Trucks at Work Blog

“We can’t get there from here without reducing emissions from transportation.” –Colin Peppard, climate and infrastructure policy director, Environmental Defense Fund

So there’s a new 97-page study hitting the streets this week, compiled by one of the best transportation consulting firms in the business – Cambridge Systematics – on behalf of a VERY wide variety of groups, from federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, to the American Public Transportation Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, and the Urban Land Institute, to name but a few.

This new study – entitled “Moving Cooler: Transportation Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions” – is going to become a critical policy linchpin in the months ahead, I think, as work on the highway bill looks more and more likely to be delayed until late 2010.

Regardless of whether you believe in the phenomenon dubbed “Global Warming” or not, trucking needs to pay very close attention to efforts designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or “GHGs” as they are called. That’s because reports like this one are not being spun out of some fringe group – no less than THREE federal agencies signed on to support this GHG transportation study, meaning the findings in this report are going to be incorporated into transportation policy strategy at the federal level. So again, whether you think the threat of GHGs is valid or not, you must deal with it – simply because GHG reduction is now becoming a core component of transportation policy.

“Moving Cooler provides an expanded array of options for policymakers to begin considering to ensure America can adapt to a rapidly changing world, especially given the impacts of decisions on future generations, when the climate crisis and the stability of U.S. energy supplies may present far more acute societal challenges,” said Michael Replogle, a member of the steering committee for the report on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund and an advisor to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Replogle noted that transportation contributes roughly 28% of the total U.S. GHGs and transportation emissions have been growing faster than those of other sectors. Between 1990 and 2006, growth in U.S. transportation GHG emissions represented almost one-half (47%) of the increase in total U.S. GHGs. If the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) – which the U.S. House of Representatives passed last month – becomes law, he said, U.S. GHGs would need to be reduced 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

That’s a tall order – and such a large GHG reduction effort is going to come with a very big price tag. Cambridge’s research determined that transportation GHG emissions are the result of the interaction of four factors: vehicle fuel efficiency, the carbon content of the fuel burned, the number of miles that vehicles travel, and the operational efficiency experienced during travel. It’s Moving Cooler report deals with the last two items – vehicle travel and operational efficiency – and suggests nine areas for the focus of GHG reduction strategies:

Pricing and taxes. Strategies raise the costs associated with the use of the transportation system, including the cost of vehicle miles of travel and fuel consumption. Both local and regional facility-level pricing strategies (e.g., congestion pricing) and economy-wide pricing strategies (e.g., carbon pricing) are considered.

Land use and smart growth. Strategies focus on creating more transportation-efficient land use patterns, and by doing so reduce the need to make motor vehicle trips and reduce the length of the motor vehicle trips that are made.

Non-motorized transport. Strategies encourage greater levels of walking and bicycling as alternatives to driving.

Public transportation improvements. Strategies expand public transportation by subsidizing fares, increasing service on existing routes, or building new infrastructure.

Ride-sharing, car-sharing, and other commuting strategies. Strategies expand services and provide incentives to travelers to choose transportation options other than driving alone.

Regulatory strategies. Strategies implement regulations that moderate vehicle travel or reduce speeds to achieve higher fuel efficiency.

Operational and intelligent transportation system (ITS) strategies. Strategies improve the operation of the transportation system to make better use of the existing capacity; strategies also encourage more efficient driving.

Capacity expansion and bottleneck relief. Strategies expand highway capacity to reduce congestion and to improve the efficiency of travel.

Multimodal freight sector strategies. Strategies promote more efficient freight movement within and across modes.

“An integrated, multi-strategy approach — combining travel activity, local and regional pricing, operational, and efficiency strategies — can contribute to significant GHG reductions,” Cambridge noted in its report. “Such reductions would, however, involve considerable — and in some cases major — changes to current transportation systems and operations, travel behavior, land use patterns, and public policy and regulations.”

The strategies that contribute the most to GHG reductions, the group found, are local and regional pricing and regulatory strategies that increase the costs of single occupancy vehicle travel, regulatory strategies that reduce and enforce speed limits, educational strategies to encourage eco-driving behavior that achieves better fuel efficiency, land use and smart growth strategies that reduce travel distances, and multimodal strategies that expand travel options.

“The costs of implementing many of the Moving Cooler strategies are substantial,” Cambridge stressed. “Yet for five of the six strategy ‘bundles’ examined, the estimated average annual savings in direct vehicle costs (i.e., ownership, maintenance and repair, and fuel) exceed estimated implementation costs by up to $72 billion for an aggressive level of deployment and up to $112 billion for a maximum level of deployment during a 40-year time frame.”

Relevant to energy independence, reduced fuel consumption realized nationally through these strategies translates to an average annual savings of 85 million to 470 million barrels of oil at an aggressive level of deployment, and to a savings of as much as 110 million to 660 million barrels a year at a maximum level of deployment, the firm calculated.

