Letters: Rooftop Snow (Cont.), GVW Increase, Truck APUs
These Letters to the Editor appear in the April 27 print edition of Transport Topics. Click here to subscribe today.
More Rooftop Snow
I feel compelled to comment after reading the March 16 letter headlined “Rooftop Snow” (click here for previous letter).
I agree with the letter writer’s arguments concerning the liability aspects of drivers on top of trailers unless proper fall safety equipment is used.
I work in forestry transport, and drivers hauling woodchips have to get on top of their chip vans all the time. There are systems out there that can save a person from falling off the trailer.
The letter’s message to “simply educate the public about potential safety hazards during these weather conditions” seems a bit off. The damage is done, i.e., snow plus ice coming off the tractor trailer, after the severe weather has passed. It takes awhile for the stuff to build up.
As for safe following distances, that is unrealistic on a two- to four-lane highway. It’s not the vehicles directly behind that will be damaged. The poor souls at either side of the tractor-trailer with no choice but to be beside the rig will be in the affected zone.
I speak from personal experience.
I was on a four-lane section of highway in the limits of Montreal when a football-sized chunk of ice came off a tractor-trailer unit and crashed through my windshield. The tractor-trailer was ahead of me in the right-hand lane. There was no way to avoid the incident, as the highway was full of vehicles.
So I have to disagree with the letter writer’s conclusion — although it wouldn’t hurt. In my opinion, the answer lies in equipping trailers with defrosting technologies.
Andrew Hickman
Research Technician
Transport
FPInnovations-Feric
Pointe-Claire, Quebec
GVW Increase
Editor’s Note: The following is an “open letter” delivered via e-mail and shared with Transport Topics.
Dear Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Board of Directors:
I noticed your recent article on the Land Line Web page urging OOIDA members to oppose an increase in gross vehicle weight, as provided for in H.R. 1799.
I feel it’s unfortunate your association is taking this position.
I can’t speak for the trucking industry as a whole, but I can speak for those paper and building products companies that ship 89% of their raw logs and pulpwood from our nation’s forests to the nation’s mills via truck.
It’s a foregone conclusion that Congress will pass transportation infrastructure improvement legislation in 2009, and that it will likely contain a significant in-crease in taxes and fees to fund infrastructure improvements.
The nation’s paper and forest products companies are under severe economic stress because their wood supply chain costs are not competitive with competitors in foreign countries. Wood supply chain costs represent 30% to 50% of every ton of U.S. paper produced and 50% to 80% of every piece of U.S. lumber produced.
The U.S. [Eisenhower] Interstate System is the best highway system in the world, and we are capped at 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight while our competitors abroad are not. In Finland, for example, on virtually every road in the country, trucks can haul 132,000 pounds. GVW caps in Brazil, Canada and other strong paper and forest products-producing countries are also much higher than ours are.
Objections about safety effects of raising GVW limits, I hope you know, are red herrings. All indications point toward the consolidation of freight by this means as improving safety. Apart from the many projections predicting safety improvements, we now have in the record empirical data on safety improvements that immediately followed the United Kingdom’s implementation of a similar reform in 2001 (see http://ag-haul.org/uk_report.html). Those improvements — reductions in collisions and fatalities accompanying an actual increase in freight hauled — continued through the date of the 2007 study and, we believe, to this day.
Attached to this e-mail message is a 24-page single-spaced state-by-state listing (Excel file) of U.S. paper and forest products mills closed and jobs lost in our industry over the past 18 years. I can guarantee you that this list will grow by leaps and bounds if Congress increases the highway taxes and user fees without an offsetting increase in trucking productivity. Truckers lose jobs when mills close.
So, my question to OOIDA members is, do you still want to haul forest products manufactured by U.S. companies to U.S. customers? Or do you want to haul and to buy paper and wood products from the same places you now obtain your cameras, clothing, footwear, computers and handheld power tools?
Every improvement in efficiency, including transportation
efficiency, poses challenges to existing professional workforces. But in the long run, efficiency gains are what give any industry, including trucking, the opportunity to grow. Please join us in leading, rather than obstructing, meaningful productivity gains in freight transportation.
Richard Lewis
President
Forest Resources Association
Rockville, Md.
Truck APUs
Truck auxiliary power units? There are a lot of questions for carriers and truck owners who are trying to save money and reduce costs during the economic slowdown, but are confused by the choices, the cost, the savings, the new laws prohibiting idling and which states offer grants or incentives to install APUs.
The first and most important question is whether an auxiliary power unit designed to operate a truck’s air conditioning and heater will save money. Some makers of these units say that how much a carrier will save each year depends a lot on the driver.
From my own observations, looking at trucks parked at truck stops, a reasonable estimate is that most drivers with APUs run them about 65% of the time — more in very hot or cold weather. Most truck engines today use, on average, 1.1 gallons of fuel each hour they idle. At today’s prices, that is $2.30 per hour or more, plus the added wear on the engine. Adding an APU — costing an average of about $8,000 each — can add about 6.5% more to the cost of a new truck.
Many truck owners have resisted buying and adding APUs because of the cost of the units. But because many states — in the future, most states — outlaw truck idling, truck owners are now serious about installing APUs.
With new laws, uncertain prices for fuel in the future and the need to retain good drivers, carriers now see APUs as a necessity.
There are many different makers and types of APUs, although recently one manufacturer that had been making APUs for years has gone out of business.
Some of the APUs on the market today offer a 120-volt generator that powers a separate air conditioning/heating system installed under the bunk in sleepers, while others have a diesel engine that runs an A/C compressor tied into the truck’s A/C system. And then there are APUs that run on stored energy.
Which one to buy is a hard question to answer, and getting the wrong unit or one that is poorly designed can be very costly to live with.
Many small carriers, especially one-truck owner-operators, have found ways to install APUs and meet the requirements of the new anti-idling laws at a much lower price than the units that manufacturers offer today.
I had a new APU installed on a new tractor about 18 months ago. I have had a lot of problems with my unit, which, putting it in simple terms, was over-engineered. I feel I wasted $8,000 for the unit because of the problems I have had with it — and because of the poor service network available to have it repaired.
I have been doing a lot of research, looking mostly at the different types of off-the-shelf equipment easily available to build a replacement APU. When the APU I have at present fails completely, I am ready to replace it for less than $2,000 with a system I have designed — a big savings.
So, before you invest in APUs for your one truck or fleet, it is best to look around and make your choice very cautiously. Spending big money is not necessary.
Richard Marsh
President
SpecializedCarrier.Com Inc.
Pahrump, Nev.
