Eastern Railroad Discussion > Feds suspend Hours of Service for truckers hauling medical goods

The Wall Street Journal reports the Department of Transportation has suspended hours of service rules for truck drivers hauling food, medical supplies, disinfectants, and other products directly related to the coronavirus pandemic. The suspension does not apply to drivers hauling mixed cargo which includes medical supplies among other not covered products.



The national emergency declaration applies to carriers providing direct assistance to relief efforts tied to the coronavirus pandemic, such as moving medical supplies and equipment to test, diagnose and treat Covid-19. It also applies to those hauling goods to help prevent its spread, including masks, gloves, hand sanitizer and disinfectants.Drivers transporting “food for emergency restocking of stores” are also covered by the declaration.It also applies to motor carriers moving medical and emergency services providers, people needed to set up and manage temporary housing and quarantine facilities, and people being moved for medical, isolation or quarantine purposes, the agency said.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-suspends-truck-driving-limits-to-speed-coronavirus-shipments-11584200091?mod=hp_minor_pos13



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/20 18:58 by Lackawanna484.

          That is pretty 'hair brained thinking', now it's okay for some truck drivers to drive over hours and tired and of course cause more wrecks.
 

https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/us-department-transportation-issues-national-emergency-declaration-commercial-vehicles

On the other side of the argument, it would seem hair-brained the have someone laying in a hospital bed waiting for a ventilator for an extra 9 hours because the truck driver’s hours of service expired 1 hour away from the hospital door and he had to pull over to get his statutory 8 hours sleep before driving the last hour.

I think this is simply a move to cut through the red tape to get the job done during these unprecedented times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/20 06:32 by RGTower.

Another way to review this?  A tired trucker need not race to make it under his outlaw, but can stop and cat nap safely and then deliver his product over his outlaw time. Might be safer for all.  Then again I don't know cause I worked for RR not trucking and rode trains when crews worked 16 hours, day on, day on.

PlyWoody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A tired trucker need
> not race to make it under his outlaw, but can stop
> and cat nap safely and then deliver his product
> over his outlaw time. Might be safer for all. 

Valid point.  These are extraordinary times and we need to get used to the idea that many things will not be "normal", especially what I am confident will be significant future restrictions on non-essential domestic travel similar to those already imposed on most foreign travel.  Not pleasant but necessary.

Gordon

RGTower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the other side of the argument, it would seem
> hair-brained the have someone laying in a hospital
> bed waiting for a ventilator for an extra 9 hours
> because the truck driver’s hours of service
> expired 1 hour away from the hospital door and he
> had to pull over to get his statutory 8 hours
> sleep before driving the last hour.

Before deregulation (and computers...and cell phones...and GPS...a point common to how we used to railroad), truckers ran an assigned route with crew change points like a railroad. The truck kept on rolling. The driver headed to the bunkhouse and the fresh driver took over. That cost too much, so the industry arranged for deregulation.
(YouTube search Wheels of Progress)

What an advanced concept. Too bad it's uh...obsolete (note 8 hour trip and 8 hour rest among other "obsolete" details).

Now they have computers, cell phones, in-cab data displays, and GPS and can't figure out how to have a fresh driver meet the important stuff? Hello Los Banos!

Maybe it has to do with shortage of drivers related to exactly what is being suggested by the Feds, advocated by the trucking industry: push underpaid, slave condition drivers even more than they already do.

TAW

Tom is right.  If they really cared about delivering these needed supplies SAFELY, they would make sure they have sufficient drivers to keep the goods moving, kind of like the railroads.  This move just opens the door to eliminate HOS completely, and puts us all at risk.  Just another reason to hunker down at home and let the craziness run its course.  I now have to build a spare room to hold all my toilet paper....

