How much will this cost us?

gbopp wrote:

Dog Trainer wrote:
I think we pay plenty period. The Allocation of those funds is what is wrong.

Could you be talking about free cell phones and similar programs? :E

mike mck wrote:

DRTDEVL wrote:
I am currently a logistician for the military who is retiring and moving on to either rail or trucking within the next 90 days, depending on who's offer is best.

When the freight takes 3 months to get to the destination, JIT will not work. If you suddenly acquire a large contract, you will not be able to wait 90 days for the materials to ramp up production. This production delay will cost you the contract.

The trucks already pay 35 times what other vehicles pay in taxes.

DRT
I understand what you are saying but When a Large contract drops in it is the exception and not the rule. As you work for the military you know their spares usage if forecasted based on prior years usage and ordered from their suppliers. We do the same thing to have your spares on order to meet your needs even though we do not have a firm order yet.

I work in the aerospace industry. In many cases we have taken the next step to VMI. Vendor managed inventory. Material is kept in my plant but owned by the Vendor. When I pull it I pay for it. I don't really care if it take 3 month or 3 week in transit. Plan for it. As an example we have contracts with Boeing that go out 5 years. We use materials that take 26 weeks from the mill then 16 to 24 weeks in the foundry to produce a casting and another 8 to 12 weeks for machining. Transit is a small portion of the planning process. Know that it takes 12 weeks by rail. Plan for it and put it on my dock when I request it. JIT. These lead times are all built into my MRP system and are used to determine when I order.
As to trucks paying 35 times what other vehicles pay I can't say. However I will say 1 truck will put 35 times more miles per year on the road than I will and at 80K lbs does more damage to the road than I do. If 35 times what the average driver is enough to cover their share of road usage so be it.
I sometimes look at things as too simple. Find out what it will cost to repair our interstate infrastructure in what length of time and generate the funds thru fuel taxes, tolls. road use taxes what ever. Yes determining what is fair to each group will be tough but such is life.
I live in Az and our interstates are in pretty good shape. Our weather is kind to our roads unlike the Midwest and eastern roads. I don't ***** that they spend more of my fed gas tax in Mich repairing roads than Az where I do most of my driving. It is a national system and I want the entire system as nice as Az. Ever driven thru Ok. Their interstates suck.

By the way
thank you for your service.

DRTDEVL wrote:
I am currently a logistician for the military who is retiring and moving on to either rail or trucking within the next 90 days, depending on who's offer is best.

When the freight takes 3 months to get to the destination, JIT will not work. If you suddenly acquire a large contract, you will not be able to wait 90 days for the materials to ramp up production. This production delay will cost you the contract.

The trucks already pay 35 times what other vehicles pay in taxes.

DRTDEVL wrote:

mike mck wrote:

Francesca Knowles wrote:

bid_time wrote:
Increasing the load by 12.5% increases the road wear by 42% - BULL!!

THERE IS NO STATISTIC TO BACK UP THAT HYPOTHESIS.

Well, yes, there is/are; though it's not a "hypothesis", it's a plain fact. If anything, it actually understates the impact. I s'pose there are national variables due to weather etc.

For those who understand enough engineering/"non linear" math to absorb the data, here's a link to a fully annotated/backed up document. It's from Minnesota, and represents one of the studies that finds the damage increase to be even greater than that estimated above. Do please note the language per "geometric rate". Damage isn't straight-line related to beginning number.

A conventional five-axle tractor-semitrailer operating at 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) is equivalent to about 2.4 ESALs.
If the weight of this vehicle were increased to 90,000 pounds (a 12.5 percent increase), its ESAL value goes up to 4.1 (a 70.8 percent increase), because pavement damage increases at a geometric rate with weight increases.

Link to source

So if it is larger long haul trucks beating up the roads I would suggest higher road use taxes for Trucks. I am aware we will all cover those costs in cost of goods. So be it. As has been stated maybe more goods will travel by Rail?

"On average, a typical 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck pays $13,889 per year in truck highway taxes" - http://www.mackinac.org/8433

Rail is already the most efficient mode of transportation by far, at 3 cent per ton-mile vs. 37 cents per ton-mile for trucks. How much more of a difference will it take to offset the need for faster transit times than rail can accommodate? - http://richardtorian.blogspot.com/2012/01/cost-per-ton-mile-for-four-shipping.html

Knee-jerk reactions caused the over-taxation of the trucking industry, and you are fueling the fire with your undereducated point of view. Businesses running on just-in-time delivery models (in order to save on warehousing expenses) fuel the need for more trucks on the road, not the cost of rail transport. The only mode of transport more expensive than trucking is air freight.

Signed - Your friendly neighborhood logistician.

mike mck wrote:

Francesca Knowles wrote:

bid_time wrote:
Increasing the load by 12.5% increases the road wear by 42% - BULL!!

THERE IS NO STATISTIC TO BACK UP THAT HYPOTHESIS.

Well, yes, there is/are; though it's not a "hypothesis", it's a plain fact. If anything, it actually understates the impact. I s'pose there are national variables due to weather etc.

For those who understand enough engineering/"non linear" math to absorb the data, here's a link to a fully annotated/backed up document. It's from Minnesota, and represents one of the studies that finds the damage increase to be even greater than that estimated above. Do please note the language per "geometric rate". Damage isn't straight-line related to beginning number.

A conventional five-axle tractor-semitrailer operating at 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) is equivalent to about 2.4 ESALs.
If the weight of this vehicle were increased to 90,000 pounds (a 12.5 percent increase), its ESAL value goes up to 4.1 (a 70.8 percent increase), because pavement damage increases at a geometric rate with weight increases.

Link to source

So if it is larger long haul trucks beating up the roads I would suggest higher road use taxes for Trucks. I am aware we will all cover those costs in cost of goods. So be it. As has been stated maybe more goods will travel by Rail?