Archive for category DOT
Truckers Sleeper Berth Rule
Posted by Allen Smith in DOT, Jobs and Careers, Safety, Truck Driving Jobs, otr trucking, trucking, trucking companies, trucking life on March 11th, 2010
When it comes to writing the various regulations for professional truckers, it can be quite confusing to say the least. What looks good on paper for some, appears as complete chaos to those responsible for abiding by the rules. The current HOS hours of service rules consist of an “up-dated” version of the former sleeper berth rule for truck drivers. It can be so confusing, that many truckers have simply stopped using this regulation.
The new 8/2 sleeper berth rule came into affect when independent studies showed that a professional driver is more awake and alert after receiving at least eight hours of non-interrupted sleep. The study argued that when drivers lay down in the sleeper for three hours or five hours at a time, and then begin driving again, the human body simply cannot achieve the proper rest needed. Therefore, the old rule was thrown out and the newer 8/2 rule became law. The problem here, is that no consideration was taken that each and every individual is different. While one driver can perform safely with only five hours of sleep, another may need eight or ten hours of rest, while yet another can do just fine with only three hours . . . always based on each of our own biological clock. By grouping all drivers into the same category, the 8/2 hour sleeper berth rule has caused more problems than solutions.
Along with this new rule, many drivers and trucking companies alike, are finding themselves in violation of Federal Regulations by simply quoting the regulations and not fully understanding them. Furthermore, there is every reason to understand why so many are having this problem, based on how the rule is written in the Federal Regulations under Part 395.1 :
(g) Sleeper berths. (1) Property-carrying commercial motor vehicle.— (i) In General. A driver who operates a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle equipped with a sleeper berth, as defined in §§395.2 and 393.76 of this subchapter,
(g)(1)(i)(A) Must, before driving, accumulate
(1) At least 10 consecutive hours off duty;
(2) At least 10 consecutive hours of sleeper-berth time;
(3) A combination of consecutive sleeper-berth and off-duty time amounting to at least 10 hours; or
(4) The equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty if the driver does not comply with paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section;
(g)(1)(i)(B) May not drive more than 11 hours following one of the 10-hour off-duty periods specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A)(1) through (4) of this section; and
(g)(1)(i)(C) May not drive after the 14th hour after coming on duty following one of the 10-hour off-duty periods specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A)(1)–(4) of this section; and
(g)(1)(i)(D) Must exclude from the calculation of the 14-hour limit any sleeper berth period of at least 8 but less than 10 consecutive hours.
(g)(1)(ii) Specific requirements.— The following rules apply in determining compliance with paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section:
(g)(1)(ii)(A) The term “equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty” means a period of
(1) At least 8 but less than 10 consecutive hours in a sleeper berth, and
(2) A separate period of at least 2 but less than 10 consecutive hours either in the sleeper berth or off duty, or any combination thereof.
(g)(1)(ii)(B) Calculation of the 11-hour driving limit includes all driving time; compliance must be re-calculated from the end of the first of the two periods used to comply with paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.
(g)(1)(ii)(C) Calculation of the 14-hour limit includes all time except any sleeper-berth period of at least 8 but less than 10 consecutive hours; compliance must be re-calculated from the end of the first of the two periods used to comply with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.
Right . . . that explains everything. The sleeper berth rule has become such a problem for drivers, that many have just stopped using it altogether. Unless you fully understand how it works, this would be the best thing a driver and company could do in order to prevent violations of this kind. I’m no expert on this regulation, but I thought I would try to give a clearer understanding of how this 8/2 sleeper berth rule works, especially for the newcomers to the industry.
The only legal way to split your time in the sleeper, is by using the 8/2 split, divided up in two separate time sections. You can no longer use split times of 7/3, 6/4, 5/5 or so forth. You are still limited to 11 hours of driving within a 14 hour window. I think one misconception that is causing a lot of drivers to go into violation, is thinking that the 8/2 split EXTENDS the 14 hour clock … it does not extend it, it only STOPS the 14 hour clock, and the only part of the split that STOPS the 14 hour clock is the consecutive 8 hours of time in the sleeper.

