Bus Conversions dot Com Bulletin Board
December 21, 2014, 01:49:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you had an Online Subscription: The dog will not eat it.
   Home   Help Forum Rules Search Calendar Login Register BCM Home Page Contact BCM  
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Has anyone else heard about the DOT outlawing 2 strokes in California?  (Read 4538 times)
RickB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1079


81 MCI 9 smooth side 8V71 Allison 754




Ignore
« on: March 17, 2008, 07:10:00 PM »

Heard from a friend that they have outlawed 2 strokes in California. No buying or selling of Detroit's. Canada is not allowing them to be sold up there as well, Could be fear mongers at work. Anybody shed somelight here?
Logged

I will drive my Detroit hard... I will drive my Detroit hard.
ea187
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2008, 07:23:09 PM »

i can believe it.  the problems with 2 strokes is the emissions they put out.  way more than a 4 stroke.  not only that but they are known as green leakers for a reason.
Logged
Stormcloud
FMCA#407220
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 471




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2008, 07:35:18 PM »

Hi:
I'm in Western Canada....haven't heard anything on the subject whatsoever.
Mark
Logged

Mark Morgan    near Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
1972 MCI-7     'PapaBus'  8v-71N MT654 Automatic
luvrbus
Guest

« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2008, 07:47:14 PM »

The State of CA doesn't have enough money to buy all the two strokes in the state I have heard that they are certified for so many years.Don Fairchild  on this board knows how to build the two stroke to pass emission in CA.If they are outlawed in the state school districts in the state that have the Crowns with the Detroits are in trouble
« Last Edit: March 17, 2008, 07:50:51 PM by luvrbus » Logged
HighTechRedneck
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2939


BCM Editor


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2008, 07:49:35 PM »

I haven't seen anything on a statewide ban, but there was a more localized ban discussed at length in the Detroit Diesel Yahoo group a month or so ago.  I tried to do a search to find it, but for some reason the yahoo groups search feature isn't pulling up any threads more recent than mid 2007 on any search I did.  If I understood it correctly it was specific to the communities around the freight harbors in the Los Angeles area.  No trucks without a certain specified level of emssion controls would be permitted to pick up freight there.

With some of the pseudo science propoganda out there, it's a wonder all diesel engines haven't been banned.  Check out this example:

Engines of the Devil

And that group was just focusing on the use of diesel engines in cars.  We must really be evil in their eyes.

Or this one:

Green Car Congress

Logged
chargePlus
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


1951 GMC PD4103-125


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2008, 08:09:06 PM »

I haven't seen anything on a statewide ban, but there was a more localized ban discussed at length in the Detroit Diesel Yahoo group a month or so ago.


I remember that thread of discussion, and it was more centered around meeting Tier-II and Tier-III emission standards in CA. Let me see if I can find the thread...

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/DetroitDiesel/message/14539

I think that's the starting message of a long thread HTR may have been referring to... It takes a while but eventually the thread get to talking about things that can be done to make 2-stroke DDs comply, or at least be more compliant.

- John

Logged

Sports Car Lover and Bus Nut
1951 GMC PD4103-125 http://www.euliss-uftring.org/DaBus
Sports Car Club of America http://www.ncrscca.com/
Mazda Sports Car Club of NC http://www.msccnc.org/
grantgoold
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056





Ignore
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2008, 08:15:24 PM »

My brother in law has a small trucking business and he has been told to sell all his two strokes including the refers by 2010. The two strokes will no longer be allowed as part of the fleet or there are big fines. He just sold his two stroke tractor last week to a guy south of the border. It will be interesting when the law goes into effect and the folks south of the border start to balk and we cave instead of protecting our American truckers.

He had to lease a newer tractor for over $6,000 a month and his fuel bill was more than $15,000 for two small trucks.

Hold on, one bank went under this weekend and more are sure to come.

