With the price of diesel fuel and gas at an all-time high, with crude oil finding new and exciting ways of rising in price, and with no sign of relief in sight, we need to keep an eye out for any method, any idea that will help truckers get through.
Which brings us to a familiar subject – hot fuel.
A regular caller to our show reminded us of hot fuel recently, and I agree – we will never see a better time to ask lawmakers to address this problem.
There’s a great explanation of how hot fuel works on OOIDA’s special web site, TurnDownHotFuel.com.
The basics are this: When you buy a gallon of diesel fuel at 60 degrees, it contains 139,000 Btu, or British Thermal Units. That’s a measure of how much energy the fuel contains – essentially, the stuff you buy the fuel to get, the energy that makes the truck go.
If the fuel you buy has a temperature of 100 degrees – not really a stretch, as we’ve seen this in a number of fuel outlets – it contains 2,000 to 3,000 fewer Btu.
Now, let’s put it in even more concrete terms.
Let’s say you run 2,500 miles a week – 10 hours a day at an average 50 miles per hour, over five days. Some may run less, but for our example, let’s use this.
Let’s also say you get 6 miles per gallon on average. We usually use 5 mpg, but most truckers who have survived this long are working hard to increase that. So we’ll use 6 mpg.
That means you’re using roughly 417 gallons a week.
If your fuel comes out of the pump at 100 degrees instead of 60, you better make it 428½ gallons. Because that’s how much 100-degree fuel it will take to get you across the same 2,500 miles.
Doesn’t sound like a lot, does it? Try this on for size:
At $4.50 a gallon, that’s $52.50 extra a week.
And over the roughly four-month summer season, when hot fuel is most common, that adds up to roughly an additional $830.
If you faced that extra expense for the entire year – say, if you strictly drive along the southern tier of the United States – that could add up to an extra $2,700 a year.
Sounds like real money now, doesn’t it?
Lawmakers are looking for ways to help consumers with high fuel prices, not only at the pump, but also at the grocery store, the department store, everyplace where the price of fuel affects the costs the general public pays.
And that makes this a perfect time to call your elected representatives about this issue.
The number to call your U.S. senators and U.S. representative is (202) 224-3121.
Call your elected representatives today. And ask for change.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The only thing politicians value more than money
One of the newest ways federal and state politicians are using to sneak tolling onto roads is a scheme called “congestion pricing.”
The idea is simple – charge higher tolls during rush hour, lower tolls on off hours.
Of course, first you have to add tolls. And they also never account for how the hours of service work for truckers, and how that – along with shipper and receiver schedules – affects when those truck drivers move through cities.
Plenty of truckers have voiced objections to congestion pricing. And many have suggested alternative schemes to cut congestion, or achieve other goals associated with this scheme.
While I like some of the ideas I’ve heard, they miss the real point. Officials may say this is about saving fuel or cutting congestion or helping the environment, but in reality, it’s about one thing – money.
You can always count on politicians to find new ways to take that money from you. And there’s only one thing they want more – votes.
The fact is, there are more four-wheelers than truckers, so it’s unlikely they would do anything that would punish the larger group of voters.
Also, why take cars off the highway. They want those cars out there. More cars means more tolls.
That’s why they like congestion pricing. It makes them look like they’re doing something, and it brings in the cash. As far as the politicos are concerned, everybody – at least everybody they care about – is happy.
That truckers get screwed isn’t on their radar now. It’s our job to put it there.
If you see one of these snake oil schemes in your state, call your lawmakers, and let them know you oppose congestion pricing. Tell them how it would affect you.
We need to make those politicians understand that this will cost them that one commodity they value more than money – votes.
The idea is simple – charge higher tolls during rush hour, lower tolls on off hours.
Of course, first you have to add tolls. And they also never account for how the hours of service work for truckers, and how that – along with shipper and receiver schedules – affects when those truck drivers move through cities.
Plenty of truckers have voiced objections to congestion pricing. And many have suggested alternative schemes to cut congestion, or achieve other goals associated with this scheme.
