Peter Bradley
Editorial Director
peter@dcvelocity.com
Karen Bachrach
Executive Editor
karen@dcvelocity.com
Toby Gooley
Managing Editor
tgooley@dcvelocity.com
David Maloney
Senior Editor, Special Projects & eContent
dmaloney@dcvelocity.com
Mark Solomon
Senior Editor
mark@dcvelocity.com
Susan Lacefield
Associate Managing Editor
slacefield@dcvelocity.com
James Cooke
Editor at Large
jcooke@dcvelocity.com
Steve Geary
Editor at Large
sgeary@dcvelocity.com
George Weimer
Editor at Large
gweimer@dcvelocity.com
Erica E. Mac Donald
Assistant Editor
Sean Maloney
Assistant Editor
Keisha Christopher
Director of Creative Services
keisha@dcvelocity.com
Jeff Thacker
Director of eMedia
jeff@dcvelocity.com
Columnists:
Clifford F. Lynch
Don Jacobson
Shelly Safian
Kenneth B. Ackerman
Art Van Bodegraven
Barry Brandman
bigpicture
deregulation at 30
Gary Master
Publisher
gmaster@dcvelocity.com
Mitch Mac Donald
Group Editorial Director
mitch@dcvelocity.com
Jim Indelicato
Group Publisher
jindelicato@dcvelocity.com
EDITORIAL OFFICE
Tower Square, Number 4
500 East Washington Street
North Attleboro, MA 02760
(508) 695-4530
Subscribe at
www.dcvelocity.com
or call (630) 739-0900
FOR LOGISTICS VETERANS, IT MAY BE HARD TO BELIEVE THAT
three decades have passed since the Staggers Act and the Motor Carrier Act
became law. Those were the first major steps toward freeing railroads and
truckers to compete on who could provide the best service at the best
price. The result was not only lower freight costs, but also innovation in
transportation, inventory management, and material handling practices,
producing enormous economic benefits.
There were some casualties, of course. Truckers that failed to adapt to the
new environment—including some of the biggest in the business—soon
went under. Those failures led to years of legal battles over the legality of
motor carrier discounts, when bankruptcy trustees dunned shippers for
the difference between tariff rates and negotiated rates.
As railroads rationalized their networks, many rural
communities lost rail service and thousands of railroad workers lost their jobs. Rail mergers reduced the
number of major carriers to a handful.
But the gains have been enormous. Both the railroad
and the trucking industries are far more efficient than
they were under regulation. Shippers have much more
freedom to select their carriers based on rates and service. Shippers and carriers have often worked side by
side to manage costs and improve service.
But the real proof of success has been on the road
and over the rails and across the negotiating table. In
this issue, Senior Editor Mark Solomon reports on a
trend that once would have been unthinkable: greater
cooperation among railroads and motor carriers to offer intermodal services. We’ll report later this spring on ways that ocean carriers and truckers
are working together—also a once unimaginable notion.
Regulation has not gone away entirely. Rate disputes among captive rail
shippers and railroads still go to a federal arbiter, the Surface
Transportation Board. State and federal safety regulations—some legitimate, some arguably not so legitimate—constrain operations. There’s the
emerging issue of what our group editorial director, Mitch Mac Donald,
calls backdoor regulation—see his take on that in his Outbound column
this month. It appears disputes over the right level of regulation will always
be with us.
What seems unarguable is the success of Staggers and the Motor Carrier
Act and other legislation that followed. I don’t think it’s too much to say
that removing the fetters on freight transportation had much to do with
the prosperity the U.S. economy has enjoyed (despite our recent travails)
over the past 30 years.
A PUBLICATION OF
Editorial Director
