California State Sen. Fran Pavley

I read the other day in Land Line Magazine that CARB – the California Air Resources Board – had fined another U.S. trucking company for violating the state’s emissions rules.

In this case, it was a carrier called Mex-Cal Truckline, which is headquartered in Otay Mesa. They’ll have to shell out $300,000 because their trucks, which pick up and deliver freight in rail yards and ports, didn’t meet the high standards CARB has created for the Golden State.

Reporter Charlie Morasch quoted CARB’s enforcement chief, Jim Ryden, as saying this: “In the not-too-distant past, the short-haul trucks that picked up cargo from our busy ports and rail yards were among the oldest and dirtiest on the roads. But thanks to the Drayage Truck Regulation … these vehicles must be upgraded according to a strict timetable. This company learned an expensive lesson, and we are hopeful that they will never have to pay us another fine.”

The entire situation brought me back to August of 2004. I was writing for the magazine back then – “Land Line Now” did not go on the air until nearly 10 months later. California and CARB were both among my beats.

In keeping an eye on happenings in California, I talked with a state lawmaker named Fran Pavley. She had introduced a bill titled AB1009.

The legislation essentially called on CARB to set up some emissions standards that all trucks entering California would be required to meet.

On the surface, that doesn’t sound too inviting to most folks reading this. I can’t even count the number of complaints I’ve heard in recent years about CARB emissions standards and enforcement.

But in talking with Assemblywoman Pavley, I found a silver lining in that dark cloud.

Pavley heard – right or wrong – that U.S. officials were not going to enforce emissions requirements on trucks entering the United States from Mexico under NAFTA. So she wanted her state to be able to create and enforce a set of its own emissions standards, and to make all trucks – including those from Mexico – responsible for meeting those requirements.

I had my doubts going into that phone call.

In dealing with the cross-border issue, I had heard from or read comments by many officials who talked about ensuring that equal treatment was offered – and equal responsibility assigned – to both U.S. and Mexico-based trucks. And the one thing I found over and over was that in comparison to what U.S. truckers had to do, things were looking pretty easy for the trucks coming up from the south.

It didn’t sit well with me. Fair is fair – everyone should be treated equally. That was not what I saw.

However, during my conversation with Fran Pavley, I realized something – she really meant it. She didn’t want trucks from Mexico to face a higher standard – she thought that would run afoul of federal law or regulation, or perhaps even the Constitution. But her intent from day one was to ensure that trucks based in Mexico had to meet the same regulations as any other truck plying California’s roads.

By the way her bill was written – by the actions she took – she made it clear that this wasn’t just lip service.

Pavley, of course, is a California state lawmaker, representing constituents in one district. Her purpose was to serve her constituents, her district, her state.

But after hearing one person after another who was pushing cross-border trucking say over and over how those trucks were just as good as U.S. trucks, met the same regulations as U.S. trucks, faced the same cost burdens as U.S. trucks, and seeing over and over that those claims were at best empty or mistaken, at worst, outright false, Fran Pavley’s perspective was refreshing.

During our conversation, Pavley said something …

“Whether you’re concerned about transportation dollars, whether you’re concerned about air quality, whether you’re concerned about leveling the playing field as far as trucking interests, there are a lot of good reasons why this bill, I believe, would be supported by a majority in the Legislature.”

And support it they did. AB1009 became law in California that year.

I know everyone who’s reading this has their own beef with California over emissions regulations. I can’t blame any of you.

The trucks off the assembly line now are so clean, their exhaust is, in some cases, cleaner than the air going into the engine. Yet in spite of those trucks basically acting as mobile air-scrubbing devices wondering the roads of La-La Land, the regulators want more. More regulation, more emissions-control devices, and let’s face it, more costs for small business truckers.

It’s ridiculous, it’s counterproductive and at some point, it’s going to cost California citizens more than they gain.

However, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. And in at least one case we can say, it was even-handed. It was fair.

And in this day and age, that is saying something.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about roundabouts.

OK, I get it … take a moment for your blood pressure to go down. In with the good air, out with the bad air.

The topic came to the top of my mind recently when I was reading about road work on a roundabout in Wickenburg, AZ, that sits on U.S. 93. The state DOT there was making improvements to the roundabout – their words, not mine – and were restricting truck sizes to 10 feet wide, 75 feet long.

