<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>Salt Distribution &amp; Logistics</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:www.saltinstitute.org,2008:/rss/distribution//17</id>
    <link rel="service.post" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=17" title="Salt Distribution &amp; Logistics" />
    <updated>2008-07-16T23:51:26Z</updated>
    <subtitle>Moving salt cost-effectively from production facilities to customers can, at times, cost as much as the price of the salt itself.</subtitle>
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 3.2</generator>
 
<entry>
    <title>Salt Institute, others oppose &quot;10+2 Rule&quot;</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/2008/07/salt_institute_others_oppose_1.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=17/entry_id=2731" title="Salt Institute, others oppose &quot;10+2 Rule&quot;" />
    <id>tag:www.saltinstitute.org,2008:/rss/distribution//17.2731</id>
    
    <published>2008-07-16T23:51:00Z</published>
    <updated>2008-07-16T23:51:26Z</updated>
    
    <summary>The Salt Institute was among 40 associations which have asked Congress to delay implemention of Customs and Border Protection&apos;s &quot;10+2 Rule&quot; until the agency can test a prototype to ensure it is workable. The group argued that the new data...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Dick Hanneman</name>
        <uri>www.saltinstitute.org</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/">
        <![CDATA[<p>The Salt Institute was among <a href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/pubstat/10-2.pdf">40 associations which have asked Congress to delay implemention of Customs and Border Protection's "10+2 Rule" </a>until the agency can test a prototype to ensure it is workable.  The group argued that the new data requirements for U.S.-bound container shipments would cost $20 billion, raising the cost of doing business and raising consumer prices.  Rather than enhance homeland security, the measure "creates new security threats by greatly increasing the opportunity for containers to be tampered with" during the additional time needed for the more extensive clearing procedures, the letter avers.</p>

<p><br />
</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Freight shipping challenges on the horizon</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/2008/01/freight_shipping_challenges_on.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=17/entry_id=2131" title="Freight shipping challenges on the horizon" />
    <id>tag:www.saltinstitute.org,2008:/rss/distribution//17.2131</id>
    
    <published>2008-01-11T05:12:36Z</published>
    <updated>2008-01-11T05:12:56Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Shipping by truck will double by the year 2035 and “there is no strategy or clearly defined federal role in transportation generally and in freight transportation specifically, despite a clear federal interest in freight transportation stemming from Congress’ constitutional role...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Dick Hanneman</name>
        <uri>www.saltinstitute.org</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Shipping by truck will double by the year 2035 and “there is no strategy or clearly defined federal role in transportation generally and in freight transportation specifically, despite a clear federal interest in freight transportation stemming from Congress’ constitutional role to regulate interstate commerce and freight transportation’s effect on the national economy.”  That’s the conclusion of a <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08287.pdf">report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)</a> released January 8th by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK).   The report recommends urgent attention to developing new revenue sources for freight system infrastructure investments.  The report has implications for salt companies shipping their products as well as for roadway operations agencies who will have to build and operate systems to accommodate the vast increase in freight movement.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway sees future in Chinese, Indian containerized freight</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/2007/12/great_lakes_st_lawrence_seaway.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=17/entry_id=2074" title="Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway sees future in Chinese, Indian containerized freight" />
    <id>tag:www.saltinstitute.org,2007:/rss/distribution//17.2074</id>
    
    <published>2007-12-11T04:31:24Z</published>
    <updated>2007-12-11T04:32:58Z</updated>
    