Grant
Logged

Grant Goold
1984 MCI 9
Way in Over My Head!
Citrus Heights, California
compedgemarine
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2008, 08:21:04 PM »

the mention of them going after all diesels reminded me that a couple of months back in Popular Mechanics they did a comparison of a new diesel volkswagen that is availible in europe and the prius that all the tree huggers love so much. not only did the VW best the prius by around 10 mpg but it put out less emissions. unfortunatly if you can read a script then apparently you are qualified to make political and scientific observations with out any real supporting evidence.
Logged
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6974





Ignore
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2008, 10:54:33 PM »

As most of you all know, I work for Los Angeles Freightliner in the New Truck Sales department.  We are in the thick of all the EPA and CARB (California Air Resource Board) rules and regulations.  So far, all the time tables for retiring old trucks right now applies to 2003 and older trucks and is voluntary.  RV's-including bus conversions used as RV's are exempt-for now.  We don't know day to day what is going to appear suddenly as a new rule or regulation.  I too have my 8V-71TATAAC engine in my bus, and am a bit nervous that at anytime they may change their minds.  But for right now, again-RV's are exempt from needing to upgrade to newer emissions.  Good Luck, TomC
Logged

Tom & Donna Christman. '77 AMGeneral 10240B; 8V-71TATAIC V730.
hiwaycallin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2008, 10:02:46 AM »

... Canada is not allowing them to be sold up there as well ...
I don't know what your source is but I can assure you that your statement with regards to Canada is completely false.
Logged
Songman
Guest

« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2008, 11:07:18 AM »

The state of California (along with diesel engine manufacturers) is trying to move forward to the newer technology of the 4 strokes. The state says they are doing it for emissions but we all know it is just a way to get more money.. .The same reason for the manufacturers. The state knows about Don's equipment and that it will make the 2 strokes meet the requirements, but I don't think they are too happy about it. Everything he does shows that all of the things they are doing is false. But we are trying to make enough noise that they can't ignore us. We have the state of California Executive Order showing that the parts really do meet specs...

In the context of this thread though, nothing is being done that effects private owners. It is all aimed at fleet owners. The current plan doesn't change that for at least about another 15 years. Of course, we are talking about California. If they think they can get away with it, they will probably try to change it tomorrow.
Logged
Lin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4604

1965 MC-5a




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2008, 01:49:46 PM »

I do not know of any precedent for legally mandating that existing private vehicles can know longer be used.  I think that they generally try to remove them through attrition.  That is probably what you can expect here.  Even if one state were to try to do something as extreme as that, they would have to allow out-of-state vehicles with those engines on the road anyway.  California once had a tax on vehicles brought into the state from elsewhere if they did not meet California standards.  They eventually lost it in court and had to refund the money.
Logged

You don't have to believe everything you think.
HighTechRedneck
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2939


BCM Editor


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2008, 01:57:05 PM »

California once had a tax on vehicles brought into the state from elsewhere if they did not meet California standards.  They eventually lost it in court and had to refund the money.

$300 Environmental Impact Fee.  I lived in California for five years and then moved to Tennessee.  I never heard about the repeal and payback.  So I guess I missed out on that refund.

Funny thing about it.  When I grumbled about paying it, the clerk said "Well look at it this way, manufacturers have to pay California $600 for each car sold.  Since your pickup was sold elsewhere, and you are only paying $300, California lost $300 too."  I told her, "poor California, how will they ever get by?"
Logged
compedgemarine
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2008, 02:31:18 PM »

Florida had the same type of tax on any vehicle brought in from another state. around $250 or $300 if I remember. I traded a car out of state and when I registered it and they asked for tax I asked what the reasoning for it was. I was told I was adding to the population of vehicles, adding stress to the roads and increasing the environmental impact to the state. I told them that I traded a 1975 Cadillac that weighed 5000 pounds and had almost no smog equipment and brought in a 1989 Cadillac that wieghed 3500 pounds and had a smaller more effiecient engine with the latest in pollution control. Since I didnt change the vehicle population and had a lighter more efficient car I had actually reduced the stress to the roads and environment so based on their logic they should owe me $250. After 20 minutes of them trying to figure that out they decided I had to pay them because they said so. In the end the tax was proven unconstitutional and they had to pay everyone back to the tune of a billion bucks or so.
steve
Logged
chazwood
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2008, 05:48:25 AM »

