This Op-ed by James H. Burnley, chairman, CleanerSaferTrucking, Inc. originally appeared in The Hill’s Congress Blog.

As America struggles to reignite its flagging economy, a policy debate is raging in Washington, D.C. about how to increase our productivity, create jobs in our economy, and enhance our ability to compete globally. At the forefront of this debate is finding a workable solution to the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure needs, and how that solution can bring productivity gains to all sectors of transportation to the benefit of every business and consumer.

Among the issues being discussed is the use of longer combination vehicles (LCVs), most commonly known as “triples,” on federally designated national highways. In 1991, the federal government passed a provision in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that stripped the states of their authority to regulate size and weight limits for trucks traveling on federal highways in their states. This despite the fact that a state’s department of transportation is better qualified to determine which truck/trailer configurations are best-suited for that state’s highways.

As a result of this federal “freeze” only 16 states enjoy the safety, efficiency and sustainability benefits from strategic use of triple-trailers. Even as states have seen new communities rise and population densities shift, this outdated restriction has prevented them from making prudent decisions about the use of these LCVs. Even common-sense changes that would allow triples to run on new and more appropriate highways — thereby benefiting local communities — are prohibited.

This undermines the ability of trucking operations to be more efficient in moving freight, and undercuts U.S. manufacturers’ ability to be more competitive with our trading partners in North America, Europe and Asia, which are not bound by the same restrictions.

More efficient trucking also lowers fuel use and curtails greenhouse gas emissions. Triples burn 29 percent less fuel than double 28-foot trailers on a ton-mile-per-gallon basis; this translates directly to a 29 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. One trucking company calculated fuel savings on 10 routes for the month of July 2010 if triples had been permissible. On an annualized basis, 5.7 million gallons of diesel fuel would be saved, with a reduction of 62,967 tons of carbon emissions.

As the industry is able to realize productivity gains from sensible use of LCVs, the opportunity to reduce truck traffic becomes real. Enhanced safety equipment and the special training federally mandated for LCV operators will mean fewer accidents and fatalities. In fact, triples have a better safety record than singles and double 28-foot trailers.

As a nation, we must address ways to manage growth and capacity of our transportation infrastructure intelligently and efficiently. The American Trucking Associations estimates that with just modest economic growth, trucks will haul 30 percent more freight in 10 years than they do today. LCVs can be a key part of the mix that efficiently manages these higher freight volumes, along with strategic and prudent investments to improve our nation’s highways. It’s time to retire this antiquated federal restriction and move toward progress.

More than 8,000 members from 67 countries rely on CSCMP (the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals) to help them remain connected to the best of the best — experts, technology, knowledge — in the vast and complex world of global supply chain and logistics. From Oct. 2-5 in Philadelphia, CSCMP will hold the organization’s marquee event, The Annual Global Conference.

During this year’s four-day event, attendees will gain cutting-edge knowledge about streamlining operations, reducing inefficiencies and leveraging new ways to build supply chains that reduce costs and increase profitability. To this end, I highly recommend two compelling Mega Sessions^* at CSCMP, both of which highlight critical issues that continue to face supply chain practitioners and challenge the industry as a whole— capacity and safety. The sessions are designed to help practitioners walk away with a greater understanding of the issues and, more importantly, the tools necessary to bring about change.

“The Capacity Crisis” Mega Session will be moderated by James H. Burnley IV, partner, Venable, LLC and former U.S. Secretary of Transportation. During his session, Mr. Burnley will provide attendees with a greater understanding of the causes, timing, and potential solutions to what could be the worst capacity shortage in history. He will also discuss the role of supply, demand and public policy decisions as they relate to supply chain economics and transportation budgets. Panelists joining Mr. Burnley include David D. Congdon, president and chief executive, Old Dominion Freight Lines; Noel Perry, managing director and senior consultant, FTR Associates; Bob Poole, Searle Freedom Trust transportation fellow and director of transportation policy, The Reason Foundation; and Mark Whittaker, vice president of PepsiCo Transportation.