While I like some of the ideas I’ve heard, they miss the real point. Officials may say this is about saving fuel or cutting congestion or helping the environment, but in reality, it’s about one thing – money.
You can always count on politicians to find new ways to take that money from you. And there’s only one thing they want more – votes.
The fact is, there are more four-wheelers than truckers, so it’s unlikely they would do anything that would punish the larger group of voters.
Also, why take cars off the highway. They want those cars out there. More cars means more tolls.
That’s why they like congestion pricing. It makes them look like they’re doing something, and it brings in the cash. As far as the politicos are concerned, everybody – at least everybody they care about – is happy.
That truckers get screwed isn’t on their radar now. It’s our job to put it there.
If you see one of these snake oil schemes in your state, call your lawmakers, and let them know you oppose congestion pricing. Tell them how it would affect you.
We need to make those politicians understand that this will cost them that one commodity they value more than money – votes.
Money for nothing …
Another aspect to the energy situation that has received attention from Congress is the granting of tax incentives to the oil companies, for such things as exploration.
Congress has indicated they’d like to do something different with that money … besides giving to mega-corporations that do nothing once they receive it.
One of the possibilities Congress has listed is research into alternative fuels.
A trucker who called us recently pointed out that many of those same oil companies do some of that research. Why, he asked, should we stop them from taking money out of our right pocket and then simply let them steal the same money from our left pocket?
Here’s a thought: How about we give some of that research money to our universities, and then make the results of that work public domain?
How many times have we heard about energy-saving discoveries by major corporations that were shelved? Remember what happened to all of the GM electric cars in California once the leases were up – the company crushed them. Although later, a GM official said they were “recycled” instead of simply crushed.
Although we’re no longer convinced that alternative fuels like biodiesel and ethanol are where we’re headed as a nation, the development of those industries is pretty instructive.
Small companies took government subsidies and used them to make those fuels viable, not mega-corporations. Small companies promoted them, developed them, pursued them. The big guys were Johnny-comes-latelys.
We clearly have to pursue some kind of alternative fuel. However, simply putting that task in the hands of the same companies that allowed the current crisis to occur makes no sense whatsoever.
Congress has indicated they’d like to do something different with that money … besides giving to mega-corporations that do nothing once they receive it.
One of the possibilities Congress has listed is research into alternative fuels.
A trucker who called us recently pointed out that many of those same oil companies do some of that research. Why, he asked, should we stop them from taking money out of our right pocket and then simply let them steal the same money from our left pocket?
Here’s a thought: How about we give some of that research money to our universities, and then make the results of that work public domain?
How many times have we heard about energy-saving discoveries by major corporations that were shelved? Remember what happened to all of the GM electric cars in California once the leases were up – the company crushed them. Although later, a GM official said they were “recycled” instead of simply crushed.
Although we’re no longer convinced that alternative fuels like biodiesel and ethanol are where we’re headed as a nation, the development of those industries is pretty instructive.
Small companies took government subsidies and used them to make those fuels viable, not mega-corporations. Small companies promoted them, developed them, pursued them. The big guys were Johnny-comes-latelys.
We clearly have to pursue some kind of alternative fuel. However, simply putting that task in the hands of the same companies that allowed the current crisis to occur makes no sense whatsoever.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Speculating about speculation
On one of our recent programs, I spoke with Mike Joyce of OOIDA’s Washington, DC, office about speculation in the energy market.
Experts, public officials and others have serious disagreements about how much of the crude oil price is caused by speculation. But it’s certain that a good part of the price is directly rooted in market manipulation. The question is, how much.
It’s caught the attention of Congress, it’s been the subject of a hearing in the U.S. Senate, it’s on the minds of truckers across the United States.
Several truckers who have called in have suggested that we force people who buy commodities on the market to take delivery, rather than simply buying oil on paper and then selling before it even reaches our shores.
Another said, why not just eliminate the futures market altogether?
I have to admit, it’s an interesting idea … but highly unlikely to happen.
