted speed limit if road and weather conditions permitted. I slowed to 62-65MPH on most interstate highways and have enjoyed quite an increase in fuel economy. At 70 MPH my average was about 5.8-6.2 mpg depending on weight and driving conditions. At 62-65 mph my average mpg is 6.8-7.6 mpg. I have even calculated up to 8.2 mpg with a relatively light load, <20,000 lbs in flat country. Although fuel economy is governed by the terrain and weight of the load, my driving habits and choice of speed factors in heavily. I’ve done the math and that equates to an annual fuel savings of about $12-14,000. For me, it’s a matter of economics. If I need to make time, I will suck it up and run the posted limit, but in most cases I choose to depart with enough time factored in to run a little slower. By the way, when I run slower I stay in the granny lane and only do so when I won’t become a hazard.
It seems as though a few of those posting comments have a serious grudge against those of us who deal with the hassles of traffic and poor driving habits of impatient four-wheelers and CMV (commercial motor vehicle) operators. Traffic safety is a responsibility we all share when we get behind the wheel. A little patience and courtesy go a long way and may even be contagious. Space yourselves out and allow a little more distance for any situation that may arise. If you see a vehicle with its turn signal on, don’t hit the gas to prevent them from making a lane change. When approaching a merge, allow space for oncoming traffic to safely enter the freeway. Don’t tailgate! Don’t wait until the last possible second to get into the right lane to exit. Poor driving habits and impatience affect us all negatively. Accidents drive up the cost of insurance, slows/stops the flow of traffic resulting in greater fuel usage and increases aggressive/impatient driving habits.
Finally, I do not agree with the split speed limit. Slowing CMV’s creates a traffic hazard and fuels the impatience of four-wheelers and CMV operators, causing them to exhibit poor driving habits and become more aggressive.
65MPH SPEED LIMIT
For all I care those trucker bastards can limit their speed to 35...just don't screw with the car speed limits. The only people who benefitted from the 55 MPH speed limit 20 years ago were the police departments who couldn't hand tickets out fast enough. Studies disproved the 'safer' claims of the 55 MPH speed limit. Finally, I hope you realize most of these truckers are not MENSA members...for chrissakes get real.
Speed Limiters
ATA's proposal is all about reducing competition. ATA thinks that the faster speed truck lines are stealing "their" drivers, and that expedited trucking is stealing "their" freight. Now they want all trucks to slow down so that the ATA-member trucks aren't such an unsafe nuisance on the highway. They want to force a split speed limit on the 60% majority of the US that has had faster speed limits for many years, despite numerous exhaustive recent studies that show no safety benefit in split speed limits. Many of the ATA-member companies tried to keep their truck speeds low back in the mid-1990s when speed limits were raised in many States and were forced to raise their truck speeds in order to compete and keep more of the drivers that they trained.
ATA's business is the high-volume/low profit, highly competitive, truckload freight business, where a few pennies per mile make or break their operation. What is the largest discount retailer in America? Many of these ATA trucklines operate in a similar manner. They are trying to be the cheapest truckload carriers operating. They have decided that they need to cut their costs and that no other truckline or shipper or receiver should get any say in the matter. Just-in-time manufacturing is a fact these days. General Motors has been using JIT delivery of assembly parts to reduce inventories and cut costs for over 20 years now. Many other companies have tried to cut their inventories through JIT supply too. ATA is now trying to demand that all companies using JIT methods should be forced into maintaining larger inventories so that the ATA member trucklines can reduce their costs without competitve interferance from any other truckline.
There is a driver shortage. For every 3 experienced drivers leaving the business only one new driver is coming into the business. Many of ATA's member companies have long been known as driver-training outfits where new drivers were often paid less, kept out on the road and away from home more, and led into leasing vehicles without the experience to be successful in large numbers. After a driver got sufficient experience to get a better job they left the training outfits. With the shortage of drivers the ATA-member trucklines want to make it impossible for other trucklines to compete for drivers by offering faster trucks or providing more time at home with their families. ATA wants the Federal Government to change the law to make it illegal to compete with them except on costs. Such a change of law will cost many mainly experienced jobs at other carriers, and cost many of the trucking industry's customers a substantial amount of money too.
