California, still disconnected from reality...

[LumbermanSVO]

So, tomorrow I will be going into Mira Loma, CA (L.A. Area) to make a delivery. I cut my day short today and decided to sleep in Kingman, AZ so I wouldn't have to go into CA. Why? Well, it's warm out, I can can't sleep when it's over 80 out unless I have A/C, to get A/C I need to idle my truck, that is illegal in CA.

A couple weeks ago CA started sending out law enforcement to truck stops to ticket truckers who idle their trucks, even if the truck meets the CA idling requirements. Some trucks have auxiliary power units that can supply heat and A/C but CA is ticketing even if you are running one of those.

Lawmakers have been passing stricter and stricter truck safety laws and now they don't care if we sleep? Where is the sense in all this?

I think it is about time the trucking industry cuts CA off from the rest of the country. Eff them, let them starve. This will be my last trip to CA.

[jessica.]

Not knowing a thing about what you're talking about and being in CA I sort of agree with you. California's legislature is so hell bent on making this a green state that it is getting completely out of hand. I mean, you can say f-us about deliveries and such but you provide a service and if you do not do it someone else will. You have your hard stand, I have mine. Like I said, I agree to a degree, but you not making a delivery of whatever you deliver to CA is so easily replaceable by someone who really could use the money.

[Gray-Wolf]

CA, due to growth and all, has chosen to have the highest EPA and all rules in place. You can't fault them for this. Only alternative, is find a middle ground, ie motel room with A/C. truckers do need their sleep as accidents will happen if they fall asleep at the wheel.

Other states are beginning to follow their lead.

[LumbermanSVO]

CA, due to growth and all, has chosen to have the highest EPA and all rules in place. You can't fault them for this. Only alternative, is find a middle ground, ie motel room with A/C. truckers do need their sleep as accidents will happen if they fall asleep at the wheel.

Other states are beginning to follow their lead.

Is is not an easy feat to find a motel with truck parking, much less one that still has rooms available or one close enough for you to legally get to. How much are rooms going to cost if every trucker is trying to get one?

BTW, two drivers have already died because of this.

[Gray-Wolf]

Another possibility, is to have 2 drivers, presuming long haul, that can spell each other every 4 hours, and sleep. Presuming a sleeper rig.

[synth3tik]

Minnesota has a similar law although I think it is specific to passenger vehicles.

[Abstract]

I agree with LumbermanSVO, although I like California's stance on tackling environmental issues.

The attempt by California to do whatever it takes is nice, but it's not practical, and like it says in the thread title, it's a bit too far detached from reality. It almost seems as though lawmakers saw the potential to reduce environmental impact and simply approved it. It doesn't appear that they were very interested in any practical issues that may result.

Truckers already get very little sleep. To tell them to put up with it because there are other people willing to do the same job for the same money is insensitive and inhumane. I guess the same justification can be used for abuse in any profession. This doesn't even take sweatshops into consideration.

[mkrishnan]

If APUs are specifically indicated as an alternative to idling by CARB, why are people using APUs being ticketed also?

[sushi]

If APUs are specifically indicated as an alternative to idling by CARB, why are people using APUs being ticketed also?
Good question.

We as a nation want our highways safe to drive on. Tired truckers pose a threat to normal traffic. Hotels are expensive. And finding one when you get tired may not be the easiest due to the size of the rig and other factors. I would rather truckers can pull over into any rest stop and catch some sleep. An APU seems like a wonderful alternative to running the main engine.

[dmr727]

Does the A/C in trucks require anything more than just electrical power? Seems to me that if Cali is going to do this - they need to pony up the cash to provide electrically powered APUs at every truck stop.

[LumbermanSVO]

Another possibility, is to have 2 drivers, presuming long haul, that can spell each other every 4 hours, and sleep. Presuming a sleeper rig.

Team trucks do exist, and are highly profitable, the problem is getting two people to live in such a small space for such long periods of time without killing each other. I've tried it and it ended badly, I have a thread title "Let's Talk Trucks" that has some of the details and the horrific ending of that experiment.

I will soon be training new drivers so I will be a half-arsed team truck. The biggest difference is that the students will know they are students and I will have the power to boot them from the truck if need be.

Also, even with a team truck you can't keep the truck moving 24/7, you will run out of hours and have to stop for 24 hours somewhere to reset your 70 hour clock every 6-1/2 days(34-hours for a solo driver). And due to delivery and pickup times there is no way to guarantee that the truck wont be parked somewhere just waiting. Would CA rather have the truck driving around in circles burning even more fuel, or parked idling?

I agree with LumbermanSVO, although I like California's stance on tackling environmental issues.

The attempt by California to do whatever it takes is nice, but it's not practical, and like it says in the thread title, it's a bit too far detached from reality. It almost seems as though lawmakers saw the potential to reduce environmental impact and simply approved it. It doesn't appear that they were very interested in any practical issues that may result.

Truckers already get very little sleep. To tell them to put up with it because there are other people willing to do the same job for the same money is insensitive and inhumane. I guess the same justification can be used for abuse in any profession. This doesn't even take sweatshops into consideration.

I don't hve any problem with "green" policies as long as they are practical. A better alternative would be a federal requirement for all truck of X model year and newer to come equipped with an APU that meets that years emissions standards.

If APUs are specifically indicated as an alternative to idling by CARB, why are people using APUs being ticketed also?

APU's have been around for awhile but they are expensive (around $10k installed) so they haven't been widely adopted. With the recent spike in fuel prices and anti-idling laws they have become more common place(still less than 1/4-1/3 of the trucks have them).

