source: outdoor.com

As concern about global climate change continues to rise, more and more people are talking about shifting freight from trucks to rail. Rail is more efficient, many believe, and it requires less fuel consumption.

“This would really benefit the environment,” they say.

We say, “Not so fast.”

A recent analysis published in Transportation Fundamentals examines the truck vs. rail question and finds some interesting answers. According to author Noël Perry, managing director and senior consultant at FTR Associates, most of the U.S. freight now traveling by truck would actually require more energy consumption if transported rail-only. While rail itself is more fuel efficient, it creates far more of certain emissions than trucks are allowed to under current standards. Clearly the addition of trucks, at least in some stages of the supply chain, allows for the most effective — and greenest — combination of resources.

As Perry writes, “Existing market forces have already done an excellent job of maximizing fuel efficiency by allowing rail and truck to do what they do best.”

What they do best, according to Perry, is intercity long-haul for rail and more local short-haul transportation for trucks. The biggest challenge to combining those strengths is accessibility to intermodal terminals to enable convenient truck-to-rail transloading. The government should, Perry argues, support increased accessibility to those terminals. He also favors modifying truck size and weight standards and lowering rail’s nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions limits to current truck standards. These actions would represent significant steps toward a greener transportation system.

Valid points, all.

There’s also the question of congestion in the nation’s freight system, a problematic issue that could become very serious in the event of a major increase in rail freight. Industry analysts have predicted that adding even 25 percent more freight into the already overburdened rail system would create serious congestion, efficiency and productivity issues. What repercussions could we expect from adding even more freight than that?

When it comes to road congestion, the picture looks no rosier. While many rail proponents push for a modal shift that would remove 10 percent of freight traffic from America’s highways, that remains an unachievable goal. In fact, an American Trucking Associations (ATA) analysis found that doubling the freight tonnage traveling by rail would result in only a roughly 1 percent reduction in trucks on the road by 2018.  To multiply that figure by 10 would require tremendous rail infrastructure investments, which seems highly unlikely — especially given that the last major line-haul route built in the United States was constructed in 1909.

Clearly, there are no quick answers. But with freight tonnage projected to grow 28 percent by 2018 , it’s good that analysts like Noël Perry are asking — and finding answers — to the questions. Let’s keep that conversation going.

A long-running battle over reducing diesel emissions from port drayage trucks has turned into a serious threat to nearly 30 years of trucking deregulation.

Several years ago an alliance of union and environmental groups threatened to make it politically impossible for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to expand unless they cracked down hard on emissions from the thousands of trucks used in drayage of containers to and from rail yards and distribution centers in Southern California

Their package deal was that the ports would henceforth deal only with companies rather than thousands of individual owner-drivers, on the grounds that only large companies could afford to replace all those trucks with new trucks compliant with 2007 Federal diesel emission standards.

The not-so-hidden agenda was that drivers in truck fleets would be easy for the Teamsters to unionize, whereas they can’t do anything with owner-drivers.

The entire goods-movement industry, including the American Trucking Associations, objected to this plan as violating the Federal pre-emption of state or local economic regulation of trucking—and they prevailed last March in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Port of Long Beach dropped out and set up its own registration and certification program, pertaining solely to requiring clean-air compliance on a truck-by-truck basis. Both ports are offering subsidies to help truckers purchase compliant trucks, and as of a recent count, over 5,500 trucks have either been replaced or retrofitted in less than a year. An October headline in the Los Angeles Times said “Diesel Emissions Down Drastically at Ports of L.A., Long Beach.”

Having lost in court, the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, representing 80 environmental and labor groups, has mobilized to change federal law. Besides Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, they have recruited the mayors of Oakland, Newark, and New York (and their ports) to urge Congress to amend the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (the most recent law dealing with federal pre-emption of transportation economic regulation) to permit ports to exclude owner-driver operators and deal only with fleets. Their aim is to get union-friendly legislators to slip such a provision into the surface transportation reauthorization bill.

Source: www.boston.com

That would be a huge mistake. As Journal of Commerce editor Paul Page wrote recently, “We’re talking about setting unprecedented limits on the pre-emption of federal regulatory authority over state laws that has been established and upheld in court rulings over many decades. We’re talking about the legal fabric of commerce in the United States.” Moreover, should individual ports be allowed to create this patchwork of policies, those that did so would put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. The ports of L.A. and Oakland compete with Canada’s Vancouver and Prince Rupert and Mexico’s Lazaro Cardenas, all well-served by long-distance rail. And the Port of New York and New Jersey competes with major ports in Virginia, Georgia, Houston and elsewhere.

