Here is the corrected version of the text:
If you say something enough times, it becomes an accepted fact.
That’s the foundation of most propaganda (or rather, advertising) systems. Advocacy groups know this well. For example, tack the word “clean” in front of anything, plaster it on everything, and you have successfully introduced confusion to a topic that was once clear as mud. And confusion is the heart of advocacy — the relentless use of misinformation to sow doubt. I’m somewhat surprised I’ve never seen ads for “healthy” mercury or “safe” asbestos. Maybe I just never looked, or it was before my time.
Rummaging through some boxes in my garage recently, I came across a Standard & Poor’s evaluation of heavy-duty trucks published in June 1995. I recall actually going to the Denton, Texas, public library, searching through the Dewey Decimal card file, checking out the S&P book, and photocopying the page. Yep, library books—who knew they had value?
Does any of S&P’s 1995 analysis feel familiar? Perhaps the persistent perception of a driver shortage? Or that intermodal trains will rapidly displace trucks? Or the expectation that new models of trucks will have better reliability? Or that they will last longer? Or that LTL is gaining market share because of smaller orders? The other interesting eternal truism is the expectation that having too many trucks and not enough freight inevitably leads to a downturn in truck sales.
Here are excerpts from the S&P book:
"Sales of Class 8 vehicles set a record in 1994, reaching 185,696 units, up 18.2% year-over-year. While we now believe 1995 will go down as another record year with sales of 190,000 heavy-duty trucks (GVW exceeding 33,000 lbs.), we remain cautious about the outlook for 1996 and do not rule out an abrupt reversal in the present sunny climate."
"With much pent-up demand having been satisfied, sales of heavy-duty trucks could slip 13% in 1996 to 165,000 units."
"Recent demand for heavy-duty trucks has far exceeded the growth in freight volumes. This partly reflects the trend of shipping more freight in smaller lots, which results in lower equipment utilization."
"Aiding truck sales are the lower maintenance and repair requirements and better gas mileage over the vehicles they replace. Truck sales also are being spurred by the need to curb driver turnover by providing better-appointed vehicles."
"Longer-term, heavy-duty truck sales may remain sluggish for several years as truckers increase their use of rail intermodal service, which will cut sharply into the number of tractors required by long-haul fleet operators."
"Also contributing to the next downturn is the improvement in quality built into the new models being sold. With longer warranty periods and better fuel efficiency, fleet operators may be able to run the new crop of trucks longer than the vehicles they replaced, leading to a lengthening truck cycle."
I have been reading about a driver shortage since before time began. I have to wonder how we have managed to move so much freight over all these years in the absence of a sufficient number of truck drivers. How have trucking companies and their stockholders made money for over 30 years when there are never enough drivers? In all those years, how many of us have not gotten our freight?
The image of a broken record largely means nothing today, but some of you who are old enough remember phonograph records skipping, endlessly repeating the same piece of music. If only the advocacy groups could come up with some new material, bump the needle, and hear a new song.
S&P analysts insightfully recognized that truck production was cyclical. Peaks and valleys happen. Peak years are inevitably followed by troughs. Truck production troughs are followed by increased demand. Not much has changed with that bit of grade-school wisdom. The trucking industry just can’t figure out how to predict the economy. Go figure. Look at 2008 and 2020 for prime examples, or January 2025.
To some extent, I believe S&P could reissue this same 1995 market analysis after the next trucking market peak, updating only the production numbers.
The great years of 2018 and 2019 saw nearly 300,000 heavy-duty trucks produced in the U.S. Since that S&P peak in 1994, the industry's OEM production capacity and fleet demand for trucks have grown significantly. Long-term future estimates see continued growth in freight-hauling demand. The OEM pool is also increasing with new entrants like Tesla, so OEM production capacity will likely continue to grow. Another trend is that OEMs will continue to become more automated and efficient in building products.
The perpetual optimism in S&P’s 1995 analysis for intermodal taking market share from trucking belies a lack of understanding of the synergy required between trucks and trains. Trucks go everywhere; trains do not. If freight volume grows for trains, freight volume inevitably grows for trucks. For a deep dive on that synergistic relationship between rail and trucking, see NACFE’s report Intermodal & Drayage: An Opportunity to Reduce Freight Emissions. Note that S&P’s crystal ball on the 1995 potential of intermodal growth has been, shall we say, premature for decades. It is a headline I have read frequently over the years, and particularly in the news today as a result of railroad mergers and acquisitions.
The growth in LTL predicted by S&P was real, although they were too early to understand the looming future impact of e-Commerce in 1995. Still, they envisioned that growth in choice would increase commerce consumption and necessitate smaller lots to be shipped to more locations. Kudos to them for that insight, as the growth in LTL and shortening of vehicle miles traveled are themes that have been propagating in trucking for three decades. For some background on that, see NACFE’s report More Regional Haul: An Opportunity for Trucking.
The suggestion that new trucks are more fuel efficient than older ones is another truism that has borne itself out over time. For some perspective on that, see NACFE’s 2024 Fleet Fuel Study. Trucks in 1995 might have optimistically been in the 5 to 6 MPG range, where today’s 2026 aerodynamic and fuel efficient trucks are capable of exceeding 10 MPG when driven well.
NACFE’s executive director, Mike Roeth, frequently points out that one of the best ways for a fleet to reduce its fuel costs is to just buy a new truck. That was shown in the 2017 Run on Less when seven long-haul fleets averaged more than 10 MPG with new model trucks and the 2019 Run on Less Regional Haul where fleets averaged better than 8 MPG. They’ve only gotten better since then.
The 1995 hope expressed by S&P that newer trucks were longer-lasting and might extend purchasing cycles has been slow to come to fruition. New technology always has a learning curve. The trucking industry has been continually restarting that learning curve as a result of new regulations, new technologies, and new market demands. I’m not sure today’s trucks are significantly longer-lasting. The average age of trucks in the industry has actually been pretty stable for years, hovering in the seven- to eight-year range. Steps to increase warranty periods through regulation have been largely shelved recently.
Some large fleets still turn their new trucks at three years; others turn them closer to five. This is largely based on warranty periods. Pandemic-related issues and supply chain shortages of computer chips and other parts caused some fleets to stretch their replacement cycles to seven years. Smaller trucking companies may differ from the big companies, but many also buy used vehicles.
The current hope is that new technological alternatives—like battery-electric vehicles, the new 15L natural gas engines, and autonomous trucks—will be better, but I think the jury will be out on these for some time as they each go through their own learning curves and updates based on fleet feedback.
I’ve always said that predicting the future is much easier once you get there and can look back at it. My hope is that advocacy groups will think about their mainstay storylines and try to come up with some new, fact-based material.
Comedians and advocacy groups share the same risk: their routines can get stale.