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RGTower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > On the other side of the argument, it would
> seem
> > hair-brained the have someone laying in a
> hospital
> > bed waiting for a ventilator for an extra 9
> hours
> > because the truck driver’s hours of service
> > expired 1 hour away from the hospital door and
> he
> > had to pull over to get his statutory 8 hours
> > sleep before driving the last hour.
>
> Before deregulation (and computers...and cell
> phones...and GPS...a point common to how we used
> to railroad), truckers ran an assigned route with
> crew change points like a railroad. The truck kept
> on rolling. The driver headed to the bunkhouse and
> the fresh driver took over. That cost too much, so
> the industry arranged for deregulation.
> (YouTube search Wheels of Progress)
>
> What an advanced concept. Too bad it's
> uh...obsolete (note 8 hour trip and 8 hour rest
> among other "obsolete" details).
>
> Now they have computers, cell phones, in-cab data
> displays, and GPS and can't figure out how to have
> a fresh driver meet the important stuff? Hello Los
> Banos!
>
> Maybe it has to do with shortage of drivers
> related to exactly what is being suggested by the
> Feds, advocated by the trucking industry: push
> underpaid, slave condition drivers even more than
> they already do.
>
> TAW

I wouldn't be surprised if the Fed's now will now allow heavy use of stimulants, amphetamines, or even cocaine to keep the drivers awake!

Yeah, TAW's idea would cost way too much to have them change crews.  Profits first!

Truck drivers and rail employees operate on an archaic pay structure. Obsolete, wasteful.

Change it to 40 hours work every seven days, time and a half to 45 hours, and double time thereafter. The carriers would improve their crew utilization within minutes.

But, with union de-certifiers as sec of labor and now on NLRB, that won't happen.

Posted from Android

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truck drivers and rail employees operate on an
> archaic pay structure. Obsolete, wasteful.
>
> Change it to 40 hours work every seven days, time
> and a half to 45 hours, and double time
> thereafter. The carriers would improve their crew
> utilization within minutes.
>
> But, with union de-certifiers as sec of labor and
> now on NLRB, that won't happen.
>
> Posted from Android

And beyond any possibilities with the government....you have US, the railroaders who DO NOT want to change our pay structure. If the railroads are content to pay us this way we are more than content to get paid this way. The govenrment is one thing but if uniformed civilians get in on the game it will be war....cost us one penny...just try......

TAW Wrote:

> Before deregulation (and computers...and cell
> phones...and GPS...a point common to how we used
> to railroad), truckers ran an assigned route with
> crew change points like a railroad. The truck kept
> on rolling. The driver headed to the bunkhouse and
> the fresh driver took over. That cost too much, so
> the industry arranged for deregulation.
> (YouTube search Wheels of Progress)
>
> What an advanced concept. Too bad it's
> uh...obsolete (note 8 hour trip and 8 hour rest
> among other "obsolete" details).
>
> Now they have computers, cell phones, in-cab data
> displays, and GPS and can't figure out how to have
> a fresh driver meet the important stuff? Hello Los
> Banos!
>
> Maybe it has to do with shortage of drivers
> related to exactly what is being suggested by the
> Feds, advocated by the trucking industry: push
> underpaid, slave condition drivers even more than
> they already do.
>
> TAW

TAW, I know better than to challenge you on anything involving railroad operations.   But you've got this whole truck thing wrong.

Under economic regulation there were several categories for trucking companies.  You're talking about the "Regular Route Carriers".  In terms of tonnage, those guys handled a smaller portion of the over the road business.   They focused on the highly lucrative LTL business.  They operated as you say.  They were protected against price competition by the government.  New carriers were not allowed to enter the business and compete.  This trapped customers.   But they didn't handle most tonnage.  And those carriers fought against deregulation tooth and nail.  They had a very sweet deal and they knew it.

When Federal economic regulation was imposed on trucking, in 1935, the government had no idea what it was doing.  So they structured these carriers as if they were a railroad.  This was flat out stupid.  It denied one of the main advantages of trucking, its flexibility.  The trucks ran from terminal to terminal along very inflexible routes.  And the drivers worked in relays, just as train crews do.  It was very inefficient, but since it was designed by bureaucrats who didn't have a clue what else could be expected.  These trucking companies were so structurally inefficient that they rapidly died like flies after deregulation.  They sensed that would happen.  That's why they fought against deregulation tooth and nail.  