“It is important to note that this comparison of implementation costs to vehicle cost savings is not a full assessment of costs and benefits, because the Moving Cooler analysis did not address other important benefits and costs, such as changes in mobility, travel time, safety, user fees, environmental quality, economic development, and public health,” Cambridge added.

The group noted that raising fuel taxes could boost GHG reductions well beyond those that could be achieved by the strategy “bundles” considered in the report. “For example, an additional fee (in current dollars) starting at the equivalent of $0.60 per gallon in 2015 and increasing to $1.25 per gallon in 2050 (Aggressive Deployment) could result in an additional 17% reduction in GHG emissions in 2050,” the report concluded. “A much higher fee similar to current European fuel taxes, starting at $2.40 a gallon in 2015 and increasing to $5.00 a gallon in 2050 (Maximum Effort Deployment) could result in an additional 28% reduction in GHG emissions in 2050.”

Thus you can see why GHG reduction efforts are important to truckers large and small – as a core component of transportation policy, such efforts could lead to increased fuel taxes, more tolls, and other fees.

“Moving Cooler shows that vehicle efficiency is not the only way to reduce emissions from transportation,” said Andy Darrell, VP at Environmental Defense Fund. “Around the country, states and cities are experimenting with ideas like road-use pricing and transit tailored to the communities they serve. By supporting transportation innovations like those outlined in Moving Cooler, the federal government could achieve an outcome that’s good for the planet and good for business: fewer greenhouse emissions and less congestion.”

Going unsaid here is that they’ll also affect your wallet pretty significantly and over a long time span. So it behooves truckers to read this report and see if there are a mix of strategies that can still lead to lower GHGs without adding significant costs to their operations.

“Finding alternative energy sources to put in our fuel tanks is good business for our company and our nation.” –Gary Whicker, senior vice president of engineering for trucking conglomerate J.B. Hunt Transport Services

It’s a surprise, to say the least, to see a trucking company the size of J.B. Hunt commit to burning significant amounts of algae-based biodiesel in its truck tanks. But that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

The carrier conducted a series of successful tests using biodiesel made by SunEco Energy; a fuel comprised of 100% natural algae oil produced at SunEco’s pilot plant in Chino, California. These tests, using a 20% and 50% blend of algae oil with petroleum diesel, measured an 82% reduction in particulate emissions with no loss of power.

“Producing renewable fuel supplies from algae grown in American ponds is an intriguing new option,” noted Gary Whicker, senior vice president of engineering for J.B. Hunt, in a press statement. “Our initial experience with their algae-based biodiesel is promising, and we are excited about the opportunity to work … towards a lower cost, less carbon intensive, and more secure energy supply for our business.”

I’ve talked about the potential for algae as a vehicle fuel stock in this space before – just last year in fact – but I didn’t think we’d be seeing it put through its paces in trucking this soon. And frankly, I shouldn’t be surprised that J.B. Hunt of all carriers is forging ahead with a plan to use algae-based biodiesel in its trucks, for this is a carrier long known for doing things differently – a hallmark of its late founder, Johnnie Bryan Hunt.

Still, there’s a lot of work to be done – and by no means should algae be considered a “silver bullet” in the alternative fuel debate, at least not yet. As research firm Frost & Sullivan noted in a report earlier this year, the cost disadvantage of producing biofuels is significantly higher than the benefits achieved from their use right now – and this scenario is unlikely to change until 2015, even with the use of second generation biofuels.

“Second generation biofuels will be commercially successful only if the price of extracting biofuels is lower than or equal to the price of producing fossil fuels,” the firm noted in its report “Farming subsidies given by local governments are becoming critical as farmers choose biofuels over food crops. Countries with high biofuel consumptions, such as Sweden, are importing feedstock from countries like Brazil thereby increasing food prices. Vast areas of forest land have been erased in Malaysia by farmers wanting to make quick money by exporting feedstock to Europe.”

Challenges related to vehicle warranties are also dampening market prospects, as OEMs cannot offer any assurances or guarantees in the event of using high biofuels content, owing to the absence of certification and standardized vehicle testing guidelines, Frost & Sullivan added.

Still, it’s a landmark moment when a billion-dollar carrier decides to commit to biofuels on this scale despite dealing with the aftershocks of a freight market collapse – one brought on by one of the worst economic recessions in recent memory. And you know if Hunt is doing this now, they see a big payoff in the future – most likely when the cost of 100% pure diesel starts to rise to significant heights again, as it will one day surely do.

“As mobile technology evolves at a breakneck pace, more and more people rightly fear that distracted driving – phone calls, e-mails and texting – is a growing threat on the highways.” –Peter Kissinger, AAA Foundation president and CEO

Over a decade ago, I used to work in downtown Washington D.C. and commuted by what’s known locally as the “slug line” – an informal carpool network whereby people could get a lift downtown for free while allowing the car driver to use the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.

Of course, this form of commuting violates one of the big golden rules my parents drilled into me as a young child (‘Don’t take car rides from strangers‘) but the system worked safely and efficiently for the year and a half I used it.

