Comments on: The US DOT’s Disappointing Strategic Plan http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/05/the-us-dot%e2%80%99s-disappointing-strategic-plan/ Freight Transportation & Logistics Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:08:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Gary Frantz http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/05/the-us-dot%e2%80%99s-disappointing-strategic-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Gary Frantz Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:07:35 +0000 http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/?p=488#comment-25 Thanks. Thanks.

]]> By: ARTICLES2MINT http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/05/the-us-dot%e2%80%99s-disappointing-strategic-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-24 ARTICLES2MINT Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:50:02 +0000 http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/?p=488#comment-24 <strong>Overseas Expansion - Strategic Expansion...</strong> I found your entry interesting thus I've added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)... Overseas Expansion - Strategic Expansion...

I found your entry interesting thus I've added a Trackback to it on my weblog :) ...

]]> By: Bill Graves http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/05/the-us-dot%e2%80%99s-disappointing-strategic-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Bill Graves Thu, 27 May 2010 22:11:43 +0000 http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/?p=488#comment-22 The DOT's draft Strategic Plan largely overlooks the nation's dire need for repair, operational improvements, and expansion where necessary throughout the National Highway System. The plan mentions the possibility of "targeted investments" in our national freight highway corridors to address bottlenecks, but it never commits to this important strategy for cutting carbon emissions<http://www.trucksdeliver.org/recommendations/congestion-reduction.html> and maintaining an efficient supply chain. Nothing is mentioned about the great strain congestion places on motorists<http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/>. In fact, the plan even suggests more cities tear down damaged or under-utilized infrastructure in urban areas. Much of the 72-page draft is devoted to Livability and Environmental Sustainability. The draft says that "a comprehensive strategy that promotes livability and reduced the demand for auto travel will significantly lower the long-run cost of transportation (and other infrastructure) for both household budgets and taxpayers." The draft presents zero evidence to support this claim. As Bob Poole said, the draft makes other unsubstantiated claims, such as: "Creating livable communities is just as important to residents of rural areas as it is to residents of urban and suburban areas." Nowhere does the plan mention how taxpayers will feel once they're subjected to the tremendous costs associated with these unnecessary programs. Choosing where and how to live are important personal decisions that must be made by the American people - not our government. The trucking industry takes issue with the Administration's claims that they will "reduce the carbon footprint and pollutants emitted by the freight transportation system ... expanding opportunities for shifting freight from less fuel-efficient modes to more fuel-efficient modes-air to trucks, trucks to rail, and rail to water." The Administration's modal choices ignore market forces and reflect personal preference and a strong bias against highway transportation. No two modes provide a direct substitution for another. Each mode serves a unique role in our transportation mix and freight traditionally carried by truck cannot easily be shifted to rail. 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. The market does a good job determining the most efficient mode for the type of freight service required. Our nation's shippers choose trucks for the fast, efficient movement of lower density, higher value goods like food, clothing and electronics. Railroads are ideal for moving heavy, bulk commodities, like stone, coal and grain that are not time-sensitive. DOT's draft plan is very ambitious, but many of their aspirations have little to do with transportation and instead focus on social engineering, which DOT admits in their plan will require the help of several government agencies outside of DOT. Ultimately, the ability to enact any policy changes comes down to funding and public acceptance. We hope revenue from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will not be targeted to pay for these initiatives. The trucking industry cannot support a plan that diverts more revenue from the HTF to non-highway purposes, let alone non-transportation purposes. Already, 20 percent of HTF revenue is diverted to transit, which is part of the livability equation. Because the draft plan extends far beyond transportation, the General Fund is the most appropriate funding source. By ignoring the market forces driving our economy and the critical needs of our nation's supply chain, the draft also fails to consider the welfare of the American public. About 80 percent of U.S. communities rely solely on trucks to deliver essential items like food, medicine, clothing and fuel. If this draft is a reflection of the upcoming reauthorization bill, then we implore Congress to develop alternatives. Bill Graves The DOT's draft Strategic Plan largely overlooks the nation's dire need for repair, operational improvements, and expansion where necessary throughout the National Highway System. The plan mentions the possibility of "targeted investments" in our national freight highway corridors to address bottlenecks, but it never commits to this important strategy for cutting carbon emissions and maintaining an efficient supply chain. Nothing is mentioned about the great strain congestion places on motorists. In fact, the plan even suggests more cities tear down damaged or under-utilized infrastructure in urban areas.

Much of the 72-page draft is devoted to Livability and Environmental Sustainability. The draft says that "a comprehensive strategy that promotes livability and reduced the demand for auto travel will significantly lower the long-run cost of transportation (and other infrastructure) for both household budgets and taxpayers." The draft presents zero evidence to support this claim. As Bob Poole said, the draft makes other unsubstantiated claims, such as: "Creating livable communities is just as important to residents of rural areas as it is to residents of urban and suburban areas." Nowhere does the plan mention how taxpayers will feel once they're subjected to the tremendous costs associated with these unnecessary programs. Choosing where and how to live are important personal decisions that must be made by the American people - not our government.

