C-Time?

[ATeam]

We just spent six hours driving 120 miles in heavy, stop-and-go traffic on the East Coast. Thus began the 600 mile run we are now on.

No one says the traffic congestion problem will get better. Many industry people predict that it will get worse. Where does that leave us, the drivers who spend time in that kind of traffic on behalf of the customers we serve?

We get paid by the mile, not the hour. Detention time (D-time) is paid when a truck is delayed and kept stationary. Should there be such a thing as congestion time (C-time) to compensate drivers for significant traffic delays, more of which are certain to come?

 

[purgoose10]

Maybe in a pipe dream.

 

[redytrk]

What cracks me up...FECC still expects a 45mph avg in that congested area. 25mph would be more like it.

 

[moose]

Please let me know how's that working for you,
i'd like to charge my customer every time i get stuck for the night on the lake effect's snowbelt .
last week i lost a full day running because i gut stuck behind a fender bender for 2 hours. wish i could charge my customer for that delay too.
then there's those bored LEO's that wasted my time in the chicken coop,
waiting in line for showers, meals, truck wash, repair shop, and as mention fuel islands.
none of which expected to get any better any time soon.
so lets all nickle & dime'd our customers see how that will work for us.
this is also BTW why i do not support charging shippers for detention time.
or on the other hend we can keep doing what we did for the last few years, know OUR operation costs, charge our customers properly & refuse cheap freight that dosn't worth our time.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Please let me know how's that working for you,
i'd like to charge my customer every time i get stuck for the night on the lake effect's snowbelt .
last week i lost a full day running because i gut stuck behind a fender bender for 2 hours. wish i could charge my customer for that delay too.
then there's those bored LEO's that wasted my time in the chicken coop,
waiting in line for showers, meals, truck wash, repair shop, and as mention fuel islands.
none of which expected to get any better any time soon.
so lets all nickle & dime'd our customers see how that will work for us.
this is also BTW why i do not support charging shippers for detention time.
or on the other hend we can keep doing what we did for the last few years, know OUR operation costs, charge our customers properly & refuse cheap freight that dosn't worth our time.

Ask for chrome plated doodads on the next thing you order, and tell me you'll get it for nothing. Order extra cheese and meat at Subway, and see if you get it for regular price.

By not demanding that your customers pay for detention, and probably other things, just lets them take you less seriously. You're bound to be walked on because of it. No detention? Really? Is not your EXTRA time worth something, other than a hard-on for the customer?

 

[cheri1122]

Moose, how can you not support charging shippers [and consignees] for detention, when 99% of the time, the detention is their fault? As when they schedule trucks to pick up loads that won't be ready for hours, or they haven't enough docks/forklifts/personnel to load or unload in a timely fashion, so trucks line up & wait their turn. Or they send the entire department to lunch at the same time, leaving the docks unattended. The list goes on, but it's entirely within their control, and they simply choose to ignore it. Why shouldn't they pay for wasting hours of the driver's time? Particularly because the driver's hours are both limited and monitored by federal law!
Congestion, on the other hand, is not the customer's fault. I can't see charging for it, when it can be avoided by rescheduling appointments. Case in point: I picked up a load awhile back, that required going into the middle of Chicago, then on through the city, and it was scheduled for 1600. Might have been reasonable, if the freight hadn't been sitting in the warehouse for 5 days beforehand, but under the circs, a 1600 pickup was just nuts. Even more so, as the delivery couldn't be made direct, because the consignee wasn't open till morning. I know, because it was scheduled direct, and I was not happy about the hours spent fighting rush hour in Chicago that I could [and would] have skipped.
Congestion is only going to continue getting worse [more vehicles, no new roadways] and the only logical approach is to start considering it when scheduling both pickups and deliveries.
Driving through mega city rush hour is stressful, wasteful of fuel, and mostly unnecessary, IMO.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Moose, how can you not support charging shippers [and consignees] for detention, when 99% of the time, the detention is their fault? As when they schedule trucks to pick up loads that won't be ready for hours, or they haven't enough docks/forklifts/personnel to load or unload in a timely fashion, so trucks line up & wait their turn. Or they send the entire department to lunch at the same time, leaving the docks unattended. The list goes on, but it's entirely within their control, and they simply choose to ignore it. Why shouldn't they pay for wasting hours of the driver's time? Particularly because the driver's hours are both limited and monitored by federal law!
Congestion, on the other hand, is not the customer's fault. I can't see charging for it, when it can be avoided by rescheduling appointments. Case in point: I picked up a load awhile back, that required going into the middle of Chicago, then on through the city, and it was scheduled for 1600. Might have been reasonable, if the freight hadn't been sitting in the warehouse for 5 days beforehand, but under the circs, a 1600 pickup was just nuts. Even more so, as the delivery couldn't be made direct, because the consignee wasn't open till morning. I know, because it was scheduled direct, and I was not happy about the hours spent fighting rush hour in Chicago that I could [and would] have skipped.
Congestion is only going to continue getting worse [more vehicles, no new roadways] and the only logical approach is to start considering it when scheduling both pickups and deliveries.
Driving through mega city rush hour is stressful, wasteful of fuel, and mostly unnecessary, IMO.

