kscarbel2

Fleet Owner / November 5, 2015 Better collaboration throughout the supply chain is leading to more driver-friendly freight and higher yields for all involved Collaboration is probably something many trucking companies don’t feel the need to engage in at the moment, especially with capacity getting so tight. And many of their customers and competitors freely admit as much. “We believe that the trucking industry—and the truckload segment specifically—is starting to experience a paradigm shift where carriers will increasingly be in a more favorable position to choose who they serve and who they provide capacity to,” Paul Newbourne, senior vice president of logistics operations for Armada Supply Chain Solutions, says. “In our view, it will be even more important than it has been in the past for shippers and receivers to make sure that they are doing everything they can to present themselves as customers of choice for their carriers,” he stresses. “At the core of this is shippers finding ways to help deliver improved efficiency to their carriers while at the same time generating value for themselves.” It’s not quite so one-sided, though, because many fleets are finding that just getting more money to haul freight might not be nearly enough to solve the myriad cost issues facing them. Jett McCandless, founder and CEO of CarrierDirect, an advisory firm to trucking and logistics providers, explains that there is little appreciation for the steep increase in motor carrier costs over the last six years. In percentage figures, he indicates that while trucking rates are up 9% since 2009, the cost of trailer and tractor parts is up 14%; the cost of tires is up 50%; the cost of trailers has increased 18%; the cost of tractors is up 11%; and driver compensation, broadly defined, has increased 16%. Erik Malin, executive vice president at CarrierDirect, adds that his firm projects the overarching theme for the freight industry is that truck capacity is not going to get better. “Driver pay, especially, is just not where it needs to be,” he says. “Some say it needs to be between $60,000 and $80,000 to recruit millennials.” Thus, in the view of some fleets, the potential magnitude of trucking rate increases required to address those cost issues may be too large for shippers to take all at once. As a result, that’s spurring the use of more collaborative initiatives, explains Derek Leathers, president and COO of TL carrier Werner Enterprises. “We lagged for a time [on rate increase] because we fixed shipment issues,” he explains. “We collaborated with shippers; we worked together to find yield for us and service and capacity for them.” Leathers stresses that from here on out, “we have to price for shipper practices” in terms of the impact they may have on Werner’s 9,000 drivers. “We recognize turnover at an account level now,” he says. “We cannot afford to put drivers in a situation where we’ll lose him or her over [shipper dock practices].” Safety with sharing Armada’s Newbourne adds that there is a safety aspect to such shipper practices as well. “All the carriers we talked to have a first priority on safety—safety for the public as well as for the safety of their driver,” he explains. “Yet apparently they are still routinely getting loads tendered to them and pressure by certain shippers to do things which would jeopardize safety.” That includes issues like requiring drivers to speed, exceed their hours-of-service limits, or even “run around scales” in order to meet the shipper’s delivery expectations. “This seems like a good opportunity to collaborate to find the right solution to meet that shipper’s needs without exposing a carrier or the public to additional risks,” Newbourne emphasizes. “Every carrier [Armada talked to] also expresses concerns about the treatment of the driver at shipping and receiving locations,” he notes. “They cite regular reports and feedback from their drivers of unprofessional and/or rude treatment by facility personnel as well as a lack of simple, basic necessities, such as access to restrooms or vending services.” To combat those and other issues negatively affecting carrier operations, Armada invested in what Newbourne calls a “field services team” that’s focused full-time on identifying trends and behaviors that add value to the supply chains of Armada’s clients. “They are also responsible for initiating followup to make the necessary improvements by engaging those stakeholders to change process and protocols in order to get better results,” Newbourne points out. For example, he says Armada’s field services team identified a situation where excessive Friday volume spikes created both service and cost issues for a shipper and contracted carriers alike. “They subsequently worked with our [partner] carriers and the shipper to develop a business case that resulted in the shipper opening for a half-day shift on Saturday to accommodate a portion of what had been the Friday volume surge,” Newbourne explains. “This resulted in net savings to our client in the low six figures, strictly as a result of identifying this problem, working together to resolve it, and being able to reduce spot market [capacity] buy in excess of reefer run time.” Newbourne cites another example as a personal favorite. There was an instance where Armada’s field services team identified an excessive loading time situation at origin and excessive trailer drop time at destination. On top of that, the receiver at the destination was actually running the reefer units dry. “By working with both the supplier and receiver, we were able to help the supplier identify some process improvements,” he says. “We not only helped reduce loading time, we were also able to work with the receiver to make them aware of the cost implications of their behavior.” The net result? Lower origin load time, heightened reefer turn time at destination, and a 15% reduction in the cost of servicing that one freight lane. “The key to this solution is the collaborative approach with all of the stakeholders,” Newbourne stresses. “It is critical that they always find a solution that is a win-win for everyone. Now, not all of the wins are equal and sometimes it appears one side might give a little bit more. But everyone needs to win.” Technology is king Certainly, cost savings shared between carriers and customers are a good thing. But can the same collaborative benefits be found for nominal competitors? CarrierDirect’s Malin believes so and cites the acquisition of Coyote Logistics by United Parcel Services earlier this year as an example. On the one hand, he explains that leveraging Coyote’s truckload density will help UPS to limit backhaul and deadhead miles within its own network, while in turn Coyote can now offer a higher service-level product at highly competitive rates to shippers. On the other hand, though, he says the existing relationships Coyote forged with primarily LTL carriers prior to its acquisition benefits UPS as well, as it now gains access to “surge” volumes Big Brown cannot handle during season freight peaks. “The transportation market is really agnostic. That’s why carriers will continue to do business with Coyote because of the value Coyote brings to them,” Malin points out. “Asset network optimization is a massive strategic initiative for LTL and TL carriers in the future because backhaul and deadhead miles are really huge [operating ratio] killers.” He says it also demonstrates that technology is king and will remain the key to unlocking the full value of collaboration. Winning carriers will be able leapfrog dated electronic data interchange systems that are plagued with stale and often misleading data and move in the direction of API or automated program interface technology. “API allows all parties—shippers, carriers, and brokers—access to real-time pricing, capacity, and availability data,” Malin explains. “Similarly, shippers, carriers, and brokers can adjust pricing and operating strategies, on the fly if you will, to maximize profitability by ‘intelligently reacting’ in an automated fashion to the freight market conditions that exist right now and not yesterday, last week, last month, or worse yet, last quarter.” Real-time access Access and reaction to real-time data will separate the winners from the losers in the carrier and broker worlds but will also enable both to maximize return on investment. “This can become a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship that can, in turn, help shippers reduce their freight transportation spend through what amounts to continuous supply chain optimization,” Malin argues. Armada’s Newbourne, though, cautions all the parties involved that collaboration is difficult and will remain so. “It reminds me of sustainability initiatives,” he says. “Inherently, it always seems to be the right thing to do. But it is difficult to do, and the biggest challenge is making sure it has an economic benefit.” From Newbourne’s perspective, it also means changing legacy behaviors via collaboration—moving to 24/7 shipping/receiving facilities or using more drop-and-hook operations to improve tractor and driver productivity, he explains. “Another thing that we do is work with our stakeholders to try to optimize what they are actually putting on the truck because we have found that in some lanes they are ordering 22 pallets, but they are not taking advantage of the full cube/weight capacity in the vehicle,” Newbourne points out. “The more efficient the truck, the better utilization you will get out of it and the more loads you get out of it,” he continues. “If you can get better utilization through better turns, you are in a potentially better position to pay your drivers more and buy more equipment without raising your rates.” Collaboration tip sheet Paul Newbourne, senior vice president of logistics operations for Armada Supply Chain Solutions, says there are seven key areas of carrier operation ripe in his estimation for positive change through collaboration with shippers and other supply chain participants. They are: - Carrier load/unload dwell time - Days of the week shipping volumes - Weekend shipping options - Holiday/severe weather planning - Order lead time and date changes - Accessorial cost management - Scheduled shipping programs He stresses, however, that those areas cannot be properly addressed via collaborative undertakings unless the following seven critical points are incorporated: - Safety needs to be a priority focus. - Operations must comply with the law. - Truck drivers need more consideration. - Two-way communication is essential. - Sustainability is everyone’s concern. - Carrier utilization must improve. - Customers must be willing to partner with carriers.

Today’s Trucking / November 4, 2015 When Volvo announced its new Adaptive Loading technology at the Mid-America Trucking Show in March, much was made of its seamless, no-driver-input-required ability to switch between 6x2 and 4x2 operating modes. That was then. Five months later, after having about 200 trucks equipped with Adaptive Loading in use across North America, fleets that employ the technology are reporting a wide variety of other welcome results, including improved fuel mileage; much faster drop-and-hook times; much longer tire wear; greater payload because the system itself weighs about 300 lb less than a standard 6x4 setup; increased traction on wet pavement; easier take offs on snow and ice; and even improved driver retention. In late August, Volvo demonstrated Adaptive Loading system to journalists from across North America and on hand to vouch for the technology were several small and mid-sized customers whose trucks had been equipped with the -technology and whose only gripe with the system seemed to be that it’s not being made available quickly enough. At its simplest, Adaptive Loading involves forward and drive axles and air-pressure sensors that measure the vehicle’s weight and adjust the axles and axle weights accordingly. When the trailer is empty or running very light, the system lifts the forward axle for better fuel economy (and less tire wear). Loaded, the forward axle drops and the system puts more pressure on the drive axle, for better traction. Adaptive Loading was initially aimed at fleets that return with much lighter loads than they go out with, such as bulk carriers. Also, when a driver finds that more traction is required, such as on snowy or wet pavement, the Adaptive Loading lets the rear axle do the heavy lifting. And while most of this is performed automatically, the driver can select “Enhanced Traction” via a dash-mounted switch. Another benefit: Safety when driving on a wet highway. With the front axle lifted, weight gets shifted to the steer axle, enhancing control. One of the fleet owners at the August demonstration said he found that this safety factor alone would convince him to equip his trucks with Adaptive Loading. Shane Law runs Blackfoot, Idaho-based Alpine Logistics. He described what it was like running an empty trailer in the rain with the forward axle raised and the weight on the steers: “It was just like dry roads.” Explains one of the Adaptive Loading architects and manager of product strategy for drivetrain systems at Volvo Trucks Peter Blonde: “When the truck is empty, you might have 2,500 to 3,000 pounds at each of the four wheel positions in a standard tandem axle. When we lift the front axle of the tandem the weight shifts to the steer axle and the rear drive axle, increasing the weight on the drive tires to 5,000 or 6,000 pounds per wheel position.” Volvo Truck’s Product Marketing Manager for regional haul Chris Stadler said fleets are reporting fuel-efficiency gains of between three and five percent; and because the lift axle tires are used far less, customers can expect both steer and lift axle tires to last far longer. Another of the customers on hand was Idaho Milk Transport of Burley, Idaho and one of the owners of the company, Gene Brice, said their trucks outfitted with the system are achieving more than nine miles per gallon. He said he will be replacing most of 150-truck fleet with trucks equipped with Adaptive Loading. (He runs mostly 6x4s). “We used to be happy with high sevens, but now we’re into the nine-plus mile-per-gallon range with 80,000 pounds one way and back empty. I no longer think 10 miles per gallon is out of the question.” “Most of our routes are loaded one way only,” Brice says. “We’re at a fleet average of 37-percent empty miles. When we can lift an axle and save that drag and wear and tear, we’re saving money.” As for fuel economy, Brice says one particular truck just ran a month with a fuel-pumped, miles-run average of 9.64 mpg. Currently, Adaptive Loading is only available with Volvo’s I-Shift transmission; a 405-hp D11 or 425-hp D13 engine and although Stadler says the package will cost “a little more,” he could not be more specific. Volvo expects the system to be in full production in January, 2016. There remains one problem with the system and that is — it’s restricted in some jurisdictions, including British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. Volvo says they are working with officials in those jurisdictions to have the regulations adjusted. Video - Volvo Adaptive Loading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzFoUEqhH0A