The trucking industry takes issue with the Administration's claims that they will "reduce the carbon footprint and pollutants emitted by the freight transportation system ... expanding opportunities for shifting freight from less fuel-efficient modes to more fuel-efficient modes-air to trucks, trucks to rail, and rail to water." The Administration's modal choices ignore market forces and reflect personal preference and a strong bias against highway transportation. No two modes provide a direct substitution for another. Each mode serves a unique role in our transportation mix and freight traditionally carried by truck cannot easily be shifted to rail.

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. The market does a good job determining the most efficient mode for the type of freight service required. Our nation's shippers choose trucks for the fast, efficient movement of lower density, higher value goods like food, clothing and electronics. Railroads are ideal for moving heavy, bulk commodities, like stone, coal and grain that are not time-sensitive.

DOT's draft plan is very ambitious, but many of their aspirations have little to do with transportation and instead focus on social engineering, which DOT admits in their plan will require the help of several government agencies outside of DOT. Ultimately, the ability to enact any policy changes comes down to funding and public acceptance. We hope revenue from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will not be targeted to pay for these initiatives. The trucking industry cannot support a plan that diverts more revenue from the HTF to non-highway purposes, let alone non-transportation purposes. Already, 20 percent of HTF revenue is diverted to transit, which is part of the livability equation. Because the draft plan extends far beyond transportation, the General Fund is the most appropriate funding source.

By ignoring the market forces driving our economy and the critical needs of our nation's supply chain, the draft also fails to consider the welfare of the American public. About 80 percent of U.S. communities rely solely on trucks to deliver essential items like food, medicine, clothing and fuel. If this draft is a reflection of the upcoming reauthorization bill, then we implore Congress to develop alternatives.

Bill Graves

]]> By: cboyce http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/2010/05/the-us-dot%e2%80%99s-disappointing-strategic-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-20 cboyce Mon, 17 May 2010 20:05:18 +0000 http://www.freightpublicpolicy.org/?p=488#comment-20 Mr. Poole is on target in stating that the U.S. DOT’s draft Strategic Plan presents a "vast array of poorly justified expansions of the federal role into every nook and cranny of how Americans and their goods should travel—as well as how and where we should live." The Strategic Plan largely overlooks the nation’s dire need for capacity expansion throughout the transportation system. The possibility of “targeted investments" in our national freight highway corridors to address bottlenecks is not enough. We need a commitment to this important strategy for <a href="http://www.trucksdeliver.org/recommendations/congestion-reduction.html" rel="nofollow">cutting carbon emissions</a> and maintaining an efficient supply chain. Freedom of mobility is a defining trait of our great nation and that freedom appears to be under attack. Much of the 72 page draft is devoted to “a comprehensive strategy that promotes livability. The administration justifies this push by arguing that "the demand for auto travel will significantly lower the long-run cost of transportation (and other infrastructure) for both household budgets and taxpayers.” As Mr. Poole points out, the Administration presents zero evidence to support this claim. The draft also says that "creating livable communities is just as important to residents of rural areas as it is to residents of urban and suburban areas." Unfortunately, the draft fails to mention how taxpayers will feel once they’re subjected to the tremendous costs associated with these unnecessary programs. Finally, the draft claims that developement of a national network of high-speed rail corridors and expansion of the marine highway system is necessary to "to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy efficiency, and reduce dependence on oil." However, there is no analysis in the draft plan to justify a focus on non-highway modes of transportation. As Mr. Poole said, the Administration’s modal choices ignore market forces and reflect personal preference and a strong bias against highway transportation. If in fact the draft is a preview of the Administration’s proposal for reauthorization, then Congress must develop alternatives that allow the market to determine how goods move throughout our country. Mr. Poole is on target in stating that the U.S. DOT’s draft Strategic Plan presents a "vast array of poorly justified expansions of the federal role into every nook and cranny of how Americans and their goods should travel—as well as how and where we should live."

The Strategic Plan largely overlooks the nation’s dire need for capacity expansion throughout the transportation system. The possibility of “targeted investments" in our national freight highway corridors to address bottlenecks is not enough. We need a commitment to this important strategy for cutting carbon emissions and maintaining an efficient supply chain.

Freedom of mobility is a defining trait of our great nation and that freedom appears to be under attack. Much of the 72 page draft is devoted to “a comprehensive strategy that promotes livability. The administration justifies this push by arguing that "the demand for auto travel will significantly lower the long-run cost of transportation (and other infrastructure) for both household budgets and taxpayers.” As Mr. Poole points out, the Administration presents zero evidence to support this claim. The draft also says that "creating livable communities is just as important to residents of rural areas as it is to residents of urban and suburban areas." Unfortunately, the draft fails to mention how taxpayers will feel once they’re subjected to the tremendous costs associated with these unnecessary programs.

Finally, the draft claims that developement of a national network of high-speed rail corridors and expansion of the marine highway system is necessary to "to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy efficiency, and reduce dependence on oil." However, there is no analysis in the draft plan to justify a focus on non-highway modes of transportation. As Mr. Poole said, the Administration’s modal choices ignore market forces and reflect personal preference and a strong bias against highway transportation.

If in fact the draft is a preview of the Administration’s proposal for reauthorization, then Congress must develop alternatives that allow the market to determine how goods move throughout our country.

]]>