Until about a year ago they had very loose emissions requirements, Now they must meet the same standards as the truck they are attached too. Many, many trucks have APU's that don't meet the same emissions standards as the truck they are on because the laws changed after they were bought/installed.

My guess, it is easier to just ticket everyone doing any form of idling and let the courts figure it out than to look to see if the equipment meets the requirements. That method would also seem to bring in more money.

We as a nation want our highways safe to drive on. Tired truckers pose a threat to normal traffic. Hotels are expensive. And finding one when you get tired may not be the easiest due to the size of the rig and other factors. I would rather truckers can pull over into any rest stop and catch some sleep. An APU seems like a wonderful alternative to running the main engine.

I would love to have one but I don't have the $10k to spend on a truck that doesn't belong to me. In 1-1/2 years when I buy this truck the first thing I do will be to put an APU on it.

[sushi]

Does the A/C in trucks require anything more than just electrical power?
I believe this to be correct.

Seems to me that if Cali is going to do this - they need to pony up the cash to provide electrically powered APUs at every truck stop.
Neat idea. Of course the truckers would have to pay an electrical usage cost.

[LumbermanSVO]

Does the A/C in trucks require anything more than just electrical power? Seems to me that if Cali is going to do this - they need to pony up the cash to provide electrically powered APUs at every truck stop.

The A/C system has a compressor in it, the compressor is turned by the engine, same as in your car. Most APU's on the market have an alternator and A/C compressor.

Running an all electric A/C unit for 10 hours would drain the batteries(4) to the point that the truck couldn't start. I've only come across two truck stops that had shore power(what you described). One is the 49'er in Sacramento, but it only has bout 10 spots. The other is the TA in Coburg(Eugene), Oregon, it has about 30.

[MacNut]

Can the union pull together and just halt all shipments to CA?

[Rodimus Prime]

Something read about a few years ago and something LumbermanSVO more than likely has seen is something that some truck stops have is this thing that hooks on to the cab window of the truck. It provides heating and Cooling for the cab of the truck and Power for the drive to plug things into and internet access.

I think CA if they want to do this pony up for having all truck stuff have enough of these things installed and then provide for like 10-15 bucks a night for truck drivers which I am going to assume is cheaper than fuel cost to run an APU for a night.

CA is a state that wants its cake and eat it to.

There is a reason it is called the Republic of California.

[LumbermanSVO]

Can the union pull together and just halt all shipments to CA?

Very few trucking companies are union. Due to the communications difficulties it is very hard to organize an event like this.

There have been some places in Europe where the truckers have blocked all roads going in and out of certain cities for days at a time. These events were highly successful.

Neat idea. Of course the truckers would have to pay an electrical usage cost.

Don't worry, the cost will just be passed on to you. Some new people will do pieces talking about how unjust it is but in then end you would pay for it.

I remember news pieces about how unfair it was that transportation companies were charging for the increase in the cost of fuel...

[FunkyMonkey]

Like I said, I have no problem with wanting to be clean and all, but be reasonable.

Do you just want me to stay out of your city, or all trucks? Think about that for a minute then look around your house and try to find something that hasn't been on a truck. Now, just me or all trucks?

If you want to live in a place with no trucks you may want to join a tribe in the Amazon, or invent an alternative to trucks.

No, I'm just happy you don't like California.

[MacNut]

No, I'm just happy you don't like California.Im juts curious, if you don't want any trucks in CA how do you expect to get your food or goods?

[FunkyMonkey]

Im juts curious, if you don't want any trucks in CA how do you expect to get your food or goods?

By saying No, I was implying that I like to have trucks coming to CA.

[LumbermanSVO]

Something read about a few years ago and something LumbermanSVO more than likely has seen is something that some truck stops have is this thing that hooks on to the cab window of the truck. It provides heating and Cooling for the cab of the truck and Power for the drive to plug things into and internet access.

I think CA if they want to do this pony up for having all truck stuff have enough of these things installed and then provide for like 10-15 bucks a night for truck drivers which I am going to assume is cheaper than fuel cost to run an APU for a night.

CA is a state that wants its cake and eat it to.

There is a reason it is called the Republic of California.

You are thinking of IdleAire. It costs $2.45/hour for basic heat, A/C and electricity, the price goes up it you want more features. There are limited locations and the setup takes more land than a non-IdleAire locations.

They recently filed for bankruptcy and were looking to the government for funding.

Many companies have tried in-cab services for truckers and failed, lookup Park-N-View

[sushi]

Don't worry, the cost will just be passed on to you.
So true.

Just like those who want to raise corporate taxes.

The customer is the one who ends up paying the bill.

[TheAnswer]

Can the union pull together and just halt all shipments to CA?

The problem with that, in addition to the one LumbermanSVO pointed out, is that California has a vast central valley of agricultural goodies and well as some huge port complexes through which a large amount of the goodies for the rest of the U.S. travel arrive.

So, sure, you could halt all the shipments to CA. We'll just have to keep all your [insert Winter holiday of choice] presents. :p

[MacNut]

The problem with that, in addition to the one LumbermanSVO pointed out, is that California has a vast central valley of agricultural goodies and well as some huge port complexes through which a large amount of the goodies for the rest of the U.S. travel arrive.

So, sure, you could halt all the shipments to CA. We'll just have to keep all your [insert Winter holiday of choice] presents. :pThat would hurt the local businesses more than the rest of the country. I would see the state overturning the law quick.

[LumbermanSVO]

By saying No, I was implying that I like to have trucks coming to CA.

