Truck Parking; Carpe Diem

You may have heard the U.S. Interstate System referred to as the Eisenhower Interstate System. One would think that it is because Eisenhower was President when the interstate system was envisioned and planned, which is true to a certain extent. But Eisenhower championed the interstate system because of his experience as an Army General in Europe. Specifically, the Autobahn. His experience with transportation logistics, from a military strategy standpoint, influenced his role in promoting the interstate system. The full name of the U.S. Interstate System is the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and DEFENSE Highways. In addition to facilitation of traffic during peacetime, Eisenhower considered the U.S. Interstate System as an integral part of a military strategy in the time of war.

Original Intent and Purpose of the Interstate System

So what does this have to do with truck parking? As everyone is aware, lack of adequate parking is a major problem for drivers. But it also represents the same type of “bottleneck” from a transportation logistics standpoint that the U.S. Interstate System sought to alleviate.

As you are also aware, the narrative with regard to the Coronavirus has referred to this crisis as a time of war. And people have become very aware of the importance of transportation logistics. With the current focus on transportation logistics, IMO, this would be a great time to develop a narrative for expansion of available truck parking. Both Trump and the Democrats have already floated a proposal for infrastructure funding as the next phase of the Coronavirus crisis. While much of the focus has been on rebuilding the current interstate system as it is, among other things, interjection of trucking parking could easily become part of the narrative and any infrastructure plan, if promoted properly. From a transportation logistics standpoint, because truck parking is already a significant bottleneck during normal freight volumes, it will get only worse during a crisis when more trucks fill the interstate. No matter how efficient your supply chain and interstate systems are, your freight volume capacity will be limited by its weakest link—truck parking. So developing a narrative of how important truck parking is with regard to crisis transportation logistics, would help solve the already long standing problem in trucking.

I already have a soundbite for Governor Cuomo. “You decide the people who die, because a truck hauling ventilators has no place to park!”

While I’m not a big fan of politics, let alone sensational politics, you get my point.

I have other ideas as to some specific solutions in addition to simply building more truck parking, but I would like to hear other thoughts on the topic and my perspective first.

Rob, do you think your idea would be enhanced without invective? I do.

Unsubstantiated opinions have a place - it's called free speech or written expression.

I believe they undermine credibility when mixed with other ideas. Not just your post below. Many here of late.

I've just stopped reading many posts after the first line or two. Free choice of listening or reading.

You may have heard the U.S. Interstate System referred to as the Eisenhower Interstate System. One would think that it is because Eisenhower was President when the interstate system was envisioned and planned, which is true to a certain extent. But Eisenhower championed the interstate system because of his experience as an Army General in Europe. Specifically, the Autobahn. His experience with transportation logistics, from a military strategy standpoint, influenced his role in promoting the interstate system. The full name of the U.S. Interstate System is the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and DEFENSE Highways. In addition to facilitation of traffic during peacetime, Eisenhower considered the U.S. Interstate System as an integral part of a military strategy in the time of war.

Original Intent and Purpose of the Interstate System

So what does this have to do with truck parking? As everyone is aware, lack of adequate parking is a major problem for drivers. But it also represents the same type of “bottleneck” from a transportation logistics standpoint that the U.S. Interstate System sought to alleviate.

As you are also aware, the narrative with regard to the Coronavirus has referred to this crisis as a time of war. And people have become very aware of the importance of transportation logistics. With the current focus on transportation logistics, IMO, this would be a great time to develop a narrative for expansion of available truck parking. Both Trump and the Democrats have already floated a proposal for infrastructure funding as the next phase of the Coronavirus crisis. While much of the focus has been on rebuilding the current interstate system as it is, among other things, interjection of trucking parking could easily become part of the narrative and any infrastructure plan, if promoted properly. From a transportation logistics standpoint, because truck parking is already a significant bottleneck during normal freight volumes, it will get only worse during a crisis when more trucks fill the interstate. No matter how efficient your supply chain and interstate systems are, your freight volume capacity will be limited by its weakest link—truck parking. So developing a narrative of how important truck parking is with regard to crisis transportation logistics, would help solve the already long standing problem in trucking.

I already have a soundbite for Governor Cuomo. “You decide the people who die, because a truck hauling ventilators has no place to park!”

While I’m not a big fan of politics, let alone sensational politics, you get my point.

I have other ideas as to some specific solutions in addition to simply building more truck parking, but I would like to hear other thoughts on the topic and my perspective first.

Rob, do you think your idea would be enhanced without invective? I do.

Unsubstantiated opinions have a place - it's called free speech or written expression.

I believe they undermine credibility when mixed with other ideas. Not just your post below. Many here of late.

I've just stopped reading many posts after the first line or two. Free choice of listening or reading.

Where's the invective?

I thought Rob's post and idea to be articulate, forward-thinking, and thought-provoking.

Free choice of listening or reading.

Indeed. Free to move on, as well.

No matter how efficient your supply chain and interstate systems are, your freight volume capacity will be limited by its weakest link—truck parking. So developing a narrative of how important truck parking is with regard to crisis transportation logistics, would help solve the already long standing problem in trucking.

Rob, I agree truck parking is a problem in this business, especially in the NorthEast. However I honestly do not agree that it's the weakest link in limiting freight volume capacity. Most experienced drivers "plan" for parking limitations and adjust accordingly based on geography, weather, day of the week and time of day.

The human factors in trucking companies (including the driver) and equipment availability effect capacity far more than the parking shortage.

