Trucks at Work Blog

“If there’s a filing by Chrysler today, it will create a great deal of uncertainty for the industry and suppliers.” –Bill Kohlder, co-chair, Butzel Long’s Global Automotive Practice, as told to Reuters after Chrysler LLC announced it will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

So it’s come to this: Chrysler LLC couldn’t restructure its debts with bondholders and so must file for bankruptcy protection. It’s been a long, sad road for Chrysler thus far and now we enter a new and more worrisome chapter – especially for those fleets that rely on Dodge-branded light trucks to do business.

Here’s why bankruptcy may prove to be more harm than good when all is said and done: in a recent poll, the majority of consumers said they don’t want to buy vehicles from a bankrupt automaker. And without buyers, Chrysler – and any other automaker that goes down this road – would have no hope for recovery.

In a new study, advertising research firm Ad-ology found that 21% of the consumers it surveyed said they DEFINITELY would NOT consider buying a car from an automaker considering bankruptcy, with another 28.6% saying they PROBABLY would NOT consider buying a car from a struggling manufacturer.

Note that Ad-ology surveyed an online consumer panel of 1,225 adults in a manner that is 98% representative of the U.S. adult population from April 24-29, 2009, with the margin of error in this survey is +/- 2.2 percentage points.

Of consumers who would consider buying a car from a struggling automaker “only if they got a great deal,” 38.6% said a deeply discounted price and 38.8% said a discounted/free extended warranty would make a purchase more likely, the group reported.

“It’s not just out of sight, out of mind: It is worse,” said C. Lee Smith, president and CEO of Ad-ology Research. “Whether it’s GM, Chrysler or individual dealerships, the auto industry must stay top-of-mind to rebuild consumer confidence.”

Another hurdle for automakers is that 46% of the consumers in Ad-ology’s survey view a company’s products or services much less or somewhat less favorably after an announcement of a large number of layoffs.

The reaction from the investment community is none too positive either, according to interviews by reporters from Reuters.

“Bankruptcy will damage the Chrysler brand and that is regrettable,” noted Brian Bethune, an economist with IHS Global Insight. “The government has to think carefully about how long they can bleed Chrysler out. They need to bring some fresh blood there to lead this company.”

“If it ends up being bankruptcy, why have we wasted all our time? Has the government’s political process been of any benefit at all other than to waste a lot of time and money, and do we have to suffer this for every other bankruptcy?” wondered Andrew Kanaly, chairman of the Kanaly Trust Co.

“Bankruptcy is not new. It’s been there all along. For some reason these days the government seems to be the only remedy when we have plenty of remedies available to us,” he told Reuters. “Maybe this is a pattern that we are going to see for Ford, GM, maybe Bank of America, maybe Citi – a whole lot of hand waving, a whole lot of talking, a whole lot of hand wringing, when the bottom line is.”

Kanaly believes we should just let such “failed institutions” go so the nation as a whole can get on down the road to recovery.

“It’s no shocker. If you bought a Chrysler a year-ago you knew you had an issue,” he said. “The American [consumer] has already voted with their feet by virtue of their purchases. They are driving down in their Honda.”

Still, it is the contention of others such as Jeff Kleintop, chief market strategist at LP Financial, that the certainty of even a bankruptcy is better than the uncertainty of not knowing where this is going to go or how deep the cuts or layoffs at Chrysler might end up being.

“The fact that it’s moving toward bankruptcy, the range of possibilities is being narrowed and the market always prefers certainty over uncertainty, even if it means the certainty of a negative outcome,” he said. “The market is looking forward for the first time in quite a long time, and so the near-term issues around what happens with the automakers, or even the stress tests with the banks, have taken back seat to a bigger picture view by the American investor.”

Time will tell of course if Chrysler survives this latest chapter in its ever-more rocky history, or gives up the ghost for good.

“It is about encouraging investment in safety through the purchase and installation of technologies on trucks and buses that have been tested and proven to work.” –Stephen F. Campbell, executive director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

It’s quite ironic that I’m again writing about yet another Congressional legislative attempt to provide tax credits to trucking fleets for investing in safety systems.

Despite the ongoing ballyhoo over improving truck safety, reducing truck-car crashes and fatalities, despite all the rhetoric and diatribes, it’s proved impossible to actually get legislation passed that would directly address the truck safety issue head on.

The reintroduction of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Advanced Safety Technology Tax Act of 2009 (H.R. 2024) amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit against income tax to help accelerate the adoption of advanced safety systems not just for commercial vehicles, but for school and transit buses.

