The recent fuel efficiency report by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) derives conclusions that may look good on paper, but they offer limited real-world application and misrepresent the ability of railroads to provide a more fuel efficient alternative to trucking. While there is clearly some competition between trucks and railroads, the two modes of transportation typically serve different market functions, and the instances where one mode presents a viable alternative for the other are relatively rare.

Given the unique characteristics of each mode, we cannot compare them using the same criteria. By design, railroads are optimal for carrying much heavier, bulk commodities such as coal and stone, resulting in increased efficiency when using the ton-mile-per-gallon (tmpg) metric. Trucks are better suited for hauling lower density, higher value goods, like food, clothing, medicine and electronics. Comparing these very different modes based solely on fuel efficiency (tmpg) and consumption is overly simplistic and one-dimensional. Because trucks carry low-density freight, a more accurate metric is cubic capacity, not load weight. Whether it’s by air, water, or land, a larger vehicle with greater hauling capability will always yield stronger results on a tmpg basis when compared with a smaller vehicle with less hauling capability.

The report also relies heavily on tank car movements to bolster fuel efficiency claims, followed by a few other applications. Naturally, the tank car movements resulted in the highest efficiency ratio, compared to tanker trucks. Liquids are some of the densest cargo available. A more relevant comparison would be to look at the relative efficiency between the two modes when moving low-density items, like consumer goods, which are shipped almost exclusively by truck.

As we look at fuel efficiency across modes, the report points out that truck requires fewer intermediate steps and can be routed more directly than trains. According to the report, over-the-road movement of freight accounts for 93 percent of fuel use by trucks, while trains waste up to 45 percent of their fuel during short, intermediate movements or yard-switching operations. While trucks do not achieve the same fuel efficiency on a tmpg basis as railroads, they are still an efficient mode of transportation. Today’s trucks are also cleaner than ever. By 2010, clean engine technologies will reduce particulates by 90 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 95 percent of the amount produced by trucks manufactured a decade ago. More importantly, trucks are essential for delivering freight where it needs to go.

Intermodal rail is only possible with a strong fleet of trucks to move goods to rail yards and deliver to final destinations. Trucks are the only viable option for most delivery destinations. At best, railroads serve only 20 percent of U.S. communities. Trucks, by comparison, deliver virtually all consumer goods that make our lives comfortable and about 70 percent of overall freight tonnage in the United States. Even if rail was more accessible, trucks are a more effective shipping option for smaller, lower density loads.

The FRA’s report focuses on one metric for comparing trucks and railroads, and offers little relevance to the debate on modal advantages. The trucking industry recognizes the value of railroads as part of the freight network. Trucking companies are among the railroads' best customers, and place freight on railroads whenever the distance of travel and nature of the cargo make an intermodal rail-truck freight movement economically viable. However, these opportunities are extremely limited and make up less than 2 percent of the freight market. Each shipping need must be looked at holistically to determine the best mode of transportation, or combinations of modes, depending on what is best suited to the specific task.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites