Barbara Ehrenreich: Truckers Hit the Brakes

[marmar]

from The Nation:




editorial | posted April 7, 2008 (web only)
Truckers Hit the Brakes
Barbara Ehrenreich



Until the beginning of this month, Americans seemed to have nothing to say about their ongoing economic ruin except, "Hit me! Please, hit me again!" You can take my house, but let me mow the lawn for you one more time before you repossess. Take my job and I'll just slink off somewhere out of sight. Oh, and take my health insurance too; I can always fall back on Advil.

Then, on April 1, in a wave of defiance, truck drivers began taking the strongest form of action they can take: inaction. Faced with $4-per-gallon diesel fuel, they slowed down, shut down and started honking. On the New Jersey Turnpike, a convoy of trucks stretching "as far as the eye can see," according to a turnpike spokesman, drove at a glacial 20 miles per hour.

Outside of Chicago, they slowed and drove three abreast, blocking traffic and taking arrests. They jammed into Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; they slowed down the Port of Tampa, where fifty rigs sat idle in protest. Near Buffalo, one driver told the press he was taking the week off "to pray for the economy."

The truckers who organized the protests--by CB radio and Internet--have a specific goal: reducing the price of diesel fuel. They are owner-operators, meaning they are also businesspeople, and they can't break even with current fuel costs. They want the government to release its fuel reserves. They want an investigation into oil company profits and government subsidies of the oil companies. Of the drivers I talked to, all were acutely aware that the government had found, in the course of a weekend, $30 billion to bail out Bear Stearns, while their own businesses are in a tailspin.

But the truckers' protests have ramifications far beyond the owner-operators' plight--first, because trucking is hardly a marginal business. You may imagine, here in the blogosphere, that everything important travels at the speed of pixels bouncing off of satellites, but 70 percent of the nation's goods--from Cheerios to Chapstick--travel by truck. We were able to survive a writers' strike, but a trucking strike would affect a lot more than your viewing options. As Donald Hayden, a Maine trucker put it to me: "If all the truckers decide to shut this country down, there's going to be nothing they can do about it." .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/ehrenreich

[villager]

1. good points, but boy, do we need to start shipping most goods by rail, again

Of course, "gearing over" will take some time....

Can we assume the truckers will now quit voting against their own interests by casting GOP ballots?

[cynatnite]

2. There is no way we can...

Rail takes too long to ship and there is not enough to cover the country. That's not counting how expensive it would get to lay enough. Trucking is the most feasable way.

Also, the voting blocks in truckers is fairly equal to that of the rest of the country. It's not a majority despite the stereotypical view of a lot of folks.

[villager]

6. well, rail is far more efficient, fuel-wise, than trucking

I think the question would be how can we make the transition? After all, it's only interstate highways that allow trucking to happen - a massive subsidy, really.

So -- which infrastructure do we tend to first, in a Peak Oil world -- the interstates, or the rails?

Therein lies the question!

[cynatnite]

8. No, it is not...

Given how much product is shipped there is no way rail can ever be more efficient. It's not even the safest given the kind of products that are shipped from one place to another.

In order to supply rail to every one horse town in the country they would not only have to lay the tracks, they'd also have to build train yards, build depots and spend billions of dollars to subsidize companies like Burlington in order to meet these demands.

What needs to be done is to give technology some money and let them design trucks that are closer to hybrids or electrical vehicles. Putting the efforts in that is more economical and far better for the environment.

My husband is a trucker and I've worked as a shipper and dispatcher. We know this industry very well.

[A HERETIC I AM]

12. It is more efficient when moving a lot of the same thing to the same place....

In other words, 5000 containers from the Port of LA to Chicago. Since you have been in the business, I would think you agree with this point. Rail is extremely efficient in shipping a large quantity of the same thing over long distances. Take coal, for example. The trucking industry just can not compete with the railroads in moving coal. Same with large amounts of grains. Automobiles shipped over 1000 miles is another.

I completely agree with your basic premise, however. The infrastructure is heavily geared toward Motor Freight. Roads go everywhere. Rails don't.

I wonder how many DU'rs realize that there is not a single railroad company that offers service coast to coast. If you want to ship from LA to New York via rail, your merchandise is going to be moved by at least 2 railroad firms.

[cynatnite]

14. Okay, let me explain it this way...

There are some products that is ideal for rail. Coal being one and a few other bulk items. Not many, but a few. That's part of the reason why rail will never be more efficient.

For the most part...no, it is not nor will it ever be more efficient than trucking. Every day items that you use require trucks to transport them. Everything from air conditioners to plants to telephones and anything else that comes to mind has to go by truck. There is no way around it.

That's not to mention safety issues and how much more susceptable products traveling by rail are than by truck.

It is far less expensive and safer for the environment to have better trucks than what is available now. The newer trucks out there can now only take ultra low sulfur diesel which is better for the environment. This goes a long way in working to lower the emissions, but I think we can do a lot better. Money needs to be invested into designing trucks that can do the job they do now, but with far less of an environmental impact.

Expanding rail lines only hurts the environment and costs too much.

[A HERETIC I AM]

19. Ummmm....you're talking to a 20 year veteran OTR driver, here....

1.5mil miles, mostly dry van freight and cars, both on open-rack "Parkin' Lots" and Lift-Gate transporters - and 12 years involved in Motorsports driving trucks like this one;

1.5 mil miles in 20 years isn't much because trucks like the one above don't make money when they move. They only make it when sitting still. But for the record, I've also hauled Piggybacks and Containers in and out of rail yards and ports. I'm pretty familiar with the national freight transport system.
Just thought you might like to know I'm not quite the neophyte you may think I am.

