I spent a good half-hour in traffic this morning as the express lanes of the 401 were closed due to reports of a ‘jumper’ who apparently leapt to his death into traffic around 6 a.m. just past the DVP.

For me, it was a minor inconvenience. For the drivers not far ahead of me on the highway, this will sadly be a life-altering experience. A few years back the City of Toronto constructed a fence along the Bloor Viaduct to prevent people from committing suicide by jumping into the bushes below. I recall reading someone leapt off the bridge there once every 21 days or so. It may have seemed like a simple solution at the time, but where there’s a will, there’s always a way. It seems to me there have been more high-profile instances of people jumping off highway overpasses into traffic since the fence was built.

Suicide is always a tragic event – even more so when innocent people are unwittingly involved. I have spoken to several professional drivers whose trucks were used as a ‘suicide tool.’ In one case, a young man drove his sports car head-on into a transport truck travelling in California. The truck driver’s life was forever altered – he had to give up long-distance trucking altogether. He told me the only thing that provided him with some solace is that police found a suicide note from the young man who drove into his truck. Yet, he still wonders what he could have done differently.

The lives of those drivers that witnessed, or were involved in, this morning’s event on the 401, will also be forever altered. This is something they will likely never fully recover from. What can be done to avoid this from happening again? Quite honestly, I don’t know. Obviously, I wouldn’t suggest police tear down the fence on the Bloor Viaduct or provide suicide-friendly areas at which people could end their lives. And if you build fences along all overpasses (which simply isn’t feasible), you still cannot stop pedestrians from leaping out into oncoming traffic from alongside the road. As I said before, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

I suppose all we can do is hope that these incidents don’t happen any more frequently than they already do and hope the real victims of this incident – those who witnessed it or were involved in it (a truck was reportedly involved) – find the support they need to move on with their own lives.

Permalink | Comments (0)

I thought readers might be interested in notes I made at Americana 2007, where I was the "waste analyst" for the conference sessions pertaining to waste management. Despite spending quite a bit of time on the trade show floor, I managed to attend many of the conference sessions, and certainly all the sessions that struck me as the most interesting. The event generated what may be a year's worth of article leads! So watch for some interesting material in upcoming editions of our magazines.

At the request of the conference organizers, I gathered my notes into the form of a short article that will be edited into a forthcoming edition of a Quebec-based environmental services magazine -- Vecteur environnement. Thanks to my hosts, also, at RÉSEAU environnement, the environmental trade association that organized the conference and trade show, and especially Raphael Bruneau who introduced me around and invited me to the final luncheon where I appeared on a wrap-up panel with "analysts" from other conference streams.

Reflections on the Waste Management sessions of Americana 2007

By Guy Crittenden, waste analyst

The conference sessions at Americana 2007 that concerned solid waste management, taken as a whole, suggested that the industry is in a period of quite dramatic transition -- from a previous system in which the only value of garbage was the collection, transportation and disposal fees charged by waste haulers, to a new system in which waste is regarded as a valuable resource. The new market for waste is dynamic and is being influenced by new technologies such as those that better sort recyclable or compostable materials from the waste stream, and thereby divert them from landfill disposal, and those that capture the energy embodied in waste, such as thermal treatment systems for garbage residuals, and systems to capture methane gas at landfills to generate power.

Simply put, an industry that used to be merely a low-tech municipal service is now going high-tech and is increasingly attracting investment from the private sector.

Opinions differ, however, as to what the value of waste really is, and from the different presentations one could detect some important and conflicting trends that will play themselves out in the decade to come.

For example, the audience was treated to an excellent presentation from a technology company, Plasco, which has built a demonstration facility in Ottawa that uses plasma arc torches to destroy waste. The company is currently in the testing and ramp-up stage to full operation, and results will be interesting to monitor in the summer of 2007. The value proposition of the technology is that it uses computer systems to control the blended feedstock of raw garbage and plastic to create just the right gaseous fuel to drive special combustion engines. This control of the fuel – waste that needs minimal preparation – may allow Plasco to succeed where other plasma-based systems have failed, for technical and/or economic reasons. In any case, the technology was one of several presented at the conference that illustrate the leading edge of innovation in waste disposal.

Plasco also illustrates another important trend, and that is the recognition of the BTU value – the embodied energy – in waste. This has already been recognized by the engineers of conventional mass-burn incinerators, who regularly refer to their systems as “waste-to-energy” and, in the best and most efficient examples (e.g., Sweden) generate both electricity and steam. The trick, though, has been to use technology to clean the emissions from such systems so that they represent a reduced threat to human health and the environment, and to use technology to garner public acceptance of such facilities by the public in their jurisdictions.