Another category was the Irregular Route Carriers.  These truckers still operated under economic regulation.  They needed government "Authority" to operate between certain areas. Again, competition was limited and customers were trapped.  Any price they wanted to charge was subject to legal challenge by other carriers who didn't want to have to compete for business.  Of course, there's no good way for a government tribunal to determine what a price should be.  But that's what we had.  It drove up logistics costs and harmed the American people.  

These truckers operated much the same as today's truckers.  A driver had a bunk in back, pulled in to a truck stop, and slept in the bunk.

Then there were the Contract Carriers.  These companies operated under contract to customers.  (Railroads were forbidden to contract with customers.)  They operated much the same as the Irregular Route Carriers.  They were limited to eight customers.  The government just loves irrational magic numbers.  As an aside, Processed Beef Express, PBX, had a contract with Iowa Beef Processors to move beef.  The Illinois Central managed to get PBX to ship TOFC on its Iowa line.  The government forbid that and put a stop to it.  You see, PBX was a contract carrier while the IC was a "Common Carrier" and prohibited from contracts.  The two just could not mix. That's how stupid economic regulation got.

Then there was the "Agricultural Exemption".  The interstate movement by truck of ag commodities, such as lettuce, was never subject to economic regulation.  Rail rates were strictly regulated.  We can see which mode got the business.  There was a silly US Supreme Court case in the early 1950's dealing with the Ag Exemption.  Was the movement of processed chickens exempt or not?  The Court ruled it was exempt saying:  "A chicken that has been cleaned and dressed is still a chicken."

Finally,  there was private trucking.  To avoid the regulated, artificially high, freight charges a shipper could just buy some trucks and bypass the whole economic regulation thing.

At the end of economic regulation only around 30% of truck freight moved on regulated rates and service.  There were huge incentives for shippers to avoid the inefficient system.

BTW, I do reason that one person crews would work quite well on some trains.  They already do.  I'd like to see the railroads and the unions just work it out.  Fat chance of that.



 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/20 13:15 by Greyhounds.

The government labor philosophy of the 1930s focused on restricting competition for labor and materials.

The original National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Wagner Act, and many others were designed to raise barriers to entry. For labor and producers. More profit for those inside the Pale.

Even the Civilian Conservation Corps was designed to take young men out of the labor force and put them to work in the forests. No need for idle hands and minds to hear Bolshevik speeches.

Posted from Android

I'm with engineerinvirginia, even though I was on the "other side" for forty years.  Railroad labor contracts have been evolving  for a century and a half (my grandfather was blackballed by the C&NW in what must have been the 1890's) and while the Brothers never get all they wanted, and we never got all we wanted, somehow what resulted was always something we both could live with.  I'm a (conservative) Democrat but still feel this is an issue to be worked out by those with skin in the game, not by the federal government, no matter which way it is leaning at the time.  Just my opinion.