Unfortunately, the futures market is so well established in so many commodities, that I doubt we could ever dislodge it. It’s kind of like a tick that really has its head dug in.
Farmers have complained about this for years. The farmer plants the crop, weeds the crop, fertilizes the crop, raises the crop, harvests the crop … and then gets less income out of it than a trader on the futures market.
And none of those traders ever have to take possession of a single bushel of wheat or a single pork belly.
So what can we do?
For one thing, we can restrict who can trade, or the number of seats on the market. OOIDA’s Todd Spencer pointed out recently that number has increased fivefold in the past few years.
We can also increase the amount of their own money they have to spend to invest in futures.
According to Fox News and other sources I checked, if a trader wants to buy oil on margin – essentially, to buy the oil using borrowed money – that trader has to put up 5 percent to 7 percent of the total in his own money.
On the other hand, on the stock market, regulations require that the trader put up 50 percent of the cost of a stock purchase bought on margin.
That requirement was put in after the big stock market crash in 1929, because one of the many causes of the crash was the huge number of people who had bought stock on margin.
And now, look at our current situation. The price of oil – driven in part by speculation – is causing enormous harm to the economy.
Why should oil traders get by with this when stock traders have been regulated in this fashion for nearly 80 years? Why should these traders be allowed to endanger our economy the same way it was endangered 80 years ago?
We stopped this kind of irresponsible behavior before. And there’s no reason we should hesitate to stop it again.
Experts, public officials and others have serious disagreements about how much of the crude oil price is caused by speculation. But it’s certain that a good part of the price is directly rooted in market manipulation. The question is, how much.
It’s caught the attention of Congress, it’s been the subject of a hearing in the U.S. Senate, it’s on the minds of truckers across the United States.
Several truckers who have called in have suggested that we force people who buy commodities on the market to take delivery, rather than simply buying oil on paper and then selling before it even reaches our shores.
Another said, why not just eliminate the futures market altogether?
I have to admit, it’s an interesting idea … but highly unlikely to happen.
Unfortunately, the futures market is so well established in so many commodities, that I doubt we could ever dislodge it. It’s kind of like a tick that really has its head dug in.
Farmers have complained about this for years. The farmer plants the crop, weeds the crop, fertilizes the crop, raises the crop, harvests the crop … and then gets less income out of it than a trader on the futures market.
And none of those traders ever have to take possession of a single bushel of wheat or a single pork belly.
So what can we do?
For one thing, we can restrict who can trade, or the number of seats on the market. OOIDA’s Todd Spencer pointed out recently that number has increased fivefold in the past few years.
We can also increase the amount of their own money they have to spend to invest in futures.
According to Fox News and other sources I checked, if a trader wants to buy oil on margin – essentially, to buy the oil using borrowed money – that trader has to put up 5 percent to 7 percent of the total in his own money.
On the other hand, on the stock market, regulations require that the trader put up 50 percent of the cost of a stock purchase bought on margin.
That requirement was put in after the big stock market crash in 1929, because one of the many causes of the crash was the huge number of people who had bought stock on margin.
And now, look at our current situation. The price of oil – driven in part by speculation – is causing enormous harm to the economy.
Why should oil traders get by with this when stock traders have been regulated in this fashion for nearly 80 years? Why should these traders be allowed to endanger our economy the same way it was endangered 80 years ago?
We stopped this kind of irresponsible behavior before. And there’s no reason we should hesitate to stop it again.
Friday, June 6, 2008
‘Please, sir, may I have some more’
We recently ran an encore of our investigative series into highway funding in Pennsylvania.
One of the aspects of highway funding in places like Pennsylvania is the use of road taxes for so-called “transportation enhancements” – things like bike and hike trails, parks, street beautification, museums, historic buildings and so on.
As we’ve made clear all along, this is not a problem restricted to any one state. And it needs to be addressed everywhere it occurs.
Some truckers are taking action, calling their lawmakers and demanding change. And that’s something that’s great to hear.
Calls like that will become more and more important as we inch closer to the next highway bill.