I decided to look up the roundabout in question. And it looks way roomier than most I’ve seen. Of course, it’s hard to tell from a Google satellite image, but just as the satellite was taking that picture, two semis were making their way through the intersection. It looked a little tight, but they did appear to have room to maneuver.

And that’s not the case most of the time.

One example that’s still fresh in my mind is Sandi Soendker’s story about traveling back from the Mid-America Trucking Show with Jon Osburn in the Spirit of the American Trucker.

Sandi, of course, was there covering the show for the magazine, and Jon was driving OOIDA’s tour truck back to headquarters to load up on more brochures, magazines and so on, before heading out to visit more truck stops.

Because of a late season snowstorm, the two decided to avoid Interstates 64 and 70 to get back to Kansas City. Instead, they took several of Kentucky’s famed parkways, and then connected up with U.S. 60 and Missouri Highway 13. The first is four-lane across most of southern Missouri, and 13 is four-lane most of the way back to KC.

Most of the way. Key words, there.

After passing through Clinton, 13 becomes two lane again. Then, as the highway makes its way around Warrensburg, Missouri, it goes through a series of roundabouts.

That’s right, not just one, but a series.

I’ve been through part of that road. But I was curious how many total roundabouts there were. So back to Google satellite I went. To pass through that craziness, the Spirit had to negotiate four roundabouts, two of which weren’t even round.

And lest you think they were large enough for trucks, think again. They’re tiny little suckers, tight for a pickup truck with a trailer, much less a full-size over-the-road semi.

That’s the problem.

Highway engineers have fallen in love with roundabouts. After all, they’ve been used for decades in England and have worked well for that country. They move traffic efficiently, they cost less to maintain than a traffic light, and they use no electricity. You set ’em up, pave ’em and let ’em go. Yippie ki-yay.

But this is not England. We have different vehicles, different road systems, different everything. Heck, we even drive on a different side of the street. And while I do think it’s wise to look at what other people are doing, that’s not the same as saying what works there will always work here.

In this case, it can, but it takes some real planning and heavy thinking on the part of our highway designers.

Actually, I’m being nice there. It’s pretty blasted simple.

If you have to use these infernal things, make them big enough for trucks. Is that so hard to do?

Not sure if it’s big enough for trucks? Ask some truckers.

Or try an example. One I like – well, one I find to be an acceptable example – is the roundabout system along Interstate 135 in Newton, Kansas.

Yes, highway engineers, I’m telling you to look at Kansas. Wipe the shocked look off your face and pay attention here.

Those roundabouts are used at two exits off Interstate 135. And they’re huge. To give you an idea, the supports for both the northbound and southbound lanes of 135 fit inside the center of the roundabouts below.

That, my friends, is a truck size roundabout.

Are they perfect? No, of course not. Am I going to hear from some truckers who think I’m crazy for mentioning them? Yes, I will.

But the trend toward roundabouts seems almost unstoppable at this point. Our highway designers apparently have been watching some odd reality show called “Roundabout Eye for the Highway Guy,” in which well-dressed English highway engineers instruct crude American designers on how to build their roads.

If we are going to have these things, they need to work for the traffic they ARE going to carry. So think big, highway engineers. Think truck.

Or just put in a stoplight and call it a day.

Truckers start turning to shorepower technology to weather the hot and cold they face at the end of the day

It gets cold in Wyoming. And I mean really, really cold.

In the state’s second largest city, Casper, the temperature stays below freezing for 189 days every year, on average. The city’s average low temperature runs 14 degrees in December and January, and only 16 in February.

Like I said, really, really cold.

And that’s a problem for trucker and OOIDA member Tim Kessler.

“I do a dedicated route,” Kessler said. “I go basically from Denver to Casper and back every day, and my days end up being in Casper.”

Tim could idle his truck. He says that in his experience, Wyoming doesn’t have a lot of idling bans.

But running costs were on his mind. Yes, the fuel to idle, but also running time on the engine.

“If you’re looking at a gallon an hour, and you figure $4 a gallon fuel, you’re talking $40 a night to sit there and have the truck run to stay warm or to stay cool,” he said. “And I already spent a whole bunch of money with Caterpillar going through the motor.”

