Bus Conversions dot Com Bulletin Board
October 25, 2014, 10:21:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you had an Online Subscription: It will not be stolen by your mailman or your neighbor who also may be into buses.
   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 4495 times)
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: 2935


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: 2935


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: 6854





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!