G-Town says:

No matter how efficient your supply chain and interstate systems are, your freight volume capacity will be limited by its weakest link—truck parking. So developing a narrative of how important truck parking is with regard to crisis transportation logistics, would help solve the already long standing problem in trucking.

Rob, I agree truck parking is a problem in this business, especially in the NorthEast. However I honestly do not agree that it's the weakest link in limiting freight volume capacity. Most experienced drivers "plan" for parking limitations and adjust accordingly based on geography, weather, day of the week and time of day.

The human factors in trucking companies (including the driver) and equipment availability effect capacity far more than the parking shortage.

Thanks.

While I've yet experience trip planning in practice, I hope that can do so effectively. And once I'm there, I expect that I'll agree with you. I was being a little facetious in my post.

But what do you think about developing a narrative or talking points with regard to truck parking to make sure it is included in these infrastructure projects? Just maybe not as forceful as stated above.

Below is American Transportation Research Institute's graph of the industry prioritization issues. Truck parking as a separate category from general transportation infrastructure, ranked third overall.

It just seems that, in Rahm Emmanuel's words:

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

Again, I am not advocating gross deception or manipulation, but just saying if they are going to spend billions (or trillions) of dollars on infrastructure, it should include projects that address a major concern of the primary commercial users of that infrastructure.

Rookie Doyenne says:

Rob, do you think your idea would be enhanced without invective? I do.

So you're saying I put people off with my tone or that I rub people the wrong way?

Tell me something I don't know. I always have and always will. It's a huge part of who I am. Do I do it maliciously? No. I am just a frank and direct person. I don't spend the time and effort trying to structure my language to appeal to the listener's emotions. Am I going to change? Probably not.

I read this forum for information that will help me succeed at this career. When I think of something to post, often times I waffle back and forth as to whether I want post something. I often delete many posts that I have drafted. I very rarely post a new thread. I've gotten the feeling that others don't appreciate my posts, they just have not been forthright enough to tell me directly like you did.

If the general consensus is that my posts don't contribute to the forum or that they are too offensive, I will stop posting. I'm sure that once I'm out there driving, I wont' have as much free time to post on the forum, so it won't be a major loss to me.

Who actually owns the interstates? I know each state maintains their stretch of the road but are they subsidized by the Federal Government for some of the cost of repairs? If so i would love to see the Government buy some of this unused land along the interstate and create some truck only parking. Nothing fancy just parking spaces i dont even need restrooms with vending machines ill take a porta john if it means i dont have to stress over late night parking.

Rob wrote:

If the general consensus is that my posts don't contribute to the forum or that they are too offensive, I will stop posting. I'm sure that once I'm out there driving, I wont' have as much free time to post on the forum, so it won't be a major loss to me.

That is not the general consensus Rob. One person's opinion.

Who actually owns the interstates? I know each state maintains their stretch of the road but are they subsidized by the Federal Government for some of the cost of repairs? If so i would love to see the Government buy some of this unused land along the interstate and create some truck only parking. Nothing fancy just parking spaces i dont even need restrooms with vending machines ill take a porta john if it means i dont have to stress over late night parking.

This was the dialogue that I was hoping the thread would generate. As a general rule, most roads lie in "right-of-way," which is a permanent easement over the underlying real estate rights. So most people own to the center of the road, but your property rights are subject to the right -of-way easement.

To Noob's point, there is a lot of "excess right-of-way" out there under control of the highway department. This often occurs when the highway department has to acquire more property than it needs for a road or a road realignment. After a road is realigned, the highway department will usually do nothing with the old right-of-way, so it will sit there until an adjacent property owner petitions to have the right-of-way "vacated" and added to their property.

In Missouri, MoDOT acquires all their property in fee simple: full ownership and not just a right-of-way.

Most Counties have a GIS interface that tells you who owns what property. You could find any excess right-of-way adjacent to the interstate by scrolling along the GIS map.

Noob talks about buying adjacent land. But the highway department could also acquire private property by incentives. If you donate real property to the government, you get a tax deduction. They could add other tax incentives and/or credits for donation of real estate for trucking parking.

Nope. That is not my opinion, G-Town. I didn't write anything like that. Counting on you to be fair.

My opinion is that unsubstantiated statements - opinions or otherwise - can be problematic in functional communication or in higher-purposed "like minded", "meeting of the minds" comprehension.

My opinion is that it does not necessarily enhance concrete, fact and reference-based points and material to include unsubstantiated opinions. That is my own - unsubstantiated - opinion!

Why doesn't that fly?

Rob, after reading much on here that frankly doesn't go over well with me, I picked your post to effectively disagree with something. This wasn't entirely an arbitrary choice. From my view, I'm not picking on you or attacking you. Can only ask you to trust this was not my intention.

Two things I'm not going to explain:

1. which statement Rob made that I consider "invective"

2. why I picked Rob's post to make a point of disagreement that could have been made elsewhere, and in doing so it was for reasons quite opposite to picking on or attacking Rob

Does anybody understand why I'm making a deliberate choice not to explain?

I strive for high standards in interpersonal communication. Before this thread or others builds on assumptions to any unspoken meanings on my part, kindly point out where I've failed.

Rob wrote:

If the general consensus is that my posts don't contribute to the forum or that they are too offensive, I will stop posting. I'm sure that once I'm out there driving, I wont' have as much free time to post on the forum, so it won't be a major loss to me.

That is not the general consensus Rob. One person's opinion.

Does anybody understand why I'm making a deliberate choice not to explain?

No.

As far as I can tell, you were dissatisfied with certain viewpoints expressed in the coronavirus thread. I don't understand the connection between that and why you derailed Rob's thread on a completely different topic.