Today’s Trucking / November 4, 2015 There are few ways of comparing air disc brakes to drum brakes that discs don’t come out on top. Still, fleet adoption rates in North America hover around 10 percent. That begs the question, are discs too good for their own good? Drum brakes get the job done, so is there any pressing need to look beyond our traditional and proven way of stopping trucks? The short answer to that question would be no—in most cases. The thing with brakes is you never really know how valuable they are until you really, really need them. And brakes never fail in any way that’s less than spectacular. So, if no great need has ever arisen, you can’t be blamed for dismissing the arguably more costly and heavier air disc brake systems as an expensive luxury. As of today, air disc brakes (ADB) carry a premium of about $3000, or about $500 per wheel end. Prices varies with the OE, the brand of ADB, size of the order, etc., but that figure is a good ball park. Fleets are right to ask why they should spend that much more on discs while drum brakes are still very much in the game. “The advanced drum brake technology that emerged to meet the U.S. DOT’s most recent stopping distance requirements is more than up to the task,” says Jon Morrison, president of Wabco Americas, suppliers of ADB systems to Hendrickson, Daimler Trucks and others. “If you need additional stopping power or you operate in a severe application, like hilly terrain with heavy loads or in an intense start/stop cycle, discs do provide an extra margin of safety as well as lower maintenance costs over the life of the vehicle.” Let’s break out some of the performance and operational attributes of each brake type. This might help you decide which is best for your operation. Maintenance & Repair Neither brake system is anything close to maintenance free, but both are getting close, at least for the vehicle’s first owner. The idea is to minimize the time, money and effort you spend keeping the brakes working. Discs do reportedly offer some advantage here, but as always, it depends on the application. According to Meritor’s Director of Brakes for North America, Gopi Krishnan, a typical linehaul application with lots of miles and little stop/start exposure brake linings can be expected to last between 300,000 and 350,000 miles and up to 600,000 for the drums. “The normal maintenance cycle for disc brakes is not quite double that of drum brakes in a typical application,” he says. “The pads in a disc brake system should go out to 500,000 or 600,000 miles. The rotors can be expected to last up to 1 million miles. As long as you don’t have to change the rotors, you will most likely see lower maintenance costs and therefore lower overall cost of ownership.” Routine service of drum brakes, such as a reline, can take an hour or more per wheel-end, while a pad change on a disc system can take as little as 20 minutes, in some cases without removing the wheel. Rotor or drum changes can both be somewhat more complicated, but it’s likely that the first owner of the truck would never need to do that. In fact, aside from a pad change, most disc brake systems in linehaul service would likely be traded in—following typical fleet trade cycles—without ever requiring any serious brake maintenance. The same could be said for the premium drum brake installations, but there are other parts to such systems that do require periodic inspection, such as lubricating brake adjusters, checking the clevis pins for free movement and inspecting the linings and drums for cracking, expansion of the linings, oil contamination, etc. One fleet we spoke with said they had seen some water intrusion around the piston seals, which prompted them to increase the frequency of inspections and consider replacing the seals at certain intervals. So, apparently they are not totally trouble free. Canada’s new Annual Inspection procedures (see Today’s Trucking, Oct. 2015) have specific requirements for both disc and drum brake inspections, and the drum brake inspection is more rigorous. Routine inspections for drum brakes can be more cumbersome than discs. With drums, there are several moving parts to inspect and there are more areas for potential wear, including the cam bushings, the return springs, the brake actuators and of course the slack adjusters. Meritor’s Director of Brake Engineering for North America, Joe Kay, says discs require much less in the way of inspection. “With our disc brakes everything is pre-lubed and sealed essentially for life,” he says. “You’ll have to visually inspect the caliper for free movement, but not much more is required and there are fewer moving parts to wear out.” So much for “typical” and “linehaul;” many applications are much tougher on brakes, and probably more frequent brake maintenance intervals. If relines and pad changes are required more frequently, the savings in labor, parts and even downtime over the life of the vehicle could be substantial with disc brakes. Concerns over repairs would follow similar lines until you take into account the reason for the repair. Drum brakes, for as reliable as they are, are still regularly put out of service at rates approaching 20%. Most of the OOS events are adjustment related. With disc brakes, that problem basically disappears. “Today there is not a good way to do a roadside inspection of a disc brake, although that could change in the future,” says Gary Ganaway, director of Original Equipment & Technical Sales at Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems. “The disc brake adjustment mechanism is internal to the brake, and not as susceptible to manual adjustment. Provided the caliper is working as prescribed, there’s not much risk of a failed brake inspection.” With the heightened awareness of vehicle defects under the U.S. DOT’s Compliance, Safety and Accountability (CSA) program, minimizing the chances of a failed inspection has greater value than it once did. That exposure is directly proportional to how aggressively a fleet inspects and maintains its brakes. Fleets with good attention to detail may never have a brake problem at a scale. Getting technicians up to speed on ADB is a bit of a hurdle, but it’s not impossible to overcome. “As with any new product, it’s important to conduct training and make sure there’s a thorough understanding of the maintenance practices, but disc brake maintenance is generally easier than that of a drum brake” says Ganaway. “Key maintenance items for disc brakes include inspection during regular PM intervals—looking for damage to boots, ensuring the caliper slides freely, and checking pad/rotor wear.” Performance Back in 2005, when the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to shorten the stopping distance of heavy trucks by between 20 and 30 percent, many people believed it would open the door to air disc brakes. It helped, but at the same time brake manufacturers came up with an advanced drum brake, engineered to develop the increased torque necessary for shorter stops using wider and longer brake lining blocks along with larger chambers. The result was a drum brake that met the stopping distance requirements without forcing the industry over to disc brakes. We’re at a point now where brakes are about as aggressive as they can be without compromising traction. Simply put, when brake torque is greater than road friction coefficient, wheel lock-up will occur. Hendrickson has produced an interesting White Paper called “Understanding Your Brakes: Considerations When Specifying Air Disc Brakes.” The first few pages discuss the dynamics of stopping, as a preface to a discussion about spec’ing ADB in potentially unsuitable applications. The essence of the discussion is no matter how “good’ you can make a brake, there are practical limits to how much you can ask it to do. If the brake causes the wheel to lock up and break traction you have a potential jackknife situation on your hands. With an Anti-Lock Brake intervention, these situations are nearly eliminated, but you’re asking another system to compensate for the overly aggressive brake. It’s to the point now where a disc-brake-equipped 5-axle tractor-trailer combination at 80,000 pounds can stop in about the same distance as a car. Try such a full application stop with an empty or lightly loaded truck, or on wet pavement, and you’ll have lots of ABS activity, which will actually increase stopping distance. Where disc brakes have real potential to outperform drums is in severe service—heavy loads, big hills—or in frequent stop/start applications such as P&D or regional applications. The refuse industry is probably the best-suited sector in the industry from a performance and ROI perspective. They are making hard stops hundreds of times a day with little opportunity for the brakes to cool. Lightly loaded truckload carriers would probably have the toughest case to make from a performance standpoint, although trailers that may not be seen for months at a time, being out there in some drop yard or another, might benefit from a brake that needs very little hands on maintenance. “Applications where brakes are used frequently can see an earlier ROI with disc brakes due to longer service intervals and shorter maintenance times,” says Ganaway. “And most fleets will also experience a reduction in brakes out of adjustment.” These days, when drivers are harder to find the customers, it’s harder to ignore driver preferences, and few would argue against disc brakes. The pedal feel is superior to drum brakes and there’s always plenty of stopping power under foot. That boosts driver confidence considerably, especially with newer drivers. “If I’m a driver and I’m getting out-of-service violations related to brakes, if I could drive a truck that wasn’t going to affect my score I’m certainly going to choose that truck,” says Morrison. “Driver retention has become critical and I see disc brakes as a very positive recruiting tool.” Brake Balance One question that often arises around disc brakes is that of balance. Do you equip tractors but not trailers? Trailers but not tractors? Which do you do first? When one vehicle in the combination has discs while the other does not, there can be balance concerns. The disc-equipped vehicle could do more of the stopping, that is, incur more brake wear, then the other. In a panic stop, ABS will level the playing field to where the more aggressive brakes get more ABS events to prevent wheel lock up. “Performance characteristics of discs and drums are bit different,” says Kay. “Due to their self-energizing capabilities, where the leading shoe grabs the drum first, drum brakes can feel more aggressive at low speeds. Disc brakes tend to apply in a more linear fashion, so they tend not to “grab.” Discs are also more effective at higher speeds and feel better through the pedal. The bottom line is, fleets should consider the balance implications when considering a switch to discs, especially if some larger portion of the trailer fleets is older and more prone to brake adjustment issues.” While each brake has its advantages, disc brakes have some advantages over drums that are definitely worth considering. On the other hand, disc brakes may be more than you really need, and therefore not worth the price premium. As we said from the beginning, the disc brake call is anything but a slam-dunk.