Yet it also provided me with endless coffee table conversation as I met a variety of drivers whose behavior behind the wheel proved, to put it mildly, frightening. Once myself and two others got a ride from a gentleman in a Mercedes sedan; I got the front seat and thought to myself, ‘This will be a comfortable ride for a change.’ That’s until we hit the on ramp to the HOV lanes at 95 mph … and he started talking on his cell phone.

Despite the interior temperature registering 67 F, I literally sweat out a gallon of water on that ride into the city – blasting down the highway at breakneck speed while the Mercedes driver yakked mindlessly away on his cell phone. [We ‘slugs could not say anything to the driver, however – that’s one of the rules of ‘slugging’ as it’s called; the drivers only speak if spoken to. If I’d had an ejection seat, though, I would’ve pulled the cord and bailed out of there.]

This is a long way of getting around to the subject at hand – a recent survey by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that finds 87% of motorists today rate texting or e-mailing while driving a very serious threat – ranking almost even with drunk driving.

The information comes from the second annual Traffic Safety Culture Index compiled by the AAA Foundation an effort to spark the dialogue about improving our safety culture and working toward the goal of zero deaths on our nation’s highways, says the group’s president, Peter Kissinger.

Distracted driving was top-of-mind for motorists, with 80 percent of motorists rating distracted driving as a very serious threat to their safety, the group reported. Even those who admitted to distracted driving acknowledged they were putting themselves in danger, with more than half of those who admitted to reading or sending text messages or e-mails while driving indicated they were much more likely to have an accident.

Here are some more of the findings from the 2009 Traffic Safety Culture Index survey:

• About 90% of respondents said people driving after drinking alcohol was a very serious threat to their safety; 87% said the same about text messaging or e-mailing while driving;

• Some 80% of motorists rated distracted driving as a very serious threat to their safety, yet many admitted performing distracted behaviors like talking on the cell phone or texting or e-mailing while driving within the last month;

• Over two-thirds admitted to talking on a cell phone and 21% admitted to reading or sending a text message or e-mail while driving in the past month

• Nearly 90% said that texting or e-mailing while driving was a very serious threat to safety, yet 18% of those same people admitted texting in the past month;

• Some 58% said that talking on a cell phone while driving was a very serious threat to their safety, yet 55% of those same people self-reported talking on cell phones while driving in the past month;

• Nine out of 10 people considered running a red light unacceptable, yet 26% of those same people admitted to running a red light;

• Nine out of 10 people considered tailgating unacceptable, yet 24% of those same people admitted to tailgating in the past 30 days;

• Some 63% considered speeding 15 mph or more on the highway unacceptable, yet 28% of those same people admitted doing so in the past month;

• Fully 95% of people rated speeding 15 mph or more over the speed limit on residential streets unacceptable, yet 21% of those same people admitted doing so in the past month.

A previous AAA Foundation survey found two out of three drivers mistakenly believe using a hands-free cell phone is safer than talking on a hand-held device. Yet Kissinger noted that, in this survey, the use of a hands-free cell phone was the only behavior that more than half of all drivers rated as acceptable, yet numerous other studies have shown it is equally as dangerous as talking on a hand-held phone – both quadruple your risk of being in a crash.

“There are many motorists who would never consider drinking and driving, yet they think it’s somehow okay to text or e-mail while driving. We need to stigmatize distracted driving to the same degree as drunk driving in our culture, because both behaviors are deadly,” he said. “This survey shines the light on drivers behaving badly; it also raises some dangerous public misconceptions. We’d like to end the belief that ‘it’s the other guy’s problem’ and end the false sense of security that ‘if I chat on a hands-free cell phone I’m somehow safer.’”

In other words, everyone’s got to do their part out on the roadways in order to make them safe – and that includes focusing all of our attention on driving while we’re behind the wheel.

“There are no free lunches when it comes to infrastructure investment. You get what you pay for.” –Tom Donohue, president and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

You know things are getting interesting in the debate over how to pay for highway construction and improvements when Tom Donohue (at right)– the president and CEO of U.S. Chamber of Commerce – is calling for an INCREASE in U.S. fuel taxes.

Both during his former stint as president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and now as the head of the biggest business lobbying group in the country, Donohue has long resisted tax increases on a variety of fronts for a variety of reasons. So his call for higher taxes to fuel infrastructure improvements is a big deal, from where I sit, because that means we’re probably in a deeper funding hole than we think.

“Congress and the Obama administration have a number of big challenges before them,” Donohue wrote in an opinion piece in mid-July. “But on one of the most important – investment in our nation’s highways, bridges, and public transportation systems – there can be no delay. Unless we make a serious financial commitment now, our infrastructure will continue to crumble around us, threatening our safety, mobility, and global competitiveness.”

Donohue noted that, unlike cap-and-trade and health care reform legislation, reauthorization of federal surface transportation legislation is relatively uncomplicated and provides a proven bang for the buck. Disagreements, though, on how to pay for these badly needed improvements are delaying progress – and he believes the solution is a very simple one: you get what you pay for.