FYI, the trucking industry in general doesn't like CA but they deal with it because it comes with the gig. Don't believe me? There are plenty of trucking boards out there, have look and see what the rest of the industry thinks.

What happens when CA goes too far and the industry decides not to deal with it any more? You'll certainly have your clean air! :D

[LumbermanSVO]

That would hurt the local businesses more than the rest of the country. I would see the state overturning the law quick.

I'm sure Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and B.C. would love the extra commerce. There is also that whole Gulf Coast thing and that little canal that connects it to the Pacific :D

[TheAnswer]

We could always bring back the railroads. At least when one of their engineers runs out of pep pills, I don't have to worrying about him wandering into my lane on the freeway.

Seriously, I hope the state sorts it out so that truckers have a means of cooling themselves so they can sleep at night. I don't think idling all night is the answer, but nor do I think you should be forced to spend $10k to fit a rig you don't own with the proper equipment to let you sleep at night.

[dmr727]

Running an all electric A/C unit for 10 hours would drain the batteries(4) to the point that the truck couldn't start. I've only come across two truck stops that had shore power(what you described). One is the 49'er in Sacramento, but it only has bout 10 spots. The other is the TA in Coburg(Eugene), Oregon, it has about 30.

That's what I'm saying. Provide electrical ground power to allow you to run the A/C as long as you'd like. I have an APU, and I'm pretty sure my APU spews more garbage into the California air in an hour than you do all night, if not all year. And the irony is that my APU is being used to keep a cabin cool for the very same people that are bitching about yours.

[jecapaga]

California does a lot of things right and wrong. We are often first to adopt certain policies/laws. It's both annoying and welcome. It's hard to do business here and you're describing just that. I feel for you because how else are you supposed to do what you do without relegating one state as special/differential.

Sucks that from what you're saying they've pronounced what will be without offering up a realistic way for you to continue business. I would be annoyed as hell.

[Rodimus Prime]

We could always bring back the railroads. At least when one of their engineers runs out of pep pills, I don't have to worrying about him wandering into my lane on the freeway.

Seriously, I hope the state sorts it out so that truckers have a means of cooling themselves so they can sleep at night. I don't think idling all night is the answer, but nor do I think you should be forced to spend $10k to fit a rig you don't own with the proper equipment to let you sleep at night.

we do use the railroads very heavily today as well to move goods. In the end trucks will always be used to haul the good to the final locations in stories.

The railroads today in the US are primarily a freight moving system.

I will laugh when Californa gets hit with there own laws coming back to bit them in the ass. Trucker get the point they decide in mass to refuse to do any delivereis to and from the state. It will bring it to its knees. It agriculture would be shut down completely, Most of the delivers to there stories would be done for. No food for its people guess who delivers goods to grocery stores. ....

Yes the federal government would step in and force the truckers to start working again but who really would want to put up with truckers forced to do the work. Deliveries would be late slow to get there and of course the truckers would do only as much as they were required to do.

[synth3tik]

Can the union pull together and just halt all shipments to CA?

I need my delicious black berries.
California in late summer and fall and Chili in the winter.

I need those damn berries

[TheMonarch]

I think it is about time the trucking industry cuts CA off from the rest of the country. Eff them, let them starve. This will be my last trip to CA.

I don't think California would be too worried about starvation due to the central valley and the LA port ;)

And while I do agree that some things might be a little overkill over here, I think that its a good thing to strive for higher standards. Although idling an engine for hours while sleeping sounds like a terrible way to treat the environment [Disclaimer: I'm not a trucker, or an environmentalist, and I know everyone needs their sleep, but I think there's got to be a better solution]

BTW, I live night next to i580, and no trucks over 4.5 tons are allowed to pass through here :o Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_580_(California)#Truck_ban_through_Oakland)

[glocke12]

Well, there has to be some give and take. If CA and other states are going to make and enforce laws such as this, than they need to work with the trucking industry to provide an alternative to idling all night. Having the truckers pay to outfit their rigs with special equipment isnt that alternative, as I suspect most truckers cant afford that.

Sounds like this should have been a regulation that should have been planned to be implented in the future to allow the trucking industry to work with the state to come up with an alternative to idling all night. If the state wants to enforce this regulation now, than they should probably provide truckers with "motel" credits that allow them to stay at motels for free or at reduced rates...

BTW, truckers, PLEASE watch those jake brakes when driving within close proximity to residences.

[janey]

If the state wants to enforce this regulation now, than they should probably provide truckers with "motel" credits that allow them to stay at motels for free or at reduced rates...

While I don't know anything about this situation, there is a point to be made that if this whole thing is about the environment, the environmental impact of truckers staying at motels/hotels for the night may well be larger than just idling, if it was even feasible (and to make it feasible would be yet another impact). You know, those things one can see in hotels more and more often about the impact of just reusing a single towel spread across lots and lots of people at lots of hotels worldwide, and that's only the tip of the iceberg.

[mkrishnan]

The A/C system has a compressor in it, the compressor is turned by the engine, same as in your car. Most APU's on the market have an alternator and A/C compressor.

Running an all electric A/C unit for 10 hours would drain the batteries(4) to the point that the truck couldn't start. I've only come across two truck stops that had shore power(what you described). One is the 49'er in Sacramento, but it only has bout 10 spots. The other is the TA in Coburg(Eugene), Oregon, it has about 30.

Yeah, unfortunately, for a lot of complex reasons, converting the AC to using completely innocuous gases (C02 AC's are still just slowly trickling onto the market) and having them run off the electrical bus instead of the FEAD have been major hassles.