Fleet Owner / November 5, 2015 As North America recoups once-lost manufacturing, prepared fleets stand to gain Hardly an economist hasn’t mentioned it: After Americans watched manufacturing slip away for decades, particularly to cheaper laborers across the Pacific, there’s been a growing trend of it returning closer to home, if not all the way back to the United States. “Nearshoring” was added to the English language in recent years to describe the phenomenon. It continues to gain steam as the evolving demands and conditions of the modern, interconnected market drive opportunity. There were doubts this year that the world’s largest free-trade machine that is North America, still shaking off setbacks of the Great Recession, would be able to keep up with the growth and potential, especially in terms of cross-border transportation and trucking flows. But trucking hasn’t stumbled—and carriers are investing more resources in U.S. trade not only from, but also into, Mexico and Canada anticipating, as one trucking executive tells Fleet Owner, “a bright future” for North American cross-border freight. Where were the doubts? In late 2014, the top commerce officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico helped mark the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a joint statement of optimism and progress. “Our combined trade relationship is more than $1.4 trillion, and our economic output accounts for more than one-quarter of the world’s [gross domestic product]. The North American economy can out-compete any region in the world,” it reads. Then in January of this year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced that Mexican motor carriers would soon be able to apply for authority to conduct long-haul, cross-border trucking services in the United States, “increasing economic and export opportunities between the two countries and marking a significant milestone” in promised NAFTA compliance. The agency conducted a pilot program to test a border-crossing program for Mexican carriers but failed to garner enough participants to reach statistical significance, it said. The Teamsters Union—later supported by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn.—sued to stop the program from moving forward, warning of safety risks. The suit is ongoing, but FMCSA notes that at the end of the pilot program, long-haul operating authority for the participating Mexican carriers expired, and carriers are now allowed to apply for standard/permanent operating authority. Nine were granted permanent authority and four were granted provisional authority; two of the former “voluntarily relinquished” that authority, the agency tells Fleet Owner, and decided to operate only in the commercial zone buffering the border on either side. Since then, only one additional carrier, which has three commercial vehicles transporting mainly textiles, was granted provisional operating authority in early September. Complicating matters, the rising strength of the dollar brought with it concern over whether this year’s available capacity could handle peak U.S.-Mexico seasonal trade demand, which runs from April or May through July and is driven in large part by equipment needed for perishable goods. “The [Mexican] peso has gone from 12.5 to 13 to over 17 to the [u.S.] dollar in a short period of time,” explains Troy Ryley, managing director of third-party logistics (3PL) and technology provider Transplace’s Mexico operation. “So whatever incentives you had to purchase or source out of Mexico, they just became between 25% and 30% more encouraging.” While that makes buying and producing goods in Mexico very enticing, he notes, it also likely makes for a tougher sell—and therefore less movement—of goods in the other direction. Less freight destined for Mexico means less U.S. equipment making its way south to receive and transport Mexican product back up north, creating a potentially large trade imbalance. Meanwhile, in the works since 2006, there’s been a slow transition to use the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) cross-border freight protocols. The system promises to streamline import and export reporting for clearing U.S. Customs, and while it may bring a learning curve, it’ll also mean more flexibility for cross-border freight’s port of entry and potentially faster rerouting in case of backups. Hecho en Mexico Despite those would-be barnacles on the ship, U.S.-Mexico trade is healthy, and Mexico is booming as a location for nearshoring manufacturing and the opportunities that come with it, according to trucking executives. In the post-recession years, several tell Fleet Owner their companies have seen—and expect to see again this year—growth near or into double digits in their Mexico-U.S. cross-border business. Further, it’s not only in trucking but in other forms of transport. Intermodal freight is also growing, Ryley says, and Mexico has experienced an uptick in freight entry via ocean as an alternative entry point for goods made in Asia as U.S. West Coast ports have been prone to holdups due to labor strikes and include some of the most problematic highway corridors in the country for trucks to navigate. But clearly, some of the most impactful growth is coming from manufacturing springing up in Mexico. There are a number of factors driving that, says Lance Dixon, senior vice president of Werner Enterprises’ Mexico and Canada divisions. There’s speed to market, or “how fast a product can be produced and put on a shelf,” he notes. It takes a matter of days to come into the United States from Mexico versus two weeks to a month or more via ocean from China, for example. Time zone differences within North America also are much easier to work with, Dixon adds. In the case of a U.S.-based company “you’re basically working on the same business day” instead of being half a day or more behind Pacific Rim countries. It’s often easier for companies to shuttle executives to and from a manufacturing plant in Mexico than to China, Malaysia, Indonesia, or other places production drifted to over the last few decades. There’s also less of a communication barrier, Dixon notes, since “almost everyone in Mexico’s business world speaks English as a second language.” Add to the mix that a big part of the advantage and appeal of businesses sending manufacturing overseas, particularly to China, was cheaper labor and that has been evaporating. Perhaps a quarter of a century ago, “the labor cost in China was really just a fraction of the labor cost in Mexico,” notes Eugenio Sevilla-Sacasa, vice president of international supply chain solutions at Ryder, “so many industries that were labor-intensive decided to open up manufacturing facilities in China.” Over time and as China’s economy grew, the standard of living and wages increased for many Chinese. That’s seen more on China’s eastern coast, Transplace’s Ryley points out, and companies have sought cheaper labor further inland, which can add time and costs to market. “If you look at your manufacturing costs and you’re in a very labor-intensive industry in China where the labor [costs] have skyrocketed, then your advantage to manufacture in China is no longer there when you compare it to Mexico because you also reduce the inventory that you require in the supply chain” due to the shorter transit times required, Sevilla-Sacasa says. Regarding what type of manufacturing is coming to Mexico, Bernardo Rodarte, vice president and general manager for Schneider’s Mexico division, says his company has seen quite a variety. “A lot of people, when they hear about investments in Mexico, think about the automotive industry, which has been very active recently,” he tells Fleet Owner. “Practically all of the major car manufacturers have opened up shop or are planning to in the next couple of years in Mexico, and that has driven a lot of volume” of freight, Rodarte says. That also includes a range of supporting parts suppliers and manufacturers. However, he notes, “we’re seeing companies from very different types of sectors opening in Mexico, and that is in great part also fueling increased demand for transportation that we’re seeing across the border.” For that reason, “Hecho en Mexico” (made in Mexico)stamps, stickers and tags are being seen more commonly on goods, “from toys to air conditioners to food,” Sevilla-Sacasa says. In addition, “there’s a lot of food that the U.S. exports into Mexico; there’s a lot of manufactured goods that are made in the U.S. or parts and raw materials to supply manufacturing that are being imported into Mexico,” he observes, “so there is growth in both directions.” What about the threat of capacity shortages or any barriers to Mexican trucking companies getting authority to operate in the U.S.? “I don’t really see a lot of carriers lined up to do a full line haul with a Mexican truck going into the interior of the U.S., or vice versa,” Rodarte says. “I believe a lot of this has to do with gaining efficiency. “In having a truck move from the interior of Mexico northbound direct all the way to final destinations in the U.S., there’s still a border in between. Oftentimes,that border could take hours or, in many cases, also days to clear,” he continues. “You don’t want a truck sitting at the border for two or three days. In order to avoid that, the best way of doing it is to relay [a trailer] between a U.S. carrier and a Mexican carrier, which really makes everybody’s lives a lot simpler.” Trucking finds a way Thus, what’s happening with much of the freight moving between Mexico and the United States is that trailers are being trucked across the border north or south a short distance—with the Laredo, TX-Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, corridor being one of the densest of various crossings—and transloaded at carriers’ facilities. And the companies that are getting ahead are working closely with U.S. and Mexican customs and maintaining certification under programs such as the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security’s Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism to expedite border crossing. “I strongly believe, and in fact we do this every day, if the shipper has all of his documentation in Mexico, and all the entry work is done on the U.S. side, you can get across the border in minutes,” Rodarte contends. “It tends to be a quick process.” Carriers are showing their faith in that process with continued investment. Werner, for instance, is upgrading its facilities in Laredo and El Paso, TX, and has also “moved to larger offices in Mexico in two of the four cities we have offices in,” the company’s Dixon says. “All of this is in preparation for continued growth.” Still, according to Sevilla-Sacasa, moving freight in Mexico is not without its pitfalls. Two limiting factors today are infrastructure, which has seen improvements but is at its limits for handling truck traffic in some areas, and telecommunications, which “you’ll have to bring with you in some remote locations.” Small-time and cartel-related theft and other crime risks also remain concerns requiring carriers’ diligence, he says. Canada doesn’t get all the fanfare Mexico has lately, but it is a critical part of the North America trade equation. Not surprisingly, America’s largest trading partner is still helping create new opportunities for freight and goods distribution. For one thing, Canada is also part of the raw materials and manufacturing supplies trade that’s fueling production in Mexico. “There’s parts moving into Mexico from Canada and from the U.S. and then back out,” notes John Costanzo, president of Purolator International, which hauls truckloads in Canada and operates as a 3PL in the United States. “So I think Mexico is going to present a tremendous opportunity for everybody in the next several years.” Freight crossing the border between the U.S. and Canada has been more of a constant, rather than the faster-paced growth seen with Mexico, Costanzo says. Mark Aurig, vice president and general manager for Schneider’s Canada division, agrees, noting that “trusted trader” programs and crossing the border in general similarly have long been very stable, and there are plenty of options for doing the latter. “But what we’re seeing with the Canada-U.S. trade as it relates to over-the-road and intermodal [freight transport] is that it’s really driven a lot by exchange rates,” Aurig says. “There tends to be a 12- to 18-month lag in that.” He notes that the U.S. and Canadian dollars were about even for about five or six years, up until September 2014 when the U.S. dollar pulled ahead, just as it did against other currencies. “Prior to that and in the earlier part of this year, we were seeing stronger northbound demand from the U.S. to Canada than southbound from Canada to the U.S. That had been a market dynamic that we’d gotten used to for some time,” Aurig adds. With the U.S. dollar now at $1.30 Canadian, U.S. goods headed northward have tapered off a bit since they’re more expensive for Canadians to buy. Aurig says that currency gap is expected to widen slightly and remain at least for the near future, which could bring an increase in southbound goods and freight coming from Canada thanks to the stronger purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. Costanzo says PuroPost, a service his company launched about two years ago, has thrived in this market dynamic. It’s a blend of Purolator and Canada Post delivery, he explains, and offers lower cost and “very consistent, reliable delivery time into Canada.” “Our growth in that [lower cost service] has been phenomenal over the last two years,” he tells Fleet Owner, noting that Purolator surveyed Canadian and U.S. consumers and found that most want low-cost yet reasonably quick shipping for online purchases. “It’s contrary to what the hype is now,” Costanzo adds. “It sounds sexy to say, ‘I’m going to deliver your product in two hours,’ but how many of us really need that?” Both he and Aurig point out, however, that there’s also a space for very fast, narrow-window freight movement between the U.S. and Canada, and the well-established border allows for that agility. “We have [u.S.-Canada] automotive moves where parts are going into an assembly plant, and we have literally four or five hours of leeway before a plant shuts down,” Aurig says. “You can’t build those kinds of networks unless you have a border that runs a lot more efficiently in terms of the time to cross.” And in terms of trucking and transportation business models, again, trade between Canada and the United States offers options. For example, Schneider uses some 400 Canadian nationals as the drivers doing its U.S.-Canada border crossing, and they relay loads to U.S. distribution centers. “It allows us a huge amount of density within Canada, much more so than you would normally get from 400 drivers,” Aurig contends. He says he expects continued growth in U.S.-Canada cross-border trade and potentially some manufacturing returning to Canada. “We’re going to see more pressure on southbound freight as more manufacturing expands into Canada, taking advantage of the exchange rate benefits. I think you’re going to see more retailers in the U.S. starting to source more of their goods from Canadian vendors, which will also drive more of that southbound volume,” he tells Fleet Owner. Cross-border truck volume should remain strong, Aurig says, but more freight volume could come via intermodal rail connections. “There are some new capabilities being brought to bear by the railroads that are going to make shorter-length-of-haul intermodal [transport] between eastern Canada and the eastern half of the U.S. more efficient and cost-effective, as well as just shorter transit times,” he notes. “So I think we’re going to see growth on more of these shorter-length-of-haul lanes between eastern Canada and the eastern part of the U.S. with intermodal.” Others likewise anticipate growth for North America. “At Ryder, we continue to invest in both Canada and Mexico, and we continue to see a bright future for trade between the U.S., Mexico and Canada,” the company’s Sevilla-Sacasa says.