“I really didn’t want to have to do it again because of that.”

So Tim Kessler started looking for an alternative. Something that could keep his truck warm in that winter weather, something to cool in the summer, something that would operate when the keys are in the “off” position. He also needed that alternative to be something that would be available along his regular, dedicated run, something that would be there when he stopped.

And after some looking, he found it.

“One day, I was going into the Eastgate Travel Plaza there in Evansville, which is a suburb of Casper, and they had a sign up. They had Shorepower,” Kessler said. “I’m thinking, ‘that’s a really neat idea.’”

Tim’s not alone in thinking that shorepower is a neat idea. More and more truckers are looking at that type of system to cut down their idling time, and it’s becoming more common along America’s highways.

Shorepower sounds like something you would find along a lake or ocean. Alan Bates, of the company Shorepower, says that’s no coincidence.

“The name comes from the marine industry, where a boat would pull up at the shore, plug in and basically be able to use grid-based power to power their on-board systems,” Bates said. “Since then, that name really has become synonymous with any form of plug-in capability, whether that be on a boat or an RV or a long-haul truck.”

The idea is one that fits well with the current demands of trucking – especially the wide proliferation of idling bans.

Every year, Land Line Magazine publishes a guide to idling laws across the country. Last year’s guide listed idling restrictions or bans in all or parts of 31 states. And every year, the number, variety and complexity of those laws increases.

Most diesel trucks burn about a gallon of fuel an hour idling. With the typical 10-hour rest period and fuel at $4 a gallon, that means $40 a night in fuel. For the typical trucker who spends 200 nights or more away from home each year, that could amount to $8,000 or more every year in idling fuel costs.

APUs – auxiliary power units – and other on-truck idling alternatives help, but many still burn fuel, and other truckers may complain about the exhaust they create, despite its being far less than a full-size diesel engine.

Alan Bates says shorepower technology offers another, cheaper alternative.

“To power a cab in an overnight rest period on electricity is and always will be significantly cheaper than running on oil,” he said. That’s especially true, he added, “when the price of oil fluctuates, as we’ve seen over the past five to 10 years. You have a crisis, the price spikes, and everybody starts looking for solutions.”

Tim Kessler says that was his experience as well.

“I … haven’t put a pencil to it, but I’ve saved at least a couple of 300 dollars probably since just the first of the year,” Kessler said.

So if it’s cheaper and it works so well, why isn’t shorepower everywhere?

Well, a few reasons. And first among them is that you have to install it at locations like truck stops, where truckers are parking overnight.

In fact, Alan Bates says early studies showed that while the technology was clearly viable, it needed to be built out in order to make it effective.

Shorepower –not the technology, but the company – has been working on that problem.

“By the time that all of our sites are completed, which is this current phase, we’ll have 63 locations in about 30 states,” Bates said. “We’re covering I-5 pretty much north to south, a good chunk of I-95 north to south, I-80, I-70, I-10, I-20, and a number of the other feeder interstates. So we have a fairly good footprint.

“We know that there are about 5,000 locations in the country where trucks park,” he added. “That includes truck stops, rest areas and things like that. Sixty-three is certainly just a small number. However, once this system starts to take hold, we believe it will be as commonplace as wireless Internet.”

Tim Kessler says that he’s had little problem finding shorepower along his dedicated route.

“They’re getting more of them,” he said. “There’s one in Johnson’s Corner there in Colorado, and that’s basically on the route.

“They are few and far between, but they’re getting there. You’re starting to see more of them popping up.”

Bates says that building his company’s system isn’t too expensive. Essentially, they put in a post or pedestal at each parking space along the periphery of a truck stop parking lot.

However, that leads to the second problem that has to be overcome: ensuring that trucks are equipped to use shorepower – the technology, not the company this time.

In fact, many – if not most – new trucks come equipped to use the technology. And even if they don’t, Bates says it can be installed.

More elaborate systems can run in the thousands, but a simple installation can run as little as $50, or even as little as the cost of a power strip, an extension cord and a slightly open window to run the cord into the truck.

Once Tim Kessler had electricity flowing into his truck, keeping warm in those Wyoming winters was a simple matter.