Even partially rolling back trucking deregulation would set a terrible precedent, emboldening those who would like to undo railroad and airline deregulation as well. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail as Congress drafts and debates reauthorization.

Every day, thousands of our fellow citizens are deployed serving in the National Guard or Reserves, playing a fundamental role that protects our freedoms, maintains peace, and provides relief services to communities in the United States and around the globe.

It’s a role that will grow as our standing front-line military continues to evolve. Thousands of businesses have been and will continue to be impacted as more reservists are called to duty. It’s a challenge for the employer, who is often faced with having to backfill or replace key employees. We will only see these challenges increase as our country continues to deploy more resources in the global battle against terrorism.

For the Guard and Reserve member, the sacrifice endured when called to duty is significant on many levels. These men and women leave their homes, families, jobs and careers, sometimes with as little as a week’s notice, when their unit is deployed. They put their personal lives on hold in the name of freedom and service to our country — for anywhere from 12 to 24 months. Many are called up for multiple tours of duty.

As if the stress of a combat zone is not enough, some Guard and Reserve members also suffer financial hardships due to their service. This happens when their military pay while on deployment is less than that which they were making in their private industry job. Worse yet, even though federal law mandates that an employer must provide re-employment at a similar level and pay to returning employees, some Guard and Reserve members come back, find their employers have abandoned them, and have to fight to get their job back — a travesty that was brought to light by the TV newsmagazine “60 Minutes.”

These are honorable men and women who put their lives on the line for our freedom and safety. You may have noticed that people with military experience have certain intangible qualities like self-awareness, pride and a sense of purpose. The military instills these qualities in all of its ranks because it makes them good people. By embodying such core values as honor, courage and commitment, men and women build character and confidence, develop strong team skills, and learn to accept responsibility and accountability for personal actions. These are exactly the employee values and life experiences that create and sustain successful businesses.

Our citizen-soldiers should not come home from serving our country only to face yet another battle to get their job back. They deserve our respect and admiration, and our unqualified support. Nothing less is acceptable.

My company, Con-way Freight, recognizes this not only as a responsibility, but a duty.  At any one time we may have as many as 100 employees on active deployment. While on leave for deployment, the families of these service men and women continue to receive company medical benefits. In the case where the deployed-employee’s military pay is less than their Con-way pay, the company makes up the difference. Upon return, these employees have access to resources and counseling under the company’s health plan to help them deal with the stresses of their deployment and reintegrate into society.  And finally, the job they had when they went on deployment is there for them when they come home.

Our Guard and Reserve members and all active-duty military are heroes in every sense of the word; we should not take them for granted. Consider doing something to support our troops. For example, this past holiday season, Con-way employees in several cities participated in a “Santa Claus for Soldiers’ Families” effort, collecting gifts and presenting them to families of deployed Guard and Reserve soldiers who otherwise were not able to afford or manage Christmas on their own. In addition, several times a year, Con-way employees around the United States band together and collect donations of goods into care packages that are sent to the troops.

You can also participate in similar “support our troops” collection drives done by community service organizations. You can encourage your local schools to adopt a solider or a unit, sending supportive cards and letters.  And you can participate in national and local military support groups that reach out regularly to deployed-soldiers’ families and provide basic assistance.

These efforts make a huge difference to our men and women in the military. They are the front line of our freedom. Your kindness and support will be recognized deeply and broadly, confirming to them that their sacrifices and commitment to the defense of our liberties are not only recognized, but respected, honored and revered.

Lt. Col. David L. “Duke“ Ellington (ret.) is a 30-year military veteran who served as a logistics officer in the U.S. Army and the Indiana National Guard. He also served as executive director of the Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), Indiana Chapter, a national advocacy organization that facilitates collaboration between employers and all branches of the active military and reserves. He is currently a personnel supervisor for Con-way Freight’s Indianapolis service center and participates actively in the company’s recruiting, hiring, training and support programs for veterans.

A day does not go by in Washington without legislation intended to fix one problem ultimately affecting a host of other issues. It’s the principle of unintended consequences, and a fact of life in our complex world where everything has become so interconnected. Nowhere is this more evident than the transportation industry, which touches our economy, our environment and our infrastructure in virtually innumerable ways. It’s like the lyric from the popular children’s song that says “The knee bone’s connected to the thigh bone ...” Trucking, it seems, is connected to everything.