I see what you're saying about the APU, now. I didn't realize that there were a lot of APUs on the market that didn't meet emissions requirements themselves.

It's a complicated problem...

- We need truckers for our basic quality of life. We depend on you guys at so many levels.
- Having truckers fall asleep at the wheel or make driving errors because they are not able to sleep is clearly not acceptable.
- Without huge changes in the cost structure of the transportation of goods (not to mention the number of rooms that would be required in articulated truck - friendly hotels), having you guys stay in hotels is probably not realistic.
- Environmental concerns are important, too. California does what it does because they do genuinely have a pollution problem. Many other states have pollution problems too, and honestly ought to be doing things more like what California is doing.

Complicated....

[TheAnswer]

It's warm out, I can can't sleep when it's over 80 out unless I have A/C

Looks like Needles, Barstow, Victorville and Mira Loma all cooled down pretty quickly last evening and ended up with lows in the low-60s or high-50s. :rolleyes:

[hotzenplotz]

Im juts curious, if you don't want any trucks in CA how do you expect to get your food or goods?

Um, lets see.... cargo ships and trains?

[Gray-Wolf]

Um, lets see.... cargo ships and trains?
Both of these require trucks to get them to stores and cities where there is no train/harbor.

An idea, that would never be accepted, is to create truck stops on the major highways, available only to big rig truckers, that had 10' x 10' rooms with a bath. Available for $25 a night/time to get the 8 hours sleep. Bare bones rooms, no TV, no frills. Just a place to safely sleep.

That way, no APU/idling needed, fuel is saved, and drivers protected. And, no stays longer than 8 hours. It could be done, semi cheaply, but governments have never been known to be wise :p :rolleyes:

[Rodimus Prime]

I think in the end this is summed up by California is a feel good state. They pass laws that are there to make its people feel good but they are not praticle and they are not willing to do the things to make it pratical.

Like the example I posted earlier. They are not going to spend the money to build those type of truck stops everywhere because it does not feel good. I mean they are helping out the "dirty polluting unsafe" truckers.


This insult is aimed at the state of California and it people. Truckers really are very safe drivers. Safest on the road I believe when you compare the miles they drive to wrecks.

[djellison]

two drivers have already died because of this.

How, exactly?

[CalBoy]

That would hurt the local businesses more than the rest of the country. I would see the state overturning the law quick.
I'm not so sure about that.

California has no problem exporting its goods and services to other countries, let alone to other states.

If you don't allow shipping to pass through California, you essentially shut down the entire Western economy. And since the majority of people who live in the West live in California, there wouldn't be much disruption for most people, merely a massive disruption for those states that get their goods from California.

Lawmakers have been passing stricter and stricter truck safety laws and now they don't care if we sleep? Where is the sense in all this?

I can appreciate your situation here, and I think the law has good intentions but overlooks obvious logistical problems.

A point of curiosity for me: how often is it hot at night to the point that you need AC?

And, before this law went into effect, how often would you sleep in your truck during cold winter nights?

I think it is about time the trucking industry cuts CA off from the rest of the country. Eff them, let them starve. This will be my last trip to CA.

I don't think the industry would get very far in that endeavor I'm afraid. It just isn't realistic.

While I'm sure you as an individual trucker (and others in your situation) can stop going to California, the equilibrium would simply readjust until new truckers take up those routes.

It just isn't realistic to cut off 13% of the national economy, especially since it feeds so many, provides consumer goods, and is the source of so many tech goodies we all love. ;)

I will laugh when Californa gets hit with there own laws coming back to bit them in the ass.

If others states follow suit (which they are), then I don't think we're going to see that happen.
Trucker get the point they decide in mass to refuse to do any delivereis to and from the state. It will bring it to its knees.[/quote]
Not really.

California is a hub for commerce. Other states that need those goods would suffer, not California.

It agriculture would be shut down completely, Most of the delivers to there stories would be done for.
California feeds itself and several other states nearby. I highly doubt its grocery stores would suffer.

[Ugg]

FYI, the trucking industry in general doesn't like CA but they deal with it because it comes with the gig. Don't believe me? There are plenty of trucking boards out there, have look and see what the rest of the industry thinks.

What happens when CA goes too far and the industry decides not to deal with it any more? You'll certainly have your clean air! :D

There really aren't a lot of options when it comes to Pacific Ports. Vancouver, BC, Seattle/Tacoma/Portland Long Beach and San Francisco are the only west coast options. As a result, air pollution in and around ports almost always exceeds EPA standards.

While it's popular to bash California, wasn't it bushco that started the Clean Diesel ball rolling? Transportation and construction/heavy industry have gotten a free ride when it comes to clean air. There's nothing wrong with ending the exemption and it's not as though it was put into place over night. The industry has had over 3 years to prepare for it.

I realize that independent truckers pay a big price, but blaming "liberal" California for the problem is pretty stupid. There wouldn't be such a huge problem if so many jobs hadn't been sent to China.

You may pay more in freight charges, but your Macs are a lot cheaper since they're manufactured in China! Why are you complaining so much?

[mactastic]

Wait, so government is supposed to FUND all it's mandates? :p

That's news to the NCLB folks...

Anyway, here's (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/06/trucks.idling.bluecool/) one option. I'd be curious to know if the extra 300 pounds adds significantly to the operating cost of the truck, because if the capital outlay costs versus costs of idling the truck are accurate, this seems like a no-brainer.

It's kind of amusing to see so many people suddenly advocating government offer someone a hand...

