Letters to the Editor: CARB Reefer Rules, Intermodal Answers
These letters appear in the Jan. 7 print edition of Transport Topics. Click here to subscribe today.
CARB Reefer Rules
The op-ed by the California Air Resource Board’s enforcement division chief, James Ryden, about the new refrigerated carrier rules is as expected with CARB: “Ready, FIRE, aim!” (Click here for previous Opinion piece.)
How in the world does California expect to enforce railroad operations? Have you seen how many reefer units are riding piggyback these days? The op-ed mentions none of this.
I’m sure many at CARB believe wholeheartedly they are doing a great thing for the environment.
Perhaps in some degree they are, but make no mistake — CARB’s No. 1 reason for existence is to provide the mismanaged government of California with another source of revenue via trucking companies.
Many companies operate within the state of California but opt to register their equipment in another state. Obviously, a majority of enforcement is going to have to take place in scale houses, distribution centers and state-line inspection points. That should do wonders for congestion.
Many carriers lease their equipment from an LLC — a limited liability company — that in many cases will provide the carrier with an “owner’s responsibility” clause making enforcement that much harder. So, of course, the “easy pickin’s” will be the owner-operator, the last great example of an American entrepreneur.
I’m all in favor of more efficient reefer engines, but go after newer models. Leave it up to the manufacturer whether or not they want to provide a product that “works” in California. That might create competition among reefer trailer manufacturers for a smaller economic effect on John Q. Consumer.
I don’t know what Ryden’s knowledge of transportation is, but I can assure him it’s not an industry known for high profit margins. It needs to be understood that compliance costs will be passed to the consumer.
Also, you will most likely see carriers turning down California-based loads — consignee or destination. Who wants that headache? Those that do stick around will be able to charge higher rates because of the lack of competition, and in the end, the consumer will be paying even more for perishable goods.
The writer’s intentions may be good. Nobody wants dirty air — and California’s air quality has vastly improved since the 1960s and 1970s and there are even more people here now. But nobody wants — or can afford — to pay $7 for a tub of butter.
Bobby Stolp
President
Raider Trucking Inc.
Hesperia, Calif.
Intermodal Answers
In the last few issues, I have noticed that intermodal transport figures are down.
It seems to me that there is a prime opportunity for the trucking industry and government to “kill two birds with one stone,” so to speak: Intermodal uses far less fuel per ton-mile than any other means.
Fewer trucks on the road means less congestion, hence safer travel for those vehicles remaining on the road.
It seems like there should be huge benefits for everybody involved if we were to increase the amount of goods shipped using intermodal resources. It’s a technology that can be implemented today. It doesn’t need a government study.
Dennis Taylor
Consultant
D.O. Taylor PE
Columbus, Ind.