Fleet Owner / November 5, 2015 With two oil specs coming onboard, which one is right for you fleet? Fleet operators demand better and better fuel efficiency and, beginning with model year 2017 heavy-duty trucks, federal regulators will as well. For the first time in 10 years, OEMs, oil marketers, and standards organizations are coming out with a new category for heavy-duty diesel engine lubricants designed to maximize fuel efficiency from the latest in powertrain technology. The catch is this new category actually will include two lubricant standards, and it will be up to the end users—maintenance managers, shop staff, and truck drivers—to know and to use the correct engine oil for the variety of equipment in their fleet. But that decision might not be as simple as just following the engine makers’ recommendations. And that’s what has everyone’s attention. The good news, as this edition of Fleet Owner goes to press, is that the involved parties are expected to have settled the performance details and testing standards, and the official ballots are circulating with the aim of a year-end final approval. And it will be another 12 months before the current product category, CJ-4, will be phased out. In the meantime, engine oil producers will be perfecting their formulations, testing labs will have their heavy-duty engines humming 24/7, and, ultimately, engine makers will set their official recommendations. That’s essentially not much different from previous new-spec cycles. What’s different this time around is that the latest generation of engines—designed for low-rpm “downspeeding,” among other high-tech touches to maximize fuel efficiency and limit emissions—runs hot. To get every last fraction of mpg out of them requires a lubricant with lower viscosity and even a different way for consumers to consider viscosity called high-temperature/high-shear, or HTHS. Oil marketers, based on tests of preapproval formulations, report low-HTHS lubricants provide a 2-3% improvement in highway fuel economy. For truck fleet operators with older equipment, however, this PC-11B subcategory, to be named FA-4, likely will not be the best option. For those older diesels—certainly pre-EPA ’07 models and perhaps even EPA ’10—the new PC-11A standard, CK-4, will be an improved version of, and direct replacement for, the outgoing CJ-4. So far, so good. But an anticipated uncertainty in the marketplace will center first on which lubricants the engine manufacturers will recommend and, second, on maintenance shop management. Will fleets go along with a double-lubricant standard, at least for several years’ worth of drainage intervals as the older trucks are replaced? Or will they opt to sacrifice some of the performance benefits of FA-4 to keep the engine oil inventory simple? This round of new engine oil standards began with a request from the Truck & Engine Manufacturers Assn. (EMA) and its members, explains Roger Gault, EMA vice president for regulatory activities. Specifically, the CK-4 formulation is intended to be “fully backward-compatible,” meet enhanced oxidation requirements, and provide some benefit in aeration control. Essentially, CK-4 will be a new and much improved evolution of the tried-and-true CJ designation. FA-4, however, is “a different animal,” Gault points out. The engine makers wanted a standard that will bring lower HTHS oils into the heavy-duty market. The aim is to help meet increasingly stringent Environmental Protection Agency emissions regulations. “There’s a body of evidence that says lower HTHS oils provide an incremental benefit in fuel efficiency and reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,” Gault says. “It’s been kind of taken to the extreme on the light-duty side, but on the heavy-duty side, we’re putting a toe in the water a little bit.” Previously, whether in 10W-30 or 5W-30 HD oil, the HTHS measure has been 3.5, and CK-4 will retain that baseline. The FA-4 standard will allow HTHS to go as low as 2.9, but that’s still in line with the SAE 30 grade’s lower limit. “It’s kind of confusing in the marketplace because we’re going to end up with 5W-30s or 10W-30s that fall into both categories and they’re going to be different,” Gault adds. “This is new territory for us. Historically, all the heavy-duty diesel engine oils have been in the higher HTHS category. Part of the consumer education process that the industry will be undertaking is to help them understand that there are multiple oils that would carry the same viscosity grade.” On the user side, EMA expects the “traditional” transition discussions around which oil spec applies to which truck make and model. “That’s a challenge every time we change a category, but even more so this time,” Gault says, referring to how far back the compatibility will go. “There’s no simple answer, unfortunately.” Consumer confusion is one thing, but the engine makers that are leading this exploration into new territory aren’t quite sure what to expect either. “That lack of knowledge, or field experience, with those lower HTHS oils has given pause to engine manufacturers because they want to assure their customers that whatever oil they’re using in their engines will provide the historical performance and durability that they’re relied on in the past,” Gault explains. But once the standards are set, the OEMs will have to make the call on which engines can—and should—go low HTHS. ‘Donuts’ made fresh The American Petroleum Institute has been setting fuel and lubricant standards for 65 years, so the process is nothing new. But Kevin Ferrick, manager for API’s engine oil program, concedes this round is a little different. “Every new standard is essentially an improvement on the previous one,” Ferrick says. “Traditionally, the new category is backward-compatible: The newest oil can be used where the old oil is recommended. For CK-4, that’s more than likely going to be true. For FA-4, it may not be backward-compatible. From an in-cab perspective, we’re going to have to work very hard to make sure that fleets, drivers, and owner-operators are aware of the new standard and are very careful to use the oil that’s recommended for their engine. It’s just going to take some work on our part.” Ferrick anticipates that API will add some sort of additional wording to the certification seal, known as the service symbol donut, on each container to identify the oil. API will be running an educational campaign beginning early next year and will encourage the marketing companies to do the same. To get to this point with the new category initiative, API brought together a variety of stakeholder groups for a series of discussions as the proposed categories were conceived and developed. Following the late October gathering to finalize the spec, ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) will vote first on the standards, followed by API’s lubricants group. “The goal is to have the approvals done by the end of this year. We have to allow a waiting period for the oil marketing companies to get their products online,” Ferrick says. “Right now everything is on schedule, and we’ll be able to do licensing for Dec. 1, 2016. That’s the first day an oil bottle can show up on the shelf with CK-4 or FA-4 in the API donut.” Still, the transition will takes months before CK-4 becomes dominant in the marketplace—which is “pretty normal,” Ferrick notes. “The simplest thing is truck operators really have to follow the manufacturers’ recommendations on this,” he continues. “If you’re a fleet operator, you may have to have more than one diesel oil in your facility. There are two mantras that we follow: Always use API licensed oil, and don’t deviate from the owner’s manual Choice is good Shawn Whitacre is the Chevron senior staff engineer-engine oil technology for Chevron’s heavy-duty Delo brand engine oil. He’s also the chairman of ASTM’s heavy-duty engine oil classification panel, and he confirms that finalizing the standard is at a pivotal point in terms of crossing all the t’s and dotting the i’s to hit the December target requested by the engine manufacturers. “Not much in the big picture will change by December,” Whitacre says, although some of the precision on the new engine tests are still being refined, and work is being done with user groups to settle on the final labeling to minimize confusion over the two new oil versions. “We’re down to dealing with some of the nuances.” Of course, given the membership of the committee, competing interests do sometimes emerge. But the “very deliberate” ASTM bylaws, while resulting in “a lot of meetings,” also drive consensus, he explains. “We all kind of work together so that the user has the products that they expect,” Whitacre says. “At this point, the picture is still a bit unclear as to how far back the OEMs are going to allow the FA-4 to be used. One thing that is clear is they understand this new grade won’t be practical for the end user if it’s only allowed in new products. There’s got to be some flexibility for fleets to be able to use it in a meaningful fraction of their existing equipment.” Additionally, the new low-viscosity categories will require the most comprehensive testing and evaluation ever developed for heavy-duty engine oils, including nine “fired-engine tests,” with some tests running as long as 500 hours. The goals, along with the “drastic improvements” in thermal stability and fuel economy benefits, include longer oil drain intervals. “Even before the new category was conceived, we were no longer in a one-size-fits-all market. The majority of customers might have had a 5W-40 and a 10W-30 for all-weather operations, but now we’re seeing not just cold-climate grades but also fuel economy—and you’ve got a variety of OEM-specific requirements here and abroad,” Whitacre says. “And now we also have not just diesel engines but natural gas. So now we’ve got a whole suite of product offerings. And that’s going to extend further.” The challenge and the opportunity, he continues, is for oil marketers to make sure they have the right products for the business needs of the customer. “We’re pretty excited. We enjoy the challenge of these new tighter specifications because we’ve got a comprehensive in-house capability: We’re not only oil marketers, but we’ve got the base oil; we have a division that does additive chemistry; we’ve got blending facilities around the world,” Whitacre says. “That’s why we embrace these category upgrades that the OEMs request, and we take a very active role in leading the categories to market. It’s going to be busy the next 14 months, but important.” In the lab Indeed, the engine oil testing labs at the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) will be running at 100% capacity for the next two years, according to Martin Thompson, a research engineer in fuels and lubricants. His engine tests are designed “to separate the great from the good oils.” For PC-11, this typically means running engines under severe, high-torque conditions. The tests don’t come cheap, typically running $100,000 or more—and there are several tests for each standard. A formulation that passes all of the tests will run up a tab of close to $1.5 million. And some formulations won’t succeed. “If you have to adjust the oil to pass a particular test, you may have to rerun a test you’ve already passed,” he says. “Running the full battery of tests is no small feat. It’s not a cheap or an easy process to get an API stamp on a bottle of that oil.” Big diesels, anchored to the floor in the testing rooms, are hooked up to more tubes and monitors than any patient in intensive care, as Fleet Owner witnessed while visiting SwRI’s sprawling San Antonio campus. For the PC-11 specific Volvo/Mack T-13 oxidation test, for instance, researchers monitor and measure “just about every temperature and pressure” of importance on the engine. Individual cylinder temps and the air the engine breathes in and out are all controlled to within 1 deg. Celsius or 1 kPa pressure. “We have very tight limits on the controls, trying to keep these tests scientifically repeatable,” Thompson says. A large part of the cost is to pay for fuel: Engines can burn 20 gals./hr., and tests will run 500 hours—three-and-a-half weeks at full throttle, with the dynamometer holding the engine back to simulate the stress of running under load. The engines are then torn down and rebuilt after each test, and the parts are examined for wear. The engineers sometimes notice that a number of tests are being ordered all at once, with the same product code for each—and that would indicate a “flagship oil” formulation, Thompson notes. And, with just over a year to go before the new categories will be on the shelf, the oil companies are doing less experimenting and working more toward a lubricant formulation that will be approved. “There’s not a CJ-4 oil that will pass the CK-4 tests,” the engineer adds. On the road If you want to know about the real-world effects of a particular lubricant formulation on a truck engine, Shell engineer Howard Hill, the company’s North American field trial coordinator, is the man to see. Shell has been performing road tests on its FA-4 candidate oils to find out if the low viscosity HTHS formulations designed for tomorrow’s engines will indeed be backward-compatible with older equipment. Earlier this year, Hill walked Fleet Owner through the teardown of a 2012 Detroit Diesel 15L with more than 800,000 mi. on it. The engine was pulled from a test fleet truck to evaluate the effects of the lubricant on the various engine parts. Hill checked the cylinders for carbon buildup, and the cam shafts, rings and rod bearings, connecting rods, and rocker arms for wear and polish—and all showed no more wear than the parts from an engine using a current lubricant. And that’s potentially good news for fleet maintenance managers who would rather not stock two different engine oils, explains Matt Urbanak, primary formulator for the Shell Rotella T product line. “You can run all the engine tests you want in the lab, but the real proof of performance is how that oil works out in someone’s actual engine under various operating conditions and locations,” Urbanak says, adding that Shell accumulates about 40 million test miles a year globally, in a full range of vehicles and applications. He also points out that Shell is very particular in the selection of its test fleets, looking specifically for small, high-mileage fleets with good maintenance practices and ideally with a range of engines. “Oil analysis alone is a nice tool, but it doesn’t give us a complete picture of how well oil is protecting an engine. You can’t see cleanliness in an oil analysis,” Urbanak says. “You really need to get in there and see what’s happening.” Such field testing was critical in convincing customers to move to the Rotella T5 10W-30 oil introduced in 2009. “One of the challenges that we’ve had is acceptance of these lighter viscosity grades by our customers who feel that switching is going to compromise the durability of their engine,” Urbanak says. “We’ve tried to debunk that to prove that you can use a 10W-30 product effectively compared to a 15W-40.” And customers likely will need even more reassurance with the new categories. So testing continues at the lower HTHS levels with well over 20 million miles conducted to date. Not a magic formula ExxonMobil also reports working closely with commercial vehicle manufacturers and engine builders on PC-11 for several years, conducting extensive laboratory testing and field trials. And, points out Paul Cigala, a commercial vehicle lubricants application engineer, ExxonMobil has already been working with its fleet partners to educate them about the updated specification. “It’s important to note that PC-11 will not affect every business in the same way. In fact, it’s possible some fleets will see only a small impact from PC-11,” Cigala says. A fleet that may see a small impact from PC-11 is one that is operating older equipment and mixed engine types. Such a fleet would likely only need to switch from its current CJ-4 engine oil to the newer CK-4 formulation. More importantly, Cigala emphasizes that the new category, in the big picture of fleet operations, will hardly move the needle compared to fundamentally sound management. These include the following: - Recruiting the right drivers; - Embracing strict safety protocols for drivers on the road and within a maintenance shop; - Following a proactive maintenance approach, whether in-house or outsourced; and - Using a data-driven approach to optimizing drain intervals and vehicle performance. “PC-11 will not change the best practices that help drive the success of fleets,” Cigala says. “In fact, many of those success factors will remain the same after PC-11 implementation.”