The systems covered in this bill – reintroduced by Representatives Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Geoff Davis (R-KY), backed by the 10 original sponsors of this legislation last year – include brake stroke monitoring systems, vehicle stability systems, lane departure warning systems, plus collision warning systems.

The legislation encompasses both the original equipment (OE) and aftermarket installation of these safety systems and also:

• Creates a tax credit for fleet owners valued at 50 percent of the retail cost of the system with a maximum of $1,500 per technology;

• Allows fleets to purchase multiple technologies, but limit the total amount of credit permissible to $3,500 per vehicle; and,

• Allows the overall tax credit for each truck owner or trucking company of up to $350,000 per year for all covered technology purchases.

“It is about encouraging investment in safety through the purchase and installation of technologies on trucks and buses that have been tested and proven to work,” says Stephen F. Campbell, executive director of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), which has actively supported this tax credit effort. “It will reduce the deaths occurring from the most prevalent truck and bus crash types on our highways, which have been hovering around 5,000 per year for the last decade.”

This effort is really a no brainer – and its received support from both the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the past, with NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker specifically pointing out in testimony before Congress last eyar that the quickest way to promote widespread use of motor vehicle safety technologies was through this tax incentive approach.

Will it work this time? That’s the big unanswerable, isn’t it? But it would be a shame to see such an effort fall by the wayside again – an effort that could dramatically change the safety picture for commercial vehicles and buses alike on our highways in a very short amount of time.

“So much of this is outside their control. You can restructure, restructure, restructure, but if auto sales don’t rebound, then unless you have zero debt, they’re not going to survive.” –Shelly Lombard, auto industry analyst for debt research firm Gimme Credit

Being witness to the agonies of General Motors and Chrysler is heart wrenching right now. These are icons of America’s not-so-distant past, you know – manufacturers that used to produce vehicles envied the world over.

They still build better light trucks (in my estimation at least) than their European and Asian rivals – GM’s Sierra and Silverado pickups, along with Dodge’s Ram line and Ford Motor Co.’s venerable F-150 are still the models to beat in this segment. But as we all know, those are precisely the wrong models for a nation trying to get its energy policy house in order – as far as vehicles the average motorist should drive for commuting to work, etc., to get the best fuel economy.

Even if GM and Chrysler do survive their respective fiscal deadlines (GM is trying to restructure $44 billion in debt by June 1, while Chrysler has $7 billion to rework by this Friday) the largest challenge they – and the entire automotive industry for that matter – must hurdle is, at least for the moment, almost insurmountable: customers must buy cars and light trucks; a LOT of them. Yet people aren’t. So no matter what they do in the short term in terms of debt, shutting down factories and killing off extraneous brands, without sales, GM and Chrysler have no rungs on the ladder to climb out of the hole they’re in.

3M Car Care’s second annual Elbow Grease Economics report, released this week, starkly illustrates this basic conundrum. The study of 1,835 U.S. car owners by Harris Interactive found that the majority (55%) are planning on keeping their cars longer and have no plans to trade in or sell their current car at this time, with 84% saying they are committed to doing the maintenance needed to keep them running.

Nearly one-fifth (19%) of car owners used to think they could just go buy a new car if necessary, but now they say they know they can’t afford it. And this is even higher – 25% – among Baby Boomers ages 45 to 54, reflecting their concerns over pending retirement and tight household budgets.

At the same time, there is pent-up demand for new cars, as more than two-fifths (42%) of those surveyed in #M Car Care’s report are considering trading or selling their current car for another model but haven’t done so yet. The reasons are varied: the largest group (at 21%) trust their current car; 19% aren’t confident in the economy or do not want to take out another loan; 10% aren’t sure what will happen with the “Big Three” U.S. automakers; 5% cannot get an auto loan; and 4% say their loan payout is larger than their car’s value – but for men and women ages 35 to 44, this increases to 8 % and 14% respectively.

Vehicle maintenance is more of a priority than ever before for car owners, particularly as the average age of American vehicles reaches nine years old, 3M Car Care reported. Yet here again, U.S. car owners are trying to cut the costs of vehicle ownership – by driving less and by shifting to do-it-yourself (DIY) maintenance more frequently.

One-quarter (25%) said they pay more attention to the maintenance needs of their car now, compared to two years ago, the study noted, with 27% performing car maintenance themselves or having friends or family members do it. Some 6% of these respondents have just started doing their car maintenance themselves after having it done professionally in the past – a statistic that increases to 9% for car owners ages 18 to 25.

3M Car Care’s research also found 29% of car owners are doing small maintenance tasks themselves, such as oil changes and light bulb replacements. That rate is even higher for owners ages 18 to 34 with 43% of men and 37% of women tackling minor DIY tasks, with 43% of households making less than $35,000 annually jumping on the DIY bandwagon.