They won't ever outlaw 2 strokes. They don't have to. They will just raise taxes on fuel so high....no one will be able to afford running one.
Logged

1983 Eagle Bus Model 10
6V92
Thekempters.com
Songman
Guest

« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2008, 06:41:03 AM »

Ahhh.. but there is the fantasy. People have been led to believe that 4 strokes get better mpg. But it's just not true. The problem is that most people just drive their 2 stroke into the ground because they are such tough engines but never think about actually making them run better or more efficient. Don gets 8.5 mpg out of his 8V92 while pulling his big ole Chevy 4x4 crew cab dually. Most people who I have heard talking about their 60s are only getting a little better than 7 after going to all the expense of upgrading. The 6V92 in my RTS got a little over 9.5 going cross country last year.

The gov't and the manufacturers put out these 'facts' about two strokes and people believe them and tell all their friends. Before long it's like gospel and hard to convince anyone otherwise. Since getting to know Don last year, I now know otherwise because I have seen it firsthand.
Logged
makemineatwostroke
Guest

« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2008, 07:08:20 AM »

The state of CA may try and push the little guy around but the railroads that use the 2 stroke EMD are not going to have any part of it they have used that engine for 70 years and are not having much luck with the new 265 four stroke.   

Parts for the 2 stroke will be around when the 60 and 50 series are just a memory so don't sweat it enjoy the times
Logged
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6974





Ignore
« Reply #17 on: March 19, 2008, 07:13:30 AM »

Songman- while it is true you can squeeze better fuel mileage out of a 2 stroke with a skilled driver, the pure truth is that a 2 stroke with DDEC will get down about .36lb fuel/hp hour.  While a 4 stroke DDEC will be around .32, and the new DD15 is down at the .30 mark.  Even with my bus getting 5 mpg when pulling my car at 34750lbs, that would be like me getting close to 46mpg with my 3750lb Mercedes 300 turbo Diesel-which I average 25 mpg.  Going the other way, if the bus was as efficient as my car it would get 2.7 mpg-which I have never seen.  The worst has been 4.5-pulling my car during summer with the gen on for A/C.  So the fuel efficiency of buses is still pretty good.  What is really good is a carefully driven truck at 80,000lb getting over 7mpg!  Good Luck, TomC
Logged

Tom & Donna Christman. '77 AMGeneral 10240B; 8V-71TATAIC V730.
Paso One
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 519





Ignore
« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2008, 07:27:45 AM »

2 strokes won't be outlawed here in Canada for at least 20 years after California does it. Grin

Last week the local Detroit dealer Quoted me on a Factory rebuilt 8V71  $17,000
Logged

68 5303 Fishbowl 40' x 102"
6V71  V730 4:10
Songman
Guest

« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2008, 09:18:48 AM »

Tom,

I don't know anything about all those engineering type numbers. I just hear guys talking about getting around 7 with their 60s while Don gets 8.5 on a regular basis towing and my 6V92 got 9.5. For me, I drive slow so I expect better mileage but Don is pretty much a speed demon at times so his mileage surpasses any 60 I have ever heard of in a bus conversion - even when they are not towing. It's seat-of-the-pants number that matters to me instead of what they are supposed to get on paper. My wife's Chevy HHR is supposed to get 30mpg highway. It will do that on a clear day on flat ground driving 55 mph with the cruise on and the A/C off. But in the real world it averages around 24-26.

Of course, maybe it is like you said, maybe Don is just a skilled driver and that is why he gets such better mileage. It is true that most 2 stroke guys aren't getting that kind of mpg. I just chalked it up to Don keeping his engine well tuned and making changes that will pull more efficiency out of it.

Logged
belfert
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5475




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2008, 09:39:53 AM »

I got an honest 8 MPG with my Series 60 running 65 MPH on cruise last fall for 4,000 miles.  That 8 MPG also includes about 40 hours of generator usage.

The bus was pretty heavily loaded with 7 guys and all our gear.  The cargo bays were completely full plus we pulled a small 500 lb utility trailer.