Transport Topics / November 5, 2015 Eaton and Cummins are increasing SmartAdvantage powertrain options to provide fleets more choices to meet their individual applications and operations. At a press briefing and ride-and-drive event here Nov. 4 at Eaton’s proving grounds, the company demonstrated two recently announced features to the UltraShift Plus and Fuller Advantage automated manual transmissions — “urge to move” and “blended pedal.” The companies also previewed Cummins’ new 2017 ISX15 diesel engine and unveiled a new SmartAdvantage direct drive ratio and new engine ratings for the small-step overdrive ratios. “The Eaton and Cummins SmartAdvantage powertrain continue to demonstrate our unparalleled collaboration,” said Ryan Trzybinski, Eaton’s product strategy manager for commercial powertrain. “We’re building on that success now with these new additions to our lineup of products that give our customers improved fuel economy, performance and driver satisfaction.” Urge to Move allows the truck to automatically start moving when the transmission is in gear and the driver releases the service brakes. After the vehicle has launched, it will creep at a constant speed at engine idle without hitting the accelerator. Blended Pedal allows the driver to directly control clutch engagement at engine idle through accelerator positioning and enables movement at varying speeds. The features were added to enhance low-speed maneuverability to aid with backing into a loading dock or maneuvering in a construction job site. “Blended Pedal delivers a level of fine control that, until now, has been exclusive to manual transmissions, said Evan Vijithakumara, product strategy manager for Eaton. The companies also said a new SmartAdvantage direct drive ratio is available in 400 and 450 horsepower ratings with 1,550 and 1,750 pound-feet of torque, providing optimal performance at lower rpm when combined with a 2.26 or 2.28 axle ratio. This package is ideal for linehaul or regional haul applications that operate in flat and hilly road terrains at cruise speeds in the 50 to 62 mph range. The SmartAdvantage powertrain with small-step technology now is available with new 400 and 420 hp ratings, beyond the original 450-hp rating. Small-step technology offers benefits of a direct drive and an overdrive transmission configuration and is ideal where cruising speeds exceed 62 mph, company officials said. Included as part of the ride-and-drive were International trucks equipped with the 2017 ISX15, first displayed in March at the Mid-America Trucking Show. Though still in testing phase, Cummins officials said they have been delighted with the fuel-economy performance thus far and expect it to go into limited production next September.

House passes 6-year highway bill Fleet Owner / November 5, 2015 Amendment to block state driver rest break rules makes final bill The U.S. House has overwhelmingly passed a six-year highway bill following two days of debate on amendments. The final vote, 363 to 64 in favor, means the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015 (the STRR Act) will now move to a reconciliation process with the Senate bill passed earlier this summer. Passage of the bill did not come before there were several additional trucking-related amendments voted on in a second day of debate over the six-year, $325 billion package. Among them, an amendment aimed at giving truckers relief from California’s minimum wage and rest break laws was approved by the House Wednesday evening. A provision to add hundreds of thousands of safe but DOT-unrated trucking companies to a proposed carrier hiring standard was withdrawn, however. And language to undo existing highway bill provisions that remove CSA scores and launch a graduated CDL program for truck drivers under 21 years old both failed. The California-related amendment by Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) prohibits states from imposing labor laws or regulations on companies whose employees are subject to federal Dept. of Transportation hours of service (HOS) rules. Additionally, states may not enact or enforce laws that require a motor carrier that pays employees on a piece-rate basis to pay those employees separate or additional compensation, provided the compensation is equal to or greater than the applicable hourly minimum wage of the state. The legislation is needed because California courts have repeatedly failed to recognize that the federal preemptions under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (F4A) apply to interstate trucking operations, explained Richard Pianka, lead litigator and acting general counsel for the American Trucking Assns. When the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider a recent appeal, the industry’s remaining recourse became Congress and legislation. Specifically, 4FA says that local or state laws cannot interfere with price, routes, or services. “Meal and rest break requirements at the state level prevent carriers from operating on a nationally uniform basis,” Pianka told Fleet Owner. “You can’t do a six-hour run California. You can under federal rules. So if you’re terminals are located with federal rules in mind, and now you can’t make the same runs, you have to start reconfiguring everything—so that’s a huge impact.” Likewise, California wage-and-hour enforcement policies and related court decisions have made attempts to use a compliant mileage-based pay plan for truckers exceedingly complicated, to the point of being absurd. “It prevents motor carriers from using a pay system that’s based on productivity and efficiency,” Pianka said. “And that was exactly why Congress originally preempted states from regulating the trucking industry. It wanted the market to shape industry to make it as productive and efficient as possible.” He emphasized that the amendment isn’t designed to undercut state minimum wage rates, or that companies only need to pay that hourly rate. “If you think the California system is just fine, then don’t worry about this,” Pianka said. California Assembly Bill 1513, signed into law last month, is a labor code update designed to deal with agricultural wage issues but which also severely limits piece-rate compensation for carriers. And, without the Denham amendment, trucking companies large and small can expect the legal aftershocks to continue. Joe Rajkovacz, director of governmental affairs and communications for the Western States Trucking Assn., points to a $100 million class action lawsuit facing Wal-Mart, a company which offers “the best private sector driving job in the country.” Simply, in California drivers and “shyster lawyers” are being very successful at suing companies because their employees were not paid specifically for activities such as fueling the truck. “Never mind, when you add it all up, this guy’s getting paid $30 an hour for his time. He wasn’t directly compensated for whatever that bottom-line time was, at least at a minimum wage,” Rajkovacz said. “These geniuses think they’re uplifting drivers by screwing with motor carriers, but the solution is to say, ‘Fine, we’re paying all of our drivers minimum wage’—but then you’re going to have to revert to some sort of comparison contract or incentive program on top of that.” The catch for that kind of compensation plan is companies then run into “an accounting nightmare” because of other California wage laws, he adds. As to the meal and rest break complications, Rajkovacz points to a five-truck fleet that has had a $1.5 million judgment levied against it for violating California rules. To explain the basic impact, Rajkovacz poses a scenario in which an out-of-state carrier employs a driver who lives in the state. “The minute that truck crosses into the California, you’d be really wise to start having the driver log in compliance with the state meal and rest break laws: a 10-minute break after four hours; a lunch break at five hours; if he doesn’t have an off-duty lunch break, you have to pay him for it—and you still have to comply with,” he said. “This is what’s happening in California. Interstate motor carriers are paying out gazillions of dollars: They’re federally regulated, but they’re being told to comply with state law. It’s incredible, yet it’s happening.” The bottom line is that a lot the trucking association’s members have either closed up shop or moved out of state, while others are looking at shifting from asset-based operations to an independent contractor model. “But that’s a whole, ’nother issue,” he added. The Denham amendment passed 248-180 on a largely partisan vote won by Republicans. Video - http://fleetowner.com/regulations/house-passes-6-year-highway-bill To add unrated carriers to hiring standard Also on the House floor Wednesday, Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) withdrew his amendment to add safe, unrated carriers to a highway bill provision that would protect brokers, shippers, and receivers from liability claims if they use carriers that have a “Satisfactory” safety rating from the DOT. The result is that more than 400,000 carriers, mainly small businesses, will be denied access to the marketplace if the hiring standard legislation stands as-is, suggested Rajkovacz—who also noted that carriers with a “conditional” rating had been unfairly left out of the discussion altogether. He called the provision “a get out of jail free card” for shippers and brokers. “We’re stuck with that original language right now,” he said. “It really would convey a lot of market power to [large carriers]. Is this going to survive the highway bill conference committee? It can’t—it simply can’t. Truckers get nothing out of this. Where it stands, it’s not good for the industry or small businesses.” Video - http://fleetowner.com/regulations/house-passes-6-year-highway-bill?page=2 To keep CSA scores public In other trucking-related legislation, an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL)called for carrier safety scores to remain publicly available during the study of the CSA program required by the highway bill, and the amendment would add a provision to the hiring standard to prohibit the hiring of "high risk carriers" as defined by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and removes several studies. That amendment failed on a voice vote. Video - http://fleetowner.com/regulations/house-passes-6-year-highway-bill?page=3 To block graduated CDL program Rep. John Lewis’s amendment to strike the graduated commercial driver's license program language in the highway bill and replace it with a study on the safety of intrastate teen truck drivers failed, 181-248. Video - http://fleetowner.com/regulations/house-passes-6-year-highway-bill?page=4