Even driving habits have changed significantly – and these may be more permanent shifts in behavior than we think. More than half (56%) of car owners survey in the 3M Car Care’s study are driving differently today than they did two years ago, with 40% driving less to save on gas costs and vehicle wear-and-tear. For those making less than $35,000 annually, it increases to 52%. A further 20% are driving less aggressively to protect the engine, with 5% of all respondents carpooling whenever they can – a rate that triples to 15% among those ages 18 to 25.

These reasons are why the annual global sales rate for cars and light trucks plummeted from some 16 million units down to 9.2 million in the space of one year – and may remain there for some time.

It’s why GM is eliminating 21,000 more jobs, closing down 13 factories, and phasing out the venerable Pontiac brand (a top seller, right behind Cadillac and Chevrolet) in 2010 – less than a year away.

It’s why GM eventually expects to have only 38,000 union workers and 34 factories in the U.S., compared with 395,000 workers in more than 150 plants back in 1970.

It’s why the U.S. government is going to be – at least temporarily – the majority shareholder in both GM and Chrysler as the two automakers try to stave off bankruptcy.

It’s why, at the end of the day, this all may be for naught as people simply won’t buy new cars, unable to risk their precious savings – battered by a housing meltdown, fiscal shenanigans by Wall Street, and rising unemployment.

“With [this program], California is embarking on a fundamental transformation of its transportation system to substantially decrease greenhouse gas emissions and petroleum use.” –James Boyd, vice chairman, California Energy Commission, on the golden state’s adoption of the group’s Alternative and Renewable Fuels and Vehicle Technology Program.

There’s been a saying lately in transportation circles (and not always a kindly one) that “as California goes, so goes the nation.” From mandating a wholesale switch to ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) to fuel economy standards, California has blazed a unique trail when it comes to the regulatory impact on its (and our nation’s) transportation strategy – a trail both liked and loathed in equal measure by truckers.

Now the golden state is adding a new wrinkle with the adoption of the California Energy Commission’s extremely far-reaching Alternative and Renewable Fuels and Vehicle Technology Program – a program that provides $176 million of funding over the next two years to “stimulate” green transportation projects and “encourage innovation” to help meet the state’s aggressive climate change policies.

“Vehicles are the major contributor to global warming pollution [and] more than 38 percent of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in California come from burning gasoline and diesel in cars and trucks,” noted James Boyd, the group’s vice chairman. “[This plan] promotes sustainable development. With it, California is embarking on a fundamental transformation of its transportation system to substantially decrease greenhouse gas emissions and petroleum use.”

California is making aggressive moves on a number of transportation fronts right now: working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, decrease petroleum fuel use to 15 percent below 2003 levels by 2020, and increase alternative fuel use to 20 percent by 2020.

Boyd noted that achieving these multiple objectives will require a portfolio of new fuels and vehicle technologies including electric drive and fuel cell vehicles, low-carbon biofuels, gasoline and diesel vehicles with far greater fuel economy, along with natural gas and propane vehicles.

That’s why the Energy Commission’s plan is using its share of the federal stimulus package money to expand the use of low carbon fuels and cleaner vehicles that are available today and open up the market for the more exotic technologies that are required in the future.

To accomplish those lofty goals, a lot of big bucks are goping to be spent over the next two years:

• Investing $46 million for electric vehicles, public charging stations, and manufacturing plants;

• Some $40 million for hydrogen fueling stations;

• About $12 million for advanced ethanol fuel production facilities and E-85 fueling stations;

• Another $43 million for natural gas vehicles, fueling stations and biomethane production facilities;

• However, only $6 million will be spent on advanced renewable diesel and biodiesel facilities, with just $2 million for propane vehicles.

The plan also directs $27 million go to fund workforce training programs, research, public education and technical assistance programs – over four times the amount being spent on renewable diesel infrastructure.

The big unknown right now is what mandates California might develop to help spur further development and use of all these different propulsion methods – and regulatory mandates are a favorite tool of the golden state.

Right now, for example, California’s truckers face several fuel-saving and emission-related mandates, including first-of-their-kind standards for trailer aerodynamics approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) this year that go into effect in stages beginning Jan. 1 2010: stating that most 53-foot dry vans operating in the golden state must be equipped with aerodynamic devices that improve fuel efficiency by at least 5%, while for refrigerated trailers the benchmark is 4%.

It remains to be seen if such regulatory mandates will play a future role in broadening the California Energy Commission’s alternative fuel program. What is for sure that it sure seems the golden state is firmly committed to this plan for the long haul.