“Drivers provide the majority of the resources for federal road and transit programs when they pay taxes at the pump. This ‘user fee’ system has been in place since 1956 when Congress dedicated the gas tax to pay for construction of the Interstate Highway System,” Donohue explained. “The challenge is that gas tax revenues are not indexed to inflation and have not been increased in 16 years … and have declined while the need for repair, maintenance, and expansion is increasing.”

In his view – and that, of course, of the Chamber as a whole – the simplest, most straightforward way to raise money is through a modest increase in gasoline and diesel taxes. “The U.S. Chamber has never been accused of being a strong proponent of any kind of tax increases. But fuel taxes are different – they are user fees,” Donohue wrote.

Of course, Donohue noted some important caveats in his call for higher fuel taxes here. First, gas tax dollars must flow to projects that advance the national interest, not to wasteful earmarks or non-infrastructure projects. Second, lawmakers must cut the red tape that causes endless delays and raises project costs.

Finally, states and localities must be given the freedom to enter into public-private partnerships – an effort Donohue believes is worthwhile as he thinks as much as $180 billion in private capital is available to support infrastructure development. Now, me, I am not so sure about this tactic, for it raises the specter of toll roads popping up all over the place, creating more congestion and frustration for truckers and the average motorist alike.

Yet Donohue noted – and this I think is very true – that funding alternatives are limited, if nonexistent. Without increases to fuel taxes, you either reduce transportation funding – which he said would further hasten the deterioration of roads, bridges, and mass transit systems, plus cost jobs – or resort to deficit spending, which is a non-starter as we’re already swimming in an $11 trillion sea of red ink at the federal government level.

Even the ATA – the trucking industry’s biggest lobby – is backing higher fuel taxes, with Barbara Windsor – president and CEO for Hahn Transportation and a second vice chairman for the group – saying as much in Congressional testimony last week.

“ATA recognizes the need for additional revenues to support our nation’s highway and bridge infrastructure program,” she said. “ATA also strongly supports the continued reliance on the federal fuels tax – both diesel and gasoline – as the primary funding source for the Highway Trust Fund. Consequently, ATA will support an increase in those fuel taxes provided the revenues go to improving the ability to move the nation’s freight [because] ATA believes that the current highway program does not meet the needs of either passenger or commercial transportation.”

Needless to say, it’ll definitely be interesting to see how the fuel tax debate shapes us as the work on the massive highway bill continues.

“As expected, continued weak truck and aftermarket sales caused the second quarter to be [our] most challenging operating period since this downturn began in 2007.” –W. Marvin Rush, chairman of Rush Enterprises, from the company’s second quarter earnings report

We’ve all seen the numbers by now, so W. Marvin Rush’s comment above shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Indeed, the Rush family – long a maverick in the truck sales industry – continues to batten down the hatches in the face of probably the worst trucking market in a very long time. Yet they, like everyone else, know that this grim time, too, shall pass – and they plan to be ready to roll when better days return.

Right now, though, those better days seem a long ways off. I talked to Eric Starks (at right), president of research firm FTR Associates, about his company’s take on what the sales picture for Class 8 models is going to look like for next year … and it wasn’t pretty, to say the least. In fact, his firm is lowering its sales projections for Class 8s in 2010 from 151,000 units down to 133,000 units – a 12% decline – as demand for truck freight transport is still declining and won’t bottom out until the fourth quarter.

“On top of that, we still have a lot of idle and under-used equipment out there, so while it may be old in terms of years, it’s useful life is still quite high,” Starks told me. “From where I sit, we think there’s at least a year or two years worth of useful life left in much of that under-used capacity out there, so there won’t be this pressure to go out and replace it with new units.”

Not exactly what you would call reassuring, especially for the folks that build and sell commercial trucks for a living.

The Rush family is one of those that sell trucks for a living, and that’ve done it successfully for a long, long time now. It’s been my good fortune to meet them face-to-face on more than one occasion – both Marvin and his son W. M. “Rusty” Rush (seen here below), president and CEO of Rush Enterprises – and I can tell you nothing much fazes these rangy Texans.

That being said, though, they are knuckling down to get through these lean times. Rusty noted in the company’s second quarter earnings report that forecasts for 2009 U.S. retail sales of Class 8 trucks got lowered to 93,000 units, down 19% from the first quarter’s forecast and some 33% down over 2008.

“We believe 2009 sales of Class 8 units will be in the range of 90,000 to 100,000 units, with U.S. retail sales of medium-duty trucks also forecasted to be down as much as 35% compared to 2008,” he said. “With U.S. Class 8 retail sales forecast now below 100,000 units, we expect this will continue to be one of the weakest markets since 1983.”

Still, Rusty believes the industry is at or near the bottom of this cycle, though – given the still ongoing economic uncertainly in the U.S., much less the world – it is virtually impossible to predict with confidence when this cycle will end.