Anne Ferro, administrator of the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), is also hosting a Mega Session — “Commercial Vehicle Safety for the Long Haul—Impacts and Benefits to the Freight Logistics Supply Chain.” She will discuss the impact that raising the bar for commercial vehicle safety will have on shippers, receivers, brokers and freight forwarders. The goal will be to provide these “upstream” players with ways they can use the information to shape their own impact on commercial motor vehicle safety in the supply chain.

^*Mega Sessions will be held on Wednesday, Oct. 5 from 8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. at the Pennsylvania Convention Center.

This blog post by FEMA Private Sector Division Director Dan Stoneking, originally appeared in  the "FEMA Blog" on August 26, 2011.

On August 22, three months following the devastating tornado, I visited Joplin, Missouri. I wanted to see first-hand how the public and private sector were working hand-in-hand in recovery, bringing their community back – stronger and better than before. While touring the area, I met some amazing business owners and managers who are making things happen for their employees, neighbors, businesses and the community as a whole.

I visited with Darren Fullerton, vice president of Student Affairs at Missouri Southern State University (MSSU). MSSU was not in the path of the storm, so it was not damaged, but MSSU provided housing for survivors , first responders, and AmeriCorps volunteers. Their Health Science Building served as a temporary hospital and a temporary mortuary was set up as well. MSSU started the fall semester on time, as did schools that were damaged in the tornado – without missing a beat!

Moved by the Medicine Shoppe
I was moved by my visit to the Medicine Shoppe, a small business pharmacy whose building was destroyed. The morning after the storm, owners David and Sherree Starrett mustered their team. Working together with numerous community partners, friends and their insurance company, they were able to lease a new location, find new shelving, and begin calling all of their customers. The outpouring of support allowed them to reopen for business just six days after the tornado tore through Joplin. The Medicine Shoppe is a great example of small business recovery!

Lowe’s commitment to the community
Lowe’s demonstrated that the health and safety of the community comes first. As one of the few places in Joplin that still had power and phone service that fateful Sunday evening, they were instrumental to the immediate response in the Joplin community. When the fire chief told the store manager that they needed a mobile triage center for the injured, Lowe’s offered their facility and provided refrigerators to store blood during the response. They’ve also hosted FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation team members in their store, teaching homeowners about safe building techniques and rebuilding stronger after the storm.

More partners help spread the word
I met with Walmart, Chick-fil-A, Papa Johns, Con-way Truckload and Lamar Outdoor Advertising – all instrumental to the “I Am Joplin” event, to celebrate the return to school. They all helped in so many ways. I learned that Walgreens built a brand new store in just 83 days – a new record. I also toured the Home Depot tent and saw the construction efforts at their new building. They are including a safe room as part of that new construction – another first and a great example of preparedness, protection and mitigation. These companies and so many more members of the private sector in Joplin are proving themselves leaders in recovery.

Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce has also been a strong and caring leader in local business recovery. From the first day, they have been on the ground contacting every business that was in the tornado’s path, to assess the damage level and to discuss paths to recovery. I met with Gary Box, their Business Retention & Expansion Coordinator, and Rob O’Brian, Chamber President. They have already made historic strides in leading recovery and they have a plan for the future.

Joplin is a successful model and reminder that it takes the whole of community to recover. As we prepare for Hurricane Irene, we can be inspired to prepare and respond as a team as well.

The long-awaited federal Highway Reauthorization legislation is set to move forward this fall giving Congress the opportunity to modernize American truck weight limits and facilitate economic growth just when we need it most.

Lawmakers are expected to begin drafting the Reauthorization proposal, which will fund our transportation network for the next few years. In this bill, Congress will have the critical chance to include truck weight reform known as the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act (SETA), legislation now pending in both the House and Senate. SETA would give states the opportunity to allow more productive trucks on interstate highways within their borders.

Many trucks carrying heavier goods meet the current federal gross vehicle weight limit before they are fully loaded. The weight limit forces shippers to underutilize these trucks leading to more vehicles on the road, more miles traveled and more fuel used than we really need. SETA would help correct this inefficiency by allowing a properly equipped truck to carry more freight on the interstate.

Under SETA, states could set interstate weight limits of up to 97,000 pounds for single-trailer vehicles that are equipped with six axles instead of the typical five. The sixth axle compensates for the additional weight, allowing shippers and carriers to safely use more space inside each rig. This additional axle maintains — and even improves — current braking, handling and weight-per-tire characteristics for the truck, all of which improve the safety features of the truck.

Transportation Research Board (TRB) and U.S. DOT studies have both confirmed the fact that a six-axle truck traveling at 97,000 pounds maintains the same braking distance as one running at the current federal weight limit of 80,000 pounds with the current five axles. And because of the additional tires, a heavier six-axle rig puts even less weight per tire on the road.

If equipped with six axles, trucks can safely ship more freight and shippers and carriers can significantly reduce the vehicle miles traveled, as well as fuel and emissions necessary to get products to market. At Kraft Foods, about 40 percent of trucks currently hit the weight limit with significant space left in the trailer. SETA would allow the company to annually eliminate approximately 33 million vehicle miles traveled, more than six million gallons of fuel and 73,000 tons of carbon dioxide from its operations (EPA SmartWay calculations). And that's just one company.

So why make this change now? It's imperative that we use our infrastructure as productively as possible. That means more efficient shipping options. And reducing the amount of fuel needed per ton of freight helps us all as we look to better use our petroleum.

When it comes to truck weights, the United States is simply behind. America trails all other developed countries in cargo mass productivity. Our major trading partners, including many European countries and Canada, already employ trucks that can bear higher weights. We are simply at a competitive disadvantage because we can't move freight to market as efficiently. Considering the rapid population growth and the spike in tonnage shipped on our highways, it is imperative we act now.

Now is the time for lawmakers to bring the U.S. federal weight limit up to date. I hope you will join me and the Coalition for Transportation Productivity in asking Congress to include SETA in the Highway Reauthorization legislation. SETA will help U.S. shippers become more productive and reduce our carbon footprint in a way that is both safe for the motoring public and sustainable for our highways.

For more information about SETA and the truck weight reform effort, visit www.transportationproductivity.org.

By 2014, truck drivers will be required to use electronic log books (e-logs) under a federal mandate by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA). As expected, the transition to e-logs is likely to cause both an operational and cultural shift for drivers, carriers and shippers — after all, paper-based logs have been used in the industry for years. So, why are some carriers moving forward with implementation now? The answer is simple. E-logs will be mandatory for all carriers in the future. Those that start the integration now have an opportunity to work through challenges and begin to realize the benefits of the implementation as soon as possible — for their company, drivers and customers.

E-logs automatically capture hours-of-service (HOS) data, reducing the potential for inaccuracies and risk of violations associated with manual (paper) logs, which negatively impact safety, on-time service, operational efficiencies and CSA scores, among other issues. Given the capacity shortage that the industry is now facing, carriers cannot risk lessening the pool of safe drivers and, thus, their ability to serve shippers’ freight needs. With that, the benefits of adopting e-logs today far outweigh any reason to delay, such as to defer the investment cost, or postpone the training and communication required to help drivers overcome any anxiety or fear of the unknown — emotions which often accompany the introduction of new technologies.

Yes, there will be growing pains, but through regular, ongoing education, communication and a focus on safety and superior service, carriers and their key constituents should be able to resolve any issues quickly. With early adoption, carriers can train operations staff and fleet supervisors to guide drivers and help them audit their e-logs. Drivers can spend adequate time learning how to use the new system. Plus, sales managers will have the knowledge to educate customers about the system in advance, and how shippers can contribute to a successful implementation. Shippers can assist in the process by making sure load tendering and receipt is managed efficiently, minimizing driver detention time, and by being flexible, such as allowing drivers to park on their premises overnight or providing wider windows for delivery.

