June 20, 2011
Column | outbound

A peaceful coexistence?

Relations between trucking and rail interests have hit a 20-year low. That's bad news for all of us.

By Mitch Mac Donald

As much of the nation sweltered through the first major heat wave of 2011, the war of words in Washington was heating up as well. But while the temperatures will eventually subside, the tensions between rail and trucking interests seem unlikely to ease anytime soon.

What makes the latest flare-up noteworthy isn't so much the source of the controversy—recent proposals to raise truck weight limits—but the level of hostility generated. Not since former Roadway Express president Joe Clapp hit the speakers' circuit in the early 1990s has the rhetoric reached the pitch it did in May. Clapp, as you may remember, became a fixture at trade shows, conferences, and even congressional hearings, where he spoke out against a rail-backed media campaign that used graphic photos of truck-car accidents to illustrate the alleged dangers of allowing bigger double and triple trailers on U.S. highways.

Fast forward to May 2011, when the American Trucking Associations (ATA) issued comments that were more than vaguely reminiscent of remarks made by Clapp two decades ago. In a statement responding to "fallacious claims about the trucking industry," ATA president Bill Graves launched a full-frontal assault on rail interests.

"For years we've seen a number of organizations proselytize about the dangers posed by the trucking industry," he said. "These groups have for too long co-opted the legitimate grief of Americans who have tragically lost family members on our nation's highways in order to advance an agenda designed to hurt our economy and our industry and benefit trucking's competitors and well-heeled union interests. Issues as important as highway safety demand that legitimate stakeholders be honest and upfront with the public and deal with facts and science.

"The fact is, the trucking industry has never been safer and the continued improvement is due in part to the hours-of-service rule these groups have attempted to litigate and blackmail out of existence.

"These same concerned citizens claim to speak for many Americans on the issue of truck productivity, but it seems pretty clear they speak for the railroad industry, which lines its pockets at the expense of shippers and consumers they hold hostage."

Although he didn't mention it by name, the target of Graves' remarks was the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT), a special interest group that is fighting attempts to raise truck weight limits to 97,000 pounds from the current 80,000. Two weeks earlier, CABT, which is supported by the rail industry, had released a study showing that nearly three-quarters of Americans "overwhelmingly and consistently oppose allowing bigger, heavier trucks on American highways." Among the reasons cited for their opposition was "the increased threat of accidents posed by heavier trucks."

The integrity of that study—and indeed the credibility of the group itself—has since been questioned by the Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP), according to the ATA's newspaper, Transport Topics. (The CTP, a group supported by the trucking industry, has been lobbying for the use of heavier trucks.) According to the newspaper, both the CABT and the company that conducted the study declined to discuss the research methodology.

Granted, there's nothing new about using safety concerns to advance a political agenda. The trucking industry itself has exploited safety issues—like the hazards posed by street-level railroad grade crossings—in its own advocacy efforts. But a suspect study like CABT's does nothing to advance the argument; it merely exploits public fears to advance its position.

It has been long established that there's a place for both trucks and rails when it comes to moving the nation's freight. It would be best to let the market determine how that freight will be allocated between the two modes. And we would all be better served if both sides accepted the fact that a peaceful coexistence is in everyone's best interests.

About the Author

Mitch Mac Donald
Group Editorial Director
Mitch Mac Donald has more than 30 years of experience in both the newspaper and magazine businesses. He has covered the logistics and supply chain fields since 1988. Twice named one of the Top 10 Business Journalists in the U.S., he has served in a multitude of editorial and publishing roles. The leading force behind the launch of Supply Chain Management Review, he was that brand's founding publisher and editorial director from 1997 to 2000. Additionally, he has served as news editor, chief editor, publisher and editorial director of Logistics Management, as well as publisher of Modern Materials Handling. Mitch is also the president and CEO of Agile Business Media, LLC, the parent company of DC VELOCITY and CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly.

More articles by Mitch Mac Donald

Resources Mentioned In This Article

Transportation Videos

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you're not already logged in, you will be asked to log in or register.

Subscribe to DC Velocity

Feedback: What did you think of this article? We'd like to hear from you. DC VELOCITY is committed to accuracy and clarity in the delivery of important and useful logistics and supply chain news and information. If you find anything in DC VELOCITY you feel is inaccurate or warrants further explanation, please ?Subject=Feedback - : A peaceful coexistence?">contact Chief Editor David Maloney. All comments are eligible for publication in the letters section of DC VELOCITY magazine. Please include you name and the name of the company or organization your work for.