Certainly the older lighter buses with manual trannies get pretty good mileage, but my bus compared to a MCI 102A3 or similiar with auto tranny and a two stroke still does a fair bit better than the MCI.
Logged

Brian Elfert - 1995 Dina Viaggio 1000 Series 60/B500 - 75% done but usable - Minneapolis, MN
82 MCI-9
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51





Ignore
« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2008, 10:39:42 AM »

My wife's Chevy HHR is supposed to get 30mpg highway. It will do that on a clear day on flat ground driving 55 mph with the cruise on and the A/C off. But in the real world it averages around 24-26.


Hey Songman

 Put in a k&n filter! I have a 06 HHR with the 2.4 motor and i am getting 29mpg with the Ac on and running 75 to 80mph up the 14 to lancaster but i only use it on bad weather days because i ride a motorcycle so i can cut traffic on the &^%$ 405 freeway.
Logged
Songman
Guest

« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2008, 11:28:35 AM »

I don't envy you having to be on the 405! That's for sure!

Do you do any HHR events down there? There are a lot of active HHR owners around CA. I've helped organize a couple of events. Maybe we've met if you have.
Logged
82 MCI-9
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51





Ignore
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2008, 11:33:03 AM »

The only HHR event that i have is when i pass another one on the freeway. Its a great car and no problems at 58,000 miles
Logged
Songman
Guest

« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2008, 12:54:04 PM »

You should join us for the 2nd Annual Deja Vous Rendezvous. Lots of great modified HHRs to see and get to take laps around Irwindale Speedway, of course it is pace laps instead of speed laps but still cool. Also, join chevyhhr.net to keep up with all the events, advice, and good deals on parts!

Event date is August 16, 2008
This event once again is limited to 30 HHRs. Last year we had 21.
Last years participants will have there spot saved
if they register by April 30,2008. New participants can register anytime, your date of entry is proof of time and date registered.
Agenda will be the same as last year.

1. Meet at Auto Books-Aero Books in Burbank on Magnoliaat 8:00am
coffee and donuts, show and shine, leave about 10:30am and cruise to:
2.Sierra Chevrolet in Monrovia. Show and shine and eat. Leave about 1:30 pm cruise to:
3. Irwindale Speedway for more show and shine and a couple trips around the track and then some great raceing.
And most of all getting to everyone.

Registration this year is by e-mailing me your:
Name
Address
Phone number
at: rbudhill@comcast.net
and just saying you want to be one of Harvey's STOCK, MILD AND WILD FRIENDS AND WE WILL SEE YOU AT DejaVous Rendevous.
No registration fees this year. 2 free passes to the races per HHR, children under 12 are free. I will e-mail or call each one to confirm your registration.
Logged
HighTechRedneck
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2939


BCM Editor


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2008, 03:04:32 PM »

I haven't seen anything on a statewide ban, but there was a more localized ban discussed at length in the Detroit Diesel Yahoo group a month or so ago.


I remember that thread of discussion, and it was more centered around meeting Tier-II and Tier-III emission standards in CA. Let me see if I can find the thread...

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/DetroitDiesel/message/14539

I think that's the starting message of a long thread HTR may have been referring to... It takes a while but eventually the thread get to talking about things that can be done to make 2-stroke DDs comply, or at least be more compliant.

- John




Going back to this, I was looking at a link provided in another topic and noticed an article on the Port of LA's plans.  One of the things that was being brought out in previous discussions was "how could they force small owner/operators to withstand the high cost of new rigs."  Enter the solution - mandate that all carriers servicing the port to only use employee driven trucks, no contracting private operators.  Apparently Long Beach considered this before, but backed down from it when threatened with law suits from the carriers.  But Port of Los Angeles is moving forward with a vote on it tomorrow anyway.   Their logic is that fleet operators are being required to upgrade their trucks, whereas private owner/operators aren't as likely to be upgraded.

http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=67611

Logged
Songman
Guest

« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2008, 04:46:08 PM »