Gordon

Greyhounds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TAW Wrote:
>
> > Before deregulation (and computers...and cell
> > phones...and GPS...a point common to how we
> used
> > to railroad), truckers ran an assigned route
> with
> > crew change points like a railroad. The truck
> kept
> > on rolling. The driver headed to the bunkhouse
> and
> > the fresh driver took over. That cost too much,
> so
> > the industry arranged for deregulation.
> > (YouTube search Wheels of Progress)
> >
> > What an advanced concept. Too bad it's
> > uh...obsolete (note 8 hour trip and 8 hour rest
> > among other "obsolete" details).
> >
> > Now they have computers, cell phones, in-cab
> data
> > displays, and GPS and can't figure out how to
> have
> > a fresh driver meet the important stuff? Hello
> Los
> > Banos!
> >
> > Maybe it has to do with shortage of drivers
> > related to exactly what is being suggested by
> the
> > Feds, advocated by the trucking industry: push
> > underpaid, slave condition drivers even more
> than
> > they already do.
> >
> > TAW
>
> TAW, I know better than to challenge you on
> anything involving railroad operations.   But
> you've got this whole truck thing wrong.
>
> Under economic regulation there were several
> categories for trucking companies.  You're
> talking about the "Regular Route Carriers".  In
> terms of tonnage, those guys handled a smaller
> portion of the over the road business.   They
> focused on the highly lucrative LTL business. 
> They operated as you say.  They were protected
> against price competition by the government.  New
> carriers were not allowed to enter the business
> and compete.  This trapped customers.   But they
> didn't handle most tonnage.  And those carriers
> fought against deregulation tooth and nail.  They
> had a very sweet deal and they knew it.
>
> When Federal economic regulation was imposed on
> trucking, in 1935, the government had no idea what
> it was doing.  So they structured these carriers
> as if they were a railroad.  This was flat out
> stupid.  It denied one of the main advantages of
> trucking, its flexibility.  The trucks ran from
> terminal to terminal along very inflexible
> routes.  And the drivers worked in relays, just
> as train crews do.  It was very inefficient, but
> since it was designed by bureaucrats who didn't
> have a clue what else could be expected.  These
> trucking companies were so structurally
> inefficient that they rapidly died like flies
> after deregulation.  They sensed that would
> happen.  That's why they fought against
> deregulation tooth and nail.  
>
> Another category was the Irregular Route
> Carriers.  These truckers still operated under
> economic regulation.  They needed government
> "Authority" to operate between certain areas.
> Again, competition was limited and customers were
> trapped.  Any price they wanted to charge was
> subject to legal challenge by other carriers who
> didn't want to have to compete for business.  Of
> course, there's no good way for a government
> tribunal to determine what a price should be. 
> But that's what we had.  It drove up logistics
> costs and harmed the American people.  
>
> These truckers operated much the same as today's
> truckers.  A driver had a bunk in back, pulled in
> to a truck stop, and slept in the bunk.
>
> Then there were the Contract Carriers.  These
> companies operated under contract to customers. 
> (Railroads were forbidden to contract with
> customers.)  They operated much the same as the
> Irregular Route Carriers.  They were limited to
> eight customers.  The government just loves
> irrational magic numbers.  As an aside, Processed
> Beef Express, PBX, had a contract with Iowa Beef
> Processors to move beef.  The Illinois Central
> managed to get PBX to ship TOFC on its Iowa
> line.  The government forbid that and put a stop
> to it.  You see, PBX was a contract carrier while
> the IC was a "Common Carrier" and prohibited from
> contracts.  The two just could not mix. That's
> how stupid economic regulation got.
>
> Then there was the "Agricultural Exemption".  The
> interstate movement by truck of ag commodities,
> such as lettuce, was never subject to economic
> regulation.  Rail rates were strictly
> regulated.  We can see which mode got the
> business.  There was a silly US Supreme Court
> case in the early 1950's dealing with the Ag
> Exemption.  Was the movement of processed
> chickens exempt or not?  The Court ruled it was
> exempt saying:  "A chicken that has been cleaned
> and dressed is still a chicken."
>
> Finally,  there was private trucking.  To avoid
> the regulated, artificially high, freight charges
> a shipper could just buy some trucks and bypass
> the whole economic regulation thing.
>
> At the end of economic regulation only around 30%
> of truck freight moved on regulated rates and
> service.  There were huge incentives for shippers
> to avoid the inefficient system.
>
> BTW, I do reason that one person crews would work
> quite well on some trains.  They already do. 
> I'd like to see the railroads and the unions just
> work it out.  Fat chance of that.
>
>
>
>  
Very good summary. I will add one point. In 1979, 50% of all trucks were a part of a private fleet. It is amazing to note that it was both cost and service effective for many companies to essentially be in the trucking business!