Using the two examples above:
On 2-12-10, after you take your 10 hour break, you do the required pre-trip and start driving at 1:15 a.m. You drive for 5 hours and at 6:15 a.m. you go in the sleeper for 2 hours waiting for your appointment time at the receiver. At 8:15 a.m. you go on duty not driving for 2 hours to unload the trailer . . . then at 10:15 am. you go back into the sleeper for the remaining 8 hours . . . So you get your 10 hour break in from 6:15 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. and from 10:15 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. Between these two breaks you did not drive, you only unloaded the trailer between 8:15 a.m. and 10:15 a.m.
At 6:15 p.m., at the end of the 8 hour break, you can now drive for another 11 hours, but you only have 11.75 hours left on the 14 hour clock to do it in, taking into consideration the 15 minute pre-trip inspection. Where drivers are getting in violation, is believing that the 14 hour clock re-started all over again from 6:15 a.m. , where you took your first 2 hour break. Not so . . . because the 2 hours spent unloading the trailer between 8:15 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. DOES NOT STOP THE 14 HOUR CLOCK . . . the only thing that stops the 14 hour clock is a straight 8 hours off, which began at 10:15 a.m.
So, at 6:15 p.m. , when you come out of the sleeper birth from the straight 8 hours, you may be thinking that since you got the 10 hours in, without driving in-between, you now have another 14 hours . . . but the 2 hours spent unloading between 8:15 a.m. and 10:15 a.m,. still counts toward the new 14 hour window that your working towards . . . so, you only have 11.75 hours left out the new 14 to run another 11 hours if you want to.
So the next day, on 2-13-10, you complete a straight 11 hours of driving. In this example, you go off duty from 5:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., taking the full 10 hours of required time off. Naturally, you have another 14 hour window and you do the required pre-trip and drive until 8:45 p.m., take two hours in the sleeper from 8:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m., and at 10:45 p.m., basically starting the whole 8/2 process all over again.
There are many variables to utilizing the 8/2 sleeper berth rule and this is just one example. Team drivers can use the concept as well, as long as they fully understand that the drivers’ logbooks must match each other, thus the term “team.”
The main concept to remember is that, technically, there is no extending the 14 hour clock . . . only stopping it. Also, the two hours spent in the sleeper for the 8/2 rule does not stop the clock. Only the eight hours of consecutive time spent in the sleeper will stop the 14 hour clock.
© 2010, AskTheTrucker. All rights reserved.
Related posts
Closed Rest Areas to Reopen in Virginia
Posted by Allen Smith in DOT, Politics, Safety, otr trucking, trucking, trucking life on January 21st, 2010
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – As reported by WUSA9.com
The Commonwealth Transportation Board has voted to reopen 19 closed Interstate rest stops in Virginia.
The board’s unanimous approval Wednesday followed a short appeal by (Republican) Gov. Bob McDonnell, who made good on a promise to reopen rest areas closed by his predecessor, Democrat Tim Kaine.
McDonnell told the board that inmate labor and private contributions would help manage the costs of reopening the rest stops.
The rest stops were closed last summer as part of a plan to cut nearly $9 million in expenses from a strained state budget.
Read the full report : Virginia closed rest stops to reopen from the Appomattox News . . .
© 2010, AskTheTrucker. All rights reserved.
Related posts
The Virginia 2 Hour Parking Rule is Finally Over for Truckers
Posted by Allen Smith in DOT, Politics, Safety, Talk Radio Show, Truck Stops on June 21st, 2009
The long entailed battle of the 2 hour Parking Law in Virgina is finally over! On June 18th, 2009 it was made official that the 2 hour commercial parking rule was replaced with ” no overnight parking” signs. READ MORE
The state of Virgina had been forcing Truckers to break Federal Law by waking them up after only 2 hours of rest( parking,) before they could complete their 10 hour rest/break required by Federal law. Besides forcing them to break Federal law, a serious safety risk was at stake by allowing sleepless drivers to share the roads with other innocent drivers and vehicles.