A large percentage of current trucking is expedited and/or less-than-truckload. Many of the ATA-member trucklines do not even offer these types of services. Fresh food carriers and air-freight carriers have long needed to offer high-speed time-sensitive service and ATA wants to cost the businesses that rely on high-speed, JIT service lots of money. They want to stifle competition. They want the Federal government to force all competitors to see it their way. A reduction of 10 mph in combination with the current hours-of-service law would cost 12 hours extra on a 1,200-mile trip, plus another 12 hours extra on the return. Just the cost of the 12-hour delay to the shipper of fresh beef, for instance, would be in the neighborhood of $4,000 to $5,000 in lost profit, for one truckload. The truckline that hauls this load only makes $2,000 to $2,500. Forcing all truck speeds down in the 60% of America with faster speed limits will cost fresh food shippers tremendous amounts of money. Often the shelf life is measured in just a few days upon arrival at the destination. Will a reduction in truck speed help or hurt companies that haul fresh food now? What about air freight and other expedited carriers? ATA is really tired of seeing these trucks fly by their trucks, and may even be operating an unofficial policy of waiting until the last second to try to cut-off faster trucks. This problem is up by many, many times in the last few years, and directly coincides with the push by ATA to stifle competition. And the ATA-member trucklines drivers are some of the biggest offenders.
The worst yearly safety record posted by the trucking industry in terms of fatalities per 100 million miles operated by the industry was 1979, when the speed limit was 55 mph everywhere. Look at the study that the State of Virginia paid for on split speeds. Or look at the study that AAA paid for. Both studies were designed to be "studies to end all studies". Or look at the University of Arkansas most recent study. No recent study suggests a safety benefit from split speed limits. In Illinois after all of this evidence was presented to their legislature and both Houses voted by an average of 75% to 25% to approve an end to the split speed there, it was only an impassioned speech from the Governor about all of the "lost jobs" that convinced the legislature not to override his veto. It seems that the State Patrol there is worried about the loss of some of their jobs if the speed limit is raised. The unions are worried that their travel speed contract concessions will become a contract issue. As it is now it takes 2 drivers to run a roundtrip from Chicago to St. Louis in 11 hours, a whole 289 miles downtown to downtown. At 65 MPH that figure is reduced to only one driver, which would be a great increase in productivity and a great reduction in costs to customers. Is the main reason to have split speed limits to save some high-paying less- or non-productive jobs? Is the ATA effort to lower truck speeds designed to cost their trucking-industry competitiors in productivity terms, requiring more drivers to spend more time on the road, for lesser daily wages? The ATA proposal seems designed to cost many competing trucklines quite a bit of money or to make it possible that some experienced drivers might find the ATA members more attractive. Their action has "fight to the death" written all over it.
Imagine if a consortium of a few of the biggest oldline airlines got the Federal Government to force the discount carriers to hire only union workers at the scale that they were paying in their own labor contracts, and to adopt some of the more restrictive seperation of labor agreements. Such a decision would kill the low-cost carriers. There would be no choice other than the color of the paint on the tail of the aircraft. And that is what ATA and its members want for the trucking industry, and anyone with a differing idea be damned. ATA does not want to allow any industry to use any truckline that can get their freight there faster than 62 mph. Basically ATA wants to undo two decades of increases in productivity and wages for the vast majority of America's workers. ATA wants every other truckline to be forced to compete with them on their terms. And ATA wants the Federal Government to force compliance.
Maybe it's time to go in a different direction and make it more difficult for the ATA members to compete with the rest of trucking. It's about reducing costs and increasing productivity. It's about providing competitive service and providing for the needs of the customers. It's not about creating a permanent monopoly.
Why does ATA need the help of the Federal Government to stifle competition? If this proposal is approved count on more trucks on the highway to make-up for the loss of productivity. Count on spending more time on the road and away from home to earn the same amount as now.. Count on more broken families and single-parent households among the several million non-ATA drivers. Count on higher costs to do business here in America and more companies fleeing to Mexico or overseas. Count on higher fresh food costs. Can we as a nation afford to give-up 2 decades worth of increases in productivity because ATA wants to stifle their competition. Can we experienced drivers give-up 20 years of wage increases and driver quality of life improvements? Can we allow ATA to take away all of the progress of the last 20 years?