Same could be said shippers fault for a pickup at rush hour

 

[cheri1122]

I agree, OVM, but in this case, I don't think it was the shipper's fault. It certainly wasn't the shipper who 'bumped' the delivery forward a couple hours, which is why I had to deal with rush hour again after getting loaded. Had someone not changed the delivery time, I'd have sat tight until rush hour was over, before driving through Chicago again. My best strategy for dealing with mega city rush hour is to park till it's over. It saves fuel and my sanity, [rush hour is freakin scary in bumper to bumper stop & go, driving a truck!] without losing much in the way of time.
The problem is that appointments are made through habit, with zero thought given to the reality of the schedule - and that goes for the shippers, carriers, and brokers.
It's past time to think about the problem, IMO.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I agree, OVM, but in this case, I don't think it was the shipper's fault. It certainly wasn't the shipper who 'bumped' the delivery forward a couple hours, which is why I had to deal with rush hour again after getting loaded. Had someone not changed the delivery time, I'd have sat tight until rush hour was over, before driving through Chicago again. My best strategy for dealing with mega city rush hour is to park till it's over. It saves fuel and my sanity, [rush hour is freakin scary in bumper to bumper stop & go, driving a truck!] without losing much in the way of time.
The problem is that appointments are made through habit, with zero thought given to the reality of the schedule - and that goes for the shippers, carriers, and brokers.
It's past time to think about the problem, IMO.

I used to do local deliveries in a 24' box truck in and around Toronto....us guys would pick up out trucks and then head out about 7.30 am and hit the nearest restaraunt for breakfast....drove the boss nuts... all we'd do is sit in traffic anyways......always got to or 1st drop about the same time as driving thru..figured we saved the boss thousands$$$ on less wearand tear on the braking systems...lol

 

[bubblehead]

Please let me know how's that working for you,
i'd like to charge my customer every time i get stuck for the night on the lake effect's snowbelt .
last week i lost a full day running because i gut stuck behind a fender bender for 2 hours. wish i could charge my customer for that delay too.
then there's those bored LEO's that wasted my time in the chicken coop,
waiting in line for showers, meals, truck wash, repair shop, and as mention fuel islands.
none of which expected to get any better any time soon.
so lets all nickle & dime'd our customers see how that will work for us.
this is also BTW why i do not support charging shippers for detention time.
or on the other hend we can keep doing what we did for the last few years, know OUR operation costs, charge our customers properly & refuse cheap freight that dosn't worth our time.

You just might be on to something Moose... Have a provision in your contract for those known weather related issues for additional pay. Most expediters I know will accept a load with fore-casted inclement weather, or regions noted for such, but demand a premium for going in those conditions. Additionally, if accepting a load that pick ups during rush hour, an ASAP or New York/Northeast area there is an upward adjustment for tolls, poorer fuel mileage (due to congestion) and general poor conditions of the roads.If an accident causes the delay, get the tag(s) or record date, time, location of the accident, contact the enforcement agency for a copy of the accident report and then file a claim against the "at fault" party (or both if none are stated). I am sure insurance companies have a clause of "no liability" but that doesn't keep you from getting a judgement against the individual(s).
If the fault was due to a tire blowout ala Ford Exploder, then go after the tire company as well. We pay way more in taxes to conduct our business on these highways and a accident is more than an inconvenience to a trucker, it is a monetary loss.

 

[ATeam]

!Re: C-Time?

Congestion, on the other hand, is not the customer's fault. I can't see charging for it, when it can be avoided by rescheduling appointments.

Increased fuel costs are not the customers' fault but we charge for those in the form of a fuel surcharge. Tolls are not the customers' fault but we charge for those by building them into the per-mile rate quoted for the run. Detention may or may not be the customers' fault but we charge for it in the form of detention time.

