In this tight economy, it’s always a pleasure to see positive stories about trucking. I saw just that last week when I received a press release about a new company forming in Indiana.

Rapid Freight Solutions, a full-service transportation services company providing truckload, dedicated, less than truckload, expedited freight, specialized automobile transportation and intermodal container drayage service, was founded by sisters Megan Bissmeyer and Jenny Kehrer.

“Jenny and I are anxious and eager for the challenges that lie ahead of us,” said Megan, the company’s CEO. “Despite the recent downturn in the economy, there are endless opportunities in this industry, and although it won’t be easy, we are confident that we have put the right people and resources in place to be successful.”

The two are quickly proving they have the right stuff, sending their first load out on Sept. 18. The company expects to have 15 power units operational by the end of the year with plans to expand to 30 in 2010 and 50 the following year. Rapid Freight Solutions’ fleet will include dry vans, open car haulers, tankers and flatbeds. But more importantly, showcasing their smart business sense, the sisters, who both worked for Carmel, IN-based Performance Marketing Group for the past 14 years, purchased much of their equipment at reduced rates.

“We were able to establish the infrastructure of our company for a fraction of the cost we might have in years past through the selective purchase of our equipment,” said Jenny Kehrer, COO. “That will serve us well over the long run.”

Veteran industry presence Lenny Sales has been hired as operations and sales manager. And with more than 20 years of experience, Sales knows a winner when he sees one.

“Rapid Freight Solutions has a blueprint for success and a detailed plan in place for growth,” he said. “There is something at RFS that has long been missing in the transportation industry. This is a company with a vision of redefining how transportation should be approached - raising the bar in all aspects of the business and changing the entire perception of what a trucking company should look like and act like. It is no longer a race to see who can do the job the cheapest and hope to make a profit. It is building relationships with customers and employees alike and putting integrity back into the equation.”

The goal, Megan said, is to “create one of the finest transportation services in the nation that will emphasize quality, safety and performance.”

Whether the company succeeds in this difficult climate, we’ll have to wait and see. But it is certainly off on the right foot.

As trucking fleets continue looking for ways to cut costs while becoming greener, Recaptured Energy Technologies (RET) says it has a solution. A hydraulic braking and propulsion system that can be retrofitted onto your current vehicles.

The advantages of such a system, which use wasted brake energy and converts it into power used to propel the vehicle, is a reduction of fuel while also cutting emissions, the company says. According to RET, the hydraulic option is advantageous over hybrid electric alternatives because of its energy efficiency, enhanced acceleration characteristics and its retrofitting capability.

“The unique benefit of our system is that it can be retrofit to existing vehicles, so there is no need to purchase new alternative-energy vehicles that may not provide anticipated fuel economy,” says Sam Jones, president of Recaptured Energy Technologies. “Because the system is specifically designed to be retrofit, existing vehicles will see lower emissions, less engine management and reduced fuel consumption.”

Jones also touts the economic benefits of retrofit technologies.

“Retrofitting existing vehicles makes economic and environmental sense and would create jobs immediately as the evaluation and conversion process could begin right away,” Jones says. “Purchasing new hybrid vehicles is a costly endeavor and does not bring jobs to the area.”

Of course, RET would prefer you choose the retrofit option as that’s what it’s banking its livelihood on. Ask a provider of new vehicles which option is best and they will tout a new hybrid, citing its advantages. Either way, though, the environment wins. And with grants and tax credits available, the final choice may have a lot less to do with short-term economics and a lot more to do with what makes the best long-term business sense.

Biodiesel is growing in popularity around the world as an alternative fuel source. Those facts are indisputable. How much the fuel can grow, though, is widely up for debate.

Because biodiesel is derived from feedstock, be it ethanol, corn, waste, or some other product, there are wide variations in quality and supply. New standards by ASTM are helping to standardize the fuel. And as more and more manufacturers certify the use of biodiesel in their vehicles, the fuel is likely only going to become more popular.

The Energy Information Administration predicts that the use of biofuels will reach 5.9 million barrels per day worldwide by 2030, with the U.S. using 1.9 million of those, up from just 0.3 million in 2006. The report, though, mentions that this increase is supported by legislation in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which mandates the increased use of biofuels.

But, for some, including New York-based renewable energy company Innovation Fuels’ CEO John Fox, there needs to be more help provided. Speaking at the European Biodiesel 2009 Conference in Prague, Czech Republic, Fox called on governments to provide support to spread the use of the fuel.

“Because fuel products are international, biodiesel companies need to have a global reach with a localized presence,” he said. “The major factors to growing our business are without question, feedstock flexibility and the ability to create biodiesel blends for end customers as an understanding of this early on has greatly contributed to the success we have had.”