ATA's proposal will make America a higher-cost, less-competitive, environment for doing business than it is now. They are trying to guarantee themselves eternal profitability while immediately killing any competition. And they are trying to cost America millions upon millions more lost jobs in industries which can't compete. There will be NO SAFETY BENEFIT when there are many more trucks required to get the same amount of productivity accomplished as now. It is not said where all of these new drivers will come from. My guess is that they will be inexperienced. But, that is what many of ATA's members are used to. Lots of low-experience drivers who don't know any better will fill the new seats. They will spend much more time away from their families for lower wages. You think that road-rage is bad now, wait until then.
Railroads? All that they can compete on is for non- time-sensitive freight where the customer stockpiles huge amounts of product. The product that the railroads offer would greatly increase costs for most American industries that now depend on high-speed JIT service to help reduce their costs. And in an awfully lot of places the old unused rails were torn out long ago and the old high-rise factories along the rail lines are gone too.. Railroads require centralization to work. For the last 60 years America has become less-centralized. I don't see railroads providing much of an option for most of America's industries. It is a very different technology made for a much different era.
How about banning all but commercial vehicles from freeways? I'll bet that such a move would cut way down on road-rage directed at the trucking industry. Yeah, it would cost a whole lot of people a little extra time, and some a lot of extra time. But think how it would benefit all of those little towns bypassed by the freeways.
Banning cars off of freeways is about as radical as ATA's proposal to get the Federal Government to undo 20 years of improvement in productivity in order to stifle ATA's competition. Their proposal has huge economic consequences all across America. And it won't help safety at all, at least not until millions of people are laid-off from uncompetitive industries which will then reduce the need for more trucks to make-up for the lost productivity.
Do we want ATA as a permanent very powerful monopoly?
Would you enjoy commuting to downtown Chicago on Roosevelt the whole way from Batavia? Or would it make it more likely that you would take the train?
I wonder if banning cars off of freeways would have any effect on the value of suburban real estate? Or inner-city real estate? There are drawbacks and there are those who would benefit. Imagine how valuable land near mass transit stops in the city would become if cars were banned off of freeways?
If ATA's proposal is adopted their members stand to benefit greatly. And like the suburban homeowners, many of us would suffer greatly if ATA's proposal is forced onto their competition. I believe that the drawbacks of ATA's national truck speed proposal greatly exceed the benefits.
Please write your congressman to oppose ATA's power-grab.
...............
POOOP!!!
Is 45 mph the most efficient speed?
Hi!
Nixon proposed 45 mph, as his administration said it was the most fuel-efficient speed. Congress wanted 65, so they compromised at 55 mph.
I wouldn't think that the laws of physics have changed, and I would think that 45 mph would still be the most efficient.
I am trying to find out what the most efficient speed for American vehicles would be, and how much oil that would save.
If it is enough, it IS possible to reduce the price of oil, as we are the biggest consuming country, and transportation is the biggest oil consuming sector of our economy.
62 mph = Lower Wages
We have reduced our idle time to practically nothing for the past 2 since our company reduced governer to 62 mph. Monitoring our fuel usage shows that the truck is working harder and using even more fuel than ever!
The only thing that the companies are saving is payroll. Drivers are limited to the number of miles-per-hour they can drive which limits the cents-per-mile we can earn. This adds up to an average of 5% cut in pay that ONLY affects the drivers of the company. In some cases, a driver will blindly lose $3000 income by being a loyal company driver. Monitor your fuel usage, and do the math... You will find that this is true.
So, companies are spending marginally more money in fuel costs (a tax write-off?) in order to score major savings in payroll at the driver's expense.
62 mph = Lower Wages
We have reduced our idle time to practically nothing for the past 2 since our company reduced governer to 62 mph. Monitoring our fuel usage shows that the truck is working harder and using even more fuel than ever!
The only thing that the companies are saving is payroll. Drivers are limited to the number of miles-per-hour they can drive which limits the cents-per-mile we can earn. This adds up to an average of 5% cut in pay that ONLY affects the drivers of the company. In some cases, a driver will blindly lose $3000 income by being a loyal company driver. Monitor your fuel usage, and do the math... You will find that this is true.
So, companies are spending marginally more money in fuel costs (a tax write-off?) in order to score major savings in payroll at the driver's expense.
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our comment guidelines.advertisement
ata speed limiters
ATA is for the big fleets(JB Hunt,swift ect...)because they can't keep up with independent owners on time,rates. To have all trucks running the same speed will cause more bottle necking dearing rush hour traffic and holding up traffic out on the interstate.
Mar 26, 2008 18:08:03 PM [permalink] [report comment]