A new highway bill is supposed to be written every six years, not only determining each time how federal road taxes will be spent for those six years, but often guiding how they’ll be spent long into the future.
And while calls to Congress are important, the pressure shouldn’t solely be on them.
State officials are the ones who are making the big decisions on creating new toll roads, tolling existing roads, and privatizing our highways.
We need to make sure they understand that we’re watching how they spend our highway tax dollars, and that we expect those dollars to be spent responsibly.
When they misspend our money, say then that they’ve run out and then return to the trough asking for more, it’s a little like someone finishing a 12-course gourmet meal, letting out a huge belch, and then walking up to the waiter like some bloated, overfilled version of Oliver Twist and saying “Please, sir, may I have some more.”
Until they spend what they have properly, it makes no sense to give them any more. It’s time to say no.
One of the aspects of highway funding in places like Pennsylvania is the use of road taxes for so-called “transportation enhancements” – things like bike and hike trails, parks, street beautification, museums, historic buildings and so on.
As we’ve made clear all along, this is not a problem restricted to any one state. And it needs to be addressed everywhere it occurs.
Some truckers are taking action, calling their lawmakers and demanding change. And that’s something that’s great to hear.
Calls like that will become more and more important as we inch closer to the next highway bill.
A new highway bill is supposed to be written every six years, not only determining each time how federal road taxes will be spent for those six years, but often guiding how they’ll be spent long into the future.
And while calls to Congress are important, the pressure shouldn’t solely be on them.
State officials are the ones who are making the big decisions on creating new toll roads, tolling existing roads, and privatizing our highways.
We need to make sure they understand that we’re watching how they spend our highway tax dollars, and that we expect those dollars to be spent responsibly.
When they misspend our money, say then that they’ve run out and then return to the trough asking for more, it’s a little like someone finishing a 12-course gourmet meal, letting out a huge belch, and then walking up to the waiter like some bloated, overfilled version of Oliver Twist and saying “Please, sir, may I have some more.”
Until they spend what they have properly, it makes no sense to give them any more. It’s time to say no.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
They couldn’t stop Charlie, but they sure stopped those price hikes
A recent Associated Press story began, “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has moved inflation up on his list of worries …”
When I was in Vietnam, the Saigon government one day announced it was sick and tired of rampant inflation and that, from that day on, merchants who raised prices would face imprisonment or even death.
Yeah … death.
Inflation in Vietnam ground to a screeching halt.
If Ben took a similar approach here, it would be a bloodbath.
After all, the top dogs at Dow Chemical just announced they’re raising prices across-the-board by up to 20 percent – mainly to offset fuel costs.
And we all know diesel fuel costs 40 percent more this year than last, while gas is up 20 percent.
Come to think of it, the price of eggs is up 60 percent.
Milk is up 26 percent, pasta up 30 percent, and fruits and veggies are up 20 percent.
Amy Brunger of Portsmouth, NH, tells The Boston Globe that she fed her family for years on $125 a week. But this year the cost suddenly shot up to $200.
And now, the natural gas industry is warning that this winter our heating bills will skyrocket because the price of natural gas has gone up 50 percent.
Put all those percentage increases together, and we’re talking some Big Time Inflation.
For the sake of a lot of nice grocers, gas station owners and truck stop fuel desk managers, I’m glad Ben’s in charge – instead of the Saigon generals.
Or at least … I think I am.
When I was in Vietnam, the Saigon government one day announced it was sick and tired of rampant inflation and that, from that day on, merchants who raised prices would face imprisonment or even death.
Yeah … death.
Inflation in Vietnam ground to a screeching halt.
If Ben took a similar approach here, it would be a bloodbath.
After all, the top dogs at Dow Chemical just announced they’re raising prices across-the-board by up to 20 percent – mainly to offset fuel costs.
And we all know diesel fuel costs 40 percent more this year than last, while gas is up 20 percent.
Come to think of it, the price of eggs is up 60 percent.
Milk is up 26 percent, pasta up 30 percent, and fruits and veggies are up 20 percent.