In that regard, the presentation from David Merriman of MacViro Consultants was interesting. Merriman led the audience on a compelling journey through the history of waste disposal in the Greater Toronto Area, where several important projects are under development. It was a convoluted tale, but the gist was that Toronto and the surrounding regions are diverting as much waste as possible through recycling and composting, and at least one area (York Region) plans to build a large waste-to-energy plant. (There was some discussion at the conference that perhaps conventional mass burn may be just as effective as gasification and other higher-tech systems, at a lower cost.)

However, another set of values also informed the discussion, as was evident from certain presentations and especially in questions from the audience. There’s an entirely different sense of “value” that many people see in waste that doesn’t view as beneficial the capture of a relatively small amount of energy via thermal treatment. In fact, there’s a school of thought that even the most successful waste-to-energy schemes are a poor idea, because they encourage the notion that we can continue consuming the earth’s resources and then just make our waste byproducts “go away.”

Proponents of this alternative view regard any material sent for disposal as a poorly-allocated resource. In their opinion, change needs to occur upstream at the manufacturing and natural resource extraction stage. Anything that can’t be recycled or composted or reused, they would argue, shouldn’t be produced in the first place. An efficient and effective municipal waste disposal system, in their view, is really a subsidy to companies that foist their packaging and built-for-obsolescence products on the taxpayer.

This philosophy, sometimes called the “zero waste” movement, looks at the entire lifecycle of products and places emphasis on packaging redesign and such things as renewable energy. A zero waste proponent would never regard a plastic soft drink bottle burned in a waste-to-energy plant as the appropriate consumption of “renewable” energy. Primarily due to climate change concerns, the link between consumption and environmental impacts is increasingly being understood by the public and policymakers, and producer responsibility systems (rather than efficient waste disposal) are the solution advocated by zero waste proponents.

Proper markets are needed for materials diverted from landfill (e.g., metal, plastic and fibre, and also compostable organics). For this reason the last panel discussion was especially interesting. Representatives from five different municipalities across Canada presented on the different technologies and approaches they are implementing to manage waste, and especially to divert it from landfill. One had the sense of Canada as a vast laboratory in which different experiments are being conducted on waste, analogous to different steam engines being developed in England during the industrial revolution. (Edmonton’s co-composting facility and new gasifier are a good example.)

Most importantly, each jurisdiction is struggling with the new economic equation for waste and, to be honest, not yet fully making the connection between the value of what is diverted from disposal and proper markets. Some could not find markets for their source-separated organics (e.g., kitchen scraps). Indeed, not one of them charged a user fee (“bag tag”) for waste placed at the curb, and most often the cost of garbage disposal was hidden in municipal tax bills, among charges for other services.

It was clear that waste reduction and greater recycling and composting will occur when cities and towns charge a visible fee – i.e., a price signal – to waste, that rewards people for doing the “right thing” (diversion) and tolls them for the “wrong thing” (waste).

Realistically one can conclude that the era of zero waste will only come as the second part of a two-step process. We are half-way through the first step – poised to soon divert as much as 60 to 70 per cent of waste from disposal via both high-tech and low-tech recycling and composting, and then dispose of the residuals in thermal treatment plants, anaerobic digesters or stabilized landfills. The days of the old low-tech dump are almost over. When that step is complete (and perhaps a bit sooner), society will be ready to drive change up the production line to the point of the manufacturer or brand owner, and this will prevent many materials from entering the waste stream in the first place. Only then will we be able to say we have moved from consumerism to sustainability.

Guy Crittenden is editor of Solid Waste & Recycling magazine and HazMat Management magazine. He can be reached at gcrit@bizinfogroup.ca

Permalink | Comments (0)

Thanks to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s people-pleasin’ budget released earlier this month, the meal tax deduction limit for truckers slowly will be slowly creeping its way from 50% back to 80%, hitting its goal around the 2010 mark. So all drivers from all types of fleets across the country can count on reaping the rewards, right? Well, some will – but maybe not all.

Scott Taylor, vice-president of TFS Group, has written two articles for Truck News (March and April 2007) which point out that not all truckers are created equally in the eyes of the Canada Revenue Agency. The columns (appearing on pages 43 and 74, respectively) outline how the Income Tax Act treats all manner of truckers differently. From private fleets to for-hire carriers, from self-employed drivers to company employees, from longhaul drivers to shorthaul drivers; a different set of rules applies to each category (and every combination in between). Taylor takes away all the guesswork in his articles, which serve as vital sources for any trucker unsure of his tax claiming rights. Check out the issues on newsstands or search for them in our print archives at www.trucknews.com/archives.asp.

Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, it’s that time of year again. The time of year when industry suppliers and those who write about them converge in Louisville, Ky. for three jam-packed days of new product announcements.