[LumbermanSVO]

I'm in Mira Loma now, been here about an hour, waiting to see what my next load will be. It is 90ºF out and the truck has been off for about an hour, I am now sweating, so much for the $10 shower I took last night! I have to stay with the truck in order to get my next load, if one comes to me and I can't give a yes/no to it within 30 minutes I lose it and go to the back of the line. I will soon be turning the truck back on.

It is really weird to be at a company terminal and not hear any trucks running.

Well, there has to be some give and take. If CA and other states are going to make and enforce laws such as this, than they need to work with the trucking industry to provide an alternative to idling all night. Having the truckers pay to outfit their rigs with special equipment isnt that alternative, as I suspect most truckers cant afford that.

Some places do have exemptions, New York state allows you to idle if the temperature is below 25ºF. I suspect this has more to do with preventing diesel from gelling than safety.

Some places specifically mentions trucks with sleepers as long as it is being run during the federally required 10-hour break.

Allowing a truck to idle if temps are over 80ºF and below 25ºF would be reasonable.

It's a complicated problem...

- We need truckers for our basic quality of life. We depend on you guys at so many levels.
- Having truckers fall asleep at the wheel or make driving errors because they are not able to sleep is clearly not acceptable.
- Without huge changes in the cost structure of the transportation of goods (not to mention the number of rooms that would be required in articulated truck - friendly hotels), having you guys stay in hotels is probably not realistic.
- Environmental concerns are important, too. California does what it does because they do genuinely have a pollution problem. Many other states have pollution problems too, and honestly ought to be doing things more like what California is doing.

Complicated....

Other than initial cost, I don't see a problem with requiring trucks of X year and newer to come equipped with an APU that meets the needed emissions standards. Such a rule would ultimately reduce transportations costs and pollute less.

Looks like Needles, Barstow, Victorville and Mira Loma all cooled down pretty quickly last evening and ended up with lows in the low-60s or high-50s.

Yeah, but my day ended at 3pm, not at night. I ran the truck for abut 3-1/2 hours then shut it off.

What about summer time?

Also, trucking does not run off the typical 9-5 schedule. Due to pickup/delivery times drivers often have to drive at night and sleep during the day. Unless you want to invest a LOT of money in parking you can't require all the truck to run during the day. There is already a parking shortage, especially along I-5, I-95 and east of the Mississippi in general.

This is also one of the problems with Motels, they operate of the idea that the entire world works off the typical 9-5 schedule. Try getting a room at 5am so you can leave at 3pm and see if they charge you for one or two nights. I already know the answer to this, I've tried it.

About 1/3rd of the month I drive at night and sleep in the day.

That way, no APU/idling needed, fuel is saved, and drivers protected. And, no stays longer than 8 hours. It could be done, semi cheaply, but governments have never been known to be wise

The federally mandated break is 10-hours. There is also a 34-hours break a driver can take that resets the 70-hour clock.

This insult is aimed at the state of California and it people. Truckers really are very safe drivers. Safest on the road I believe when you compare the miles they drive to wrecks.

Not just Wrecks/Mile but also who causes the wreck. Every time the government does a study to find out who causes car/truck wrecks it comes out at around 70% cars 30% trucks. I think the worse I've seen was 60/40.

A point of curiosity for me: how often is it hot at night to the point that you need AC?

In the south? A lot, even during the winter. During the summer it is hot enough to idle most nights no matter where I am.

And just to be clear, I actually prefer to sleep with the engine off when I can.

And, before this law went into effect, how often would you sleep in your truck during cold winter nights?

Winter conditions are easier to deal with as long as it isn't cold enough to cause the fuel to gel. A relatively cheap option is to have an under-bunk diesel-powered heater. My last three trucks had them. They don't meet CARB emissions standards and are illegal to use in CA but you can't hear them run from outside the vehicle so it is "safe" to use in CA. I idle the truck when the temps get below 20ºF.

I realize that independent truckers pay a big price, but blaming "liberal" California for the problem is pretty stupid. There wouldn't be such a huge problem if so many jobs hadn't been sent to China.

Why are you complaining so much?


Right, but CA is the only place that is actually "raiding" truck stops and ticketing drivers for trying to get the rest the federal government requires them to get.

Furthermore, if I drive without the proper rest and am involved in an injury/fatality accident I go to jail, even if the accident wasn't my fault. Why? Because I shouldn't have been there in the first place. Yes, this has actually happened.

[LumbermanSVO]

Wait, so government is supposed to FUND all it's mandates? :p

That's news to the NCLB folks...

Anyway, here's (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/06/trucks.idling.bluecool/) one option. I'd be curious to know if the extra 300 pounds adds significantly to the operating cost of the truck, because if the capital outlay costs versus costs of idling the truck are accurate, this seems like a no-brainer.

It's kind of amusing to see so many people suddenly advocating government offer someone a hand...

I haven't heard of that system, and it looks interesting. However, I am not going to spend $5500 to add something to a truck that isn't mine, I doubt you'll find any company driver that will. With 20,000 drivers at my company I suspect I can make all the demands I want but the company wont do anything until it is ready to.

And to be clear, I get the idling ticket, not my company.

[Queso]

I'm actually amazed that so many people live in parts of the US that cannot support large populations without massive amounts of imported water and electricity.

I'd rather you didn't have to idle the truck and they provided you with the electric for your aircon or heating. However, with the budget deficit in that state it's unlikely they're going to do that. Toughie.

[jplan2008]

Other than initial cost, I don't see a problem with requiring trucks of X year and newer to come equipped with an APU that meets the needed emissions standards. Such a rule would ultimately reduce transportations costs and pollute less.


