The Alberta Motor Transport Association (AMTA) must have been mildly disappointed last week when their keynote speaker and provincial Transport Minister showed no interest in following the leads of Ontario and Quebec and introducing legislation to mechanically limit truck speeds.

Speaking at the AMTA’s annual convention in Banff, Transport Minister Luke Ouellette told the gathering "I know there are economic and environmental reasons for considering mandatory speed limiters, but I also know it would be very difficult to enforce."

The AMTA, like its sister organizations across Canada and its parent group, the Canadian Trucking Alliance, supports the mandatory use of speed limiters. But if ever there was a province that would stand in the way of national harmonization, it’s Alberta. Alberta has always prided itself on doing things its own way – it’s part of the province’s charm - but it can also prove frustrating when national harmonization is sought by the trucking industry.

A case in point is the so-called ‘national’ hours-of-service regulations, which still have not been adopted in Alberta. On this subject, Ouellette said the province is continuing to seek input from stakeholders. Well, the province had years to seek input from stakeholders – this is a process that should have concluded long ago.

While many of our readers will find Ouellette’s comments on speed limiters and hours-of-service refreshing, the fact remains that harmonization of regulations across Canada would benefit the industry at large.

Maybe it’s a pipe dream, but it would be nice if the Transport Ministers of each province would take the time to sit down together and reach a consensus on at least the most fundamental regulations that govern our industry.

Permalink | Comments (0)

I stopped by my local Tim Horton’s the other day and noticed my coffee had increased in price from $1.56 to $1.65. A sign in the window said the price increase was due to increased operating costs. It didn’t specify transportation, but it didn’t have to.

More and more companies are inching up the prices of their goods to help offset increasing transportation costs. In her monthly column ‘Voice of the Owner/Operator’ appearing in the May issues of Truck News and Truck West, OBAC executive director Joanne Ritchie asks the question: ‘What’s happening to all the surcharge money paid out by shippers?’

She reasons that if the cost of goods on stores shelves is increasing, then someone’s getting paid. Unfortunately, owner/operators still regularly complain that they’re not receiving all of, or in some cases even part of, the fuel surcharge being levied by their carriers.

Like Joanne, I hear from these guys all the time, wanting to know what their rights are. Beyond working for a carrier that will pass on the fuel surcharge to owner/operators – I don’t have a helluva lot of advice. I’ve also heard from owner/operators that are doing very well, thank you. Those are the ones who are rightly being paid the fuel surcharge collected by the carrier they are leased to. In some cases, the fuel surcharge they collect accounts for a higher amount than their actual mileage rate. Without the fuel surcharges, they’d be toast.

Diesel prices continue to surge, outpacing even the increase in gasoline prices that everyone’s been bemoaning lately. Today’s Toronto Star has an interesting article on the subject. In the article, Spencer Knipping, a petroleum analyst with Ontario’s Ministry of Energy says: "The diesel story is simply amazing. It reflects the fact that diesel demand has been growing more strongly than gasoline demand worldwide, and that there's a somewhat more limited refining capacity for it."

The article goes on to blame, among other things, an increase in the popularity of diesel-powered passenger vehicles. It seems that cost-conscious consumers are buying diesel-powered personal vehicles to shave down their own fuel costs. With a limited diesel refining capacity, the old supply and the demand equation is driving the cost of diesel up exponentially. Over the past year, diesel prices have shot up 30% while gas prices have experienced a more modest increase of 10%.

I’m no economist, but I do fear that unrelenting fuel prices may be the catalyst that pushes our economy into further decline. More consumer spending is being diverted towards the cost of energy, which leaves less for dinners out, clothing, entertainment, etc. It’s that consumer spending that really drives our economy. I don’t see any immediate, or even long-term, fix for this dilemma. Fortunately, there are a whole lot of people that are smarter than me working on it. Let’s hope they find a viable, long-term solution to escalating fuel prices before our economy reaches its breaking point.

Permalink | Comments (0)

With the next round of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission standards for heavy-duty engines on the horizon, the battle lines have clearly been drawn. EPA2010 emissions standards call for further reductions in NOx, and there are two vastly different approaches to getting there.

Volvo Group, Daimler Trucks North America and Paccar have announced they will meet 2010 emissions standards through the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR), a technology that’s already widely used in Europe. On the other hand, Navistar (International) and Cummins will instead focus on meeting the targets by expanding the use of their current exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) strategies. (Cummins will use SCR on its mid-range engine line).