“I’ve got a little 1,500-watt ceramic electric heater, and I can plug it in and turn it on,” Kessler said. “I’ve had it down into the teens, and that little heater’s kept the truck warm.”

He’s planning on a similar system come summer time.

“This summer, I’m going to get like a standalone type apartment type (air conditioning) unit that I can put in the truck, and it’ll just take the place of the electric heater for the summer,” he said. “They make the ones that have the vent hose, like you would have in the apartment, where you would just stand the air conditioner up in the room.”

Just as truckers have a choice between elaborate, built-in shorepower connections for their trucks or a simple extension cord, truckers can either follow the same path Kessler took, or they can get more elaborate, finding heating and air conditioning systems that can be built into the cab.

One trucker who tried that method is OOIDA Life Member Gary Green of Stanhope, Iowa.

“It’s a unit made by RV products out of Wichita, Kansas,” Green said. “They are a major player in the air conditioning/heating units for RVs and for trucks. They have developed a back-wall unit that solves all the problems of what we need for 110 volts, air conditioning and heating.”

He added that the unit “satisfies the requirements that the states are asking us to do.”

Green says the unit is installed by cutting two small holes in the back of the sleeper. The main unit is mounted on the back, with the air return going through one hole, and the heated or air conditioned air going back into the sleeper through the other. The installation, he says, was easy and effective.

But even with the wall mount unit, you still need the juice.

Setting up to use Shorepower to provide that juice was an easy experience for Green as well.

Bates’ company enables customers to reserve a spot online before they ever arrive at a truck stop. That offers a kind of double advantage. The trucker not only can get power to avoid idling, but also has a reserved parking space, which is a very hot commodity in some parts of the country.

Gary took a moment and went through the procedure verbally.

“I go online if I’m in an area, check to see the availability, or if they have their pedestals in the area,” he said.

Once he’s done that, he simply reserves the parking spot on the website.

“When I get there, the parking spot is there,” Green said. “All I do is go in, insert my card that they provide, and it subtracts from  … my money that I’ve set aside to use.

“Say for instance, if I put a hundred dollars in, and I use $10 worth. Well, it subtracts 10 dollars from my account. So I don’t ever have to worry about running out of money – just as long as I keep the card loaded.”

Some people in trucking are skeptical about shorepower.

After all, other companies had tried providing shorepower-like services in the past, and it didn’t always turn out well.

The initial version of Idle Aire offered power, heating, cooling, Internet access, TV and so on. It also required a significant initial investment in equipment at truck stop locations where it was offered. And government grants paid for most of that buildout.

While the new version of IdleAir – a different company with a name that sounds the same but is spelled different – is doing far better, it still is trying to do way more than simple shorepower.

The equipment used by Shorepower – the company – doesn’t take up nearly as much space or require nearly so much equipment, and is relatively easy to maintain. In fact, once the pedestals are installed, the company’s web-based reservation system allows them to conceivably operate without personnel at each location.

All that leads to a little impatience on the part of potential customers.

“Most people that we talk to say ‘Wow, why hasn’t that come before, why isn’t it already here?’” Bates said. “A lot of people have seen it over the years at RV parks, one of the more common consumer applications. And really it’s just a lot of chicken and egg. You have to build this infrastructure that allows these guys to go take advantage of this power.”

But for truckers like Tim Kessler and Gary Green, the real issue isn’t buildout or the cost to Shorepower to make that happen.

It’s the number of dollar bills in their wallet at the end of the day. And for Green, shorepower is one way to make that number bigger.

“Cost efficiency is the main thing,” Green said. “It’s the bottom line.

“You don’t have any problems; you just plug into it. It’s a win-win situation.”

Copyright © OOIDA

There has been a lot of talk in Washington, DC, lately. That should surprise absolutely no one reading this. If there’s one thing DC is known for – other than colossal traffic jams of both the literal and figurative kind – it’s talk.

What is surprising is that the subject of many of those recent conversations has been transportation funding. Specifically, what do we do with the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund is where most of the money we spend on our highway system comes from, and it seems as if Washington has been trying to kill it for years.