California gave truckers (including individuals and more importantly, the industry as a whole) three years to deal with the issue, after the law was passed. I'm sure the law wasn't written and passed the same day, so there was even more advance notice. How many years before that did we know there was a problem with pollution, and there was a problem with energy supply? Thirty? Not to mention the financial cost of all that diesel every year. Business didn't magically take care of the problem on its own, like free marketers claim happens, so the government had to step in. I don't want you to suffer in the heat or cold, and I want you and other truckers and everyone else on the highways to be safe, but I don't understand the idea that the industry hasn't had enough notice.

[Rodimus Prime]

California gave truckers (including individuals and more importantly, the industry as a whole) three years to deal with the issue, after the law was passed. I'm sure the law wasn't written and passed the same day, so there was even more advance notice. How many years before that did we know there was a problem with pollution, and there was a problem with energy supply? Thirty? Not to mention the financial cost of all that diesel every year. Business didn't magically take care of the problem on its own, like free marketers claim happens, so the government had to step in. I don't want you to suffer in the heat or cold, and I want you and other truckers and everyone else on the highways to be safe, but I don't understand the idea that the industry hasn't had enough notice.

and yet the state refuses pay for the required upgrades to their system for the law like adding ways to cool/ heat the trucks at truck stops.

As I said California is a "feel good state" and passes a lot of "feel good laws" but fails when it come to piratically implementing them. This is just one of many examples.

[mactastic]

I haven't heard of that system, and it looks interesting. However, I am not going to spend $5500 to add something to a truck that isn't mine, I doubt you'll find any company driver that will. With 20,000 drivers at my company I suspect I can make all the demands I want but the company wont do anything until it is ready to.

And to be clear, I get the idling ticket, not my company.
If you're company is sending your on runs where you are sure to be ticketed if you follow company policy (assuming company policy is to idle your truck during off hours), then they should be paying the tickets, not you.

If that doesn't happen, and they punish you for following company policy, you really should change companies. No one's forcing you to work for these folks, I assume? Freedom of choice, personal responsibility, and all that...

[LumbermanSVO]

California gave truckers (including individuals and more importantly, the industry as a whole) three years to deal with the issue, after the law was passed. I'm sure the law wasn't written and passed the same day, so there was even more advance notice. How many years before that did we know there was a problem with pollution, and there was a problem with energy supply? Thirty? Not to mention the financial cost of all that diesel every year. Business didn't magically take care of the problem on its own, like free marketers claim happens, so the government had to step in. I don't want you to suffer in the heat or cold, and I want you and other truckers and everyone else on the highways to be safe, but I don't understand the idea that the industry hasn't had enough notice.

That all well and good, but what does the company driver who is caught in the middle do? It looks like my only option is to refuse any loads going to CA until the company supplies a solution.

If you're company is sending your on runs where you are sure to be ticketed if you follow company policy (assuming company policy is to idle your truck during off hours), then they should be paying the tickets, not you.

If that doesn't happen, and they punish you for following company policy, you really should change companies. No one's forcing you to work for these folks, I assume? Freedom of choice, personal responsibility, and all that...

The company just tells you not to idle and offers no solution either. Most big companies have a similar policy.

The trucking industry if a goofy place. When the economy goes out the windows jobs become harder to find, even if you are a good driver. As people in other fields get laid off many turn to trucking to get some income. New drivers are cheap to employ and if they can't hack it for their first year then they pay for the training. Even worse, the amount of freight falls off too. Now you have a huge surplus of drivers and less positions to fill.

The good news is that when the economy turns back around all the people who came to trucking from somewhere else generally go back to what they were doing, and freight goes up too. Now you have a driver shortage and changing jobs and moving up become easy.

When I start training students next month my pay will make a significant leap that will be very hard for other companies to match. I will be saving the extra income as well as reducing my personal expenses. I all goes to plan I will be able to buy the truck in cash in about 1-1/2 years. Then I can purchase an APU and be my own boss.

In the meantime I have contacted someone from another forum who I know is a powertrain engineer for KW to see what it would take to upgrade my truck to meet the CA Clean Idle requirements so I can idle in CA.

[mactastic]

That all well and good, but what does the company driver who is caught in the middle do? It looks like my only option is to refuse any loads going to CA until the company supplies a solution.
Sounds like a good option to me. Or find a California-friendly trucking company.

The company just tells you not to idle and offers no solution either. Most big companies have a similar policy.
Then why work for such a company? If my boss told me to do something illegal or risk death or injury, I'd tell him to take a long walk off a short pier.

The trucking industry if a goofy place. When the economy goes out the windows jobs become harder to find, even if you are a good driver. As people in other fields get laid off many turn to trucking to get some income. New drivers are cheap to employ and if they can't hack it for their first year then they pay for the training. Even worse, the amount of freight falls off too. Now you have a huge surplus of drivers and less positions to fill.

The good news is that when the economy turns back around all the people who came to trucking from somewhere else generally go back to what they were doing, and freight goes up too. Now you have a driver shortage and changing jobs and moving up become easy.
These sound like excuses for not exercising your personal responsibility to find work that doesn't require illegal activity as part of your duties. The buggy-whip manufacturers surely had plenty of excuses for not retraining and finding other work

When I start training students next month my pay will make a significant leap that will be very hard for other companies to match. I will be saving the extra income as well as reducing my personal expenses. I all goes to plan I will be able to buy the truck in cash in about 1-1/2 years. Then I can purchase an APU and be my own boss.
If you choose to stay with your current company, it sounds like you'll need some of the extra money to pay these tickets. Not sure if that's as good of a deal for you as you make it sound.