    <summary>More than half of North America&apos;s population and manufacturing and service industries are serviced by the St. Lawrence Seaway which opened 48 years ago. Heavy users during the Seaway&apos;s first half century have been bulk shipping, including grain, iron ore...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Dick Hanneman</name>
        <uri>www.saltinstitute.org</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/">
        <![CDATA[<p><img alt="Logo-GLSLS-Study.gif" src="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/Logo-GLSLS-Study.gif" width="425" height="260" />More than half of North America's population and manufacturing and service industries are serviced by the St. Lawrence Seaway which opened 48 years ago.  Heavy users during the Seaway's first half century have been bulk shipping, including grain, iron ore and salt.  For the next half century, planners are preparing the Seaway to handle containerized freight coming from Asia through the Suez Canal.  The Seaway is especially valued due to congestion on US West Coast ports and on rail and highway arteries; in fact, the Seaway actually has excess capacity, but requires investment to preserve its reliability (now 98% available during the regular shipping season).  A new <a href="http://www.glsls-study.com/Supporting%20documents/GLSLS%20finalreport%20Fall%202007.pdf">GLSLS Study </a>by the seven US and Canadian Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway custodial agencies examines the economic, environmental and engineering challenges facing the system and calls for "a proactive maintenance strategy" focused on system reliability.  Water freight is seen as a major contributor to reducing transportation greenhouse gas emissions.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Congressional Dems invite vetoes on transportation bills</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/2007/09/congressional_dems_invite_veto.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=17/entry_id=1853" title="Congressional Dems invite vetoes on transportation bills" />
    <id>tag:www.saltinstitute.org,2007:/rss/distribution//17.1853</id>
    
    <published>2007-09-26T20:16:22Z</published>
    <updated>2007-09-26T20:16:52Z</updated>
    
    <summary>On the surface, Congress has backed off from a confrontation that could shut down the government this weekend as the fiscal year ends; they passed a continuing resolution for spending at last year&apos;s level. But the political support built for...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Dick Hanneman</name>
        <uri>www.saltinstitute.org</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/">
        <![CDATA[<p>On the surface, Congress has backed off from a confrontation that could shut down the government this weekend as the fiscal year ends; they passed a continuing resolution for spending at last year's level.  But the political support built for transportation infrastructure investments yielded at least a couple bills that the Bush White House has vowed the President will veto -- the 2008 transportation appropriations bill (HR 3074) and the oft-delayed Water Resources Development Act (HR 1495).  </p>

<p>Without question, both programs would benefit from the increased spending the bills provide.  Just as obviously, spending discipline on Capitol Hill is an oxymoron -- and the president lacks a "line item veto" so must accept or reject the entire bill.  Worse, the transportation appropriation hits at a time when experts forecast that current spending plans will bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund by 2009.</p>

<p>The WRDA is also badly needed and its reforms, badly overdue.  But it, too, has been padded with additional earmarked spending requirements, dramatically increasing its costs.</p>

<p>And those costs are signfiicant.  Congress wants to spend $40.2 billion on the core highway bill (can it be that Pres. Clinton threatened a veto for a like bill proposing to exceed $20 billion not that many years ago?).  The WRDA would authoriize $23.2 billlion (including $7 billion for the Gulf Coast).</p>

<p>These programs have been under-funded too long and should be approved, even with their reprehensible earmarks.  They are far different from the so-called children's health bill also being served by majority partisans up for a veto for use in next year's campaign.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>$2 billion &quot;I-81&quot; rail corridor announced</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/2007/06/2_billion_i81_rail_corridor_an.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=17/entry_id=1568" title="$2 billion &quot;I-81&quot; rail corridor announced" />
    <id>tag:www.saltinstitute.org,2007:/rss/distribution//17.1568</id>
    
    <published>2007-06-14T22:20:57Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-14T22:21:34Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Norfolk Southern intends to invest more than $2 billion to build a new rail corridor running along the general line of Interstate-81 from Louisiana to Newark, NJ, dubbed the Crescent Corridor. A major share of the route is through Virginia&apos;s...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Dick Hanneman</name>
        <uri>www.saltinstitute.org</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Norfolk Southern intends to invest more than $2 billion to build a new rail corridor running along the general line of Interstate-81 from Louisiana to Newark, NJ, dubbed the Crescent Corridor.  A major share of the route is through Virginia's Shenandoah Valley and Virginia is providing $40 million in "seed money" for the project.  New terminals will be built in Maryland and eastern Tennessee.</p>

<p>The project was revealed by the Associated Press and the <em><a href="http://welcome.hamptonroads.com/epilot/">Virginian-Pilot </a></em>newspaper and carried in <em><a href="http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/CA6450175.html?text=norfolk+southern">Logistics Management</a>.</em></p>

