ATA Wants Trucking to be Green
Posted on May 11, 2008 - 6:00am by Wayne Weisser in Trucking
Not really, but they’ve figured out that by connecting all of their to do list to the Green movement, they think they can convince people they want to save the environment.
Slower Trucks Could Save 31.5M Tons Of CO2 Emissions
The American Trucking Associations has launched the first-ever industry-wide environmental sustainability program under the banner Trucks Deliver a Cleaner Tomorrow.ATA has produced a report (exec summary) and is making six recommendations to reduce fuel consumption.
The plan calls for governors on new trucks to limit speeds to no more than 68 mph, a call to reduce the national speed limit to 65 mph for all vehicles, and industry participation in the U.S. EPA SmartWay Transport Partnership Program. Also on the list is reducing engine idling, improving highways, using more productive truck combinations, and setting fuel economy standards for trucks.
I’ll have to admit, I didn’t read the executive summary, I tried but couldn’t get past the first page. There’s only so much BS I can handle. But I did sit through the video on the same Trucks Deliver A Cleaner Tomorrow website. Cleaner and Greener the latest buzzword catch phrase. The part about how they want to be proactive and not wait for directives? What? The ATA are the ones that want these directives, not the government or anyone else.
They’ve even given their long time request of longer and heavier trucks a Green argument saying it will not only be more efficient, but more fuel efficient, will relieve congestion and reduce emissions.
A national speed limit would be okay if it was for everyone, cars (not going to happen) and trucks. Bump up the I-5 corridor to 65. Everyone is going to go 70 anyway, unless they’re governed.
Governing Truck Speeds, if the ATA members want to govern their trucks, knock themselves out. But why force everyone to do it? (Rhetorical question, I know the answer).
Why stop at double 33’s? If they’re going to go long, go double 48’s or 53’s.
My problem is that if these ideas are so great, why wouldn’t companies voluntarily do them? (Some do.) Why don’t they force their own ATA membership to do them, instead of pushing for more legislation and forcing it down everyone’s throats.
The statement from the EPA, what a load. If the EPA wanted trucking to use less fuel, they wouldn’t have been increasing the weight, the complexity and the inefficiencies of truck motors since 2002. They regulated emissions, not fuel economy. What a bunch of dolts.
Whoever thought up the Sustainability Initiatives and hooking up all of their long time requests to the Green movement and getting the EPA involved is a genius and will probably get them past their current nemesis’ PATT and Public Citizen, especially on the longer heavier truck issue and if it works they’ll probably be able to convince the government the Hours of Service are reducing emissions too.
RSS feed for comments on this post | Trackback URI
We're on Twitter!
Actually some of it makes a little bit of sense.
You can’t deny that driving slower saves on fuel. The “sweet spot” for fuel efficiency is somewhere around fifty five miles per hour. That’s the speed at which rolling resistance and air resistance are about equal. Going much faster than that then the additional energy is mostly needed to push the air out of the way.
If folks want to go faster it’s fine by me. I can’t afford to pay for all that extra fuel. I just wish they wouldn’t wreck so often and shut the highways down and cause so many delays. It doesn’t do anyone any good to be barreling down the highway at high rates of speed only to have to sit in a “backup” for hours waiting to sponge the idiots off the road who got in such a hurry and crashed.
I think longer and heavier are inevitable. I have no problem with turnpike doubles, triples or even road trains. One tractor pulling a road train at 2 or 3 miles per gallon is overall more efficient than several tractors pulling a trailer each at five or six mpg. You have to realize that the whole point of trucking is t get “stuff” from point A to point B as cheaply as possible. If some truckers can make a living doing it that’s ok..if not…too bad, so sad…..taking care of truckers and providing them with employment is not the point. The point is moving “stuff”.
Everyone knows that driving slower saves fuel, but why force a speed limiter on trucks? It should be left up to the company / owner.
The ATA has been pushing longer and heavier for a long time, the problem is that it’s more work to drive 97,000 lbs, doubles / triples with no plan on more pay or training.
longer heavier trucks who repaves the roads? They have rethought the max speed for fuel but I don’t remember what the new speed is.I also stick with my point of we have been told that all new trailers over 45ft wound not go into town but be reloaded outside of town onto smaller trailers for in town delivery.how many drivers stop an cross dock today to smaller trailers I think we all want trucking to be as green as possible.I think the ATA an the TLC are both just trying to close any wholes for others to take loads from them an that is what is really behind this
They are trying to push any legislation that puts non-ATA trucking out of business. They know small operators can’t keep up with “green” initiatives.
Longer trailers and heavier loads, that places the burden on the driver. If a new driver gets caught on a roadway that doesn’t allow them, who pays the fine? How many times has your company gave you directions that put you on questionable trucking routes.
It’s all about shippers and brokers. Find one thing that the ATA promotes that is good for drivers and not so good for shippers and brokers. If you do find something, like being “greener” it will be harmful to their competitors.
Speed governors? That’s all about drivers leaving ATA companies to make more money in ungoverned trucks. There are many types of freight were time is of the essence and time trumps fuel price, even in trying times. Look at how FedEx utilizes Eastern European immigrant drivers in leased owner-operator trucks. Those guys are going at breakneck speeds with doubles on dangerous routes like the PA turnpike. FedEx can benefit from all of the other ATA directives while ignoring speeds. If a Eastern European gets in trouble for tampering with a governor, who cares? They get rid of that driver and find another.
These folks are getting so they annoy me more every day with their phony, easy-to-see-thru pronouncements. You will notice the carriers they quote arent lowering the speed governors by much under their existing speeds-they just want to force everybody else to drive slow also to take away the competitition. And to get brownie points for longer-heavier trailers with no additional driver cost.
If you go to Transport Topics and download the carrier rating reports for 2007, there’s an interesting article on the lead-in about how private equity investors have been buying up carriers and expect a 30% return on their investments. I suspect this is the whole reason for carriers stealing so outrageously from their drivers, to the point they really cant keep them anymore-all for short-term profit. I think trucking is about to become the next big public fiasco, right up there behind foreclosures energy prices. Just one more way to gut the economy. More and more carriers are attritioning experienced drivers out and replacing them with owner-operators and outsourced brokering. The article states carriers with less hard assets are more attractive to investors-meaning more brokering and less actual traditional trucking companies. Owner-operators will have to find a way to fight this collectively as individual-and desperate-truckers are easy to roll over. And the time to fight it is now, before it becomes any more entrenched and the equity groups’ influence any more powerful. We know Congress has selective hearing and hears money talk far easier than they hear a few truckers.
[...] May 11, 2008, Everitt Mickey [...]