“We have experienced a slight increase in new truck orders scheduled for delivery later in the year, primarily from large fleets looking to replace aged inventory prior to the impending 2010 diesel emissions regulations,” Rusty said. “But we expect overall new and used truck sales, as well as aftermarket operations, to remain sluggish through the remainder of 2009.”

He noted the company’s truck segment – it operates one of the largest Peterbilt dealership networks in the U.S., as well as for GMC medium-duty trucks, until General Motors shut that business down – recorded revenues of $298 million in the second quarter of 2009, compared to $425.2 million in the second quarter of 2008.

Rush delivered 954 new heavy-duty trucks, 638 new medium-duty trucks and 776 used trucks during the second quarter of 2009, compared to 1,665 new heavy-duty trucks, 979 new medium-duty trucks and 795 used trucks in the second quarter of 2008. Parts, service and body shop sales revenue was $95.8 million in the second quarter of 2009, compared to $111.9 million in the second quarter of 2008.

“The extended recession continued to impact aftermarket operations throughout the second quarter of 2009 as Rush Truck Centers’ parts, service and body shop revenues decreased 16.6% and gross profit decreased 21.4%, compared to the second quarter of 2008,” Rusty noted. “Through continued expense management, we were able to soften the impact that this sharp decline in aftermarket gross profit had on our absorption rate. Despite the 21.4% decline in gross profit, our absorption rate only declined 10.2%, from 105.4% in the second quarter of 2008 to 95.2% in the second quarter of 2009.”

Things no doubt will remain tough for a stretch for Rush – the company had to take a $4.9 million pre-tax impairment charge to wind-down its GMC dealership agreements in the second quarter, leading to a $1.5 million loss – but they, as I suspect most truck dealers are doing these days, are tightening the belts and preparing to soldier on.

“I remain very confident in our people and their ability to weather this extended downturn,” Said Rusty Rush. “Their continued execution will keep us well-positioned for growth when the economy rebounds.”

Let’s just hope that rebound comes sooner rather than later.

“This troubling data shows us, for the first time, the scope of drugged driving in America, and reinforces the need to reduce drug abuse. Drugged driving, like drunk driving, is a matter of public safety and health. It puts us all at risk and must be prevented.” –Gil Kerlikowske, director of the office of National Drug Control Policy.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) last week released the results on an interesting survey it conducted back in 2007 concerning the number of folks driving while impaired (DWI) on our roadways.

While this voluntary survey found that the percentage of drunk drivers – those with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher – has declined significantly over the last three decades, new screening techniques discovered that a lot of folks are getting behind the wheel high on a variety of illegal narcotics … especially at night. That data got the attention of safety experts throughout the federal government as it could be a serious and worrisome trend.

Yet this new survey from NHTSA is, in a way, an isolated island in a sea of activity. It represents the first time the agency took samples of “oral fluids” (which I assume to be saliva or “spit” as we all call it) and blood and then used new screening techniques to look for illegal drugs. An ongoing follow-up survey using these new detection efforts is slated to be wrapped up by 2012, so we’ll have to wait a while to see what NHTSA discovers in terms of the rate of drivers found with illegal drugs in their system.

OK, to the numbers. First, the alcohol-impairment findings:

• First, NHTSA recorded a continuing decline in the percentage of legally intoxicated drivers. In 1973, 7.5 percent of drivers had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher. By 2007, however, the rate declined to 2.2 percent. NHTSA also noted a BAC of .08 or higher is now above the legal limit in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

• The percentage of male drivers with illegal BAC levels was 42 percent higher than the percentage of alcohol-impaired female drivers.

• Time of day made a big difference in the likelihood of drivers having illegal BACs. Looking just at Friday daytime (9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.), early nighttime (10:00 p.m. to midnight), and late nighttime (1 a.m. to 3 a.m. Saturday), only 0.2% of drivers had illegal BACs during the daytime, while 1.2% had illegal BACs during the early nighttime and 4.8% had illegal BACs during the late nighttime.

• Overall, drivers were more likely to be illegally drunk during late nighttime hours (1 a.m. to 3 a.m.) than during daytime or early evening hours.

• Motorcycle riders were more than twice as likely as passenger vehicle drivers to be drunk (5.6 percent compared with 2.3 percent). Pickup truck drivers were the next most likely to have illegal BACs (3.3 percent).

Now, the illegal drugs while driving findings:

• NHTSA’s survey found 16.3 percent of nighttime weekend drivers were drug positive.The survey focused on weekend nighttime drivers and found that the drugs used most commonly by drivers were: marijuana (8.6 percent); cocaine (3.9 percent); and over-the-counter and prescription drugs (3.9 percent).

• Based on the oral fluid results, more nighttime drivers (14.4%) were drug-positive then were daytime drivers (11.0%). Based on the blood test results which were administered only at nighttime, 13.8% of the drivers were drug-positive. Using the combined results of either or both oral fluid and blood tests, 16.3% of the nighttime drivers were drug-positive.