In the meantime I have contacted someone from another forum who I know is a powertrain engineer for KW to see what it would take to upgrade my truck to meet the CA Clean Idle requirements so I can idle in CA.
Why didn't you do this when the law was first enacted? It would seem as if you've had about 3 years to do that. It is hardly the government's fault that you have ignored your non-compliance with the law for this long.

I know if I violated the new building code simply because I found it's new restrictions onerous or expensive, I'd be out of a job quickly.

[TwinCities Dan]

Minnesota has a similar law although I think it is specific to passenger vehicles.

We do? I wonder why I see so many idling COP cars around then? :eek:

[LumbermanSVO]

Sounds like a good option to me. Or find a California-friendly trucking company.

Well, like I said in my first post, no more CA for me.

Why didn't you do this when the law was first enacted? It would seem as if you've had about 3 years to do that. It is hardly the government's fault that you have ignored your non-compliance with the law for this long.

I first got this truck on July 15th 2008, not nearly 3 years.

When the regulations went into effect on Jan 1, 2008 there were NO APU units on the market that met the regulations. Thermo King announced that CARB had certified their unit in JUNE '08. Cummins made a similar announcement around the same time. You do the math, that is SIGNIFICANTLY less than 3 years. What good does it do to make a regulation if the technology doesn't exist to comply?

CA gives the option of routing the APU exhaust through the main engine exhaust but then you will not be in compliance with the federal regulations. what a useless option.

It also doesn't help that they are ticketing everyone, even if they are in compliance. No amount of time can fix that.

[mactastic]

We do? I wonder why I see so many idling COP cars around then? :eek:
Police are typically exempt from these kinds of things for safety reasons. I know that here in California the police are exempt from the hands-free cell phone requirements for that very reason.

[jplan2008]

and yet the state refuses pay for the required upgrades to their system for the law like adding ways to cool/ heat the trucks at truck stops.

As I said California is a "feel good state" and passes a lot of "feel good laws" but fails when it come to piratically implementing them. This is just one of many examples.

Why should the state pay for businesses to abide by the law? That makes no sense. If infrastructure is needed at state-owned rest stops, then the state should work with businesses to build it. You want "feel good" free markets, but breathing in L.A. doesn't feel good to me. (and, no, I'm not blaming only truckers for the pollution in LA, but California has also passed other "feel good" laws for passenger cars and other contributors to pollution). There is a serious emergency in terms of pollution, global warming, and energy. The same people argue against government money to solve the emergency, and yet want the government to pay for anything that's business-related. Like I said, this didn't start to be a problem 3 years ago, industry has had decades with no "mandate," and sat around not solving it, even though in the long-term, or probably even short-term, it would have been economically a better idea, forgetting about pollution.

The link mactastic posted says a trucker pays uses 2400 gallons of fuel per year idling. The article used $4/gallon to come out to $9600/year. Even at $3/gallon and 1800 gallons, the device mentioned would pay for itself in one year with a small amount of extra fuel used to carry the thing around. Or there are certainly other options out there if you add all the trucks and multiply by just one year of what they spend in diesel idling to stay cool and warm sleeping. It is just short-sighted, "feel good" about the present and not worry about anyone else or the future that these devices aren't used more, and that the issue hasn't been confronted until recently in a few states. There's absolutely no excuse for business not to solve the problem, and not just in California with those "feel good tree huggers," but everywhere.

[LumbermanSVO]

The link mactastic posted says a trucker pays uses 2400 gallons of fuel per year idling. The article used $4/gallon to come out to $9600/year. Even at $3/gallon and 1800 gallons, the device mentioned would pay for itself in one year with a small amount of extra fuel used to carry the thing around. Or there are certainly other options out there if you add all the trucks and multiply by just one year of what they spend in diesel idling to stay cool and warm sleeping. It is just short-sighted, "feel good" about the present and not worry about anyone else or the future that these devices aren't used more, and that the issue hasn't been confronted until recently in a few states. There's absolutely no excuse for business not to solve the problem, and not just in California with those "feel good tree huggers," but everywhere.

Why would anyone buying a truck in '07 or early '08 buy one with an APU knowing it wont meet the regulations? Then they'd have to replace it when a unit comes out that does meet the regulations.

[Rodimus Prime]

Why should the state pay for businesses to abide by the law? That makes no sense. If infrastructure is needed at state-owned rest stops, then the state should work with businesses to build it. You want "feel good" free markets, but breathing in L.A. doesn't feel good to me. (and, no, I'm not blaming only truckers for the pollution in LA, but California has also passed other "feel good" laws for passenger cars and other contributors to pollution). There is a serious emergency in terms of pollution, global warming, and energy. The same people argue against government money to solve the emergency, and yet want the government to pay for anything that's business-related. Like I said, this didn't start to be a problem 3 years ago, industry has had decades with no "mandate," and sat around not solving it, even though in the long-term, or probably even short-term, it would have been economically a better idea, forgetting about pollution.



The stuff I listed the state should do is infrastructure they need to build. Like the OP already stated the are ticketing even the truckers who use the devises that are legal in the state. Because they are doing that they really need to build the infrastructure so the truckers do not need them. I already pointed out one system they could use. The state just needs to build it.

As for pollution and reducing it. It is not going to happen until it is economical to do it. Big trucking business are not willing to put the money in to upgrade there trucks.

I am the first to admit anything "experimental" I do personally comes down to simple economics. I use CFL because I can put brighter builds in sockets and I can be lazing in changing the light bulbs since I do not have to do it as often. The power savings is a bonus. I drive a more full economy car because it is cheaper for me to do so. Most of my things are that way and that is the average person.