How else to you explain stopgap measures like the last two-year highway bill? Which, by the way, expires next year. And let’s not forget the fact that the fuel tax – which is one of the primary funding mechanisms of the trust fund – has not been touched or altered in any way since the 1990s.

Think about that for a minute. In 1994 – that’s as far as the Energy Information Administration’s diesel pricing history goes back – the price of diesel was $1.10 a gallon. Last week it was $3.88 a gallon. And the federal tax has not gone up a single penny in all of that time. If it had, even just a bit, the Highway Trust Fund would likely not be in the dire shape it’s in now.

But there does seem to be a new wave of talk about how to fix that problem. A few people, like Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, have even mentioned raising the fuel tax. But even they admit that may not be enough.

Instead, the two solutions most often bandied about are the vehicle miles traveled tax and devolution. The vehicle miles traveled tax, or VMT, is pretty self-explanatory. It’s a tax that would replace the fuel tax and would be paid based on how many miles you travel in your car or your truck.

It is, of course, fraught with problems. Not the least of which is exactly how do you implement it? How do you measure how many miles someone has traveled during a given period and charge a tax on it without it being a major violation of privacy? Well, you don’t. And that’s why I think – or at least I hope – the VMT will ultimately fail.

Then there’s devolution. This is the idea that the federal government shouldn’t be responsible for maintaining our infrastructure. Instead, that responsibility should revert to the state level. This, I assume, would mean doing away with the Highway Trust Fund altogether.

There are plenty of problems with this solution as well. But I think Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, put it best during a recent hearing of that committee. He said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that if not for the involvement of the federal government, the interstate system as we know it today would not exist.

Neither would interstate trucking as we know it. Take away the interstates, and suddenly shipping goods from state to state becomes a lot more difficult. Sure you’ve got rail but let’s face it, there are places where trains just can’t go. Without interstates, much of the retail economy as it exists today would simply not be there, dependent on long haul trucking as it is.

Not only that, but state and local governments are geared toward dealing with state and local issues. They typically do not think on a national level. Anyone who has ever been to a local city council meeting can tell you that.

Our economy needs a national infrastructure to survive. And it needs to be a national priority, not a state or a local one. And so funding must be a national priority right along with it.

It’s heartening to hear all of this talk going on lately. It’s good to know that some folks in DC are finally waking up to the reality that we’ve got a major problem on our hands, which needs to be dealt with.

I’m just waiting for the day when they decide to do more than talk. Unfortunately, much like traffic on an interstate that is down to one lane because a bridge is literally crumbling up ahead, I’m afraid it could be a long wait.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know by now that we’ve discovered a lot of natural gas under the ground in this country.

And new methods of extracting that gas mean we have more than enough of that fuel to keep our country running for a long time.

Of course, that has real implications for our transportation industry.

Some folks think we should move all our cars over to natural gas – something that is not terribly hard or expensive to do, even with an existing motor. In some places, this is already happening.

Others think we should spend most of that natural gas producing electricity. It is, after all, way cleaner than coal, which is a big part of our energy mix.

But then there’s T. Boone Pickens and those who work with him.

Pickens thinks we should move as much of our electric production as possible to renewables, and then move our national truck fleet over to natural gas.

Unlike cars, trucks require an entirely new motor. Current diesel motors won’t burn the stuff. Retrofits would be so extensive and expensive that it really doesn’t make sense.

Add to that the cost of trucks made to run on natural gas – currently way higher than the cost of a diesel-operated truck.

One trucker suggested a third way. Typically, I like “third ways” – solutions that enable us to solve a problem without most of the complications, often combining the best of two different methods, and hopefully without the complications that come with either.

His idea: Convert all that natural gas into diesel fuel.

That’s not an idea without precedent. During World War II, the Germans converted coal into gas, and that gas into liquid fuel for their war machine. South Africa did the same thing for decades.

But it isn’t even being mentioned as a possibility here. And that raises the question: Why not?

I can’t give you a certain answer, but let me hazard a few educated guesses.

First of all, diesel fuel isn’t as clean as natural gas. I’m not sure if that would be true if it started as natural gas, but why process the stuff more? Why not just burn it as is?

Second, I don’t think too many people are looking at converting current and existing diesel engines to natural gas – we’re talking mainly about new trucks built to burn that fuel. The transition to natural gas, should we decide to go that direction as a nation, will be slow, but over time, even diesel engines and trucks will wear out, offering an opportunity to upgrade as that happens.

