Y 



50 " 



40 - 



5 

 o 



ec 



LJ 



CL 



V) 

 UJ 



I- 

 < 

 <r 



x. 

 o 



z> 

 ec 



30 - 



20 



10 



TANK TRUCK 



_L 



_|_ 



Y c - 14.6 ♦ .64 X 



Y T "15.6 +.44 X 

 I 1_ 



10 



20 30 



MILEAGE 



40 



50 



Figure 5. Average truck rates per cwt. for hauling milk in cans and in 



tank trucks by length of haul in Maine, New Hampshire, 



and Vermont, 1955-56. 



this movement, when rail and truck 

 transportation are both available, the 

 familiar rail-versus-truck rate pat- 

 tern appears: with increasing dis- 

 tance, the trucks' advantage gives 

 way to a railroad advantage. The 

 available data show that, for dis- 

 tances over 100 miles, the rail tank 

 car rate for a minimum of 2,000 

 gallons was less than the tank truck 

 rate with a 3,000-gallon minimum. 

 In the rail movement of 40-quart 

 cans, the rates for distances between 

 126 and 226 miles were about equal 

 to the tank truck rates. Beyond this 

 range, the rail rates on milk in cans 

 were generally less than the tank 



truck rates. A comparison of the 

 rates is given in Figure 6. 



The rail rates shown were in effect 

 on March 20, 1957. The tank truck 

 rates were those of a large for-hire 

 motor carrier. 1 In the interstate 

 trucking of milk (as of other agri- 

 cultural commodities), no govern- 

 mental body controls the rates, and 

 there is no governmental require- 

 ment that the rates be published. This 

 particular motor carrier had issued 

 a tariff as of March 1, 1953, and 

 stated in 1956 that the tariff was still 

 in use without change. At that time, 

 the carrier ceased to make its rates 



1 New England Joint Tariff M No. 9, Milk and Cream, for railroads; rates effective 

 March 20, 1957. 



Local Motor Freight Tariff of the Dairy Transport Company (a motor carrier). 

 Somerville, Mass.; rates effective March 1, 1953, and stated by carrier to be still 

 in effect in 1956. 



33 



