This article does a good job of capturing the delays that have been put in the way of implementing this part of NAFTA. In addition to the US Supreme Court being involved, US lost a case on this issue in front of the NAFTA tribunal in 2001. That decision permits Mexico to impose retaliatory duties on US goods or services to offset the loss to their truckers, though they have held off doing so thus far.
What\’s discouraging is that the claims by the special interests opposing Mexico\’s truckers are so disingenuous. They point to the high failure rate of inspections by Mexican truckers now crossing the border. What they fail to mention is that our current regulations pretty much guarantee that the worst trucks will be involved in cross border hauling.
The reason is simple. Currently, long haul trucks in Mexico must be unloaded and the cargo transferred to a drayage truck. The drayage truck takes the cargo across the border and it\’s unloaded again to be transferred to a US truck. Since the drayage trucks go very short distances (under 20 miles) and spend most of their time idling in border crossing lines, they tend to be the oldest trucks in the fleet. If they could haul the load the whole way, the companies would use their best equipment – the most reliable, fuel efficient and non-polluting trucks in their fleet. So our border crossings are MORE polluted as a result of these special interest challenges.
And in the mean time, how vigorously is the administration pushing free trade in services? Not very.
I used to be a driver trainer for a major trucking company. Yes, SAFETY is the biggest issue. If that has been resolved, then we should be allowing the Mexican truckers their due access. I also know that there will not be a loss of jobs. In today\’s industry, there are plenty of jobs to be hauled from various destinations. So we can not use that arguement either. What we need to truckers to just keep their deliveries ontime and safe.
This article does a good job of capturing the delays that have been put in the way of implementing this part of NAFTA. In addition to the US Supreme Court being involved, US lost a case on this issue in front of the NAFTA tribunal in 2001. That decision permits Mexico to impose retaliatory duties on US goods or services to offset the loss to their truckers, though they have held off doing so thus far.
What\’s discouraging is that the claims by the special interests opposing Mexico\’s truckers are so disingenuous. They point to the high failure rate of inspections by Mexican truckers now crossing the border. What they fail to mention is that our current regulations pretty much guarantee that the worst trucks will be involved in cross border hauling.
The reason is simple. Currently, long haul trucks in Mexico must be unloaded and the cargo transferred to a drayage truck. The drayage truck takes the cargo across the border and it\’s unloaded again to be transferred to a US truck. Since the drayage trucks go very short distances (under 20 miles) and spend most of their time idling in border crossing lines, they tend to be the oldest trucks in the fleet. If they could haul the load the whole way, the companies would use their best equipment – the most reliable, fuel efficient and non-polluting trucks in their fleet. So our border crossings are MORE polluted as a result of these special interest challenges.
And in the mean time, how vigorously is the administration pushing free trade in services? Not very.
I used to be a driver trainer for a major trucking company. Yes, SAFETY is the biggest issue. If that has been resolved, then we should be allowing the Mexican truckers their due access. I also know that there will not be a loss of jobs. In today\’s industry, there are plenty of jobs to be hauled from various destinations. So we can not use that arguement either. What we need to truckers to just keep their deliveries ontime and safe.