<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Several Truths About Modal Competition in the United States</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/04/several-truths-about-modal-competition-in-the-united-states/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/04/several-truths-about-modal-competition-in-the-united-states/</link>
	<description>Freight Transportation &#38; Logistics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:08:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Swan, PhD</title>
		<link>http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/04/several-truths-about-modal-competition-in-the-united-states/comment-page-1/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Swan, PhD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 May 2010 18:05:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/?p=467#comment-18</guid>
		<description>Dave Miller makes several valid points.  However, it is still my belief that adopting longer (and/or heavier) combination vehicles can only exacerbate our present situation.  Further, arguing about marginal issues takes our energies away from solving basic problems with highway financing.  

In my opinion, the crux of the problem is three fold:1) The highway trust fund was never set up for maintenance of existing highway and exists to create new infrastructure; 2) The money collected is increasingly inadequate on any level (state or Federal) for maintenance of the system, let alone expansion for greater traffic; 3) The fuel tax while cheap to administer is not efficient in allocating costs to users based on marginal cost of use.  These three basic problems is where we should be concentrating our efforts at reform, rather than tweaking an broken system to keep it working w little while longer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave Miller makes several valid points.  However, it is still my belief that adopting longer (and/or heavier) combination vehicles can only exacerbate our present situation.  Further, arguing about marginal issues takes our energies away from solving basic problems with highway financing.  </p>
<p>In my opinion, the crux of the problem is three fold:1) The highway trust fund was never set up for maintenance of existing highway and exists to create new infrastructure; 2) The money collected is increasingly inadequate on any level (state or Federal) for maintenance of the system, let alone expansion for greater traffic; 3) The fuel tax while cheap to administer is not efficient in allocating costs to users based on marginal cost of use.  These three basic problems is where we should be concentrating our efforts at reform, rather than tweaking an broken system to keep it working w little while longer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gvbennion</title>
		<link>http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/04/several-truths-about-modal-competition-in-the-united-states/comment-page-1/#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>gvbennion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/?p=467#comment-17</guid>
		<description>This professor has very boldly labeled each of his statements &quot;truths&quot; when they are simply one side of a very broad discussion.  He harps on trucking and the funding challenges for roads but spends no time discussing rail and its challenges (e.g. timely and &quot;last mile&quot; distribution).  He also seems to advocate a national weight mile tax (he uses the term VMT in his last &quot;truth&quot;) as though that would be the most fair and efficient method of funding the highway infrastructure.  What he doesn&#039;t give in his short statement of truth is the potential cost of building a new taxing infrastructure and the potential for abuse, where the current fuel tax collection system is extremely efficient and almost void of abuse.  

So, this little missive needs to be followed up by the other side of the discussion with its own &quot;truths&quot; to give the public a better understanding of what is really happening in highway and rail transportation.

Gary Bennion
Supervisor of Operating Taxes,  Con-way Inc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This professor has very boldly labeled each of his statements "truths" when they are simply one side of a very broad discussion.  He harps on trucking and the funding challenges for roads but spends no time discussing rail and its challenges (e.g. timely and "last mile" distribution).  He also seems to advocate a national weight mile tax (he uses the term VMT in his last "truth") as though that would be the most fair and efficient method of funding the highway infrastructure.  What he doesn't give in his short statement of truth is the potential cost of building a new taxing infrastructure and the potential for abuse, where the current fuel tax collection system is extremely efficient and almost void of abuse.  </p>
<p>So, this little missive needs to be followed up by the other side of the discussion with its own "truths" to give the public a better understanding of what is really happening in highway and rail transportation.</p>
<p>Gary Bennion<br />
Supervisor of Operating Taxes,  Con-way Inc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Miller</title>
		<link>http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/04/several-truths-about-modal-competition-in-the-united-states/comment-page-1/#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>David Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:59:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/?p=467#comment-16</guid>
		<description>Pete shares a number of valid points in this post.  I have a few comments in response.

1) Yes, truckers and railroads historically have not gotten along.  But it really does not make sense as to why.  Trucking companies put hundreds of thousands of trailers on the rails every year.  Trucks are one of the railroads biggest revenue sources.

2) It also makes no sense to advocate for a large immediate shift of more truck freight to rail, a fixation of rail interests. Incremental, strategic shifts, yes, such as taking advantage of rail in more cases for longer cross-country movements.  But a wholesale shift?   Where’s the rail capacity?  And how are rails supposed to be a viable option for more traffic when they only serve 20% of the America’s communities? 

3) You cannot decouple economic growth and vitality from trucks.  Trucks are the only resource for 80 percent of communities to participate in commerce.  As vehicle miles traveled have increased so has the general output of the economy – a direct positive correlation that foreshadows the economic recovery.