Posted from Android

gbmott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PlyWoody Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A tired trucker need
> > not race to make it under his outlaw, but can
> stop
> > and cat nap safely and then deliver his product
> > over his outlaw time. Might be safer for all. 
>
> Valid point.  These are extraordinary times and
> we need to get used to the idea that many things
> will not be "normal", especially what I am
> confident will be significant future restrictions
> on non-essential domestic travel similar to those
> already imposed on most foreign travel.  Not
> pleasant but necessary.
>
> Gordon
This has happened before many years ago. During a oil supply problem here in the east Pa. took the weight limits off petroleum transport and the feds relaxed the Hours of service.  Depending on what the problem is it can help move product where it is needed in a timely manner. -  Ken 

Kemacprr Wrote:

> This has happened before many years ago. During a
> oil supply problem here in the east Pa. took the
> weight limits off petroleum transport and the feds
> relaxed the Hours of service.  Depending on what
> the problem is it can help move product where it
> is needed in a timely manner. -  Ken 

It's happened several times before.  It makes sense.  i.e. for truckers moving generators in to hurricane areas.  Everything in life is a trade off.  Disasters tip the scales. 

When the need for critical supplies increases due to an emergency it makes sense to expedite the deliveries.

Greyhounds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> TAW, I know better than to challenge you on
> anything involving railroad operations.   But
> you've got this whole truck thing wrong.
>

Thanks for fillin in my knowledge. I knew something of all of that, but not enough. I'm always looking for opportunities to learn something.

I also oversimplified my example of relay in lieu of extending HOS. I watch a lot of truck driver channels on YouTube to learn something about life there. I have seen a few times a driver without enough HOS left to make a delivery time swap trailers with a driver with enough time and pulling a load that has a delivery time the first driver can make after rest. It is arranged on the fly by the dispatcher. Of course, that takes enough company drivers on a route or in an area to do road relief, but it can be done.

Given the advantage taken of drivers already, I view the relaxation of HOS for essential supplies with a little trepidation. Yeah, maybe it can work, but I don't have a lot of trust that it will not be abused.


> That's
> how stupid economic regulation got.

Yes, really stupid. In the case of railroads, even more punitive than stupid. I haven't researched trucking enough to know if trucking regulation was punitive or just stupid.


> BTW, I do reason that one person crews would work
> quite well on some trains.  They already do. 
> I'd like to see the railroads and the unions just
> work it out.  Fat chance of that.
>
...largely because the railroads are known for abusing any new arrangement they are given. In the 80s, BN started a short haul intermodal service between Portland and Seattle. Trains were to be all intermodal between LAke Yard and South Seattle, limited to 50 cars, have no work on line, have a two man (C&E) crew, conductor equipped with radio. That lasted a couple of months until the newness wore off. Then it was double the carload freight to the pigs at Lake Yard, pick up at Vancouver, set out at Tacoma, set out at South Seattle and as long as you're taking the engine to the house at Interbay, take the Interbay carload stuff with you, ah, and there's no radio for the conductor tonight. This started happening night after night. I was night Chief. I would complain and point out the rules to the trainmaster who would respond Let 'em timeslip. They might get paid.

TAW

I hope any waiver won't be abused.

History suggests it will be abused.

Posted from Android

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truck drivers and rail employees operate on an
> archaic pay structure. Obsolete, wasteful.
>
> Change it to 40 hours work every seven days, time
> and a half to 45 hours, and double time
> thereafter. The carriers would improve their crew
> utilization within minutes.
>
> But, with union de-certifiers as sec of labor and
> now on NLRB, that won't happen.
>
> Posted from Android

The rates of pay seem archaic, but I can't think of anything better. When a crew is getting paid overmiles on an ID run, they try to make it over the road as fast as possible, because overtime starts later than in 8 hours.

Most crew and locomotive utilization problems are simply caused by wanting to "sweat the assets". That includes dispatchers with too much territoory to manage.

The most archaic thing on the railroad is the management philosophy itself. Believe me, if you love the RR and care about the quality of your work, you will accrue more write ups than those who sandbag and always make excuses.