One example of how one issue can have a ripple effect on many others is truck productivity. The crux of the issue is truck size and weight, a debate that’s been raging for years in Washington and throughout the transportation sector. Recent forecasts estimate that freight volumes will increase nearly 28 percent by 2018, a growth curve that — absent any change in current size and weight restrictions — will require several million more trucks on America’s highways to meet demand. “More jobs, now that’s great!” you might think … until you consider the interconnected, unintended consequences: more traffic congestion and lost productivity. Increased fuel consumption and higher carbon emissions. The effect of more trucks putting more miles on a highway infrastructure already strained to the breaking point. The knee bone’s connected to the thigh bone ...

Many in the industry think the solution is clear: improve truck productivity. And there is a precedent — our counterparts in Europe, Canada and Australia have already done that and are reaping significant benefits. There’s plenty of research to support it. A 2008 American Transportation Research Institute study found that aligning our truck size and weight with the higher international standards would lead to great gains in productivity, as well as reductions in carbon emissions and a better shot at competing effectively in the global marketplace. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) has produced a list of recommendations — including raising the allowable weight of six-axle vehicles to 97,000 pounds and permitting 33-foot trailer combinations in certain states, and expanding the use of triple trailers where it is safe and practical to do so. We hope Congress will seriously consider them. With the projected rise in freight volumes, maximizing the efficiency of our transportation infrastructure has never been more important.

One state that may prove to be a good test bed is Maine. The Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation Appropriations bill recently signed into law by President Obama includes a provision to create a one-year pilot project to study the effects of eliminating the 80,000-pound vehicle weight limit on Maine’s federal highways. Allowing heavier trucks for a year will give researchers a chance to assess the impact on the much-debated areas of safety, commerce and road wear and tear.

It will be interesting to see how this experiment will educate the debate and, ultimately, the policy decisions which result. If the experience of our international colleagues is any guide, the consequences of more productive trucks will bring measurable benefits — for highway safety, the economy, our environment, congestion, business efficiency, energy policy and many other issues. The knee bone is connected to the thigh bone ...

Many consumer products companies are adopting new “green” product shipping packaging that is lighter, takes up less space and consumes fewer natural resources. From a sustainability perspective the benefits certainly seem clear.

Packaging engineering is at the forefront of helping companies reduce the overall carbon footprint from the manufacturing and distribution of products they sell.  There are many benefits: decreased overall cost, reduction of weight attributed to packaging, reduced amounts of used packaging which is recycled or goes into landfills, lower overall transportation costs, reduced product life-cycle carbon footprint, among others. These are all quantifiable and desirable benefits.

But in the real world of transportation – the networks of ships, trains, containers and trucks through which these goods physically are handled and moved from manufacturing plant to store shelf, what are the implications of this “less is better” strategy?   One of the primary purposes of shipment packaging is to protect the product while in transit.  So as packaging becomes smaller, thinner and lighter, unless great care is taken in the re-engineering, material selection and redesign of packaging, the “protection” role of product packaging can be weakened and compromised, increasing the risk of and exposure to damage.

Shipment packaging must meet approved specifications which are established expressly for the transportation of the commodities the packaging contains. If it is not, your transportation service provider may deny shipment damage claims that arise due to inadequate packaging.

Packaging specifications are available for review through the National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA) which runs the full gamut for all manner of materials and goods, including acceptable exceptions to those standards, as necessary, and provisions for the construction and integrity of the package. These are established to meet minimum requirements to ensure the product for which the packaging was designed will in fact be sufficiently protected during transport.

Inadequate shipment packaging creates problems for both the shipper and transportation provider.  In a multi-shipment, multi-commodity environment (such as LTL or parcel), an array of shipment sizes, weights and package configurations are co-loaded together, with the carrier loading them in a manner that seeks to protect the integrity of all shipments on a trailer.  When shipment packaging either 1) fails to provide adequate internal protection or 2) is not constructed in a manner that can withstand the loading and unloading of goods in a trucking operation, no one wins.  The carrier ends up with two dissatisfied customers: the shipper and the consignee.

While it is absolutely the right thing to do all we can to reduce the impact of product packaging on the environment, we cannot forget that effective package design also must meet industry standards and provide for adequate protection against shipping damage.  It’s part of the total product cost equation that, if inadequately addressed, will lead to more product waste – the opposite result of a true “green” objective.