[cynatnite]

20. I'm sorry. I wasn't intending to come across as condescending...

Nice pic! Husband is a big Nascar fan. He's at Bristol twice a year and this year he got in the pits. Not sure if he'll be so lucky in August.

[A HERETIC I AM]

22. Not a problem. You and I are on the same side of this argument.

I often see posts on threads on this or related topics suggesting that Rail is THE answer. It isn't. The fact is, pretty much all the freight that can be moved economically and efficiently by rail is already being moved that way. There are literally scores of trains a week leaving and entering the major metropolitan areas. There's 6 or more trains a day leaving the Port of L.A./Long Beach alone that are strictly containers, and they're pretty much all double-stack rail cars. Right up the road in Vernon, CA is one of the largest Piggyback facilities in the country.

But a short perusal of the BNSF or the UP website will reveal their shipping times from LA to Chicago or Oakland to Chicago exceeds 4 days. A single driver can do it legally in just over 3, a team in as little as 30 hours. For time sensitive cargo, the rails can not beat a tractor trailer. No way, no how. Not to mention the truck can take it directly to the consignee with no need for a piggy packer to lift it on and off the railcar.

If you have 10 container ships worth of units that need to get to the midwest and you aren't particular how long it takes to get them there, the railroad is your best bet. If you have a load of strawberries that got picked this morning in Oxnard and they have to get to a grocers warehouse outside New York in 2 days, you have to either fly them or send them by truck. Cynatnite, You and I and the few other truckers that post on this board know how they get sent.

BTW, Bristol is a neat track. The owners have certainly done a lot to improve it. I was there last in early 2006. Now that your Hubbs has gotten a Pit tour, he needs to find a Garage Pass. In NASCAR, those are not readily available to the public, but if he can land a connection through a corporate sponsor, its well worth it. Just don't get run over!

[villager]

21. I agree that's a problem (the "split rail" syndrome...)

We'd need a national initiative to get rail back where it needs to be, both on the freight -- and passenger -- sides of the equation.

I think trucks - on whatever fuel they can run on - would be helpful at the terminus points of rail lines, to get supplies to even smaller towns, etc...

[izquierdista]

16. Oh, you mean like Europe!

Where they didn't let the car companies lobby the railroads into non-existence. Yes, 60 years of not laying track, not upgrading rolling stock, not converting from diesel to electric, and letting the free market decide has turned out quite a stellar performance. No wonder the Euro zone has surpassed the US as the world's largest economic entity.

[Warpy]

7. A lot of things just can't be shipped by containers loaded onto

flatbed rail cars. Perishable foodstuffs are the first and foremost. Goods that are shipped where there are no rail lines, like north-south lines out west, must be shipped by truck no matter if they're perishable or not. Short hauls must be done by truck.

However, it is time to start improving the country's rail lines and putting together a seamless system: container shipping to container rail to distribution points throughout the country, taking the pressure off long haul truckers and the fuel supply, as well.

[cynatnite]

9. Environmentally safe trucks is the answer...not rails

I don't get why more don't see this. :shrug:

[Skittles]

3. LOL, taking a week off to "pray for the economy"

God will let thousands of children starve to death daily but HEY! there's a chance he MIGHT DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE HIGH COST OF GAS!!!

[gateley]

4. Woo Hoo! RECOMMEND!

These are American Heroes in my book -- Takes a lot of guts to do this.

Our entire COUNTRY needs a revolution.

[XOKCowboy]

5. Owner-Operators are a small percentage of truckers

Granted they are getting hit the worst. Most truckers work for large companies who'll just pass the increased shipping cost along to us eventually.

I'm afraid I agree with Thom Hartmann that most people, including truckers, can't afford to strike nowadays. They can't afford to miss work much less lose their job. I certainly agree that without trucks our grocery store shelves and gas stations (ironically) would be empty within days. I'm with them all the way but it's going to be a tough road.

[cynatnite]

10. They would ALL have to strike for at least a few days....

O/O and company drivers both. That would mean not buying fuel, no shipping and no deliveries. I think that's the only way it might work.

[WillowTree]

11. Their slow down...

....on a major expressway during the morning rush when people were trying to get their own butts to work here in Chicago made them no friends. They were trying to make a point, but it was lost because of the foolish way they went about it. Punishing people who are in no way responsible for their plight doesn't win supporters, it only antagonizes people.

[Fumesucker]

13. Not trying to be antagonistic..

Because I basically agree..

However, what would you have truckers do?

How can they get their point across without antagonizing the rest of the public?

Or is it even possible at all?

[cynatnite]

15. I would have preferred to see them put D.C. at a standstill...

I think doing that would have had a greater impact.

[XOKCowboy]

17. That would certainly prove the point but for how long?

Symbolic victory at best if they could pull it off. I think it would take a nationwide strike for it to be really effective.

[cynatnite]

18. I would love to see that n/t

[windbreeze]

23. IT would seem to me, that in today's society...unless and until something directly affects

a person...they pay it no mind...go Truckers go!! do whatever you gotta do...They're standing up and being counted...maybe the rest of us, who bitch about these fuel prices, while these oil companies post record earnings...ought to join the truckers... wb

[marmar]

24. "unless and until something directly affects a person"

Sad but true....

[Recursion]

25. A strike is precisely "punishing people who are in no way responsible"

I'm not sure how that is any different.