“We are a growing nation, adding 150 million people every 50 years [and] 90% of miles traveled by Americans in this vast country are on highways. To meet the nation’s needs we must preserve the highway and transit systems built over the last century and add capacity to keep America competitive in the world economy and meet growing mobility needs here at home.” –John Horsley, executive director, Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

The Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) released big, fat report today called “The Bottom Line” that makes for some interesting reading – especially in terms of the money we’re supposedly going to need to keep our roads in good shape.

By 2015, the reports states, governments at all levels will need to more than double their spending on highways and bridges to keep up with increased traffic, freight congestion, the demands of aging highways and bridges, and the growth of the nation’s population – with transit spending would need to triple to serve increased ridership.

As a result, AAHSTO and APTA said an annual investment of $166 billion for highways and bridges is necessary between 2010 and 2015 to improve the condition and performance of the system – given an expected rate of travel growth of 1.4 percent per year. If travel growth is held to about 1.0 percent a year, which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then needed investment to improve the highway system would come to $132 billion per year.

However, in 2006, highway capital investment from all levels of government totaled just $78.7 billion, according to data collected by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). If transit ridership grows yearly by 3.5 percent, investment would have to increase to $59 billion annually as transit investment funding totaled just $13.3 billion in 2006.

This is – to put it nicely – a VERY steep set of price tags, ones that would be tough to meet even if the U.S.A. was flush with cash. But we’re not, of course – we’re about $10 trillion in debt as a nation right now, on course to hit $11 trillion or more before the year is out due to expensive bailouts of our financial system, stimulus package tax breaks and spending, while funding a whole host of ongoing entitlements that could very well bankrupt us for good down the road.

Still, based on population growth predictions and freight projections, we can’t afford to do nothing.

As John Horsley, AASHTO’s executive director, noted above our nation’s population is adding 150 million people every 50 years – and 90% percent of miles traveled by Americans in this vast country are on highways.

The FHWA reports that since the mid 1990s, highway travel in the nation has grown just under 12 percent. After growing from 2.4 trillion vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 1995 to over 3 trillion VMT in 2007, because of record high fuel prices and the decline of the economy VMT declined to 2.9 trillion by late 2008.

But future highway travel demand will depend on many factors. The U.S. population is expected to grow from 305 million in 2005 to over 420 million by 2050, while freight shipped by truck is expected to nearly double in the next 20 years.

Passenger vehicle demand is expected to parallel population growth, which is increasing around 1% per year, even as truck freight demand is expected to parallel economic growth, which is expected to increase between 2% and 3% per year. While VMT grew at over two percent annually during the last two decades, over the next twenty years it is expected to grow 1% to 1.4% per year. That, my friends, is a lot of traffic.

The same record amount of usage is occurring for public transit providers, added William Millar, APTA’s president. “Americans are riding public transportation at record levels, with 10.7 billion trips taken in 2008, the highest in 52 years,” he explained. “If we are to meet this growing demand, as well as meet our country’s economic, energy and environmental challenges, the U.S. must significantly increase public transit investment to the levels recommended in this report.”

So we need to do something, yet are strapped for cash at the same time. This is a tough nut to crack, as the old saying goes – how we crack it successfully, despite the economic limitations we’re under, will require some really innovative thinking.

“Financial conditions in the mature markets are projected to improve only slowly, as insolvency concerns are diminished by greater clarity over losses on bad assets and injections of public capital, and counterparty risks and market volatility are reduced.” –IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard

There are two ways to view the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook released yesterday in terms of freight.

One takes a decidedly gloomy view, as the IMF predicting global economic output to decline by 1.3 percent in 2009 – with “advanced economies” forecast to contract by 3.8 percent and the U.S. economy shrinking by 2.8 percent. Economic recovery should begin until 2010, but at a estimated 1.9 percent, it would be sluggish relative to past recoveries, noted Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s chief economist.

“While the rate of contraction should moderate from the second quarter of 2009 onward, output per capita is projected to decline in countries representing three-quarters of the global economy,” he said at a press conference yesterday.

“The world economy was being battered by competing crosscurrents, with the collapse in confidence and demand continuing to pull the economy down and government stimulus measures and natural stabilization mechanisms pulling the economy up,” he added. “This is not the time for complacency, and the need for strong policies, both on the macro and especially on the financial fronts, is as acute as ever.”

From that perspective, freight volumes – both on a global basis and within the U.S. – are going to stay in the cellar for a long stretch here. When economic activity is negative on this scale – as it is now – freight simply evaporates, and we’ve got two and half quarters to go of an environment like this.