<p>The first phase should be completed in 2009 and the full project, by 2013.  The project would compete directly with badly-congested roads and has little intermodal competition, the company noted.</p>

<p><br />
</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Rail fuel surcharges overturned</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/2007/01/rail_fuel_surcharges_overturne.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=17/entry_id=1150" title="Rail fuel surcharges overturned" />
    <id>tag:www.saltinstitute.org,2007:/rss/distribution//17.1150</id>
    
    <published>2007-01-30T02:15:33Z</published>
    <updated>2007-01-30T02:15:55Z</updated>
    
    <summary>The Surface Transportation Board last Friday handed the railroads a rare defeat. Responding to shipper complaints, the STB banned excessive fuel surcharges by railroads and imposed strict rules on fees. This came on the heels of railroad corporate earnings reports...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Dick Hanneman</name>
        <uri>www.saltinstitute.org</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/">
        <![CDATA[<p>The Surface Transportation Board last Friday handed the railroads a rare defeat.  Responding to shipper complaints, the <a href="http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/UNID/0BB8C875F92B1A248525726F00559378/$file/37341.pdf">STB banned excessive fuel surcharges </a>by railroads and imposed strict rules on fees.  This came on the heels of railroad corporate earnings reports that credited the surcharges and fees with boosting their quarterly earnings.  The STB said the railroads must link the surcharges directly with the actual fuel costs for specific rail shipments and prohibited "double-dipping" -- fuel costs, said the STB, can't be included in price hikes if the rates already have fuel surcharges. </p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Captive Rail Customer bill gains United Transportation Union support</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/2006/11/captive_rail_customer_bill_gai.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=17/entry_id=818" title="Captive Rail Customer bill gains United Transportation Union support" />
    <id>tag:www.saltinstitute.org,2006:/rss/distribution//17.818</id>
    
    <published>2006-11-03T17:26:58Z</published>
    <updated>2006-11-03T17:28:53Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Widely noted this week are the millions of dollars and thousands of paid &quot;volunteers&quot; being employed by labor unions in this the final week before Congressional and gubernatorial elections. Lost in the popular media was news that the 125,000-strong United...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Dick Hanneman</name>
        <uri>www.saltinstitute.org</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Widely noted this week are the millions of dollars and thousands of paid "volunteers" being employed by labor unions in this the final week before Congressional and gubernatorial elections.  Lost in the popular media was news that the 125,000-strong <a href="http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=31306">United Transportation Union has joined unhappy rail customers </a>in supporting pro-shipper "railroad competition" bills in the next Congress.  And, if organized labor's election investments pay off with a Democratic Congress, that enhanced union clout might help salt producers seeking better service and reasonable rates for their rail shipments.  As UTU president Paul Thompson said recently:  "Neither shippers nor labor intends any longer to be victims of 21st century robber-baron railroads.  We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any longer." </p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Thank you, Senators Lott and Burns</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/2006/06/thank_you_senators_lott_and_bu.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=17/entry_id=391" title="Thank you, Senators Lott and Burns" />
    <id>tag:www.saltinstitute.org,2006:/rss/distribution//17.391</id>
    
    <published>2006-06-05T23:55:33Z</published>
    <updated>2006-06-05T23:56:26Z</updated>
    