He outlined the three areas that need to be addressed: geographic depth, strong institutional funding and vertical integration along the supply chain, adding that “government support is essential” for both U.S. and European suppliers.

Fox, unlike some people today, realizes that to lessen our dependence on oil, we need the cooperation of all parties around the world, from industry leaders to government leaders and everybody in between.

Is biodiesel the solution to our problems? Maybe, maybe not. But people like Fox are at least trying to find one.

I read a fascinating article this morning in the Wall Street Journal regarding Ford’s Transit Connect and how the company is circumventing the ridiculous “Chicken Tax” that has been in place since the 1960s.

If the government wants to help small business owners – the same people Ford is targeting with the imported Transit Connect - it needs to repeal the Chicken Tax.

According to the Journal article, to work around the tax, which puts a 25% tariff on delivery vans imported from Europe, Ford ships the vehicles to the U.S. with seats and windows in place. The vans, called “wagons,” are then not subjected to the 25% tariff. Instead, Ford pays a 2.5% tariff.

After workers remove the seats and windows and make the necessary modifications to the vehicles, they are shipped to dealers as the Transit Connect delivery van, the article says. The tariff savings, apparently to Ford, makes it cost-effective to waste the materials and labor to do this.

One worker at a Baltimore plant that converts the “wagons” into “vans” was quoted by the Journal and probably summed it up best: “I never thought about why we take out the seats, but if that’s what the customer wants, that’s what we’ll give them,” Mayso Lawrence said.

Only Ford knows how much this adds to the cost of the vans, but make no mistake, there is a cost. It may not be as high as it would be if there was a 25% tariff in place, but the American consumer still pays.

The Chicken Tax was retaliation from President Johnson in 1963 after Europe began putting high tariffs on U.S. chicken shipped to Europe. But this is no longer a comical matter. It’s costing small businesses in the U.S. real money. But, if that’s what the government wants, that’s what the government gets.

According to Matt Stone, who writes a blog for Motor Trend, rumor has it that the new Fiat/Chrysler partnership may be the end of the Cummins-powered diesel engine in the Dodge Ram. I sure hope not.

Fiat, which just announced it will be sending the Dodge Sprinter back to Mercedes, might be bringing over a few of its vans to sell here. Gualberto Ranieri, vp of public relations for the Chrysler and Fiat partnership, told Bloomberg News the company is considering selling either the Fiat Ducato or the Daily – or maybe both – here in the U.S. Those vans are made by Iveco, a Fiat subsidiary.

But back to Cummins. The loss of the engine business, of course, would be a hit for Cummins, which recently has begun calling furloughed workers back to the job. There were 245,840 Dodge Rams sold in 2008, many of them with Cummins engines.

But just as importantly, it might mean the end of the heavy duty Rams with Cummins powered engines. That would be a shame as many people swear by Cummins power.

Fiat, in this country, is more associated with cars than anything else. From a public relations standpoint, while I know Fiat will want to use its own technologies, and I have no doubt that Fiat’s diesels are quality engines – after all, the company has plenty of experience in Europe running diesels and operates one of the largest commercial truck businesses in the world in Iveco - I’m just not sure how well a Fiat diesel pickup will sell here. I can imagine the sales pitch now: “The new 2011 Dodge Ram. The truck that runs with the hum of a car. Only from Fiat.”

Doesn’t really say power now does it?

It’s a subject that is often taken for granted. Except for those injured by lift trucks. Lift trucks are vital to the operations of warehouses and, if not used properly, also very deadly.

For anyone who operates a lift truck, or employers who utilize lift trucks in their operation, I don’t need to tell you that. But, there are organizations out there that can help. In North America, the Industrial Truck Association is gearing up for its fall conference, to be held Oct. 24 through Oct. 26, in Austin, TX. Undoubtably a wonderful opportunity to network and learn more about the industry. You must be an ITA member to attend, but like any industry organization, the experiences and lessons you can learn from others far outweigh any potential costs of attending.

ITA, though, can be just a starting place to learn about safety. Manufacturers, such as Toyota Material Handling, Clark Material Handling, CAT Lift Trucks and others, can serve as wonderful resources.

In England, the Fork Lift Truck Association is readying for its Safety Week from Sept. 21-27. As part of that, the organization’s web site offers free tips, tools, and other resources to support lift truck safety. Tips that can be beneficial to all.

Unfortunately, most injuries involving lift trucks occur not the operator, but to innocent bystanders. A little safety knowledge can go a long way.