Although the 2 hour parking law in Va had been in existence for many years, it was the relentless and persistent approach of Fred and JB Schaffner of The American Driver , which would eventually lead to the victory of ending it . Their continuous phone calls, letters, and even petition to the FMCSA, created an onslaught of followers and eager participants to help in their quest to end this dangerous law. JB and Fred got the ball rolling and and did not allow any obstacle to stop it’s momentum.
We would like to thank JB, Fred, and the many supporters who have contributed in the efforts to change the 2 hour Parking law in Virginia to an ” no overnight parking” rule. We also would like to thank Mr Jeffrey Caldwell, VDOT Chief of Communications, who played a major role in the change of this 2 hour Rule. Mr Caldwell was willing and gracious enough to address the situation on April 15, 2009 on Truth About Trucking Live Blog Talk Radio Show with Host Allen Smith, and guests JB and Fred Schaffner. You can listen to the show and hear JB and Fred Schaffner as they ask Mr Caldwell to address the serious issues facing truck drivers as they travel through Virginia.
We’ve spoken to JB and Fred on numerous occasions, and this victory is now in the past. They’re already addressing other issues on their agenda in order to aid drivers towards a better future. We’re grateful to them and to ALL who have recently joined forces together, sharing our one common goal and interest of, “raising the standards of the trucking industry.”
© 2009, AskTheTrucker. All rights reserved.
Related posts
Virginia DOT Coming Up Broke
Posted by Allen Smith in DOT, Politics on June 10th, 2009
The Virginia Department of Transportation ability to build and maintain its roads and highway system is collapsing. Unless Federal or State legislation comes to the rescue, VDOT may soon find itself unable to maintain the state’s own infrastructure.
The Federal Highway Trust Fund which is responsible for supporting the country’s construction projects, could very well be broke by August, according to officials. This would obviously be destructive to the State of Virginia’s cash flow. VDOT has already laid off nearly 450 part-time employees and is currently in the process of laying off 1,000 full-time employees. They estimate, that there will be no state money to support smaller, local construction projects, by the year 2011.
Secretary of Transportation for Virginia, Pierce Homer, stated: “We are approaching a cliff. Our underlying bread-and-butter program is seriously compromised.”
Read more about VDOT money problems . . .
© 2009, AskTheTrucker. All rights reserved.
Related posts
Anne Ferro Nominated by Barack Obama to Head the FMCSA
Posted by Allen Smith in DOT, Politics, Safety, trucking on June 6th, 2009
On Thursday June 4th, President Obama nominated Anne S Ferro to be the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
( FMCSA)
FMCSA is the agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation which has the responsibility of overseeing and regulating the safety of commercial motor vehicles (trucks and buses) and the men and women who drive trucks and the motorists and their families who share the road with commercial vehicles. In essence, Ferro will be in charge of the agency whose primary mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. She will have to be confirmed by the Senate before she can hold the nominated position.
Anne Ferro is presently the president of the Maryland Motor Truck Association and prior to that she served as Maryland Motor Vehicle (MMV) administrator.
When She was asked by a publication why she took the job of president and CEO of the MMTA she replied, “After spending so many years in government I wanted to learn about the private sector. And the other reason is — I love trucks,” she said.
As MMTA chief she said her priority was simple: “ … to advocate for the [trucking] industry,” adding that most people “have an opinion about [commercial] trucks — they don’t like them. We have to work to change that.”
As with all things in life, there are people who are for the nomination of Anne Ferro and those who are opposed. In general Trucking officials were supportive, safety advocacy groups were opposed.
Here are some of the statements from those who support the nomination of Anne S Ferro as Administrator of the FMCSA:
“Ms. Ferro’s extensive experience in promoting driver, vehicle and highway safety will serve the nation well. As administrator of the Maryland Motor Vehcile Administration she developed a reputation as a tough, but fair regulator,” said Bill Graves, president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations.
In addition to her intelligence, “her personal skills are absolutely outstanding,” said Joe Cowan, president of Cowan Systems, Maryland’s largest trucking company.
