Over the course of history, the White House Rose Garden has been the venue for many Presidential decisions which heralded a new direction for our country. Earlier this summer, I had the opportunity to participate in one such event that, hopefully, we can look back on years from now and recall as the beginning of important change for our citizens, our nation and our industry.

The event was the signing by President Barack Obama of an official presidential memorandum on Fuel Efficiency Standards, which directed his administration to establish fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for commercial medium- and heavy-duty vehicles beginning with the nation’s 2014 models.

In a country so reliant on fossil fuels, increasing fuel efficiency while reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a goal worthy of everyone. The President’s action recognized the efforts of a group of industry leaders who see this goal as not only worthy for the environment, but necessary for our business.  And that’s the Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Leadership Group, a diverse coalition of trucking fleets and related technology providers formed earlier this year.

The mission of the group is to assist federal agencies in formulating effective policies to reduce GHG emissions and increase fuel efficiency in heavy-duty commercial vehicles, while avoiding unintended consequences that could disrupt the industry and our economy.

This group, of which Con-way is a founding member, believes that a strong GHG/fuel efficiency program can result in significant environmental, economic and national security benefits. Encouragingly, the President’s call to action emphasized the importance of collaboration between government and industry as the path forward to developing, refining and implementing effective policy.

To that end, the leadership group created and presented to the Administration and federal agencies a Statement of Principles to support and help guide the rulemaking process. These basic principles call for future regulations to:

• Leverage and build upon on existing programs proven to be effective

• Emphasize the prompt deployment of viable technologies

• Recognize the diversity of medium- and heavy-duty fleets

• Are complemented by financial incentives and transportation policies that accelerate results

At Con-way, we’ve already taken many critical steps in that direction. We’ve implemented initiatives that include reducing the speed of our tractors, moving to single wide-base tires for decreased rolling resistance and better fuel economy, no-idling policies and reengineering our freight network to run fewer miles and use less fuel.

As President Obama noted that day, freight vehicles are thought to be responsible for approximately 20 percent of the GHG related to transportation. He believes that we can increase tractor-trailer fuel economy by as much as 25 percent using technologies that now exist.

This is an achievable goal — if industry and government work together in a true partnership to make it a reality. The outcome will be the first-ever national GHG/fuel efficiency program for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. It’s a goal that has benefits for all — and one that, for the sustainability of our industry and our environment, deserves our full support.

Doug Stotlar is president and chief executive officer of Con-way Inc. He, along with Tommy Hodges, chairman of American Trucking Associations, and other industry executives joined President Obama at a Rose Garden signing ceremony earlier this year that laid the groundwork for new fuel efficiency standards for the trucking industry.

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.

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.