The second way to look at things, though, is to take a more positive view – one that Blanchard himself espoused at the IMF’s press conference yesterday. “There is light at the end of this long tunnel,” he said. “World growth can turn positive by the end of this year, and unemployment can start decreasing by the end of next year.”

Blanchard said he could see the balance shifting towards the end of this year, with growth in advanced countries becoming positive again in 2010, then returning to their normal level around the end of 2010. Unemployment should crest only toward the end of 2010, however, and should decrease after that.

The IMF’s outlook also noted that emerging and developing economies should still see positive growth this year of 1.6 percent, bouncing back to 4.0 percent next year. Sub-Saharan Africa will remain in positive territory at 1.7 percent in 2009, recovering to 3.9 percent next year. That activity should, in turn, fuel international trade and thus global freight volumes – potentially giving a lift to U.S. freight volumes as well.

Probably the best news is that the worst is most likely behind us. The IMF reported that advanced economies (that includes the U.S.) experienced an unprecedented 7½ percent decline in real GDP during the fourth quarter of last year, with output estimated to fall almost as fast during the first quarter of 2009.

Emerging economies, too, suffered badly and contracted 4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 in the aggregate, with the damage inflicted through both financial and trade channels, particularly to east Asian countries that rely heavily on manufacturing exports and the emerging European and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) economies, which have depended on strong capital inflows to fuel growth, the IMF noted.

Yet – as I noted before – that’s done with; over. The issue now is dealing effectively with the fallout of such a brutal economic collapse. And the way the IMF sees it, the critical element going forward is access to the “working capital” necessary for businesses to operate.

“Across the world, banks are limiting access to credit – and will continue to do so – as the overhang of bad assets and uncertainty about which institutions will remain solvent keep private capital on the sidelines,” the group said in its outlook. “Funding strains have spread well beyond short-term bank funding markets in advanced economies. Many nonfinancial corporations are unable to obtain working capital, and some are having difficulty raising longer-term debt.”

The broad retrenchment of foreign investors and banks from emerging economies and the resulting buildup in funding pressures are particularly worrisome, IMF’s Blanchard noted: as a result, new securities issues have come to a virtual stop, bank-related flows have been curtailed, bond spreads have soared, equity prices have dropped, and exchange markets have come under heavy pressure.

“Beyond a general rise in risk aversion, this reflects a range of adverse factors, including the damage done to advanced economy banks and hedge funds, the desire to move funds under the ‘umbrella’ provided by the increasing provision of guarantees in mature markets, and rising concerns about the economic prospects and vulnerabilities of emerging economies,” the IMF noted in its report.

The two biggest risks in all this, however, impact the global freight transportation industry the most – especially if “protectionism” rears its ugly head, the IMF said.

“This difficult and uncertain outlook argues for forceful action on both the financial and macroeconomic policy fronts,” the group noted in its outlook. “Past episodes of financial crisis have shown that delays in tackling the underlying problem mean an even more protracted economic downturn and even greater costs, both in terms of taxpayer money and economic activity.”

But policymakers must be mindful of the cross-border ramifications of policy choices, the IMF warned. “Initiatives that support trade and financial partners—including fiscal stimulus flows—will help support global demand, with shared benefits,” it said. “Conversely, a slide toward trade and financial protectionism would be hugely damaging to all, a clear warning from the experience of 1930s beggar-thy-neighbor policies.”

In the end, the IMF believes the greatest policy priority at this juncture is financial sector restructuring. “Convincing progress on this front is crucial for an economic recovery to take hold and would significantly enhance the effectiveness of monetary and fiscal stimulus,” the group stated.

So there you have it – predictions and suggestions from the IMF’s crystal ball. The key takeaway for U.S. truckers could be this: if the world’s nations make a concerted and coordinated effort to repair their financial sectors and do not engage in protectionist activity in terms of trade, the global economy should recover – albeit by next year, at a very slow pace.

“It’s easy to think ‘that other guy is the problem’ … the one who runs someone off the road, tailgates, or yells obscenities. In reality, examples of driving aggressively – any of which can lead to crashes, injuries and deaths – are all too common.” –Peter Kissinger, president and CEO, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

That “aggressive driving” is a huge problem and daily danger on the roads these days is going to come as absolutely no surprise to truck drivers. Lord knows, I’ve talked to PLENTY of truckers about the at-times unbelievable behavior of four-wheelers in and around their rigs, so it’s well-discussed situation.

Now, however, there’s yet more statistical proof as to how bad a problem aggressive driving really is out there on the roadways. According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety most recent analysis of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data, speeding is the most common contributing factor and is involved in nearly one in three deadly crashes – and that as many as 56% of deadly vehicle crashes involve one or more unsafe driving behaviors typically associated with aggressive driving.