Don and I go to CARB meetings regularly on this issue. ANY commercial operator who operates his rig in CA has to upgrade equipment to meet standards. They have a very complicated plan in which operators have a number of years to become compliant. They mentioned the docks specifically. No machinery that doesn't meet requirements will be legal to work on the docks, regardless of fleet or owner/operator. I don't know what the vote will be about because it isn't a choice for the docks to make. It is a CA state regulation.
Logged
RickB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1079


81 MCI 9 smooth side 8V71 Allison 754




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2008, 04:50:28 PM »

Thanks for the info. The gentleman from Canada may be correct but my friend from Minneapolis just tried to sell his 84 MCI 9 and was told that he could not sell his bus to a Canadian citizen without a letter saying it was built by a licensed bus converter and that the 6v92 was considered an illegal motor to import as well.

I am just relaying info so don't tee off on me.

Crude oil dropped almost 7 bucks today. Felt it at the pump today here in Nashville.
Diesel went down a whole two cents...
Considering diesel fuel takes four less processes of refinement than regular unleaded it's hard to understand the logic that it's 83 cents more expensive at the pump.

I'm sure I'm just stupid and there's a perfectly good reason for all of this...
Logged

I will drive my Detroit hard... I will drive my Detroit hard.
HighTechRedneck
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2939


BCM Editor


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2008, 05:48:35 PM »

I don't know what the vote will be about because it isn't a choice for the docks to make. It is a CA state regulation.


The Port of Los Angeles on Thursday, March 20, is scheduled to vote on a truck replacement program that requires motor carriers to hire employee drivers ....

.... The L.A. port's version of the plan, however, includes a major -- but not unexpected -- break from Long Beach, which recently adopted a plan that will allow motor carriers to continue to use independent drivers. The trucking industry has resisted the employee mandate, saying it would raise its costs and open the door for unionization. ....

.... The American Trucking Associations also has said it will bring a lawsuit if either port attempted to force motor carriers to hire employees.  ....

.... Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a strong proponent of the employee-based plan, lauded the L.A. port for moving forward. ....

.... Villaraigosa said. “These recommendations pave the way toward less pollution and clear skies, and I urge the harbor commission to back this proposal and set this region on a course toward a greener, more sustainable future.”
Logged
jackhartjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1328


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2008, 06:52:15 PM »

Transport Topics, (A leading trucking weekly) had an article about the LA Ports Plan this week.
It seem the Teamsters and an environmental group are backing this stupid plan that will be overturned if passed.
Jack
Logged

Jack Hart, CDS
1956 GMC PD-4501 #945 (The Mighty SCENICRUISER!)
8V71 Detroit
4 speed Spicer Trannsmission
Hickory, NC, (Where a call to God is a local call!)
NJT5047
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1942





Ignore
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2008, 07:19:19 PM »

Crude oil dropped almost 7 bucks today. Felt it at the pump today here in Nashville.
Diesel went down a whole two cents...
Considering diesel fuel takes four less processes of refinement than regular unleaded it's hard to understand the logic that it's 83 cents more expensive at the pump.

I'm sure I'm just stupid and there's a perfectly good reason for all of this...

The problem with diesel is that a barrel of crude produces less diesel than gasoline.  PLUS, the feds have an expensive 'boutique' blend for low sulpher diesel...ergo...inordinately expensive diesel when it should cost about the same as regular gasoline.   Half of the cost of fuel is due to fed and state taxes and regulations demanding "clean" fuel blends that must be refined and blended for various geos AND shipped separately..?? 

Melbo for President!

JR   
Logged

JR Lynch , Charlotte, NC
87 MC9, 6V92TA DDEC, HT748R ATEC

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.”

Ayn Rand
Songman
Guest

« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2008, 07:50:58 PM »

I don't see anything about emissions in that article. What I see is union/company drivers vs independents.
Logged
HighTechRedneck
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2939


BCM Editor


WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2008, 06:44:46 AM »

I don't see anything about emissions in that article. What I see is union/company drivers vs independents.