“Based on her background and her experience in a cross-section of positions that deal with commercial vehicles she should have a well-rounded [outlook] … and may very well be a good administrator,” said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
Other advocates for the nomination are:
John Haulsladen, president of the Minnesota Trucking Association
Jim Runk, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Motor Truck
Dale Bennett, executive vice president of the Virginia Trucking Association
Lane Kidd, president of the Arkansas Trucking Association
John Hill, Former Chief Administrator of FMCSA
Those opposed to the nomination include:
James P. Hoffa
General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
John Lannen
Executive Director
Truck Safety Coalition
Daphne Izer Jennifer Tierney
Founder Board Member and Director, North Carolina
Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.) Survivors Network
Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways
(CRASH)
The Truck Safety Coalition is a partnership between The Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH) Foundation, and Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T). The Truck Safety Coalition is dedicated to reducing the number of deaths and injuries caused by truck-related crashes, providing compassionate support to truck crash survivors and families of truck crash victims, and educating the public, policy-makers and media about truck safety issues.
Teamsters and The Truck Safety Coalition have written a Letter in Opposition to the Nomination of Ms. Anne Ferro to head FMCSA
The Teamsters union told President Barack Obama it opposes his nominee to be the top U.S. trucking regulator because of her support for a rule that allows truckers to drive for up to 11 consecutive hours. Anne Ferro is the wrong person to head the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration because of her “trucking-industry party line,”
The letter also stated that Ferro defends the current Hours of Service and therefore suggests a “stay-the course attitude.”
“We firmly believe that the individual appointed to this agency should not come from the very industry the agency is required to regulate, especially given the trucking industry’s positions on these health and safety issues,” the letter stated. “Ms. Ferro consistently supports the trucking industry party-line on motor carrier issues in opposition to positions taken by consumer, health and safety groups, truck crash victims and their families and the hard-working men and women who drive trucks. We cannot support a candidate who represents the Bush Administration ‘status quo’ rather than embracing your call for change.”
So there you have it, the pros and cons of the nomination of Anne S Ferro as the Administrator of the FMCSA . What do you think? We’d like to know your opinion.
© 2009, AskTheTrucker. All rights reserved.
Related posts
Truck Drivers Right to Due Process
Posted by Allen Smith in DOT, Driver License, Truck Driving Jobs, Truckers Health, otr trucking, trucking, trucking companies on May 20th, 2009
What is “Due Process?” The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” If a public employee has a property interest in a job, he or she cannot be discharged without due process. Due process requires that the employee be given notice of the reason for being discharged and a fair hearing at which to contest the decision.
But when is a job considered “property”? An employee has a property interest in a job if there is:
- a written or implied contract granting the employee a property interest in the job;
- if past practice of the employer shows that the employee has a property interest in the job; or
- if a statute gives the employee a property interest in the job
Therefore, if a truck driver, already employed by a trucking company, re-takes the DOT physical exam and passes, and the medical doctor signs off on the medical card, would this not constitute “property interest” on part of the driver? Shouldn’t the driver have the right to due process? How could the trucking company terminate the driver on grounds of “health condition” when the driver had been given the green light from the DOT medical examiner?
To make matters worse, this driver has not been able to find an attorney that will stand up for this drivers’ “Due Process” rights.
The driver sent me an email explaining the situation. After the email, is my short reply to him with links I thought would be helpful. In posting this, I hope that perhaps our readers could provide some insight into this matter, and more importantly, an attorney will step up and help this driver in need.
Here’s the email:
Mr. Smith,
First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is John M. and I am a former CDL Class A tractor-trailer driver and a resident of Cocoa, FL. I started driving big trucks fairly late in life, at age 58 and made it to 60 when my world and my life, most assuredly, fell apart.
I hope that I am not being presumptuous in taking this liberty to share my story with you, Mr. Smith. It is a story that my former driver-colleagues (the survivors, I call them) have taken great interest in, for even the old-timers have never witnessed anything quite like what has transpired with me. If you do continue to read this email and find it of interest, you are quite free to share this email with any of the many contacts in the trucking industry that you’ve developed over the years. They may also find it interesting and perhaps even thought-provoking.
My story, in its simplest and most basic form, is nothing more than this:
Come time to renew my DOT physical certificate, I passed the physical and have (since the very day that I passed my physical) been barred from making a living with my former employer. Ultimately, I was terminated by this company under the general guise of “your recent health condition” as the termination letter stated.