Transport Topics / November 5, 2015 Legislation that would reform a safety performance scoring program for motor carriers and set in motion efforts to expand the role young truckers may have in interstate commerce passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Nov. 5. The bill passed the House, as amended, by a vote of 363-64. That vote set up a request for a meeting with the Senate so transportation leaders from both chambers may meet to produce a compromised highway bill. The House-passed $325 billion legislation authorizes transportation programs for six years. The Republican chairmen of the House and Senate transportation panels anticipate sending the president compromised multiyear highway legislation before Thanksgiving. That would meet a Nov. 20 expiration of highway funding authority. Overall, the House bill would require the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to make “corrective actions” to the agency’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability program that scores motor carriers for their safety. Before passing the vote, the House on Nov. 4 beat back an effort by Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) to keep CSA scores public while federal regulators review the program responsible for the scoring. Frankel’s amendment failed by a voice vote. The House also rejected an effort by Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seeking to remove a provision designed to pave the way for drivers younger than 21 to operate trucks across state lines. Lewis’ amendment failed on a 181-248 vote. Like the Senate-passed highway bill, the legislation provides three years of backing for highway programs despite its six-year authorization. The bill “provides strong reforms and policies to help us improve America’s transportation system, and now we can get to work on resolving the differences with the Senate bill and carry a final measure over the goal line,” said Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), the bill’s sponsor. "We congratulate Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member [Peter] DeFazio for leading the passage of a long-term, bipartisan highway bill," said ATA President Bill Graves. "Now we urge House and Senate leaders to come together on a final bill that increases highway investment to send to President Obama this year." Bud Wright, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, added: “The momentum is there, and we encourage both chambers to quickly proceed to conference negotiations so a bill can be sent to the president prior to Nov. 20.”

Fleet Owner / November 5, 2015 After completing 16 acquisitions in four years, global logistics provider plans to focus on “sales, sales, sales” and generating “efficiencies at every level.” Digesting and integrating its now-finalized $3 billion acquisition of Con-way Inc. and its subsidiaries, along with growing revenues, margins, and slicing costs will occupy the management team at XPO Logistics for the foreseeable future, noted Bradley “Brad” Jacobs, the company’s chairman and CEO, in global firm’s third quarter conference call. “This is pure meat and potatoes execution; Sales, sales, sales plus efficiency at every level,” Jacobs explained to reporters on the call. “We’re jumping in like our hair is on fire. Our focus now it to make it all hum as one coherent global organization. Acquisition is not our focus.” He noted that XPO has already cut $30 million of excess costs on an annualized basis from the former Con-way’s structure through headcount reductions and vendor contract re-negotiations and believes that effort indicates XPO remains “on target” to save between $170 million and $200 million in costs over the next two years from its Con-way acquisition. “We’re not impervious to the economy; we certainly depend on GDP [gross domestic product] growth, industrial manufacturing growth, and retail sales,” he said. “We’re very much part of the global economy – no question about that.” But there are “many things” XPO is doing now and planning to do that, regardless of how economy fares, will improve the cost structure of our company, Jacobs emphasized. “There is a huge opportunity to chip away at billions of costs – trucks, trailers, tires, fuel, office supplies, $500 million in temporary labor, IT [information technology] services, etc.,” Jacobs stressed. “There are many, many categories where we can save substantial money.” He also believes another “huge opportunity” is in the making to cross-sell XPO’s now vastly-expanded range of services to current customers as well as prospective ones – both in the U.S. and overseas. “That’s the beauty of our multi-mode model now: we’re completely ‘mode agnostic.’ If intermodal works better for our customers, fine, we’ll do that. If trucks work better, fine, we’ll do that,” Jacobs said. He added, though, that XPO is now also refocusing more tightly on building both margins and profits across all of its business lines. “We’re not a non-profit business; we are in the profit business,” Jacobs pointed out. “So we’re going to them [XPO’s more than 50,000 customers] and have discussions on pricing. We’re not in business to lose money; that should not be in our vocabulary.” That philosophy is going to drive a multitude of efforts at the former Con-way units, he emphasized: - Purging unattractive freight or charging for it appropriately. - Grow with more small- and medium-sized customers. - Look at rates lane by lane, customer by customer, and optimizing them; raising or lowering them as applicable. - Not casually waiving accessorial fees, such as for excess length shipments, liftgate-required deliveries, and residential deliveries. - Generating more cross docking efficiencies, with freight dimensioning technology installed at cross docking facilities. - Decreasing XPO’s linehaul costs by bringing more freight onto its own trucks. - Continuing to rationalize IT and back office costs - Cross-selling TL, LTL, intermodal and logistics services across XPO’s customer base. “I could keep going on for hours but those are main things off top of my head,” Jacobs noted. XPO also plans to use the monies generated via revenue growth and costs savings to pay down its debts, which stands at $5.8 billion, largely from the Con-way acquisition. “We’ll pay down debt with free cash and improve the leverage of the company,” Jacobs said. Other items presented during XPO’s earnings call include: - XPO generated total gross revenue for the third quarter increased 256.5% year-over-year to $2.4 billion, and net revenue increased 542.4% to $1.1 billion. - The company posted a net loss of $35.4 million for the quarter, compared with a net loss of $11.6 million for the same period in 2014. - Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) improved to $166.1 million for the third quarter, compared with $24.2 million for the same period in 2014. - As of November 3, XPO said it has approximately $530 million of cash on hand, with an as-yet untapped $1 billion asset-backed line of credit waiting in the wings. - XPO named industry veteran Tony Brooks as president of XPO’s North American LTL business. - Jacobs views previous union-organizing efforts against Con-way and XPO by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a “nuisance and distraction.” XPO’s employee base, he said, is “happy and not interested in an intermediary,” he added. “We don’t view the union as serious threat.” - He noted that since the Con-way acquisition, a “couple of LTL carriers” have backed out of commitments to XPO’s brokerage operation – a move Jacobs considers “petty.” He said XPO “deals with our 3PL competitors all the time. Sometimes we use their capacity and they use ours. So there is no reason in the world we can’t figure out to do business in an ethical, fair, and reasonable way to make money for both parties going forward.”

George Bush Sr book reveals a more dangerous Dick Cheney than anyone knew The Guardian / November 5, 2015 Destiny and Power shows a VP with more authority than almost all his predecessors, making plain Bush Jr’s administration could have been even worse. George Bush the elder is not the first father to blame his son’s mistakes on the bad crowd he fell in with, and the counter to such paternal indulgence is always the same: the son has an important say on the friends he chooses, especially when he happens to be the US president. The personal quotes in the new biography of George HW Bush, Destiny and Power: the American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush by Jon Meacham, show he has neither given up his long struggle with English syntax, nor abandoned his protective feelings towards his son and successor in the White House. It is another public window into a family wrestling with the most toxic legacies of the junior Bush’s presidency, the Iraq invasion and torture, and it comes after a series of episodes on the Republican primary trail in which Jeb Bush has tried to dodge a definitive verdict on his elder brother’s exploits. Both father and brother have sought to create distance without appearing to throw a close family member under a bus. For Bush Sr, the dilemma is all the more agonising as some of the White House advisers he now criticises are former employees he bequeathed to his son. Dick Cheney had been his defence secretary, and Condoleezza Rice was a Russian specialist in the first Bush White House and protege of Brent Scowcroft, the elder Bush’s national security adviser and friend. The two were part of a group of foreign and security policy advisers that Bush Jr gathered around him during the 2000 election campaign. They called themselves “the Vulcans”, not as a tribute to Spock, but to demonstrate they were as tough (or as Bush Sr might say, “iron-ass”) as the Roman god of fire. The Vulcans who huddled at Bush’s Texas ranch at Crawford also included the former and future defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the man who would become his deputy at the Pentagon, leading neoconservative ideologue Paul Wolfowitz, as well as former top general Colin Powell, together with his close confidant, Richard Armitage. The latter two would emerge as the doves in the Bush administration, but at the time, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice were also seen as embodiments of continuity, steady hands at the side of a presidential candidate vulnerable to allegations of inexperience. However, beneath the surface lay plans for radical change from the very beginning. Even before 9/11, the younger Bush led his administration in a quite different direction from his father. While Bush Sr and Scowcroft cherished multilateralism and diplomacy, George W’s White House raised American exceptionalism to new heights, enthusiastically tossing US entanglements with the international community on the bonfire. The administration walked away from the Kyoto talks on climate change, and withdrew US support for the Rome statute establishing the international criminal court, going so far as to declare that it would “unsign” the treaty. This unilateralist inclination was clearly the younger Bush’s choice. It was how he intended from the outset to make his foreign policy distinctive from his father’s. And it was this characteristic that made for such a dangerously volatile and over-reaching US response when the 9/11 attacks came. There is no doubt that Cheney and Rumsfeld were given more licence and authority than almost all their predecessors once the “war on terror” began. Cheney was certainly the most powerful vice-president of modern times, with a large and assertive staff, something that Bush Sr draws particular attention to. Cheney and Rumsfeld used their enhanced power to poison the flow of information to the president’s desk about Iraq and its supposed weapons of mass destruction. The vice-president even made repeated trips to CIA headquarters in Langley to bully analysts into producing more hawkish reports, while Rumsfeld’s Pentagon sucked up highly dubious “evidence” from Iraqi exiles and ideological freelancers. But, as even as the ever-forgiving father admits in Meacham’s book, it was President Bush who allowed Cheney to grow his own empire. “I think they overdid that. But it’s not Cheney’s fault. It’s the president’s fault,” Bush Sr says. “The buck stops there,” he adds, in a riposte to his own efforts to spread the blame for the fiascos of his son’s presidency. Perhaps the most alarming revelation to emerge from the new Bush biography is the elder man’s recollection that while Cheney had been his defence secretary, he had commissioned a study on how many tactical nuclear weapons would be needed to eliminate a division of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard. Apparently the answer was 17, though a more profound conclusion is that Cheney was a more dangerous figure than anyone knew. It adds weight to reporting by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker that Cheney also contemplated the use of low-yield nuclear bunker-busters against Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facilities. The more we hear about the George W Bush administration, the clearer it becomes that the global damage it wrought could have been even worse.