The industry at large will be required to make this change by 2014. While other carriers are spending time tackling the bumps and bruises of the mandatory transition at that time, customers of carriers that are moving to e-logs now can begin to leverage process improvements gained from e-log adoption and learning to provide consistent, effective service that is ahead of the rest.

This blog post by Diane Katz, originally appeared in "The Foundry" on June 3rd.

It’s been two decades since Congress seized from states the authority to regulate the size of the biggest trucks traveling the highways. But what started as a temporary “freeze” on state rule-making predictably turned into a permanent federal usurpation of state regulation.

The now-petrified standards have been rendered largely obsolete by advances in engineering, thus inhibiting productivity improvements for hauling freight. It’s time, therefore, for Washington to get out of the way.

The freeze on truck “configurations” came with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which consolidated federal power over the nation’s highway network (read: micromanagement). Proponents argued for standardizing the differing state rules governing “longer combination vehicles” (LCVs), which consist of a truck tractor and two or more trailers or semitrailers with a gross weight over 80,000 pounds and an overall length of one or both cargo units exceeding 28.5 feet. Railroads, too, had an interest in limiting trucking volume.

Rather than harmonize the standards, however, Congress simply prohibited states from changing the routes or weight and length limits on LCVs that were in effect on June 1, 1991. And there they have remained ever since, despite major advances in transportation technology and safety.

A patchwork of state standards can prove challenging for interstate trucking. But at least states have shown relative flexibility compared to the regulatory immobility of the feds. If LCV regulations are deemed necessary, state regulators are in a far better position to determine feasible standards based on local conditions and to be held accountable for screwing up.

That’s not to say that state LCV standards are necessarily rational. Truck size has long been a contentious issue, with truckers, railroads, environmentalists, and safety activists all competing for regulatory favor. According to researchers at Iowa State University’s Center for Transportation Research and Education:

Prior size and weight regulation promulgated by states was based on political considerations and is a result of compromise among a number of constituent parties.… These compromises were not necessarily based on safety concerns of the roadway environment, engineering concerns of the roadway infrastructure, and economic concerns of an efficient motor freight industry.

There is a better way. The manifold variations in LCV configuration call for “performance-based” standards. That is, standards set according to vehicle design and handling properties. For example, vehicles with better brake performance and/or suspensions could safely handle heavier loads. The adoption of performance-based standards would introduce a modicum of rationality into trucking regulation and help to mitigate variations among states’ standards.

More sensible standards promise economic benefit. Fewer trucks are needed if size limitations are eased, for example. Indeed, some advocates estimate a productivity increase of 30 percent or more from more sensible regulation.

Whatever benefits claimed for federal regulation of LCVs have been entirely negated by Washington’s failure to deliver in the past 20 years. The Obama Administration has recently embraced regulatory reform as a means of economic growth. Ending the federal freeze on state regulation of LCVs offers an opportunity to deliver on that goal.

Last month, President Obama, while discussing his concerns regarding the record high cost of gasoline, stated there was no “silver bullet” to solve the U.S. addiction to oil. Further, he said the process will be long and his goal is to cut oil imports by one third by 2025 through a strategy that relies on alternative and renewable energy sources. With all due respect to the President, we need a solution now.

I think we are all aware of our country’s precarious condition. One of the major headwinds we face is being forced to accept rising fuel costs from a foreign monopoly. The overarching question is will our current condition be the norm and is it a harbinger of our impending decline in wealth and power in the 21st Century because of our addiction to oil?

