|
|
Post by gomer21xx on Sept 23, 2011 20:25:27 GMT -5
...at least that's how this article wants you to think. Even before I saw this article, I've heard truckers bitch and moan over these regulations before. Hell, they're even looking at tightening the regulations. If you can't make your pickups and deliveries on time under these current regulations, then you really need to work on managing your time better! Spend less time at the truck stops and more time on the road! Will things happen that will put you off the road and delay your load? Sure! But most places will understand if you simply tell them! And you're still being paid for the miles you drive, anyway! It's just taking you a little longer to drive them! Of course, they don't mention anything about team driving, where the truck can keep moving and, thus, keep making money. In short, the article and lots of the comments are a bunch of whining about trucking regulations and it annoys me. >.< |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 23, 2011 22:45:06 GMT -5
If you ask me, freight should be transported by rail, with trucks only transporting goods between the station and the source/destination. Trains can move much larger amounts of freight per operator than trucks, don't need to stop for fuel nearly as much and (best of all) they don't clog up the highway with big fuck off trucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 23, 2011 22:52:09 GMT -5
I agree with the above.
People, use trains! Seriously, I rode a train once a few years ago and it was so empty it was sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Sept 23, 2011 23:03:51 GMT -5
Well, my experience with it goes like this.
When we receive live loads in it can be anywhere from a 2 to 8 hour wait for us to even start unloading them, not to mention a few more hours for the lab tests and the rubber stamp to approve the load.
When our salt loads come in they can and often do end up waiting for 8 hours or more to be unloaded which pisses off drivers that have to do "turns" (they get unloaded, head back to their supplier and get another load and have it back before the 9:30 pm cutoff or they have to wait till the next day to unload)
Warehouse depends strictly on who and how many people are working down there, trucks can wait from an hour to a day to be loaded.
These times often double in the summer during our green season. The drivers, unless they're owner/operator, get paid a specific amount. Normally our green loads get 400 and the salt loads get 340...unless we pay them detention time in which case it normally goes into the owner's pocket and not the driver's
Every minute they're not hauling is more money they lose.
I feel for truck drivers, they get shafted quite often
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Sept 24, 2011 0:16:41 GMT -5
If you ask me, freight should be transported by rail, with trucks only transporting goods between the station and the source/destination. Trains can move much larger amounts of freight per operator than trucks, don't need to stop for fuel nearly as much and (best of all) they don't clog up the highway with big fuck off trucks. Sadly, the rail system in the US is woefully inadequate. Freight trains are already used for a good deal of this kind of stuff but rail lines aren't down in nearly enough places to be as effective as it could be. And good luck getting funding for more rail lines, too.  |
|
|
|
Post by gomer21xx on Sept 24, 2011 0:31:42 GMT -5
If you ask me, freight should be transported by rail, with trucks only transporting goods between the station and the source/destination. Trains can move much larger amounts of freight per operator than trucks, don't need to stop for fuel nearly as much and (best of all) they don't clog up the highway with big fuck off trucks. Sadly, the rail system in the US is woefully inadequate. Freight trains are already used for a good deal of this kind of stuff but rail lines aren't down in nearly enough places to be as effective as it could be. And good luck getting funding for more rail lines, too. Like my hometown, for example. Hell, they pulled up the railroad there years ago. ...I kept a railroad spike. >.> |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 24, 2011 0:33:24 GMT -5
If you ask me, freight should be transported by rail, with trucks only transporting goods between the station and the source/destination. Trains can move much larger amounts of freight per operator than trucks, don't need to stop for fuel nearly as much and (best of all) they don't clog up the highway with big fuck off trucks. Sadly, the rail system in the US is woefully inadequate. Freight trains are already used for a good deal of this kind of stuff but rail lines aren't down in nearly enough places to be as effective as it could be. And good luck getting funding for more rail lines, too. Yeah politics fucks everything up. It's stupid and short-sighted but that's democracy for you. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 24, 2011 3:25:29 GMT -5
I agree with the above. People, use trains! Seriously, I rode a train once a few years ago and it was so empty it was sad. I went on a trip a few months ago and, during the planning stages, was considering going by train. However, the only train company available that went to where I was going was AmTrak, and I believe it cost something like $450 one-way, with an estimated TWO FUCKING DAY travel time because I had to head all the fucking way to Chicago, before going to the east fucking coast. It was faster, and only marginally (about $30 more) more expensive to just fucking FLY there. I ended up taking the middle ground and going on a Greyhound bus. Not all that bad, really. They could use some money to upgrade all their buses to the kind with mobile WiFi and power outlets, but that's about my only complaint. |
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Sept 24, 2011 4:50:10 GMT -5
$450 one way sounds like a standard fare from Newcastle to London here.