Chicago gangs assassinate 9-year old CNN / November 5, 2015 A 9-year-old boy shot and killed in a Chicago alley on Monday was the intended target of a gang-related shooting, Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said Thursday. Tyshawn Lee was "lured" into the alley where he was killed, McCarthy said. "This murder is probably the most abhorrent, cowardly, unfathomable crime I've witnessed in 35 years," McCarthy said at a press conference held at the crime scene surrounded by community leaders. Two people suspected in the shooting belong to two gangs known to officials, McCarthy said. Police still need the public's help with information to be certain of whom to arrest, he said. "We don't have that tidbit and we don't have that person that's putting us over the top to make this case that we can make an arrest on," McCarthy said. Police are certain that fear in the community is playing a factor in keeping witnesses from stepping forward. A reward for information leading to an arrest has grown to $35,000. Police superintendent Garry McCarthy said the boy was targeted because father Pierre Stokes, 25, has connections to gang violence in the city. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Update: Chicago Police have one of three gang members responsible for the murder of a 9-year-old boy who police say was lured from a playground and shot in the head because of his father's gang ties. 27-year-old Corey Morgan, a Chicago gang member with an extensive criminal history, has been charged with first-degree murder. Police are looking for Kevin Edwards, as well as a yet unidentified third man, also involved in the shooting. Police say Morgan was looking for targets after an October 13 shooting that killed his brother and injured his mother while they were in a car. Morgan later said he "was going to kill grandmas, mamas, kids and all," and that he and the other two suspects went out armed every day looking for targets, according to Cook County prosecutors at a hearing Friday where Morgan was denied bond. The three men spotted Tyshawn in a play lot where he had climbed onto the swings after setting his basketball down beside him, prosecutors said. Investigators allege one man approached the boy, dribbled the basketball and handed it back to Tyshawn before leading him into an alley while the other suspects followed in an SUV. One of the men shot the boy multiple times at close range, prosecutors said. One bullet cut through the boy's right thumb, suggesting he was holding his hands out to block the gunshots, according to an autopsy report. Police say Morgan is a convicted felon with an extensive violent criminal history. He has a prior conviction for aggravated unlawful use of weapon and was sentenced to two years of probation. In a pending case, he was charged with unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. .

Illinois mother allowed boyfriend to drown her 3 children Associated Press / November 5, 2015 In horrifying detail, prosecutors described how three children, trapped in the back seat of their mother's car, screamed for help before they drowned in 4 ½ feet of water in an Illinois lake while their mother and her boyfriend escaped unharmed. Amanda Hamm was convicted of child endangerment and served five years in prison for watching her boyfriend carry out a plot to drown her 6-year-old, 3-year-old and 23-month-old children in 2003 because they interfered with the couple's relationship and his sex-and-drugs lifestyle. He was convicted of first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence. Now in a bizarre twist, Amanda Ware and her new husband are fighting to gain custody of three children — ages 5, 3 and 1 ½ — she had after leaving prison. They were taken away by child protection authorities last year after a doctor recognized Ware as the former Hamm. A Cook County judge on Friday will decide whether the children of Amanda and Leo Ware were abused and neglected, even without evidence that they were physically harmed. "This is a scary problem for all the people involved ... but most of all for the judge who has to decide whether to send these children home," said Bruce Boyer, director of the Loyola University child law clinic in Chicago, who's not involved in the case. "What's so difficult is that the likelihood of something going wrong may be low, but if does, the consequences are so high." Under a legal concept called "anticipatory neglect," the court is not required to wait until a child is harmed before intervening if someone has harmed or endangered a child in the past, Boyer said, adding that such findings aren't unusual in child welfare cases. On the other hand, parents cannot be disqualified for custody solely because of their past if they prove that they're a capable parent. But prosecutors and child protection authorities told Judge Demetrius Kottaras last week that, although none of the three living children has been physically harmed, there is direct evidence of current abuse and neglect. That includes domestic violence by Leo Ware against his wife and others, substance abuse and Amanda Ware's failure to follow treatment for mental illness, which created an injurious environment for the children. In 2012, Chicago police responded to a domestic abuse call at the Ware's house after Leo Ware struck his wife. The next year, while she was pregnant, Amanda Ware sought an order of protection, saying she feared for herself and her children because Leo Ware was using crack cocaine and might become violent. Two weeks later, she had the order dropped. Combined with the parents' histories, "this freight train of evidence is bearing down on three current children who must be protected," Assistant State's Attorney Joan Pernecke told the judge. Attorneys for Amanda, 39, and Leo Ware, 49, said the children showed no signs of abuse and were healthy, even crying and taking off their shoes and socks to try to prevent child protection workers from taking them from their home last year. They also said no problems had ever been reported to the state Department of Children and Family Services until a doctor at a hospital where Ware gave birth recognized her. Amanda Ware has a long history of depression and abusing drugs and alcohol, and 20 years ago told a mental health worker that she wanted to kill herself by driving into a lake, prosecutors said. During her 2006 trial, witnesses said she was abused and manipulated by boyfriend Maurice LaGrone Jr., who also terrorized her children — none of them his — including by putting one child's head in an oven and chasing a child with a knife. While he couldn't keep a job — and didn't want to watch the children while Ware worked — she bought him expensive clothes and jewelry, according to testimony. Prosecutors at that time said she couldn't live without a man so was willing to sacrifice her children. When the couple wanted to move from Clinton, Illinois to St. Louis, Ware asked her mother to take custody of two of the children, but she said she could take only one. Months later, the couple drove to nearby Clinton Lake, about 150 miles south of Chicago, where on Sept. 2, 2003, LaGrone drove the 1997 Oldsmobile Cutlass down a boat ramp, at some point jumping out with Ware. Both claimed the deaths were an accident and that they tried but could not get the kids out. Rescuers eventually called by Ware said it took just two minutes to remove the bodies. .

There is nothing "special" about Chicago's work force...............it's no better than many other areas of the country. Chicago's property is expensive, the road system is poor and the winter weather adds to operational costs. Chicago only excels in the quality and quantity of corruption.......as it long has since the gangsters ran the city (do they still, in fact?) Boeing, Navistar and now the merged Kraft-Heinz have all moved to Chicago. There was no need.........there was no point. About Kraft-Heinz, merged this past July, Berkshire (Warren Buffet) and Brazilian investment firm 3G Capital own 51 percent. Supposedly Berkshire owns 27% (and 3G 24%), but 3G oversees day-to-day operations (the Brazilians control the company).

The Guardian / November 5, 2015 Former president claims hawkish reaction to 9/11 attacks and desire to ‘get our way in the Middle East’ hurt his son’s administration, says new biography Former US president George HW Bush has hit out at Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, two of the most senior figures in his son’s administration, labeling them too “hardline” and “arrogant” in their handling of the 11 September attacks. A new biography of the 41st president – Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey Of George Herbert Walker Bush – reveals that Bush Sr held Cheney and Rumsfeld responsible for the hawkish stance that “hurt” his son’s administration, Fox News reported on Wednesday. The book, by Jon Meacham, is based on audio diaries that Bush recorded during his time in the White House, as well as interviews with the former president and his wife, Barbara. Cheney served as defence secretary during George HW Bush’s 1989-1993 presidency and later as vice-president under President George W Bush. After 9/11, Bush Sr told his biographer: “I don’t know, he just became very hardline and very different from the Dick Cheney I knew and worked with. “The reaction [to 9/11], what to do about the Middle East. Just iron-ass. His seeming knuckling under to the real hard-charging guys who want to fight about everything, use force to get our way in the Middle East,” Bush told Meacham in the book, which is due to be published next week. Of his son’s role, Bush Sr told his biographer: “He’s my son, he did his best and I’m for him. It’s that simple an equation.” But he criticised Bush Jr for allowing Cheney to build “kind of his own state department” and for the inflammatory language that infused the US response to the 9/11 attacks. “I do worry about some of the rhetoric that was out there – some of it his [bush Jr], maybe, and some of it the people around him. Hot rhetoric is pretty easy to get headlines, but it doesn’t necessarily solve the diplomatic problem.” He added that George W Bush’s infamous state of the union address in 2002, in which the then president warned of an “axis of evil” of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, “might be historically proved to be not benefiting anything”. Rumsfeld, who was Bush Jr’s secretary of defense for most of his two terms, has so far not commented on the criticisms directed at him by the 41st president, who in the book calls him “an arrogant fellow”, adding: “I don’t like what he did, and I think it hurt the president. “I’ve never been that close to him anyway. There’s a lack of humility, a lack of seeing what the other guy thinks. He’s more kick-ass and take names, take numbers. I think he paid a price for that.” But Cheney told Fox News he took the “iron-ass” jibe as a compliment. “I took it as a mark of pride,” he says. “The attack on 9/11 was worse than Pearl Harbor, in terms of the number people killed, and the amount of damage done. I think a lot of people believed then, and still believe to this day that I was aggressive in defending, in carrying out what I thought were the right policies.” Cheney insisted he had enjoyed reading Meacham’s book. “The diary’s fascinating, because you can see how he felt at various key moments of his life. So I’m enjoying the book. I recommend it to my friends. And [i’m] proud to be a part of it.” But he dismissed claims leveled by the former president that Lynne Cheney, his wife, as well as his daughter Liz Cheney, had been the “eminence grises” behind his vice-presidency. “It’s his view, perhaps, of what happened, but my family was not conspiring to somehow turn me into a tougher, more hard-nosed individual. “I got there all by myself.” George W Bush said his father “would never say to me: ‘Hey, you need to rein in Cheney. He’s ruining your administration.’ It would be out of character for him to do that. “I made the decisions. This was my philosophy. “It is true that my rhetoric could get pretty strong and that may have bothered some people. Obviously it did, including Dad, though he never mentioned it.”

ATA enters fray on heavy vehicle charges Australasian Transport News (ATN) / November 5, 2015 Existing system will lead to trucking industry being overcharged $1.2 billion, lobby group says. The trucking industry is at risk of being overcharged more than $1 billion over six years unless Australia’s governments reform heavy vehicle charges, the Australian Trucking Association (ATA) has warned. The industry’s peak representative group has pushed for changes to the charging system, one day out from a ministerial meeting on the matter. The National Transport Commission (NTC) told transport ministers in 2014 the existing formula used to determine fuel and registration charges was outdated and responsible for overtaxing truck and bus operators. A new set of options has been presented to ministers to consider when they meet to decide fees for next financial year. "We understand the NTC has provided ministers with three options," ATA CEO Chris Melham says. "The best option would be for ministers to agree to eliminate the overtaxing immediately. "This would see the road user charge fall from its current level, 26.14 cents per litre, to 25.3 cents per litre in 2016-17. "The vast majority of heavy vehicle registration charges would also fall." Transport ministers are expected to consider a freeze to existing charges during tomorrow's meeting. "But freezing government revenue wouldn’t solve the problem," Melham says. "It would overtax the truck and bus industries by more than $1.2 billion over the next six years, in addition to the overcharging in 2015-16 and previous years." He adds that transport ministers need to recognise that charges significantly affect the competitiveness of trucking operators. "The problem is made worse by the high upfront costs of heavy vehicle registration charges, which create cashflow difficulties for small businesses," he says. The federal government froze the fuel excise in its 2014-15 and 2015-16 budgets, in recognition of the problems with the charging model. The Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association, the Queensland Trucking Association and the South Australian Road Transport Association have also lobbied for a reduction in heavy vehicle charges to offset the overcharging that has occurred.