4) When Highway Trust Fund revenues – taxes paid by truckers and trucking companies – are diverted to non-highway uses, the crisis facing our crumbling infrastructure is exacerbated.  Today 25% of trust fund revenues are diverted to special interest projects. The trust fund was never intended to do that. 

5) As vehicles become more efficient (and gas tax collections go down as a result) we should explore different methods for raising needed infrastructure funds.  One idea would be indexing highway use taxes to fuel economy improvements AND through increasing gasoline and diesel taxes.  But we need to ensure these funds are used without diversion for the primary purpose intended – improving our transportation infrastructure.  If a special project is needed (such as a community Frisbee park) let those who benefit from and use the project pay the tax.

6) Yes, the trucking industry does support higher fees and taxes – as long as those monies are used to fix and improve our highways.  We need to have a rational discussion to educate the driving public how proper capacity and maintenance of these facilities supports our economy – which translates into jobs.  

7) Expanding use of high-efficiency longer-combination vehicles – under strict use controls, safety designations, driver credentialing and routing parameters – can provide an immediate benefit.   This will help lower carbon emissions, reduce highway congestion, lessen the driver shortage and lower total supply-chain costs.   And, if axle weights remain within current bridge design standards we shouldn’t have concerns about additional wear and tear.  The time to change is now. 

In conclusion, it takes all modes of transportation -- air, sea, inland waterways, rail and land (trucks and highways) to support a vibrant and efficient economy. At the end of the day businesses will make transportation choices that allow them to operate most efficiently and responsively for their customers.  It’s a simple concept.  If you can’t get your product to your customers, when and where they want it in a timely manner, you don’t have a business.  There is no getting around the reality that the vast majority of material goods movement begins and ends on a truck.  And I don’t expect that fact to change in my lifetime irrespective of how often the rails pummel one of their best customers.

David L. Miller
Senior Vice President, Global Policy and Economic Sustainability, Con-way Inc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pete shares a number of valid points in this post.  I have a few comments in response.</p>
<p>1) Yes, truckers and railroads historically have not gotten along.  But it really does not make sense as to why.  Trucking companies put hundreds of thousands of trailers on the rails every year.  Trucks are one of the railroads biggest revenue sources.</p>
<p>2) It also makes no sense to advocate for a large immediate shift of more truck freight to rail, a fixation of rail interests. Incremental, strategic shifts, yes, such as taking advantage of rail in more cases for longer cross-country movements.  But a wholesale shift?   Where’s the rail capacity?  And how are rails supposed to be a viable option for more traffic when they only serve 20% of the America’s communities? </p>
<p>3) You cannot decouple economic growth and vitality from trucks.  Trucks are the only resource for 80 percent of communities to participate in commerce.  As vehicle miles traveled have increased so has the general output of the economy – a direct positive correlation that foreshadows the economic recovery.</p>
<p>4) When Highway Trust Fund revenues – taxes paid by truckers and trucking companies – are diverted to non-highway uses, the crisis facing our crumbling infrastructure is exacerbated.  Today 25% of trust fund revenues are diverted to special interest projects. The trust fund was never intended to do that. </p>
<p>5) As vehicles become more efficient (and gas tax collections go down as a result) we should explore different methods for raising needed infrastructure funds.  One idea would be indexing highway use taxes to fuel economy improvements AND through increasing gasoline and diesel taxes.  But we need to ensure these funds are used without diversion for the primary purpose intended – improving our transportation infrastructure.  If a special project is needed (such as a community Frisbee park) let those who benefit from and use the project pay the tax.</p>
<p>6) Yes, the trucking industry does support higher fees and taxes – as long as those monies are used to fix and improve our highways.  We need to have a rational discussion to educate the driving public how proper capacity and maintenance of these facilities supports our economy – which translates into jobs.  </p>
<p>7) Expanding use of high-efficiency longer-combination vehicles – under strict use controls, safety designations, driver credentialing and routing parameters – can provide an immediate benefit.   This will help lower carbon emissions, reduce highway congestion, lessen the driver shortage and lower total supply-chain costs.   And, if axle weights remain within current bridge design standards we shouldn’t have concerns about additional wear and tear.  The time to change is now. </p>
<p>In conclusion, it takes all modes of transportation -- air, sea, inland waterways, rail and land (trucks and highways) to support a vibrant and efficient economy. At the end of the day businesses will make transportation choices that allow them to operate most efficiently and responsively for their customers.  It’s a simple concept.  If you can’t get your product to your customers, when and where they want it in a timely manner, you don’t have a business.  There is no getting around the reality that the vast majority of material goods movement begins and ends on a truck.  And I don’t expect that fact to change in my lifetime irrespective of how often the rails pummel one of their best customers.</p>
<p>David L. Miller<br />
Senior Vice President, Global Policy and Economic Sustainability, Con-way Inc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