America needs a straightforward, immediate plan that can provide a bridge to the long-term solutions advocated by President Obama. During the past two years several well respected organizations published reports on the American economy and infrastructure investment and concluded that the solution to jump-starting the economy is to create permanent jobs that can’t be outsourced by investing $750 billion over 5 years in rebuilding and repairing America’s transportation infrastructure. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimated that each $1 billion spent on the federal highway system would create 30,000 jobs. Thus, $750 billion over 5 years would create 4.5 million jobs which would reduce unemployment 33% or 3 points, bringing the unemployment rate down to 6%. This major increase in employment would ignite a sequential chain reaction in our economy. Tax revenues, which would increase from the additional wages as well as follow-on purchases of goods and services, would be used to pay down debt and restore America’s credit rating to positive. Demand for housing would stabilize and grow. This increased economic activity would propel an increase in bond and stock market indexes increasing the value of pension and retirement assets.

This all sounds good but the missing component in the solution is the money to fund the $750 billion infrastructure investment. The current federal fuel tax, which funds our roads and bridges inadequately and has not been increased since 1993, produces approximately $30 billion per year in total revenues. That’s $120 billion south of the $150 billion needed for our infrastructure. We are all well aware of the strong political opposition to any increase in the federal fuel tax. Both political parties have stated it’s “off the table” because, “The American people can’t afford it in this economic crisis.”

We need a politically acceptable viable option to find the necessary funds to invest in infrastructure, solve our economic crisis, and end our dependence on foreign oil. Currently the U.S. consumes 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, 70% of which is used to produce motor fuel. There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel of oil. If a tax of 57 cents per gallon were levied, it would yield a total of $171 billion per year; 70% of that amount equals the $120 billion per year needed for transportation infrastructure. The remaining 30% of the tax revenue, $51 billion, could be used for repairing our water infrastructure. By taxing oil in the barrel in this manner, the burden of the tax would fall on the domestic and foreign oil companies who, depending on their competitive positions and strategy, may or may not pass it through to the American consumer as a price increase, but not a tax. In the likely event of a price increase, alternative energy companies and manufacturers of efficient motor vehicles would see their comparative competitive positions enhanced. Further, in order to offset any oil price increase to the American consumer, Congress could extend the January, 2011 employee social security tax decrease by several years.

Summarizing, a 57 cent per gallon tax increase on oil in the barrel, should be politically acceptable, will not burden the American consumer with additional net expense and will provide the following benefits that will flow from investments in infrastructures:
• Rebuilt, efficient transportation infrastructure
• Rebuilt, modern water infrastructure
• 4.5 million added jobs that can’t be outsourced
• Housing stabilized and increased
• Pension and retirement assets enhanced
• Federal debt reduction
• Energy independence initiated
• Global leadership enhanced

In order for this plan - this “silver bullet” – to be shot into the economic and geopolitical mix, your voice is the gun that is needed to bring it to the urgent attention of our political and industry leaders. I urge you to email your support of this “silver bullet” to your elected representatives.

Just when you thought FMCSA could finally begin the process of putting together a final ruling on the proposed changes to truck drivers’ hours-of-service (HOS) rules, the Administration announced that it is reopening the comment period yet again. The reason they’re doing this so late in the game? Four newly discovered fatigue studies — research that largely points to a correlation between increased driving time with increased safety risks.

I know I speak for many in the trucking industry when I say that I believe these new findings, if history repeats itself, will simply provide four more opportunities to misconstrue the facts surrounding the relationship between drive time, driver fatigue and safety.

The issue at hand — the one that is hotly debated and mired in conflicting data — is whether drivers, and thus the motoring public, are safe. The answer to that question is unequivocally, yes. In fact, in 2009 the trucking industry enjoyed its safest year on record since 1975. That means we experienced our best year in more than three decades, including four years with the current 11-hour drive time in place. What matters, and what our commitment to safety has yielded, is a dramatically decreased truck-involved fatality rate. In early April, the Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated that this rate decreased by 14.1 percent between 2008 and 2009, alone. This speaks to our resolve to keep our drivers and the motoring public safe — through programs, training and the establishment of corporate cultures built on safety — without sacrificing what we need as a country to keep our economy moving.

With just weeks to go until the final ruling must be made on July 26, we remain vigilant in our stance that the current rule is not broken and should not be changed. And though we now have more information to digest in less time, we will do so thoroughly and with the expectation that the true facts will rise to the surface of this debate and put it to rest.