Only loosely in the statements about cleaner air and a greener industry.  The way I read it, combined with what I've seen elsewhere, is that they are running into problems making all the one person independent trucking operations upgrade.  Especially with some of them being from Mexico.  One of the biggest issues they've faced in the clean truck plan has been small truckers proclaiming that they can't afford to upgrade.  It is much easier for them to force fleet operators to upgrade to whatever equipment is their whim of the moment.  Hence their repeated references to sustainability.  They are trying to lay ground work to make it easier to force upgrades whenever they choose to.  By trying to restrict carriers from outsourcing to independents, they eliminate the "small guy hardship" challenge to their upgrade plan because they've already forced the small guys out of California.
Logged
Songman
Guest

« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2008, 11:01:17 AM »

Whenever Don gets back from Vegas he will probably chime in on this. I can't see how the docks can make any decision that is contrary to CA standards. As I mentioned earlier, the standards set by CARB do give a multi-year plan for upgrading but according to what they say at the meetings there will be no exceptions. If your equipment doesn't meet the standards by the end of the upgrade period, you will not operate in the state of CA. Obviously, this doesn't apply to the owner/operators who operate OTR and just come into the state on occasion but it would apply to trucks that are hired by the docks to work there. Granted, the period laid out by CARB for upgrades is over about 10 years, but with various deadlines laid out every few years by fleet size. This is how they plan to not run the little guys out of business. Still, none of this means anything to private non-commercial owners.
Logged
Don Fairchild
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 759




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2008, 01:59:33 PM »

Guy;s I will reply more in depth some time next week once I have had time to digest what has been said. There also some new rules I need to study
  I would like to respond with as much fact as possible so bear with me. For now realize this is not a attempt to outlaw two-stroke engines as it is an attempt to outlaw all diesels in the south coast air district.(all of the  los Angeles basin). The south coast air district has been adamant about this goal . They were sued by the engines manufactures and ruled against in 2003. That did not stop them form the mission.

   If some would do me a favor and find a report called the green engine report, and fax or e-mail it to me I can't find my copy and have not been able to find it on the web any more. It is a test commissioned by fed EPA cal EPA and California air resources board  ( carb ) in conjunction with fuels manufactures and international  engine company released some time in 2000 I believe.

  There was also a report some time in the 70's that stated that natural gas and propane when used as an internal combustion fuel was the main contributor to acid rain.

see you all with more next week.

Don

Logged
HighTechRedneck
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2939


BCM Editor


WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2008, 04:43:24 PM »

Obviously, this doesn't apply to the owner/operators who operate OTR and just come into the state on occasion but it would apply to trucks that are hired by the docks to work there. Granted, the period laid out by CARB for upgrades is over about 10 years, but with various deadlines laid out every few years by fleet size. This is how they plan to not run the little guys out of business. Still, none of this means anything to private non-commercial owners.

Dale, I think you've got it right there.  The Port of Los Angeles is pushing to prevent major carriers from contracting out freight pickups to independents who have longer to upgrade.  This way they get emissions compliance at large, sooner than later.

(The following is just my speculation, I've not seen any stories suggesting it, but I would almost be willing to bet on it.)

If they get their way on this, the next step will almost certainly be to create a list of authorized carriers that are permitted to pickup or deliver at the ports, in the name of safety and security of course.  To no small coincidense, few if any small operators will be able to afford the time and financial resources required to get on the approved list.
Logged
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6974





Ignore
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2008, 08:23:50 AM »

The ports want to outlaw 1998 and older trucks by the end of this year.  There is an article in todays L.A. Times about the new program of the hauling companies having to buy new trucks and hire the old owner/operators to drive them, putting the owner/operators out of business.  They could keep the owner/operators if they just raised the hauling rates to a livable pay rate.
I have a buddy that is still with the same parent company as I was when I was driving.  Last year he drove 86,000 miles, worked 10 months and grossed $188,000 ($2.18/mile).  And he figured that the fuel surcharged payed for all his fuel except for $9,000.  This just shows that there are good hauling contracts out there-of course there are some that don't want to be gone going cross country for weeks on end.  Good Luck, TomC
Logged

Tom & Donna Christman. '77 AMGeneral 10240B; 8V-71TATAIC V730.
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!