So which technology will ultimately win out? That remains to be seen. Both sides have made compelling arguments as to why their decision is the right one. The main arguments emanating from the EGR camp are that: SCR requires additional components and is overly-complex; urea may not be widely available by 2010; and SCR is unproven in North America.

Meanwhile, companies that have chosen SCR counter that: SCR is a proven technology; there were no urea availability issues in Europe; and SCR is the only way to meet EPA2010 emissions standards without sacrificing fuel economy. In fact, proponents of SCR insist they will deliver a significant fuel economy improvement over today’s engines.

So in a nutshell, there you have it. There’s obviously a lot more to this issue and there will be major educational campaigns launched by both sides over the course of the next couple of years. The stakes for engine manufacturers are enormous; each manufacturer will be investing millions into developing their 2010 solution.

The stakes for fleets are high as well. If one technology proves to be significantly better than the other, fleets that are early adopters may worry that they pitched their tent in the wrong camp.

My not-so-bold prediction is this: Both solutions will work. They’ll both meet the EPA requirements and the usual fears of reliability, performance or infrastructure issues will prove to be unwarranted. With each previous round of EPA emissions standards, the engine manufacturers have proven they are amazingly resilient - and capable. So the bottom line is that fleets and owner/operators will have a choice – a difficult choice – to make.

Now is a good time to begin preparing to make that choice, by reading up on both technologies and asking questions of your suppliers and dealers. There’s likely to be two viable solutions for the 2010 emissions standards, your best bet is to do your homework and try to determine which solution will best suit your own unique requirements. It’s never too early to start.

Permalink | Comments (0)

So here’s another twist to the speed limiter issue which may not have received due consideration when the Ontario Trucking Association (OTA) was developing the proposal.

According to a Ministry of Transportation official, it’s likely that violations of the speed limiter law (once it comes to be), will go against a carrier’s CVOR rating.

“If the proposed legislation is passed, it is likely violations will count against a carrier’s CVOR rating,” I was recently told by an MTO official. (For the full story, see the May issues of Truck News and Truck West, available next week).

It’s no secret that the muscle behind the proposed legislation has been the OTA, which represents the Ontario carrier community. The real proponents of the proposal have been some of Ontario’s biggest carriers – in many cases, the best-run companies the trucking industry has to offer. Most of these carriers already employ speed control and have developed in-depth safety programs.

These carriers value their hard-earned CVOR ratings, and I would venture to guess that the carriers in favour of speed limiter legislation collectively boast some of the best CVOR ratings in the industry. But once the new law is adopted, they run the risk of seeing those CVOR ratings go down the toilet if their owner/operators refuse to play by the new rules.

I’m not by any means suggesting that owner/operators will set out to sabotage their employers’ CVOR ratings by refusing to comply with the rule, once it is passed. Not only would it be illegal and unethical, but it would also come at a huge personal cost, as O/Os would be slapped with fines as for non-compliance.

However, I do feel that many carriers may unwittingly incur damage to their valued CVOR rating once this rule becomes law, an unintended consequence of hoisting an unpopular new legislation on an unwelcoming driver pool. Despite the MTO’s promise of an educational enforcement period during which no fines will be levied against violators, I have a hunch there will be plenty of penalties doled out once the MTO cracks its whip. There will undoubtedly be a segment of the population that tries to tamper with the settings, and they will surely test the abilities (and patience) of some of Ontario’s finest inspection officers. In the process, some will get busted. And in the process, their employers’ CVORs will take a hit.

It will be interesting to see how carriers enforce the new law within their own operations. It’s simple enough to govern company equipment, but ensuring compliance amongst their owner/operators may prove more of a challenge. For owner/operators and carriers, the cost of non-compliance will be high. But one could argue that it’s the carriers that face the biggest risk - especially those with an unblemished CVOR rating at stake.

Permalink | Comments (13)

For weeks now, I’ve been wondering if anybody reads this blog. I posted an entry on speed limiters, and that’s usually guaranteed to get a reaction out of our readers. But nothing but crickets responded.

This morning, I received an e-mail from a visitor to the site who asked why his comments hadn’t been posted. That got me digging, and I soon realized that most reader comments were being diverted to a “Junk” folder aimed at capturing ‘spam.’

So I apologize if you have been patiently waiting to see your comments posted. I have gone through the Junk folder and released the legitimate comments. I’ll keep an eye on this folder regularly from now on and ensure that your comments are posted as soon as possible. In the meantime, feel free to peruse some of the older entries to see what other visitors to the site have had to say.

Permalink | Comments (1)