This blog post by National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Debbie Hersman, originally appeared in  "NTSB Safety Compass" on April 6th.

Last week, I had the opportunity to get a glimpse into what life is like for the professional truck drivers who drive the heavy trucks on our nation’s highways to deliver the goods — and who contribute to our economy and to our quality of life.

I learned a lot from my five teachers — Stephanie Klang, Jill Garcia, Clarence Jenkins, Angela Jordan, and Jo Carty — who safely drove me from Washington, DC, to Louisville, KY, so I could attend the Mid America Trucking Show and attend Women in Trucking’s (WIT) Salute to Women Behind the Wheel. As I told the professional women drivers at that event, I have a CDL (commercial driver’s license), but I think my biggest contribution to safety is not to drive a commercial vehicle. I leave that up to the professional drivers.

I was impressed by every driver’s commitment to safety and by their ability to handle big rigs in good weather and bad . We had all types of weather on our 632 miles, including snow, sleet, and fog! After last week’s trip, I feel safer driving on the road next to big rigs. I was also pleased with the discussions we had about the issues that the NTSB addresses in its investigations and recommendations, such as hours of service, fatigue, and government oversight.

For example, when I talked with Stephanie about the challenges of complying with hours of service, she said the rules are there to protect you. Even when they’re not in your favor, you have to respect them.

As for respect, I gained a lot more respect for these professional drivers behind the wheel and I want them to know that I will keep an eye out for them whenever I’m out on the interstate.

Here’s a link to the talk I gave at Women in Trucking’s Salute to Women Behind the Wheel on April 2.

This blog post by National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Debbie Hersman, originally appeared in  "NTSB Safety Compass" on March 31st.

Late on Wednesday, I hit the road on a two-day, four-state journey from Washington, D.C. My final destination is Louisville, Kentucky, and the 2011 Mid-America Trucking Show, the world’s largest forum for the heavy trucking industry. On Saturday, I’ll have the honor of speaking with about 1,200 of America’s professional women truck drivers at the second annual Women in Trucking (WIT) “Salute to Women Behind the Wheel.” More on that in a moment.

But for now, let me tell you a bit about my journey to get there. I’ve covered some 460 of my 632 mile road trip so far. You might be asking yourself, “Why not just fly to Louisville?” Well, quite simply, it is hard to know what it is really like to be on the road from a federal office building in Washington. When Ellen Voie of WIT offered me the opportunity to “ride” to Kentucky, I jumped at the chance.

There is no better way to get a feel for the issues facing the industry than spend time in the cab with professional truck drivers. Besides, is there any better way to travel to the nation’s largest trucking show than to experience the ride, technology and accommodations in 5 different heavy trucks?

I’ve learned a lot since leaving NTSB headquarters last evening. I have listened to the drivers and they each have a different perspective and have impressed me with their knowledge and professionalism.

Let me start by telling you about my first leg of the trip. I spent the first 150 miles with Stephanie Klang, a driver from Con-way. As we made our way out of the dark and grey city, passing monuments and cherry blossoms, Stephanie remained focused on one thing — safety. In fact, that’s the common thread that I am seeing on this trip. So far it’s been five different and diverse drivers from all over the country — all with one thing in mind — getting to their destination safely, delivering their load, doing it again and again to support their families. Stephanie carefully maneuvered through Washington’s rush-hour hour traffic and calmly faced rain, snow, and, worse yet, sleet in the dark. The entire time, her eyes were on the road. Did I mention that Stephanie has 2.74 million safe miles in her logbook?

When I speak at WIT’s “Salute to Women” event on Saturday, I’ll be saluting Stephanie Klang, Jill Garcia, Angela Jordan, Jo Carty and hundreds of other women who drive safely, every day, on our nation’s highways — delivering the goods to the rest of us.

Got to go and get back on the road again, but I will share more of my experiences soon.

Over and out (for now).