Examples of “aggressive driving” include (but are not limited to) running stop signs or red lights, preventing other drivers from passing, speeding, illegal driving on the shoulder, and failing to yield, noted Peter Kissinger, the AAA Foundation’s president and CEO.

Aggressive driving is also apparently one of America’s main traffic safety worries, as a “Traffic Safety Culture Index” telephone survey conducted by the AA Foundation found nearly eight out of every 10 people surveyed rated aggressive drivers as a serious or extremely serious traffic safety problem.

Yet, in the same survey, many individuals reported driving in ways that could be deemed aggressive. For example, nearly half of drivers reported exceeding the speed limit by 15 mph on major highways in the past 30 days, and 15% even admitted exceeding the speed limit by 15 mph on neighborhood streets. “This reflects the ‘Do as I Say, Not as I Do’ attitude society has toward traffic safety,” Kissinger stressed.

That’s why he thinks this study should be a “wake up call” to ALL motorists – to help everyone reevaluate their own driving behavior, and ultimately to improve this country’s traffic safety culture.

“If you find yourself driving slowly in the passing lane, tailgating, or doing other things to teach the other driver a lesson, you are also part of the problem,” said Kissinger. “An aggressive driving act by one driver can trigger a disproportionate and potentially violent reaction from another driver.”

Isn’t THAT the truth! More importantly, though, is the enormous COST vehicle crashes place on our society as a whole – and its behavior like aggressive driving that’s responsible for that monetary burden.

In another AAA report I wrote about last year – entitled “Crashes vs. Congestion: What‘s the Cost to Society?” – the group hired Cambridge Systematics to analyze research conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute and found vehicle crashes cost a staggering $164.2 billion per YEAR in the U.S. – nearly two and a half times greater than the $67.6 billion annual price tag resulting from traffic congestion.

According to that AAA study, the $164.2 billion cost for crashes equates to an annual per person cost of $1,051, compared to $430 per person annually for congestion. These safety costs include medical, emergency and police services, property damage, lost productivity, and quality of life, among other things.

“Nearly 43,000 people die on the nation’s roadways each year,” said Robert Darbelnet, AAA’s president and CEO, at the time. “Yet, the annual tally of motor vehicle-related fatalities barely registers as a blip in most people‘s minds. It‘s time for motor vehicle crashes to be viewed as the public health threat they are. If there were two jumbo jets crashing every week, the government would ground all planes until we fixed the problem. Yet we’ve come to accept this sort of death toll with car crashes.”

Darbelnet‘s comments I think strike a particularly important note here – heck, I‘ve harped on the same theme myself. It just seems the general public in this country is totally blasé about the consequences of vehicle crashes, much less the act of driving itself as evidenced by the high rates of aggressive driving out there.

“It states what we in the highway safety field have known all along – traffic crashes are not only a leading cause of death and life-changing injuries, they‘re also a serious drain on the economy nationwide,” said Cathy Gillen, managing director of the Roadway Safety Foundation.

The question we need to answer, however, is this: when are drivers as individuals ready to make the attitudinal changes necessary to eliminate the behaviors that lead to vehicle crashes? You make vehicles and roadways as safe as you want, but without a serious attitude adjustment about behavior behind the wheel, none of that will move the traffic safety needle much.

“Larger vehicles need hybridization to save fuel and cut emissions. But larger vehicles are also the strength of U.S. automakers. We’re playing to that strength here.” –David West, vice president of marketing for Raser Technologies, on the new plug-in hybrid H3 Hummer truck

It’s seems impossible – ludicrous, even – to suggest that something as big and ungainly as the H3 Hummer could be designed to get 100 miles to the gallon.

Yet that’s exactly what Raser Technologies, in association with the Plug-in Hybrid Development Consortium, claims to have achieved: a Hummer H3 plug-in hybrid E-REV – the acronym for “Extended-Range Electric Vehicle” – that gets 100 miles per gallon in urban operation, when total daily travel doesn’t exceed 65 miles.

Get out on the highway and rack up say 200 miles in a given day, though, and the fuel economy will drop – to 33 miles per gallon, which is nearly DOUBLE what the current gasoline-only H3 model attains, according to Raser’s field test data.

Then add this bon mot in: since this hybrid H3 is propelled by a 200 kilowatt Symetron Enhanced AC induction motor and drive system, it can also be viewed as a big, fat generator, since within this system is a 100 kilowatt generator designed to recharge the lithium-ion batteries – the kind of generator a lot of businesses shell out $20,000 to $30,000 to get, then hook up to the back of pickups and drag around from job site to job site, noted David West, Raser’s vice president of marketing.