It’s the Mid-America Trucking Show, and as journalists, we spend more time attending press conferences than taking in the Show’n’Shine or walking the show floor. Not that I’m complaining, it’s always interesting to see what new technological marvels industry suppliers have dreamt up. Most significant new products are unveiled at Mid-America and it’s nice to be among the first to get to see them.

Trucknews.com has a team of editors at the Mid-America Trucking Show and we’ve already started filing reports from the various press conferences. We will continue to do through the remainder of the week. You can check trucknews.com regularly for the most up-to-date coverage of the show. Mid-America-related stories are labeled 'MATS Report:'

The May issue of Truck News and Truck West will also feature many stories from Mid-America so if you couldn’t make it here in person, don’t worry – we’ve got you covered.

Permalink | Comments (0)

Looking for a new job or a career change is not a desirable task for most people. I’ve recently put together a few resumés for friends desiring a change of pace and not once did I ever hear, “Wow, I just love looking for work. This is fantastic!” Actually, it was always the exact opposite, a sigh and off into the fray to see what will arise.
In an environment where a number of industries are facing worker shortages, making the job search as easy as possible for prospective employees is advantageous.
When someone opens the classifieds and has the choice between applying for a trades job running at $30/hour; or a trucking job running at either $0.50/mile, or between $60,000 and $100,000 per year it doesn’t become much of a choice.
For an inexperienced person the cost of training for either occupation might cancel that factor out. But it’s a lot easier to figure out how much you will make in a year at $30/hour, than it is to figure out how many hours it would take to run enough miles to earn a decent wage. And an ad as ambiguous as between $60,000 and $100,000 is similar to ads looking for carpet cleaners.
With HoS rules, GPS tracking, just-in-time delivery and numerous other technological developments to track a driver’s every move, would it really be that much of a stretch to have an hourly pay rate or annual salary?
It could possibly help attract new drivers to the industry if they had an actual idea how much money they will earn.

Permalink | Comments (0)

Costs for Canada’s largest carriers are continuing to rise faster than revenues and that should be cause for concern on two fronts.

First, obviously, because cost containment is proving particularly difficult and will remain so because fuel prices remain volatile, equipment costs are on the rise due to the new emission standards for heavy duty truck engines and labor costs are expected to retain their upward momentum.

These costs have been high for several years now but their impact I believe is being felt more, and will continue to do so, because the slack economy and excess capacity in certain lanes – particularly in US-bound traffic – make it increasingly difficult to gain the healthy rate increases carriers had become accustomed to since 2003 and which made rising costs bearable.

Whereas back in 2004 and 2005 more than 80% of shippers reported increases to their freight rates, rate increase penetration was down to 64% in 2006 and only 59% of shippers expect higher truck rates for 2007. (This according to our annual Transportation Buying Trends Survey, conducted by our sister publication Canadian Transportation & Logistics in partnership with the Canadian Industrial Transportation Association and CITT.)

A major concern for the long term has to be the change in trade patterns we’ve experienced since 2002.

As Steven Poloz, chief economist with Export Development Canada, recently pointed out, Canada’s exports of goods and services to emerging markets rose by 8.2% in 2006, which although down from 9.9% in 2005 and 18.4% in 2004, was still a strong showing. But this performance was almost completely offset by the slowdown in trade with our major trade partner and the engine of growth for many fleets over the past decade: the US.

As Poloz points out this marks the continuation of trend we’ve seen since 2002, when the current global expansion took hold. Since then, the share of Canadian merchandise exports going to the US has fallen from 86.8% to 81.9%, while our share of our exports to Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and eastern Europe have been on the rise.

Last year when I led a panel on globalization and the impact on trade and transportation at CITT’s annual conference in Saint John, New Brunswick, I remember Dr. Mary Brooks, professor marketing and transportation, School of Business Administration, Dalhousie University, pointing out to me that although Canada – and motor carriers in particular – have benefited considerably from the North American Free Trade Agreement the pendulum may be swinging the other way.

In 1980 just 63% of Canada’s exports were destined for the US but by 1995 the US share of our exports had climbed to 79% and then to a high of 87% by the year 2000. But the numbers indicate that trading relationship is now in decline, Dr. Brooks pointed out. By 2005, the percentage of Canadian exports absorbed by the US had shrunk back to 84% and of course it declined again last year.

While serving the US market will obviously continue to be key to carrier revenues – it would be foolish to ignore our largest trade partner and the world’s largest economy – it may also be wise to start re-investing in the infrastructure necessary to serve our national economy. In fact domestic – and actually intra-provincial – traffic has been the fastest growing traffic the last few years.

Permalink | Comments (0)

I’ve been hearing a lot of talk lately from both top ranking transportation ministry bureaucrats and their political bosses that they’re finally ready to start spending the money necessary to give Canada the infrastructure we need for the efficient movement of goods.