[mactastic]

Well, like I said in my first post, no more CA for me.
Doesn't seem to have created a shortage of trucks on the roads here, nor any shortage of goods on shelves, so knock yourself out. :)

I first got this truck on July 15th 2008, not nearly 3 years.

When the regulations went into effect on Jan 1, 2008 there were NO APU units on the market that met the regulations. Thermo King announced that CARB had certified their unit in JUNE '08. Cummins made a similar announcement around the same time. You do the math, that is SIGNIFICANTLY less than 3 years. What good does it do to make a regulation if the technology doesn't exist to comply?
It's not the government's fault if industry drags their feet on these things. It's not as if the technology was difficult to implement. It's just that no one did it, preferring to point fingers and ask for a government handout instead. And now you want to use my tax dollars to reward industry incompetence?

Why would anyone buying a truck in '07 or early '08 buy one with an APU knowing it wont meet the regulations? Then they'd have to replace it when a unit comes out that does meet the regulations.
Good question. Why reward industry with your purchasing dollars if they haven't managed to find a way to keep you legal yet? Why would anyone buy a truck that is supposed to be a long-term investment but that won't be compliant within a short time of purchase?

[Rodimus Prime]

It's not the government's fault if industry drags their feet on these things. It's not as if the technology was difficult to implement. It's just that no one did it, preferring to point fingers and ask for a government handout instead. And now you want to use my tax dollars to reward industry incompetence?

?


But it is the government fault that the regulations it passes are not piratical Clearly this is a case where it was not piratical.

It is one thing if it passes laws and another if nothing exist to meet them then you have to do it in stages and general do not out law the older stuff but instead require all newer stuff to meet them...

[jplan2008]

Why would anyone buying a truck in '07 or early '08 buy one with an APU knowing it wont meet the regulations? Then they'd have to replace it when a unit comes out that does meet the regulations.

I wasn't referring to your specific situation which sounds difficult and it's too bad that you won't be driving in CA because of the regulations. And I definitely don't think that regulations are always written well, or are consistent, even when the idea of regulation makes sense to me like in this case. I was responding to the idea that if government has a law or a regulation that they therefore have to pay for individuals or businesses to abide by it.

If you have a place to take a $10 shower, it's because someone can theoretically maintain a business that includes showers for truckers. If you spend a gallon of diesel per hour that you're sleeping, it seems to me that there are numerous alternatives to that, that would be better for the environment and your expenses in the long term. I don't know anything about individual units, but it makes more sense to me to have a system that is located where you park, whether it be something for the truck to attach to or a separate place to sleep (a capsule hotel like Japan at truck stops would give you almost as much room as you have in the truck, for example, and it could be done to be more appealing and with more space than the capsule hotels seem, and cost less per hour than a gallon of diesel), that 2-4 truckers could use each day, instead of building and buying a unit for each truck and using fuel to haul it around. The fact that only recently are any solutions being looked at indicates short-sightedness on the part of both government and industry. You're paying the price for that short-sightedness.

Whatever the solution, I don't think the law is a "feel good law," even if it has faults. I think it's one of thousands of laws that will be needed sooner or later, since a "free market" without very many mandates has gotten us to where we are in terms of global warming, pollution, and energy crisis.

[mactastic]

But it is the government fault that the regulations it passes are not piratical Clearly this is a case where it was not piratical.
Industry will ALWAYS fight these kinds of regulations. It's not as if some kind of space-age technology was required to address this issue.

It is one thing if it passes laws and another if nothing exist to meet them then you have to do it in stages and general do not out law the older stuff but instead require all newer stuff to meet them...
I'm sympathetic to the implementation process argument. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a better way to roll this out. But it was hardly a surprise that this was coming.

[LumbermanSVO]

And now you want to use my tax dollars to reward industry incompetence?

Have I said anything about using tax money to fix the problem?

Good question. Why reward industry with your purchasing dollars if they haven't managed to find a way to keep you legal yet? Why would anyone buy a truck that is supposed to be a long-term investment but that won't be compliant within a short time of purchase?

So you would just rather have no one buy any new trucks between the beginning of '07 and June of '08? If the choice is between buying new non-compliant equipment and continuing to run your business, or shutting down your business until the equipment exists, what do you do? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I don't know anything about individual units, but it makes more sense to me to have a system that is located where you park, whether it be something for the truck to attach to or a separate place to sleep...

The problem with that is that trucks are mobile, parking spots aren't. Power outlets aren't. Motel rooms aren't. Due to the hours of service regulations and pickup/delivery/loading/unoading times getting to a truck stop or rest area to sleep is often illegal. Sometimes you have to sleep at a customer, should anyone doing business with the trucking industry be required to have such accommodations? Should on and off ramps have them too as they are used nightly in places with limited parking. How about on US and state highways that have big gravel pull-offs that trucks regularly stay in?

The reason the APU is looked at the most is because they are the best of the onboard options. Not only can they offer heat and A/C but they can also keep the trucks batteries charged, power an inverter for AC powered devices(fridges, microwaves, laptops) Some even use the same cooling system as the truck, this keeps the big engine warm for faster/cleaner cold starts with less warm up time and the big engine also keep the APU warm and provides the same benefits to it. There are also in tank fuel heaters(for REALLY cold places) that use the coolant from the big engine to warm the fuel.

[Counterfit]

I need my delicious black berries.
California in late summer and fall and Chili in the winter.

I need those damn berries

You have a problem. :p