“Basically, you’re getting a ‘free generator’ when you purchase a truck like this – and that’s getting the attention of a lot of utility fleets, the very fleets we want to partner with to field test these trucks,” he told me.

In fact, West said this plug-in truck hybrid idea got strong encouragement from commercial fleets as opposed to consumers – with utility fleets such as Pacific Gas & Electric lining up to be early adopters of these vehicles. “They readily saw how a vehicle like this could fit into a variety of applications – saving them fuel, reducing emissions, and providing a work tool for their crews all in one package,” he explained to me. By next year, West said Raser hopes to have 2,000 of these H3 hybrids on the road, mainly with utility fleets.

The key to the plug-in series hybrid drive system designed by Raser and its development partner FEV, enables larger vehicles such as SUVs and light trucks to drive up to 40 miles in all-electric mode with near zero emissions.

That 40 mile range doesn’t sound like much, said West, but it actually represents 75% of the daily driving patterns for most commercial fleets (as well as consumers) using these types of vehicle. That translates into over 100 mpg in typical local daily driving – at a cost of about 5 cents per mile versus the 20 cents per mile of the typical gasoline-powered light truck version.

Also, since it’s a hybrid system, it’s equipped with a much smaller one to 2 liter combustion engine, which is connected only to the electric generator, not connected to the drive system.

The engine is used only generate electricity and recharge the batteries when the vehicle drives beyond its 40 mile battery range –giving the vehicle a total range of 360 miles.

[More information on the details of the drive system is available by clicking here.]

The reason Raser chose to demonstrate this system on a Hummer is to knock down the preconceptions of what electric vehicles can be – especially for commercial users.

“Our goal was to demonstrate that electric vehicle technology is a viable solution for a variety of vehicle platforms,” said Gary Rogers, president and CEO of FEV. “This full-sized SUV extended-range electric vehicle shows that fuel economy in larger vehicles does not mean sacrificing power and utility.”

“The technology in this electric-powered Hummer is a leap ahead for U.S. automakers,” added Brent Cook, Raser’s CEO. “It could make the nation’s popular light trucks and SUVs greener than a Prius.”

There’s still much work to do, of course. Raser’s West said this plug-in hybrid Hummer took 15 months to bring to reality, with a fully production ready hybrid potentially by 2011. Still, it’s an exciting development – and if it takes off, it could be just the shot in the arm U.S. automakers need right now.

“Hybrids have to be sustainable – they need to be desired by buyers and automakers must make a profit building them,” Raser’s West told me. “Trucks are perfect because the chassis does not need to be redesigned to hold the batteries and powertrain components – there’s enough space available on the frame. We shaved two years off the development process by going with a truck chassis for this hybrid. And they are already the predominant chassis built by U.S. automakers and most profitable ones as well. It’s a win-win for everyone.”

“I don’t care about hot rods or motorcycles. It’s just trucks man. I think they’re the coolest art movement going on.” –Roger Snider, truck photographer

It’s not every day that you find the craftsmanship of custom trucks appreciated by the art world – much less the young, hip, “Graffiti Art” style set.

Yet at the Inked Souls 2009 “Art Whino” gallery show held this past weekend in Crystal City, VA, there they were – a collection of eye-popping photographs by the one and only Roger Snider of customized big rigs, given their due alongside oil paintings, sculptures, tattoos, and other forms of artistic expression.

“Being part of a show like this is great thing,” Snider told me. “This is the fourth gallery show I’ve done, and for the work I do with these trucks to be displayed alongside this kind of 21st century ‘post-post modern graffiti art’ is really something else.”

I’ve talked about Snider and his work in this space before and I strongly suggest checking out his web site, Ultra Rigs of the World, to glimpse just some of the many types of custom trucks he’s photographed – not just here but from around the globe. (You can also click here to see which of his prints are for sale and for how much).

Snider also tries to create some unique compositions with his work, especially in terms of photographing trucks in more unique urban settings.

“I try to find a lot of urban settings for my photographs as the design of these trucks really complements modern architecture,” he explained to me. “Yet I also use a lot of rural settings as well – it really depends on the type of truck involved.

[I talked to Roger about some of these themes at the Art Whino exhibit. I apologize for the loud music; the party wasn’t about to stop on account of a video interview by the likes of me!]

Snider tries to approach the world of custom trucks from what he likes to describe as “an eight year-olds sensitivity,” trying to capture that level of excitement, passion, and wonder most kids feel when they see big rigs on the road. It’s an easy feeling for him to tap into, because he himself had those experiences in his childhood.