Third, I would find it hard to believe that you could take natural gas, process it that much, and still end up cheaper than diesel. It is possible, but I’m just not sure.

I know that if you just take natural gas as is and burn it, that is cheaper, and cleaner, than diesel.

While all of that may be true, I honestly think the most likely explanation is this: Oil companies control the energy, and they’re invested in your truck burning diesel made from crude.

As long as they think they can make more money that way, they will push back against any change.

I always think the best way to figure out why someone is doing something is to follow the money. And if you do that, that seems like the most logical conclusion.

In the end, I think the tide of history – and the massive quantity of natural gas within our borders – will overwhelm all other factors, and we will move slowly but surely toward natural gas.

Even if we only convert local delivery, short haul and port trucks, that would save those operations thousands every year in fuel cost, and it would remove a huge amount of demand for diesel.

Less demand equals lower price (at least, in a logical world), which means even if you don’t convert, you should pay less in the long run.

Will it play out that way? Again, I’m no fortune teller. But if we can overcome the higher costs for the initial truck purchase, I think there’s little downside t

For some time, we’ve been talking on the program about the effort to universally increase the size and weight of trucks.

It’s not a new issue. And each time the topic is raised, it has an unintended effect – some truckers think we have a problem with any truck that’s larger than the standard tractor, 53-foot trailer, 80,000 pound gross vehicle weight.

Nothing could be further from the truth. However, some people think that means that I – and others – have not done as good a job as we could explaining the Association’s position regarding this issue.

So here goes.

First, let me be clear: We are not trying to alienate anyone, certainly not among truckers.

I think that the last few times I brought this topic up, I made the assumption that folks knew from our previous shows all the ins and outs of where OOIDA stands on this.

Again, my error. New folks listen to this channel every day, and here at “Land Line Now,” we need to keep that in mind.

What the association is pushing for, has pushed for, will push for, is status quo.

We have no objection to the larger trucks where they are allowed now. No one wants to stop you from running what you do, where you do now. That’s not the goal, believe me.

But obviously, what works in Montana may not work so well on a Chicago expressway. And what works in New York City may not be the best policy in Florida.

Different states have different policies on truck size and weight, based on their roads, their population and traffic density, their topography, their needs and a thousand other factors.

If we set a single, national standard that allows for larger and heavier trucks, sure, states with wide open spaces would stay as they are. But those states where larger trucks don’t work would be forced into that policy.

OOIDA has other reasons for the stand the Association has taken. For example: Those driving the larger, heavier trucks now are more experienced, have more training to drive those vehicles.

If we increased all trucks’ size and weight, even the newest, least-trained driver on the road could be behind the wheel of those vehicles.

Another point: The current national standard of a 53-foot trailer, of a gross vehicle weight of 80,000 pounds, recognizes that those standards were considered in the construction of interstate highways as they exist now.

Some states have decided that their roads can take more. That they used different construction standards; that they have less traffic – and therefore, less wear and tear – overall. That traffic density removes many of the dangers four-wheelers create around larger trucks.

Therefore, those states allow the bigger trucks on their roads.

But again, setting a national highway network standard of 80,000 pounds recognizes what works nationally, not what works in just your state.

And one last point: If we go to a new standard of a 97,000-pound truck with six axles, do we think truckers will get paid more?

I’m going to say no.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve been told many times that truckers who haul those larger loads now typically get paid a little more.

I don’t think that would be the case if the entire industry moved up to a larger standard. The base rate paid now would likely be applied to the new standard. Most truckers would haul more weight for no more money. Those now hauling larger loads now might be paid less than they are currently.

If you wonder what my basis is for saying that is – it’s every other time they’ve ever increased truck size and weight.

Remember, a lot of truckers make less income now than they did back in the day when a 48-foot trailer was standard.

If your state has a rule allowing the truck you drive, I say, good for you. If you haul into other states that allow that, good for them.

But this system has worked well as it is. Why are we trying to fix something that’s not broke?

To get an answer, use rule number 1: Follow the money. Who’s paying to push for a national standard for larger, heavier trucks?