The Teamsters, trucking trade magazines, bloggers (including myself) and now the Huffington Post. All are weighing in on the issue of Mexican trucks operating within the U.S. border.

Ever since the U.S. launched the cross-border demonstration project, and then unceremoniously killed it earlier this year, the issue of Mexican trucks has been a hot-button issue. A U.S. Dept. of Transportation Inspector General report released publically this week sheds more light on the subject.

A couple areas of the report caught my attention, including one aspect that I believe tells the “real” story, if you read between the lines, as to why there are so many opponents of the program.

The first item of note is the lack of consistency in rules. In a 2007 report, the Inspector General noted that California was moving to adopt a 2002 Interim Final Rule that would require states to place Mexican vehicles out of service for violations of specific Federal motor carrier regulations. As of this report, that still has not happened.

“According to FMCSA, California still has not adopted the rule, but continues to use an equivalent rule. Instead of putting a violator out of service, California can either fine the violator $1,000 or order the violator to return the vehicle to the country of origin. In addition to assessing a fine against violators, California may also impound the vehicle and its cargo until the fine and impoundment charges are paid. FMCSA stated that it considers California’s requirement that the vehicle be impounded to be compatible with its rule.”

Based on this interpretation by FMCSA, it only adds fuel to the fire for opponents, particularly the Teamsters, who claim that unsafe Mexican trucks would be on U.S. roads, putting lives at jeopardy. Of course it would. If trucks that should otherwise be put out of service for violations are allowed to continue to operate on U.S. roads; that puts lives at risk. It also calls into question the program. How can anyone objectively determine whether allowing Mexican trucks beyond the commercial border zones is appropriate if we can’t even get our own rules consistent? Imagine how Mexican carriers feel? Which rules do they follow? And in what states do they have to follow them? No wonder there is so much confusion.

The report also details out-of-service rates for U.S.-based and Mexican-based carriers inspected by U.S. inspectors. And do you know what it finds? There is no major difference in the rates. There is, though, a major difference in the average number of inspections per carrier. U.S. domiciled carriers faced an average of eight inspections each in all years from 2006 to 2008 with out-of-service rates of 22.3% in 2006, 21.7% in 2007 and 21.8% in 2008. Mexican-based companies faced 46 inspections per carrier in 2006 with a 20.9% out-of-service rate. In 2007, the numbers were 48 and 21.6% and 51 and 21.2% in 2008.

Also of note was the percentage of drivers placed out of service due to license violations. U.S. based drivers were put out at the rate of 7.3%, 7.2% and 6.9% from 2006 to 2008, respectively. Their Mexican counterparts? How about 1.2%, 1% and 1.2%. That’s mighty interesting. Again, though, it’s difficult to draw conclusions on the license violators because some states report the data in a timely manner, some do months later and some don’t bother to report the violators at all. It’s up to individual states to determine their own reporting practices.

“During our audit, we reviewed 11 truck inspection crossings and 5 bus inspection crossings and found that FMCSA continues to have the capacity to conduct meaningful truck and driver inspections at the southern border,” the report said. Since the report notes that FMCSA has enough auditors in place to conduct hours of service checks and “meaningful inspections” at 25 commercial border crossings, we can only conclude that “unsafe” Mexican trucks would not be driving on U.S. highways. Taking that a step further, if the arguments of the Teamsters and others are based on safety, as they say, then these numbers would dispel that myth. Instead, maybe opponents of the program should say what their real agenda is – that they’re afraid Mexican drivers, who work for less pay than their U.S. counterparts, would take jobs south of the border. That’s what this whole argument is really about.

You can read the full report here.

So much for small cars.

We’ve been told for months now that the biggest problem with the U.S. automakers has been the lack of fuel efficient, smaller cars that the American public was demanding due to higher gasoline prices. Some of that is likely true. Just not in the case of the Ford F-Series pickups.

Ford announced late last week that it would add a third shift at its Dearborn, MI, plant to meet increased demand for its popular F-Series. According to one of our sister publications WardsAuto.com, Ford was expected to post its first year-over-year sales increase for the F-Series since October 2006 – nearly three years ago – when it announces its August sales figures this week.

According to Wards, Ford will produce 10,000 more F-150s than originally planned because of demand. That means that 2,800 workers who had been working two-weeks on, one-week off schedules will return to full time employment.

And just today, Ford announced it will now produce its own diesel engines for its Super Duty pickup, starting with the 2011 model year. Navistar had been supplying diesel engines for the truck, but Ford put an end to that relationship last year.

The company said the engine will be a 6.7-liter turbocharged V-8 and will meet all 2010 EPA emissions guidelines when it debuts.