An important point to note here: NHTSA stressed that most “psychoactive drugs” like marijuana are chemically complex molecules, whose absorption, action, and elimination from the body are difficult to predict, and considerable differences exist between individuals with regard to the rates with which these processes occur. Thus the result of these factors is that, at the current time, noted NHTSA, specific drug concentration levels cannot be reliably equated with effects on driver performance.

Alcohol, in comparison, is more predictable, said NHTSA, as a a strong relationship between BAC level and impairment has been established, as has the correlation between BAC level and crash risk.

It should also be noted that NHTSA excluded commercial vehicle drivers for logistical reasons from this survey – as a much larger area is needed to safely pull over tractor-trailers – while motorcycle operators were over-sampled, since motorcycle deaths have more than doubled over the last decade and motorcycle crashes have the highest alcohol involvement rate of any vehicle type.

The basic survey procedure involved the use of law enforcement officers to direct traffic at the survey sites, but not otherwise to interact in any way with the survey subjects, noted NHTSA. Trained data collectors solicited participation of the drivers in the survey at 300 collection sites in cities and on rural roads, offering incentives for participation, with that participation being voluntary and anonymous. Note, however, that drivers found to be impaired were not allowed to get back into their vehicles and drive away.

So what does all of this tell us? For starters, the rate of drivers impaired by alcohol operating a motor vehicle dropped significantly in over 30 years …. but it’s still a big problem. “Alcohol still kills 13,000 people a year on our roads,” stressed Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “So we must continue to be vigilant in our efforts to prevent drunk driving.”

Drug use by drivers is definitely worrisome, but putting NHTSA’s numbers into context is difficult. This is new research and as such is still being digested. We’ll know more as the agency wraps up its follow-on survey in 2012.

One thing is certain: the issue of DWI isn’t going away – and drunk/drugged driving leads to almost four times as many deaths on our highways than truck-car collisions. That is a startling factoid and one that needs to be remembered as we work towards reducing the annual fatalities suffered on our roadways.

“Without a compelling cause, our employees are just putting in time. Their minds might be engaged, but their hearts are not.” –Lee J. Colan, author of “7 Moments that Define Excellent Leaders”

You know, sometimes in the trucking business there seems to be far more care extended to equipment than to people.

Don’t get me wrong; obviously, I’ve filled this space with stories about the exact opposite many a time. Yet just look at the rigorous preventive maintenance practices for tractor-trailers; they get brought into the shop at regular intervals, usually every 25,000 miles which roughly equates to every three to four months. Good truck drivers conduct a thorough pre-trip inspection on their equipment before they hit the road for the day.

But do we extend the same level of “maintenance” to the folks behind the wheel, turning the wrench, at the dispatch desk, or in the back office? It’s an interesting question, one asked recently by Professor Jerry Osteryoung with the college of business at Florida State University in the context of dealing with what he termed “problem employees.” He makes some interesting points, so I thought I’d share them and see what you think. Professor Osteryoung, the floor is yours:

“Problem employees are an unavoidable part of the working world. We all have had to work for, work with or supervise a difficult employee. Although in many cases you inherit the problem worker, he or she is still your responsibility. It is so glib to say, ‘Let’s just get rid of the problem worker,’ yet this is an unreasonable solution for many reasons.

I do not think that there is a clear definition of a problem employee. What is clear, however, is that these employees tend to affect the morale of the entire organization and make your life very difficult. Too often, the implicit assumption is that a replacement worker must be better; however, this is frequently not the case.

Look at it this way, then: How would a manager make a decision on a piece of equipment that was causing a maintenance headache? Well before it was replaced, I guarantee you that a thorough analysis of the problem would be conducted, and possible alternatives for fixing the problem(s) would be evaluated. It is just good business to make sure that the problem cannot be corrected before a new asset is purchased. Yet this same type of analysis is not done on employees who are having difficulties.

So many times I see employers letting staff go simply because they did not give the manager what they wanted. However, when I go back to the staff member and ask if they understood what was expected of them, the majority of the time, they say “No.” In these instances, management never attempted to work with them to see if it was possible to overcome the problem.

I think so many times the cost of replacing a worker is either unrealized or is perceived as small and inconsequential. There is no question in my mind that if you fully account for all of the time involved in hiring a replacement (i.e.: time spent advertising to find a new employee, interviewing candidates and training a new hire) and numerous other indirect expenses, the cost of replacing a worker amounts to at least 100% of the annual salary.

If the cost to replace a worker is so high, why do so many firms keep on doing this over and over? I think the answer is that many managers lack the skill set to deal with problematic employees or behaviors. For example, if you have a worker that has been coming in late to work, and you are disappointed because you believe you have made the company policy clear to everyone, maybe the issue is that you are not connecting with the employee, being clear about the expectations or there is something going on in their personal life that is influencing their behavior.

Changing behavior is especially difficult if it has been tolerated for a period of time. However, working to overcome an employee’s problem rather than seeking to hire a new worker will often pay off in the long run.