Shippers, receivers and large carriers.

Those people would not be paying out all that money or making all that effort if they weren’t getting something out of it.

And what they are getting is more freight hauled at less cost.

Where do we think that savings will come? Folks, for most companies, the No. 1 cost is always labor – and that, my friends, would be all of you.

I’m not trying to beat this into the ground, although I’m sure it might sound to some like I am.

What I’m trying to say is, we have nothing against any of you who haul larger loads on larger trucks. We have nothing against your truck or your operation. You are part of the community we represent, and we are on your side.

But this push is not about you. The folks pushing for this change at the national level don’t have you in mind.

It’s about shippers, receivers and carriers who want to pay less for their shipping. Nothing more, nothing less.

No matter what they say the reason is, that’s what it’s really about. And that’s not a good reason to change the rules that exist now.

Many times people who put in their notice at their current job develop what is known as short-timer’s syndrome. The less time you have left before you leave, the less you care about what happens after that time is up. Your mind is less and less focused on your current job and is already moving ahead to your future – be it another job or retirement or what have you.

I’m beginning to suspect this is what is going on with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who announced he would be leaving his position earlier this year. I don’t know how else to explain his recent comments during a hearing a House appropriations committee.

He was there to discuss the budget for the Department of Transportation. You know, that thing that keeps the money coming so we can keep our highways, roads and bridges from falling to pieces?

LaHood told the committee that as soon as Congress is done with immigration reform, gun legislation and the sequester issue, the administration would then be ready to unveil a “bold” transportation plan for funding our nation’s infrastructure.

In other words as soon as you guys finish all of that stuff, which will be long after I’m gone from office, we’ll get right on that whole transportation funding thing. Never mind the fact that the current highway funding bill – which was passed only last year and was already more than two years overdue – expires next year and no one has said one word about replacing or updating it.

Never mind the fact that Congress should have been working on a transportation funding bill – and the administration pushing for one – long before all of this stuff about immigration and gun control was even brought to the table.

Never mind the fact that our infrastructure is literally falling apart. As of this writing, a major artery into Kansas City is all but closed down as emergency repairs are being made to a bridge after a steel expansion joint came loose. And that’s just one example off the top of my head.

Never mind the fact that the expansion of the Panama Canal is less than two years away and an earlier Congressional hearing heard testimony that our infrastructure is in no shape to handle the massive influx in freight that will come along with it.

Nah, we’ll get right on that whole funding thing as soon as you guys finish all of that other stuff you’ve been debating for far too long and unable to resolve. Just finish that and you’ll have your funding plan. Why don’t you just go ahead and solve the situation in the Middle East while you’re at it?

Secretary LaHood has one foot out the door already and it shows. Meanwhile, the rest of us are still in the building that’s falling down around us with no clear plan on how we’re going to get out.

Just don’t let that door hit ya, Mr. Secretary.

Recently, I talked with the folks at OOIDA’s Washington, DC, office about a concept called an infrastructure bank.

The concept is not actually new, but it does have a tendency to be a bit complicated. And it’s created some confusion and misunderstanding for those who just want to know what the government is brewing up this time.

So here’s my best shot at explaining it. I’ll try to leave out all the “governmentese” and talk like regular folks.

The basic concept is that the federal government would set up the bank, and put the initial money into it.

The bank then would loan states, counties and cities money for new transportation projects.

Up till that point, it doesn’t sound bad. However, that’s not the end of it.

The states, counties and cities have to pay the money back. And in many, many cases, that means they will put tolls on those roads.

Remember, you will still pay fuel tax for every single mile you run on those roads, which makes the tolls double taxation.

I think you would see a lot more enthusiasm if states or localities chose to pay those loans off with the fuel tax they collect – or if they gave truckers credit for fuel tax paid on toll roads.

But they obviously do not.

A while back, Terry Scruton talked with a man who has a very interesting, and very unique idea.

Under this man’s proposal, as trucks enter Missouri along Interstate 70, they would be loaded onto trains using a fast-moving, expedited process.

The train would carry them to the other side of the state, where they would unload.

The process would take 10 hours, which would allow truckers to move their rigs across an entire state – while taking their DOT required rest period.