    <summary>The Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee will hold a hearing on economics, service and capacity issues in the freight railroad industry at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 21, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 562, according to U.S. Senator Trent...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Dick Hanneman</name>
        <uri>www.saltinstitute.org</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/">
        <![CDATA[<p>The Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee will hold a hearing on economics, service and capacity issues in the freight railroad industry at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 21, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 562, according to U.S. Senator Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, subcommittee chairman, who is convening the hearing at the request of U.S. Senator Conrad Burns, R-Montana.<br />
 <br />
Witnesses will include railroad and shipping representatives, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) and the General Accountability Office (GAO), Senator Lott said.  He said that GAO will present preliminary findings from its study on recent rate changes in the freight rail industry, whether those changes suggest the need for alternatives to the current framework for regulating freight railroad rates and how projected future demand for freight rail compares with projected future capacity.<br />
 <br />
Senators Lott and Burns, joined by six other Subcommittee Senators, last year asked GAO to investigate and report on the performance of the current regulatory structure in striking the appropriate balance between the interests of railroads, shippers and the need for an adequate national transportation system to support the nation’s economy.  Senator Lott stressed his hope that the GAO report will help the Subcommittee promote the balance between ensuring fair and high quality service to shippers and a safe and productive rail system as the panel considers the reauthorization of the STB.<br />
 <br />
Senator Burns is a leading advocate on rail issues and bringing competition to areas dominated by a single railroad.  In April 2005, Senator Burns introduced S. 919, the Railroad Competition Act, not the subject of the June 21 hearing, but a comprehensive proposal that would restrict the major railroads from precluding competition from short-line railroads and reforming the STB to provide a workable forum for dispute resolution.  Senator Burns has complained that Montana businesses and consumers battle monopoly power on a regular basis, because the state is served by only one railroad, Burlington Northern-Santa Fe. <br />
 <br />
“Right now our small businesses and energy customers are being taken advantage of by the railroads, simply because they can,” said Senator Burns.  “I have introduced a bill that will limit these monopolistic abuses which restrict competition and improve dispute resolution.  I was not sent here to oversee a monopoly.”<br />
</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Winter 2006: it could have been worse</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/2006/03/winter_2006_it_could_have_been.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=17/entry_id=111" title="Winter 2006: it could have been worse" />
    <id>tag:www.saltinstitute.org,2006:/rss/distribution//17.111</id>
    
    <published>2006-03-20T22:38:10Z</published>
    <updated>2006-03-20T22:38:46Z</updated>
    
    <summary>My most accounts, North America, unlike Europe, enjoyed a relatively mild winter. March newspapers noted overall salt usage down (our own comprehensive figures will not be available for some time; although &quot;mild&quot; meant MORE deicing salt used in such perpetually...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Dick Hanneman</name>
        <uri>www.saltinstitute.org</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/">
        <![CDATA[<p>My most accounts, North America, unlike Europe, enjoyed a relatively mild winter.  March newspapers noted overall salt usage down (our own comprehensive figures will not be available for some time; although "mild" meant MORE deicing salt used in such perpetually sub-freezing climates as Canada where temperatures were more likely to be in salt's working temperature range rather that too cold for salt to be effective).</p>

<p>Most Americans don't realize how much worse it could have been.  Not only would more frequent snowstorms (the real measure for salt usage is frequency of application, not number of inches of snow) have required more salt, but with pre-season supply interuption caused by Hurricane Katrina and mounting transportation challenges, salt companies have had to work harder than ever before just to stay even in meeting customer expectations in terms of timely mid-winter resupply.</p>

<p>On March 2nd, Baltimore hosted the Commercial Freight Mobility Forum.  The important presentations are <a href="http://www.itsa.org/itsnews.nsf/180c9c506bf5856985256c2d00174a12/d6e453a861f5d9a78525712a00583b14?OpenDocument">online</a>.</p>

<p>For more historical data, see the Federal Highway Administration's website reporting its 2002 freight data.  In that year, trucks moved 19 billion tons of freight, worth $13 trillion  --  about 60% of their weight and 70% of their value.  See the FHWA web-posting of a <a href="http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight%5Fanalysis/faf/">state-by-state survey of freight data</a>.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Delivering the goods</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/2006/02/delivering_the_goods.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.saltinstitute.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=17/entry_id=16" title="Delivering the goods" />
    <id>tag:www.saltinstitute.org,2006:/rss/distribution//17.16</id>
    
    <published>2006-02-18T17:25:10Z</published>
    <updated>2006-02-24T21:40:23Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Depending on the type of salt and the respective locations of the production site and the customer, more than half the final price of salt to the end-user can be transportation. Subscribe to this feed for news and commentary on...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Dick Hanneman</name>
        <uri>www.saltinstitute.org</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.saltinstitute.org/rss/distribution/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Depending on the type of salt and the respective locations of the production site and the customer, more than half the final price of salt to the end-user can be transportation.  Subscribe to this feed for news and commentary on issues like ocean freight rates, railroad service reliability, legislation to fund the lock-and-dam system, etc.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

</feed> 