[At left: Professor Jerry Osteryoung]

In looking to overcome behavioral issues, consider the root cause of the problem. For example, is there something in the company culture that is contributing to the problem behavior? In the case of the late employee, maybe you are being inconsistent about enforcing company policies. Are some people allowed to come in late due to personal circumstances that are not explained to the other employees? Are you holding people accountable, or do you let things slide?

Once you have determined the reason behind the behavior, there are many things that you can do to turn the situation around. Firstly, provide specific guidelines and processes to help clarify expectations. Secondly, ensure open communication with managers and employees to help resolve minor issues before they become serious problems.

A third possibility is the use of incentives, rewards and recognition as ways of reinforcing the change you are looking for. I have seen some managers simply start acknowledging positive changes in behaviors, and that has been the key to effecting the change.”

Here’s one for the fun file!

In sifting through the news wires this morning, I came across a study conducted by TomTom Inc., a company that provides what it calls “navigation solutions” and digital maps – basically, a routing system to help drivers find where they are going while avoiding major traffic bottlenecks.

TomTom hired a firm to conduct a survey of seven major U.S. cities – Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and New York – to discern the “driving personalities” inhabiting each locale, polling 200 folks in each city to uncover common driving habits and roadway behaviors.

“We thought the survey would be a fun way to discover each city’s unique culture on the road; we have after all a natural interest in driving patterns and behaviors,” Karen Drake, TomTom’s corporate communications manager told me via email. “Greater awareness about our own driving tendencies helps us take the necessary measures to overcome the challenges we all face on the road, including dense traffic, breakdowns and high gas prices.”

[Here’s a little video showing how TomTom’s product offering works — just in case you were wondering …]

OK, sounds a bit humdrum, I know – until I started reading the survey’s results. Of all the cities listed above, I felt sure – smugly confident, even – that New York, Los Angeles, Boston, or maybe even Chicago would be home to drivers with some of the worst habits. But ATLANTA? No way … I just couldn’t believe it. Yet the drivers polled in Atlanta admitted to some interesting behaviors while out of the road. Just look:

• Extrapolating from TomTom’s survey data, roughly 61.3% of Americans travel five to 10 miles over the speed limit. Atlanta’s drivers, however, bagged the top slot, with 66.2% of them admitting to going over the speed limit by five to 10 mph.

• Some 10.7% of Americans curse or gesture crudely when someone cuts them off; Yet, again, Atlanta’s drivers do it the most – some 14.4% of them.

• Roughly 21.6% of Americans slam on their brakes or slow down when being tailgated. Then there are Atlanta’s drivers, slamming on the brakes the most – some 26.4% of the time.

• And then to the coup de grace: while 2% of Americans pick their nose behind the wheel … some 3% of Atlanta’s drivers admit to this unsavory practice. Oh no!

At least Boston stayed true to form: while 19.8% of Americans lean on their horns when someone cuts them off, Boston is the city where they do it the most, some 27.6% of the time.

“Nationwide, 58.1% of Americans surveyed have a daily commute that lasts 45 minutes to an hour. With so much time spent in the car, it comes as no surprise that some interesting, and in some cases, even embarrassing behaviors and occurrences have resulted,” said Kendra Thornton, travel expert and industry publicist, in comments about this survey.

You’re telling me – and most of them occurring in ATLANTA of all places! Needless to say, once word of these survey results get out, I think you’ll find Atlanta’s drivers being a lot more circumspect in terms of what conduct they’ll admit to when behind the wheel of a motor vehicle!

“How far would Moses have gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt?” –Harry S. Truman, 33rd president of the United States

I bring the great President Harry Truman into this post over polling results about heavier trucks for a reason – simply put, you cannot fully trust polls. Like President Truman said, polls can often muddy the waters significantly and even throw you off the correct path in life if you put too much faith in them.

The recent poll conducted by the Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP) offers a prime example. Obviously, for a coalition of more than 100 shippers and allied associations dedicated to increasing the federal weight limit for commercial trucks on interstate highways, poll numbers that show heavy favoritism of their position on this issue are going to get hawked about quite a bit.

It’s also true that, upon reading how the questions within this poll were structured, the poll itself might have skewed a good portion of people’s responses. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Americans would favor increasing the weight limit by a margin of 51% to 39% IF … and there is that all-important “if,” which is the middle word in “life” … IF higher weight limits contribute to safer roads, greater fuel economy and more productive highway transportation. I mean … DUH!!! … who WOULDN’T be in favor of heavier trucks if those are the payoffs?

All that being said, though, it is important get a glimpse of the American’s public thinking on this issue of heavier trucks. Obviously, they clearly favor it if [there’s that word again, always making things more complex!] there big benefits to be gained. It’s the standard, and appropriate, American response: if change is going to bring us more benefits with lower costs, let’s go for it.

Here are some of the other factoids released by the CTP from its poll:

• Americans are more likely to support increasing weight limits when they learn that additional axles would make the tractor-trailers safer and better for road surfaces.