On top of all that, the man with the plan says he’s figuring out how to do it, and charge the truckers only what they would have paid for the fuel to cross the state.

Frankly, I think this is a great idea. When I first heard it explained – well, when every one of us here first heard it explained – we were, to say the least, skeptical.

But as we dug into the idea, and after Terry and others here at OOIDA talked with him, we warmed to the idea.

Now, let’s take it a step further.

Sure, this is a good idea for Missouri, but what if it were applied to more states? It could have a very good effect.

The key point is this – if it were available in every state, truckers could use it for their rest period, wherever they needed to take that rest, and the truck would keep moving.

Trains will never be able to move the truck as fast as the truck itself could go. Remember, it takes a truck about four hours to cross Missouri on I-70, but 10 using the train. But it makes the rest period productive.

Now, what about the money part.

No, not the fee. As I mentioned earlier, the man with the plan says he wants to make it cost effective. I’m talking about what carriers or brokers will pay truckers for those miles.

One trucker who called me pointed out that carriers might say that since the truck isn’t being driven, they might not pay.

However, they aren’t paying just for you to drive. They are paying to move freight from point A to point B.

Under any plan, using that train enables that freight to move during the rest period, when otherwise it would be sitting, waiting for the trucker to go back on duty.

Would some carriers try not paying for those miles? Sure.

You know how you counteract that? Don’t work for a carrier that does that stupid crap.

Refuse to sign a contract that won’t pay you for those miles. And if they try to put it in, remember that a contract is a two-way street – cross it out, initial that line and make it clear it’s a deal breaker.

Meanwhile, it’s not as if this is something you’ll have to confront anytime soon. This is in the very early planning stages. Based on how long it typically takes for some kind of major rail project like this to get done, you shouldn’t worry – but you should let your kids know they may need to be ready for it.

It’s MATS week – that magical time of the year when we figure out how many truckers you can fit into a limited space at one time.

That makes it sound like the old trick of how many college students can you fit in a Volkswagen or a phone booth. But when you’re talking about tens of thousands of square feet of convention center space, well, that gives you an idea of just how many truckers we’re talking.

For the most part, this week is about fun. I’ve often described the Mid America Trucking Show as a kind of Disneyland for truckers. Every toy you’ve ever wanted, the best music, the best food, the best friends, the best memories.

But this year, we’re greeted with sadness as well.

Over the past year, we’ve lost a lot of our friends in this business. Dale Sommers, The Truckin’ Bozo, died after a long and very public struggle with illness. If truckers ever had a friend, it was him. Over several decades, he dedicated his life to making their lives – your lives – better.

Rusty Wade, known to most by his handle, Yoda, left this Earth shortly afterward, joining his friend. When Dale’s illness became truly serious, Rusty dropped everything to stand by Dale’s wife, Sharon, and share the space at his best friend’s bedside.

Rusty and Dale both did their part for all kinds of trucking causes – OOIDA, the JRB Memorial Fund, Special Olympics; you name it, they helped it. And along the way, they did something truly special, helping people one on one.

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard that a trucker was in trouble and then found out that Rusty Wade had delved into his own wallet to make things right.

And Sharon said every time Dale found someone in trouble, she suddenly had a houseguest. It was a regular everyday occurrence. She said it was nothing to see his listeners – his friends – coming and going on any given day, at any hour.

Others have left us as well: Most recently, a man who went by the handle Bandit – North Carolina trucker Bruce Walter Wieser.

I’m sure you’re thinking, wow, this is a buzzkill. We were all having a good time, and Debbie Downer over here is putting the wet blanket on the whole thing.

Don’t think that for a second. Here’s why.

Dale, Rusty and all the others we’ve lost – those were people who worked hard, but they also played hard. Anyone who listened to Dale knew that. And anyone who spent five minutes with Rusty at Mid America, or any other truck show, knew that about him as well.

These folks would not want us sitting around, faces downturned, clouds over our heads. They would want us to live every day like we mean it, to enjoy life as much as we possibly can.

That’s what I hope I see this year in Louisville – that great community of truckers, everyone getting on their party clothes and preparing for a big bash, or as my sainted Aunt Julia used to say, puttin’ on the dog.

We can offer no finer memorial to those who are dead than to live our own lives to their fullest.