A native of Miami, Roger fell in love with trucks at a very young age after numerous road trips to the outskirts of Roanoke, Va., to visit family relatives in the late 1970s. He badgered his parents into taking him to the truck stop down the road every night so he could look at all the glistening steel and chrome for hours on end it seemed – cementing in his mind the desire to be one of those truck drivers when he grew up.

His other passion, photography, intervened – eventually leading him back to the world of trucking by a most circuitous route. His passion for trucks still burns brightly, and he’s planning a journey to the Pacific Northwest in June to capture images of many customized rigs this summer – many of which have never been displayed in show truck competitions.

[Snider talks more about what fuels his passion as a truck photographer below – and again, I apologize for the extremely loud music.]

What also continues to fascinate him about custom trucks is how many of them remain “working rigs” that their owners rely on to make a living.

“That’s one of the reasons I am trying to get the owners of the trucks themselves more involved in my photographs, because they are a critical part of the artistic story,” Snider told me. “These trucks look awesome, but they are also someone’s livelihood and home on the road. It also largely makes no economic sense for them to so this to their trucks – yet the result speaks for itself.”

[You can also read some of Roger’s tales of the road and view some of his other work by clicking here.]

As I’ve noted before, Snider’s gone to Japan and Europe to photograph custom rigs and still hopes to line up sponsors to allow him to travel to Australia and photograph the mighty road trains plying the Outback, as well as to Asia, Latin America, and who knows where else.

“My goal is to go all over the world, take pictures of all these different custom trucks, and put together the ultimate global coffee table book about them,” he said. He’s still plugging away in North America, too, with plans to visit four truck shows alongside other road trips aimed at unearthing other custom big rig owners that don’t ply the truck show circuit.

Needless to say, I’m eagerly awaiting the results from the journeys he’s planned for this year – and wish him much success with these endeavors.

“The Chinese have a great saying: ‘Insanity is doing the same thing the same way each time while expecting different results.’” –Tim Brady, author, consultant and former owner-operator

I’ve said it before in this space and I will say it again: Knowledge is power in the trucking industry. Because if you truly know, down to the penny, how much it costs to operate your trucks on a per-mile basis, you’ll know instantly whether to accept or reject tendered loads – regardless of whether you are a fleet executive or owner-operator.

However, my good friend and work compatriot Tim Brady takes that a step further in his “Seven Secrets of a Successful Trucking Company” – building into that cost per mile a salary figure so truckers can figure out a set cost per mile “break-even point” below which they cannot go. That way they still get to put money in their pocket even though they are hauling freight at their bottom dollar level.

It sounds simple, but it isn’t, because it takes hard work and consistency to make it happen. But once you get the concepts into your bones, it becomes instinctive – much like riding a bike – and allows a trucker to not only understand the total cost of their operation, while also taking home enough money to feed the family, pay the mortgage, etc.

That’s why I am helping Tim bring his concepts to a wider audience with a new webcast series we’re calling – appropriately – “The Seven Secrets of a Successful Trucking Company.” Our goal here is to help carriers large and small (down to the one-truck owner mind you) learn to make their trucking business profitable – period. Here are some of the things we’ll be examining:

• Set hauling rates in the new economy which meet your carrier’s long range plans.

• Get your cash flow running in the black on a consistent basis.

• Develop a plan to retain the customers you have and find new ones.

• Grow your freight lane strategy to increase your market share.

• Control and lower your insurance rates

Our first webinar in this series is “Setting Profitable Hauling Rates in a Recession” on May 19 at 1 p.m. eastern. You can get more information about it (and register, too) from our sister publication, American Trucker magazine. (Conveniently, I’m the editor of that – how original.)

Now, sure, this is a paid endeavor – $30 a session if you are an American Trucker subscriber, $40 if you are not (but then the subscription is free; that’s an easy sell, isn’t it?) – but here’s the thing: we won’t be talking in “Wall Street,” with all sorts of fancy terminology and acronyms being bandied about.

This is simple, solid information – trust me, if a history major like myself that barely squeaked by in algebra can understand this, you can too. It’s not tricky – you just must apply the lessons Tim provides consistently to your operation in order to reach profitability.

[And if you want to get a feel for what we sound like, check out our latest “Trucking Business Insights” podcast on American Rig Radio.]

Let me add one final note. The best thing about the information Tim offers is that it’s not theory gleaned from the plethora of business books and courses out there. He applied the very same principles he teaches back when he drove a truck hauling household goods for a living. (Yes, he’s a former “bedbugger” – I always DID like that particular descriptive!)

He’s also taught these same principles to others across the freight-hauling spectrum and THEY’VE been able to make money with them. That’s some pretty good proof if you ask me.