And it'll probably turn up late and get you stuck for a couple of hours somewhere in the frozen northern wastes due to leaves/corpses/post-industrial depression on the track or whatever.
If they want people to use public transport, they should make it cheaper and less painful than driving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 24, 2011 5:04:58 GMT -5
There's no way rail these days can compete with flying when it comes to passenger transport except maybe high-speed rail over very short distances. However, where it most definitely shines is freight, since speed isn't nearly as important. If you ask me, every 1st world country should have rail lines between every major and regional city to service any long distance freight needs with trucks only used either between the station and the supplier/destination or to the occasional small town that doesn't have a rail line. There's just no need for the trucking industry to be nearly as big as it is now.
|
|
|
|
Post by booley on Sept 24, 2011 13:29:30 GMT -5
.... I went on a trip a few months ago and, during the planning stages, was considering going by train. However, the only train company available that went to where I was going was AmTrak, and I believe it cost something like $450 one-way, with an estimated TWO FUCKING DAY travel time because I had to head all the fucking way to Chicago, before going to the east fucking coast. It was faster, and only marginally (about $30 more) more expensive to just fucking FLY there. I ended up taking the middle ground and going on a Greyhound bus. Not all that bad, really. They could use some money to upgrade all their buses to the kind with mobile WiFi and power outlets, but that's about my only complaint. Every time I have compared train prices to airlines, the trains always were cheaper. I can get from Saint Louis to Chicago for fifty bucks (comparable to the price of gas if I drove) The cheapest flight I could find was $211 I can walk into the train station, buy my ticket that day and it's probably better for the environment. However it is right that the train simply doesn't go everywhere it should. I still drive to most destinations because the train simply doesn't go there. And until we have high speed rail, the speed (or lack there of ) is also a factor) Sometimes I don't want to sit in a seat for 2 days. In short, trains would be a great alternative.... if we took the time and money to make them so. But lest face it. Trains would help poor people and that by itself means Republicans would oppose any effort to make trains better. |
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Sept 24, 2011 19:09:23 GMT -5
I think it depends on the area. I can fly from Philly to Boston for less than it costs to take Amtrak.
|
|
|
|
Post by TWoozl on Sept 24, 2011 19:31:05 GMT -5
It's highly destination-dependent. Amtrak to San Jose from here (Vancouver, BC), is less than the cost of a flight. Sometimes even with sleeper service factored in. Amtrak to Philadelphia, is a $950 round trip, and the airfare was only $550.
|
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Sept 24, 2011 23:10:34 GMT -5
It's highly destination-dependent. Amtrak to San Jose from here (Vancouver, BC), is less than the cost of a flight. Sometimes even with sleeper service factored in. Amtrak to Philadelphia, is a $950 round trip, and the airfare was only $550. This. Going from San Diego to Phoenix takes an overnight ride, compared to one hour by plane, for about the same price. Yet, SD to San Fran took 8hrs, which included bus transfers. I'd love to see a high-speed rail from SD up through to, say, Seattle, if it could be done. I'd use the hell out of something like that for weekend trips with friends and whatnot. |
|