Transport Engineer / November 4, 2015 Swindon-based Les Smith Haulage has upgraded 10 of its 31-strong fleet with new Iveco Stralis trucks, citing low total cost of ownership, fuel efficiency, driver comfort – and proven performance with other Iveco vehicles. Supplied by dealer Aquila Truck Centres, the haulier’s new additions are six 18-tonne Stralis Hi-Road 4x2 high-roof sleeper cab rigids and four Stralis Hi-Way 6x2 high-roof sleeper cab tractor units. The rigids have 28ft curtainside bodies, five with tail-lifts, and one a truck-mounted forklift. Each is fitted with a 9-litre Iveco Cursor 9 engines, producing 310bhp between 1,650 and 2,200 rpm, and up to 1,300 Nm of torque between 1,100 and 1,650 rpm. The tractors are fitted with 11-litre Iveco Cursor 11 engines, producing 460bhp between 1,500 and 1,900 rpm, and up to 2,150 Nm of torque between 925 and 1,500 rpm. The rigids and tractors all have ZF’s EuroTronic automated gearbox. Tony Smith, director at Les Smith Haulage, says: “We’ll haul anything – as long as it fits in the body or trailer, from Land’s End to John O’ Groats – so we needed a vehicle with the flexibility to match. “We’ve worked with Iveco for many years now, and our own experience of operating the marque, coupled with the low total cost of ownership, keeps us coming back for more. “An Iveco Stralis can more than do the job of its competitors, and for far less through-life expenditure. Plus, the company’s HI-SCR Euro 6 engine technology keeps our trucks on the road for longer, cutting downtime and ensuring an efficient operation. Our drivers also appreciate the amount of space and levels of cab comfort which come as standard.” .

Over 70 ag groups ask Congress to raise truck weight limits AG Professional / November 4, 2015 More than 70 of the nation’s leading food and agriculture associations – including the American Farm Bureau, American Fruit and Vegetable Processors and Growers Coalition, American Soybean Association, International Dairy Foods Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Grain and Feed Association, and the National Farmers Union – sent a letter urging Congress to include the Safe, Flexible and Efficient (SAFE) Trucking Act (H.R. 3488) as an amendment to the highway reauthorization legislation. In the letter, the organizations wrote: “In the agriculture and food industries, our farms and businesses are growing and making products more resourcefully, but outdated federal transportation rules force trucks to leave the farm and our plants when they are partly empty. By giving states the option to raise the federal gross vehicle weight limit from 80,000 pounds to 91,000 pounds for trucks equipped with six axles rather than the typical five, the SAFE Trucking Act would safely modernize truck shipments on Interstate highways by reducing the number of trucks needed to move our commodities and products through better utilization of existing capacity.” In its most recent “Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study,” the U.S. Department of Transportation found that six-axle trucks can safely weigh up to 91,000 pounds—the configuration allowable under the SAFE Trucking Act—while yielding significant truckload reductions, pavement wear savings and environmental efficiency benefits without diverting significant freight from rail. The U.S. DOT has also stated that the configuration is compliant with the federal bridge formula, and that wide use of the SAFE Trucking Act configuration would not cause any increase in one-time rehabilitation costs for Interstate bridges. Critically, the SAFE Trucking Act enables the U.S. DOT to require additional safety equipment for these vehicles before states can put these trucks to work. “On behalf of America’s food and agriculture community, we urge you to support Representative Ribble’s common-sense amendment because it is good for taxpayers, consumers, farmers, businesses, highway safety and the environment,” the groups concluded in the letter.

Truck weight increase rejected Fleet Owner / November 4, 2015 The House version of six-year, $325 billion surface transportation authorization reached the chamber floor Tuesday as members debated the first set of amendments to the bipartisan plan approved two weeks ago by the House Transportation committee. In trucking-related legislation, a shipper-backed highway bill amendment to increase truck weight limits to 91,000 pounds on the Interstate system for trucks with a sixth axle was defeated in an evening vote. The legislation by Rep. Reid Ribble, which received spotty support from the trucking industry, failed by a 187-236 vote. The bill would have given states the option of increasing the weight limit on designated federal highways. Ribble emphasized that many states already allow heavier trucks on smaller state roads, and that his bill would shift many of those trucks to the Interstates, “where they belong.” Additionally, the increased weight limits would reduce truck trips, along with fuel use and CO2 emissions. Opponents, however, cited a Dept. of Transportation study that recommended no changes in current truck size and weight limits, additional damage to roads and bridges, and the dangers of heavier and longer vehicles. Ribble explained that the DOT recommendation was political, and that the actual study—while inclusive because of insufficient data—actually showed that heavier trucks are more safe. Nor would the 91,000-pound limit exceed current Interstate bridge design limits; the configuration, in fact, would reduce life-cycle pavement costs. And, Ribble emphasized, the legislation in no way increased truck length. Ahead of the floor debate, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy that credited the bipartisan effort, but criticized the funding level as inadequate. Instead, the Obama administration continues to push its own GROW America Act. “Indeed, as the Nation's population rises and our existing infrastructure ages, funding at baseline levels as proposed in H.R. 22 will guarantee that roadway conditions and congestion worsen in the years ahead,” the memo reads. “The Congress should be thinking big, not locking in a worsening system.” Among specific concerns, the statement cites provisions in the bill that require the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to stop publishing some truck and bus safety data. Additionally, the White House objects to provisions that reform FMCSA and the way it develops regulations, “but the Administration has already established an effective retrospective review process without legislation.” “The Administration is focused every day on what can be done to expand opportunity for every American,” the statement concludes. “For America to succeed, we need the best, safest infrastructure in the world, and the Federal Government needs to lead the way.” Also Tuesday, the House Rules Committee blocked consideration of Rep. Earl Blumenauer’s (D-OR) amendment to raise the federal gas tax. The amendment would have raised federal gas and diesel taxes 15 cents over three years and indexed them to inflation. “Congress should have the opportunity to show the courage and vision to do what Ronald Reagan did in 1982 and what seven Republican states have already done this year – raise the gas tax to provide stable and meaningful funding for transportation,” said Blumenauer. “I’m deeply disappointed that we are considering what alleges to be a six-year authorization without a real conversation about paying for it. This is a missed opportunity to provide certainty for the hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake and give states and local governments the federal partnership they need and deserve.” Another set of amendments to H.R. 3763, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act is scheduled for consideration Wednesday. Amendment Debate video - http://fleetowner.com/regulations/truck-weight-increase-rejected

One reason is the larger, more spacious cab. Particularly for highway applications, the 28-year-old CH cab is smaller than what the competition offers. Drivers can't stand up right out of the seat. Volvo, for 15 years, has exhibited no interest in addressing this issue (until finally......next year).

The first and second generation GM Volt, brought about by the brilliant Bob Lutz, and the high range (about 200 miles) pure-electric Bolt, are no joke. With GM's new deeper cooperation with LG, you're going to see some amazing developments.

Piech wanted Winterkorn removed, but instead Piech got ousted as chairman. He still wanted Winterkorn out, and now wanted revenge for his ousting (he had led VW for several decades). There's little doubt that Piech had something to do with the emissions scam coming to light.

Scania’s Martin Lundstedt receives Pontus Schultz Award for more humane business Dagens Transport / September 29, 2015 Martin Lundstedt is this year's recipient of Pontus Schultz award for a humane economy. He was handed the award for his work as President and CEO of Scania, where he made diversity a key part of the company's business model. The award is given annually by the Pontus Schultz foundation to individuals in the business community who have made significant efforts to increase diversity, equality and sustainability.. Martin Lundstedt was presented with the award for his seminar "Moving Limits - about the importance of biodiversity to Sweden's competitiveness", which was also organized by the Foundation. “I'm incredibly proud of the work that I, together with my colleagues at Scania has implemented attention with this fine award,” says Martin Lundstedt. “For me, the recruiting talents with a diversity of backgrounds and experience just the starting point for a variety of work. It is primarily about implementing a diversity perspective in the analysis and approaches where different people's way of interpreting the world need to be included in the daily work. For companies operating on a global market, this is today crucial for continued success.” The judge’s motivation: "This year's laureates are constantly in motion, moving boundaries and challenge the prevailing view. In his role as Scania CEO, Martin Lundstedt has put a heavy truckmaker companies rolling at high speed by making diversity and inclusion a part of the business model. He has not only made ​​it because he is convinced it is the right thing, he has made ​​it to secure the value and future business opportunities in the global market. This year's laureate is a person who stands for its values ​​and the jury is convinced that he will continue to be a leading voice and force for a more humane business when he is now taking on the next challenge. " The foundation’s board took note of Martin Lundstedt’s accomplishments: - He set diversity as one of Scania's priorities for 2020 with the aim of removing labels such as gender, ethnicity and age and instead thinking skills, experience and attitude. - That during his time at Scania initiated a number of projects to identify improvement areas in which the diversity perspective is missing. At Scania, which has 42,000 employees in 100 countries, diversity is seen as a business issue, and developments are monitored with clear indicators relating to diversity in leadership positions and how the understanding of diversity can be turned into pure business value. - Scania's top management during Martin's tenure as CEO came to consist of people with 5 different nationalities. - That the requirement to be Swedish is abolished in the company's trainee program. Sara Öhrvall, chairman of Pontus Schultz Foundation, said of the award winner: “Martin Lundstedt has a long and solid work on Scania diversity on the management team's agenda and formulated diversity as a business critical factor to remain competitive when the markets become more complex and global. With clear objectives, he has shown that the diversity of experience and perspective brings a diversity of ideas that can realize the best solutions. It is with great pleasure that we award Martin Lundstedt the 2015 Pontus Schultz award for more humane business.”

C'mon now, that's far from the truth. The other carmakers were using SCR which can meet Tier 2 Bin 5, but VW tried to save money over the 2009-2015 period and use a much cheaper Lean Nox Trap on their smaller models, which is insufficient in ability but much cheaper. They planned to start using SCR on the smaller models from mid 2015, and did so. They gambled, knowing the added cost of SCR on smaller, more price-sensitive car models way back in 2009 would hurt sales.........and it would have. Cars like the Golf would have been too expensive (with the diesel option), prohibiting the volume sales they wanted. I do wonder who let the cat out of the bag, and don't believe the official story line.

PACCAR Expands Presence in China Paccar Press Release / December 21, 2006 PACCAR is expanding its business in Asia by opening an office in Shanghai, China. The office will open in 2007 and will focus on purchasing production parts for worldwide operations.