Amy Brunger of Portsmouth, NH, tells The Boston Globe that she fed her family for years on $125 a week. But this year the cost suddenly shot up to $200.
And now, the natural gas industry is warning that this winter our heating bills will skyrocket because the price of natural gas has gone up 50 percent.
Put all those percentage increases together, and we’re talking some Big Time Inflation.
For the sake of a lot of nice grocers, gas station owners and truck stop fuel desk managers, I’m glad Ben’s in charge – instead of the Saigon generals.
Or at least … I think I am.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Just as smart as fertilizing tomatoes with a bag of salt
The speed limiter issue continues to boil over in Canada, as Ontario continues to flirt with requiring the devices.
The basic premise supporters of the idea are using is that the limiters promote safety – an idea any trucker knows isn’t the case.
Want some real world examples? Try this on for size.
A trucker called in to our office the other day to tell us what happened recently when he tried to pass another truck in Ohio.
Both trucks were moving at very close to the same speed. And although he didn’t say so, I suspect his truck and the other truck were limited.
As he was trying to pass the other truck, a four-wheeler became impatient, veered onto the shoulder, jammed the accelerator and sped around the two trucks.
This is an excellent case study in why using speed limiters for safety is just as smart as fertilizing tomatoes with a bag of salt.
Every study of speed limiters has told us this is the kind of behavior that’s likely if we require them. It’s what every scientist who’s actually studied the issue has said can happen, what all the evidence points to.
Here are the basics again, for those in the Canadian government who have been sleeping or not paying attention:
Speed limiters create speed differentials on the highways.
Speed differentials lead to increased interaction in traffic – more passing, more speeding up, more sudden braking.
And those things lead to only one end: more accidents, and – God forbid – more deaths.
It’s time supporters of speed limiters come out from behind the safety argument. It simply doesn’t wash.
The real reason this is being pushed has been made clear over and over again. The bean counters at larger carriers tell their corporate overlords that limiting speed will save money. But it’s harder to recruit drivers when you use limiters. So these same carriers want everyone to be limited so they can more easily recruit.
It is not the job of lawmakers to help companies with flawed corporate policies to recruit workers. It is the job of lawmakers to look out for the safety and welfare of the general public.
If lawmakers in Ontario, Quebec or anywhere else are really interested in safety, they should reject this back-door form of corporate welfare.
The basic premise supporters of the idea are using is that the limiters promote safety – an idea any trucker knows isn’t the case.
Want some real world examples? Try this on for size.
A trucker called in to our office the other day to tell us what happened recently when he tried to pass another truck in Ohio.
Both trucks were moving at very close to the same speed. And although he didn’t say so, I suspect his truck and the other truck were limited.
As he was trying to pass the other truck, a four-wheeler became impatient, veered onto the shoulder, jammed the accelerator and sped around the two trucks.
This is an excellent case study in why using speed limiters for safety is just as smart as fertilizing tomatoes with a bag of salt.
Every study of speed limiters has told us this is the kind of behavior that’s likely if we require them. It’s what every scientist who’s actually studied the issue has said can happen, what all the evidence points to.
Here are the basics again, for those in the Canadian government who have been sleeping or not paying attention:
Speed limiters create speed differentials on the highways.
Speed differentials lead to increased interaction in traffic – more passing, more speeding up, more sudden braking.
And those things lead to only one end: more accidents, and – God forbid – more deaths.
It’s time supporters of speed limiters come out from behind the safety argument. It simply doesn’t wash.
The real reason this is being pushed has been made clear over and over again. The bean counters at larger carriers tell their corporate overlords that limiting speed will save money. But it’s harder to recruit drivers when you use limiters. So these same carriers want everyone to be limited so they can more easily recruit.
It is not the job of lawmakers to help companies with flawed corporate policies to recruit workers. It is the job of lawmakers to look out for the safety and welfare of the general public.
If lawmakers in Ontario, Quebec or anywhere else are really interested in safety, they should reject this back-door form of corporate welfare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)