If you’re like most people, Mr. Smith, you’re probably saying to yourself “there must be more to this story.” Indeed, there is MUCH more to the story, none of which, I submit to you, has the first thing to do with my health or any so-called “health condition” cited in my letter of termination. It has everything to do with how people more powerful than myself, for whatever their reasons and motives, can, through force and coercion, herd a perfectly healthy man into an impossible corner (at least, it ended up being impossible for me for a number of different reasons) from which there is no escape. And then actually destroy his/her very health and well-being because they stole their very livelihood away from them.
I’m not trying to be overly-dramatic when I use such words. This is exactly what has happened to me and it could well end up happening to many others in the trucking community if the mad-dogs-of-war against truckers continue to roam freely and consume their victims.
As with just about any topic concerning this industry, literally, ALL responsibility and burdens are being placed directly on the shoulder of truckers. Whether it be my circumstance, the Virginia parking problem … ANYTHING. Everything falls, all consequences, fall on the shoulders of the beleaguered trucker. Like so many others, I was aloof as to what truckers actually go through until I, too, finally experienced strapping on 80,000 lbs. of tractor/trailer and freight and then let out the clutch. Now I’ve driven more than a few miles in the shoes of these remarkable men and women. They are truly the REAL heartbeat of America.
I first learned of you and your work while researching for some material that would, hopefully, bolster a case for what ended up being, I certainly believe, wrongful termination from my former employer, which is a large Florida- based trucking firm. The particular article that I took away from your site as a result of that initial search was the following …
Top 10 Causes of Truck Accidents
After that initial introduction to your web site, I did, indeed, purchase your e-book on 17 January 2009. It is a well-done and most valuable publication, Mr. Smith. One that I so wish I’d had before embarking on this, as it turns out, relatively short-lived career. You’ve provided a valuable service and much valuable information for not only those thinking about pursuing a trucking career but for those already involved. You are to be congratulated. (You are more than welcome to use my words as a testimonial, if you so wish to, Mr. Smith.)
Anyway, my reasoning for seeking out such information, in the first place, was my hope to demonstrate the utter hypocrisy of those destroying my life. Perhaps expose the many hypocrisies that exist within trucking in general. The trucking industry, for sure, has some legitimate problems that do, indeed, need to be addressed, as can be gleaned from your link just above. All that I was, and still am, trying to prove is that, again, trucking does have its unique problems. I just wasn’t one of them – and I say that humbly. But I was “converted” into a “problem” … where NO problem whatsoever ever existed to start with, by any rational, reasonable and everyday common sense measures.
Let’s just say that, like airline pilots who carry “loss of license” insurance, I wish that I’d had a ton of such an insurance policy. To my knowledge, though, no such insurance exists in the trucking industry. Puh-lenty of ways to lose one’s license. Just not many, if any, “antidotes” for such an eventuality, or so it seems.
Believe me when I say, Mr. Smith, the No. 1 cause of truck accidents cited in your posting – Prescription Drug Use 26% – is a very large component of my story. Not because I was on any prescription drugs – but because of my refusal to be “medicated” by the world of Big Pharma! Please understand that the promotion of the wonderful world of prescription drugs, by parties who held my very driving career in the palm of their hands, came AFTER I returned from the medical examiner’s office … with a passed medical certificate in my hand!
Attached to this email, Mr. Smith, is what I passed along to one of Orlando’s largest and well-known law firms, just last week. Hopefully, it will fill in some more blanks for you. All that it availed me was to incur my fourth rejection from as many different law firms who, supposedly, claimed to have expertise in “employment law”. For some reason, when I approach them and they get a glimpse at my case, they all of a sudden really don’t seem to practice employment law anymore. I’m not sure what to make of all these rejections, quite honestly.
So at this juncture, since it doesn’t appear that I’ll ever find legal relief, I wanted to present my story to you, Mr. Smith. Again, I hope that I haven’t been presumptuous in doing so. I fully realize that this email has already grown fairly long. For that I apologize but there is no easy or simple way to explain the full story on the quick and short. Still, it is my hope that you’ve found my words to of potential trucking community interest. I will certainly answer any further questions that you, or anybody else, may for me.