That was certainly the main message from the high-level bureaucrats included in a transportation policy session at the Transpo 2007 conference I attended in Toronto. To quote David O’Toole, assistant deputy minister for Ontario’s ministry of transport, both political will and understanding are currently aligning in such a way that there are opportunities to make improvements to our transportation infrastructure “that haven’t been available in maybe 40 years.”

Is this just more talk or real reason to get excited?

Certainly some of the investments being made are worth noting. Manitoba, for example, recently announced an unprecedented investment of $4 billion and the province’s first-ever, multi-year plan to renew its highway system. With this commitment the province has increased investment in its roads and highways by 125% since 1999. In comparison, in the 10 years prior to 1999, investment in its roads and highways increased a little over 4%.
To prove the claim that his own province of Ontario also gets it, O’Toole pointed to the Move Ontario program which is providing $1.2 billion for public transit, municipal roads & bridges; the $1.8 billion to be spent on northern Ontario highways; the $3.4 billion to be spent on southern Ontario highways; and the $800 million being spent with the federal government and other stakeholders on improving border access.

Perhaps of equal import to the money that is starting to be spent, is the approach to transportation policy and infrastructure investment. Kristine Burr, assistant deputy minister, policy, for Transport Canada, explained that Ottawa is taking a “systems approach” which places emphasis on integration of a range of policy and regulatory issues, including taxation, governance, land use planning, and the skills/labour market. One of the better offshoots of this approach is the gateway strategy and last October Ottawa announced $591 million would be pumped into the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative. And, of course, yesterday the feds announced some very big bucks to help boost Toronto’s subway infrastructure, which will hopefully pull a good chunk of cars off the roads.
The bureaucrats are certainly talking the talk, and their bosses appear to be walking the walk with those investments.

But you’ll have to excuse me if I choose to remain cautious. First there’s the size of hole (pothole?) we’re in, thanks to years of neglect. Much of the nation’s infrastructure was put in place during the 50s, 60s and 70s with little done after that, despite considerable increases in the use of our roadways. Considering the useful life of many physical structures is about 50 years, a significant share of assets is already in need of replacement or quickly approaching that stage. A paper published by TD Economics a couple of years ago examining the infrastructure investment gap (the difference between what is needed to maintain the national infrastructure and what is actually being spent) was estimated at between $50 billion and $125 billion.

There’s also the problem of convincing cabinet to continue spending; that our transportation infrastructure should be a priority in the same way that healthcare and education are. That’s a tough nut to crack and may remain so.
Another significant obstacle towards infrastructure investment is the long-term nature of the process. It’s a lot of money that needs to be spent and the benefits may not be realized for years – certainly not before the next election. That too is a tough nut to crack for a political system that too often falls prey to short-term thinking.
And, of course, there’s the challenge posed by the snail-like pace of the approvals process. The environmental assessment process can take up to a decade to complete, by which time the trade corridor the infrastructure investment was designed to augment may wither away as commercial interests, in frustration, seek alternative routings.

I want to believe but I need to see more evidence we’re on a new path.

Permalink | Comments (1)

There’s a lot of concern south of the border about a recently-announced pilot project that will give 100 Mexican carriers the green light to operate inside the US. Like Canadian carriers, they will be forbidden from delivering loads from one point to another within the US. However, for the first time since 1982, they’ll be able to deliver loads beyond 20 miles of the US/Mexico border and they will be able to pick up loads for return to Mexico. Currently, they have to drop their trailers within 20 miles of the border for pickup by US carriers.

There’s no limit on how many trucks the 100 carriers that participate can operate in the US.

The Americans don’t like it one bit. At least a growing number of vocal Americans don’t like the idea one bit. The Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), the Teamsters and other labour groups have spoken out emphatically against the plan.

"President Bush is willing to risk our national security by giving unfettered access to America's transportation infrastructure to foreign companies and their government sponsors," Teamsters leader, James Hoffa recently said. "They are playing a game of Russian roulette on America's highways."

Those are some strong words. Are they justified? Under the pilot project, Mexican carriers that operate in the US will be subjected to inspections by American officers and they will be audited by US agencies. They will have to adhere to the same rules as US and Canadian truckers adhere to while operating in the US. I imagine they’ll be on a pretty tight leash. I’ve heard enough horror stories from Canadian drivers about being singled out at US inspection stations - I can only imagine what the Mexicans will be in for.

For those of you who frequent the US, are you concerned about sharing the road with Mexican trucks and truckers? Or is the ‘Say No to Mexico’ crusade simply a case of protectionism - or worse yet, xenophobia?

Permalink | Comments (1)