You are correct that many rush hour delays could be easily avoided if the shippers and consignees scheduled loads to avoid them. In that regard, a C-time charge might be better named, better expelained to the customers and more uniformially charged if it was called a congestion surcharge. If such a charge existed, customers would indeed pay more attention to scheduling their pick-ups and deliveries to avoid rush hours.

Congestion charges exist now in the form of higher tolls charged during prime time.

London, England, has a congestion charge zone in which a fee is charged to most motor vehicles that are operating between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. M-F. It is enforced by plate number recognition technology.

A congestion tax was once proposed for New York City (cars $8.00, trucks $21.00) but the measure failed. City taxes for congestion are designed as a money grab, first of all, and presented as an environmental and traffic reduction measure.

A congestion charge added by transportation companies is something different. It would compensate the drivers and equipment providers for the additional costs of operating in a congested environment, and, most importantly, for the value of the driver's time that is otherwise lost to congestion.

The devil is in the details and actually charging such a fee based on congestion may be difficult. A 20 percent price markup imposed as a Northeast regional surcharge may be easier to do.

In effect, Diane and I are doing it now, staying out of the region unless the loads pay enough. And by enough I do not mean a good rate per mile. I mean enough money to pay for all tolls and all time wasted in the area, on top of a good rate per mile.

For example, we don't even think of going into the New York City area for pick-ups and deliveries on loads that pay less than $5,000. And if we do go in, we don't let toll pay offset any other pay. Toll pay is a pass-through designed to protect our profit margin.

I had lots of time to think about this yesterday as we spent six hours (SIX HOURS!) creeping through East Coast rush hour traffic and the load paid only $1.80 per mile. It picked up in CT, took us through New York City, across the GW Bridge and eventually delivered early this morning in North Carolina.

We took that load at that rate because it met a directional-dispatch need. We need to be in Florida soon for HAZMAT training. With that in mind, it was a delight to receive this load offer that took us from CT to NC, but it totally sucked to creep along for six hours at $1.80 a mile.

 

[bubblehead]

Re: !Re: C-Time?

A-TEAM said; "but it totally sucked to creep along for six hours at $1.80 a mile."

One particular New York City run, traffic was so bad that 'miles per gallon' became 'gallons per mile.' (A Columbia with CAT C-11, life time fuel economy is 10.3 mpg). The next load offer to New York (a shortie) was refused. When dispatched called as to inquiry why I told them that the entire pay won't even cover my fuel! What about tolls, wear & tear, fixed cost etc? Like A-Team I no longer accept NY unless the pay is in the in the thousands and addtional cost are passed through.

 

[ATeam]

I did not think to reset our fuel info to determine actual mpg or gallons per hour while creeping through that traffic for six hours. It would have been a good experiment. Has anyone done so before? It would be interesting to know what the congestion fuel cost truly is.

 

[Wolverine]

Not to worry, folks. The congestion will soon be a problem that resolves itself. Well, maybe not soon, but eventually, if we ignore overpopulation and its effect on little Mother Earth.

As we inevitably eat ourselves toward a bare planet, and fossil fuel supplies dwindle with increasing velocity, our fast-paced society will gradually slow down. The world economy will grind to a halt, "devolving" into regional, and ultimately, local trade.

When that time arrives, the granny lane of I-95 will be more suitable for ox carts, buggies with fringe around the top, and a few luxury mopeds. Life will slow down to a tolerable, less frenetic, pace. No trucks - no congestion - no concern about "C-time"!

Everyone will be pedaling their bicycles to Anytime Fitness at that juncture. But, I suppose, if that becomes the norm there won't be much use for fitness centers...

Long before all that transpires, this wolverine plans to be wearing a garish sombrero, riding a docile donkey along the Pacific beaches of Ecuador - leaving all the congestion in the hands of those who worry about it the most.

 

[moose]

you are all correct, i did not phrased it right. what i meant and should've said is i'm against that mandated Gov. minimum pay for truckers detentions. you'd be surprised how bad it can do.
if you can per-negotiate your detention time, more power for you. just keep in mind that other drivers {self included} might haul same freight without getting paid for sitting.
what i meant by saying know your costs of moving the freight, is understanding what it will cost YOU to move the freight. an East cost rush hour is hardly unexpected . same as most of the examples i made above. i have no dought Phil did not expect it when accepting a load that will keep him available for his next PU on Fri. noon in N.J. same as he is not expecting to make same level of income running June as he is February. a smart expediter know how to 'average up a load'. and more importantly how to "average up a load over time"
last week EXACTLY the same happened to me in the left cost. the load taking me from Minnesota to San Francisco paid more then enough to cover up for the well expected law paying rates that followed for the next 10 days. the same Fri. that Phil set in traffic. i missed a late Fri. PU in Sacramento & had to wait till they open in Mon. morning to PU same load. so what, now am sitting oat home where i left almost 3 weeks ago most of the time sitting or moving low paying freight. but i still made my financial goals for the month, there's no way i would've take a load to a dead area if it did not pay well enough to compassionate for the lousy 2 weeks that followed.