I have come to believe that I may possibly have a “due process” violation case. All that I think that I can say for sure, Mr. Smith, is that common, “everyday people”, such as my former driver colleagues, think that I was treated unjustly and unfairly. If they’re correct in their assessment, then I want to see what I can do to make sure that nobody else in the trucking community suffers as I have. None of this had to happen, for there never was a problem to start with. Until one was “manufactured”. I wouldn’t be writing this email if this “manufacturing” of non-existent problems had not happened.
I passed the physical … now, let me get back to work. Just that simple. That’s all that should have transpired. But it was not to be … and my life is in absolute tatters now.
If you’re down “here” now, Mr. Smith, I can’t thank you enough for taking your valuable time to hear me out. Once again, I consider this letter public now, if you wish to pass it along to others for their assessment. Again, I’ll be glad to answer any question that you or anyone else may have for me. Certainly, any advice and counsel would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for everything that you do for all truckers, Mr. Smith.
Respectfully yours,
John M.
Cocoa, Florida
email – champ7eca@bellsouth.net
My reply:
Hi John:
I am working on posting your story to our blog and through some research, I found the below site while investigating the “due process” legalities:
My hope is that perhaps an attorney in Constitutional Law may be able to help you. Here is a list of such attorneys in or near your location:
Hope this helps,
Allen
If there is an attorney out there that believe they can help this driver, please contact him through his email.
Thanks,
Allen Smith
© 2009, AskTheTrucker. All rights reserved.
Related posts
Railroad Bill Introduced to Congress
Posted by Allen Smith in DOT, Politics, otr trucking, trucking on May 17th, 2009
We first reported about the plan to build a railroad transportation yard in the state of Virginia, back on April 26th, 2009, and how this is more than likely, the true underlying reason for the planned closings of the rest areas along I-81. Three days later, on April 29th, we reported that the Obama Administration was planning to push forward with their goal to increase transportation by way of a new railroad system, which in essense, would eliminate tens of thousands of semi rigs from our roadways.
There has now been a new bill introduced to Congress that will increase transportation means by way of the railroad system thus, changing the distribution and supply chain network. Recognizing the need for a new, updated freight surface transportation policy, the problem is that such a policy could disrupt the distribution and supply chain network that currently depends on trucking to transport 70% of our nation’s freight.
Goals of the bill include:
• Reducing national per-capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis
• Reducing national motor vehicle-related fatalities by 50 percent by 2030
• Reducing national surface transportation-generated carbon dioxide levels by 40 percent by 2030
The bill, S1036, which ultimately portrays trucks as the major cause of highway congestion, bottlenecks and pollution, is receiving wide support from the rail coalitions and other rail system groups.
Read more here . . .
© 2009, AskTheTrucker. All rights reserved.
Related posts
Return of Railroad System Planned For Trucking Traffic Cut-Back
Posted by Allen Smith in DOT, Politics, otr trucking, trucking, trucking life on April 29th, 2009
The Obama Administration is moving forward as part as their stimulus package plan, to bring back transportation by way of the railroad system, such as were the days of the 19th Century. Pledging $8 Billion for the plan, it will largely be dealt to the Southeastern United States but also included are New York City, Pennsylvania, Chicago, D.C., Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, California and lines to extend through New England, Florida, the Gulf Coast and the Pacific Northwest.
Obama and his Administration, looking to create a monumental shift in transportation policy, have plans for 10 corridors, between 100 to 600 miles long, with the main focus on high-speed development. They also see this as a way to greatly reduce traffic congestion. Concerning the trucking industry, the following comments were made:
“They can put four times the amount of material on one rail car than they can on a truck.” Meaning fewer trucks on the road.
“Thousands of containers enter the port each day, most bound by tractor trailer. A freight line would take many of those trucks off the state’s highways.”
Just between the Port of Savannah to Atlanta, Georgia – they estimate the removal of tractor trailers from the highways could be as many as 200,000.
Plans for the new railroad system under Obama’s Administration could be completed within 10 years, with a few of the lines reaching completion as early as 5 years.
Allen Smith
© 2009, AskTheTrucker. All rights reserved.













Recent Comments