• A strong majority (66%) would be more likely to support legislative action to allow trucks to carry more weight on interstates if those trucks add an extra axle.

• Americans are also more likely to support a weight limit increase due to positive environmental implications.

• Some 63% of those surveyed would be more likely to support an increase in weight that trucks can carry on interstates if it would reduce carbon emissions and fuel consumption.

The survey itself canvassed 1,000 American adults by leading pollster Wilson Research Strategies (WRS) June 16–22 this year via live operator telephone calls and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.1%. WRS noted its poll sample was stratified to be demographically and geographically representative of the national adult population.

None of these responses should come as a big surprise to anyone. And these results are going to become part of the debate by CTP and other heavier truck advocates as they try to get the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009 (H.R. 1799), sponsored by Reps. Michael Michaud (D-ME) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH), passed in House of Representatives.

Again, this particular bill would allow for heavier – but not larger – trucks on interstates by giving each state the option to increase its interstate vehicle weight limit to 97,000 pounds for trucks equipped with a sixth axle for safety, stresses CTP Co-Chair John Runyan, (at right) who is also the senior manager of federal government relations for International Paper.

Without changing truck size, the additional axle maintains current braking capacity and weight-per-tire-distribution and minimizes pavement wear, he says, while a user fee imposed by the bill would help fund vital bridge repair should there be any damage incurred from the increase weight limits.

“Americans solidly back the same truck weight reform proposed by H.R. 1799 – providing strong support for Congress to responsibly raise the federal vehicle weight limit,” Runyan notes in a press release. “With truck traffic already increasing 11 times faster than road capacity and freight expected to double by 2025, H.R. 1799 would make sure America’s shipping needs are met in a way that improves highway safety and reduces our carbon footprint.”

Yet those firmly opposed to raising weight limits won’t be furling their sails anytime soon. They continue to back House bill H.R. 1618, entitled the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act or simply the “SHIPA” bill – introduced March 19 by Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) with Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) as the lead minority cosponsor.

SHIPA seeks to freeze current truck size and weight limits for all states to those rules on the books as of June 1, 2008 – limiting truck trailer size to 53-ft long and weight limits to 80,000 lbs., unless a state allowed longer and heavier trucks to operate on its roads as of that date. Also under the McGovern bill, any group of two or more consecutive axles would stay consistent with the weights enacted under the Federal Aid Highway Amendments of 1974.

[And I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a poll come out in favor of THEIR position, either, in the near future.]

One thing is for certain – the debate over increasing weight limits for heavier trucks isn’t going away anytime soon. So stay tuned for more developments when Congress comes back from its summer break.

“In extreme off-road tires, reinforced sidewalls with Kevlar help increase sidewall puncture resistance.” –Jon Bellissimo, Goodyear’s North American director of consumer tire technology

Here’s an interesting concept to consider: armored truck tires. Yep, that’s right – applying the same material used to make bulletproof body armor for police and soldiers to truck tires. Right now, this is purely for consumer-grade tires, but from where I sit, one would think medium- and heavy-duty truckers that perform a lot of off-road work could benefit from this technology as well.

The armor material in question – Kevlar fiber – is made by DuPont and is being applied to Goodyear tires targeted for use in conditions ranging from tough, rocky terrain to everyday highway driving. Thomas Powell, vice president and general manager for DuPont Protection Technologies, said the reason for merging Kevlar and tires together is pretty straightforward, as this armored material helps help provide stability, toughness and comfort.

[You can see these tires in action below via the “rock and roll” styled video Goodyear and DuPont put together to promote these armored tires.]

Powell noted, however, that tire reinforcement was the initial application for Kevlar more than 40 years ago – it only gradually seeped into the body armor market. Thus the concept of “armored tires” isn’t new: in fact, Goodyear introduced Wrangler and Fortera tires with SilentArmor Technology – a basically a layer of Kevlar under the tread – back in 2005, and a year later began offering the Eagle branded tire line with what it called ResponsEdge Technology; a sound- and shock-absorbing InsuLayer made with DuPont Kevlar.

Now, Goodyear is widening its use of Kevlar, adding it to its new Wrangler MT/R off-road tire; the first made in the with Kevlar to boost sidewall puncture resistance by about 35% said Powell. That armored material also helps reinforce the sidewall for when drivers return to the pavement for the drive home.

Goodyear’s subsidiary Dunlop, working with designer Pininfarina, also unveiled an ultra-lightweight concept tire in Europe featuring Kevalr to replace traditional steel components. At 20% less weight, “this would lead to significant lower levels of rolling resistance and fuel consumption,” said Bernd Loewenhaupt, Dunlop’s director of consumer tire technology.

This is all pretty cool stuff – and the applications for commercial trucks would seem to be a no-brainer. However, as always, there’s the cost factor to consider. Yet if Kevlar could make commercial truck tires last longer and perform better off-road and on-highway, that extra cost might be worth it – in fact helping drive down the life cycle costs of tires. That will be the real trick, of course – we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.