 

[cheri1122]

If I'm not mistaken, Chicago tolls are already priced higher during periods of congestion, and lower overnight. [Which is when I'd prefer to drive through regardless of the cost.]
The fly in the 'NE regional' surcharge scheme: serious congestion is more than just NYC. It's a problem in many megametro areas. Perhaps the carriers could determine what qualifies as appropriate for congestion pricing, then add a surcharge for transit through those areas during peak times.
Yeah, I know: in my dreams! It's tough enough getting enough time to deal with the hours of stop & go in Chicago [and Atlanta, Baltimore, Charlotte, etc, etc] much less any consideration of the costs.

 

[layoutshooter]

The higher tolls are in reality just ANOTHER tax on truckers. Those who passed those tolls know darn will that the majority of those shipping products are NOT going to pay overtime or shift premiums to their workers to load and unload after normal business hours. SO, they pass these "feel good" tolls to show the people that they care, AND, they can soak the truckers, many of them from out of state, for even MORE money. Don't believe for one second that these "congestion tolls" have ANYTHING to do with reducing congestion.

 

[geo]

you should know more than oneway togo when on a run
how to get around traffic for ex hampton roads leaving va bch take 58w to 460w to 295 to richmond
and avoid 64 w when it is back up
but sometimes not because of 12'6 " over head

 

[ATeam]

The higher tolls are in reality just ANOTHER tax on truckers. Those who passed those tolls know darn will that the majority of those shipping products are NOT going to pay overtime or shift premiums to their workers to load and unload after normal business hours. SO, they pass these "feel good" tolls to show the people that they care, AND, they can soak the truckers, many of them from out of state, for even MORE money. Don't believe for one second that these "congestion tolls" have ANYTHING to do with reducing congestion.

Part of what you learn in this business is learned by flying by the seat of your pants. You learn as you go and when things change you learn anew.

Tolls have skyrocketed to obscene levels in recent years. Diane and I don't have a flat-rate 20 percent congestion charge just yet but are working our way toward something like it, especially when it comes to tolls, because tolls are a known cost, visible to all parties involved in the shipment and easily documented.

When agents call us to bid on a load, or to offer a load at a given price, and the load involves an area where tolls are high, we mention that. It has become surprisingly easy (not always but in a number of cases) to have an agent get an additional $100 and even $200 from a customer (or from his or her share of the gross pay) to book our truck and cover the load.

It has never had to be to-the-penny. We mention that it costs $X to drove over the GW bridge or $X to drive through OH, IN and IL, and the agent will often cut us off and say "how about if I throw in another $100 (or other amount) for tolls?"

It does not have to be a foregone conclusion that tolls are a tax on truckers and that we have no recourse but to pay it. High tolls are no secret and I'm beginning to believe that shippers understand the issues and will add toll pay when it is raised as an issue.

Tolls should not be cost of doing business absorbed by truckers, I believe. They should be a shipper's cost of doing business. Like a fuel surcharge, whatever tolls the trucker pays to move the shipper's goods, that amount should be passed through 100 percent to the shipper and reimbursed to the trucker.

To the extent that tolls are a tax, they are only a tax on the trucker if the trucker does not pass them onto the shipper. They are only a tax on the shipper if the shipper does not pass them onto customer. And they are only a tax on the customer because they elect and re-elect toll-loving politicians to office.

 

[jjoerger]

When evaluating a load offer many things need to be taken into consideration. We look at pick up times and tolls and base our rate per mile on those and other factors. We declined a load picking up in Chicago during rush hour because the load didn't pay well enough to cover the aggravation of driving during those times. Once another $150 was offered the aggravation was paid for so we did the run. We have only done NYC twice in the last few years. Both runs picked up in California and paid well enough to make the NYC traffic bearable. We also avoid the GW bridge if at all possible. We take I 287 and I 280. It adds 38 miles to the trip but saves our sanity and suspension by avoiding that mess.