Source: www.transportation1.org

Truth #1: Truckers and railroaders do not get along.  I sometimes like to pose provocative questions to groups of truckers or railroaders (but not both together) to watch the impassioned discussion that ensues.

Truth #2: Demand for transportation was rising steadily before the recent recession.  Although much of the increase is attributed to rising GDP, growth in VMT must also be attributed to shifts in transportation use.  Increasingly, GDP is made up of services that require fewer VMTs.  Freight (and car) VMTs per capita have steadily increased indicating greater consumption of freight services.

Truth #3: The funds (user fees) collected by all forms of government in the U.S. are not enough to fund road infrastructure.  The recent TRB Special Report 285 and the report by the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission highlight the loss of purchasing power of the all user taxes for road construction and maintenance.

Truth #4: The root cause of our road funding problems is not abuse of the Highway Trust Fund.  Even evil “Mass Transit” may provide capacity by removing cars from highways at a cost cheaper than construction of new lanes.  How many lanes of highway would have to be constructed to replace the Washington Metro?  What would the city look like without it?

Truth #5: Some trucks do not pay the full cost for their highway use.  The book “Road Work” by Small, Winston, and Evans (1989) pointed out that very heavy trucks do not pay the true marginal cost of their highway use.  The primary culprit according to the authors is a user-charge based on fuel use rather than axle weight and miles traveled.  Transportation Research Board Special Report 246 showed much the same thing by comparing several modes of transportation.

Truth #6: Lower cost is not equal to higher efficiency.  For economists, efficiency means getting higher value outputs from a given value of inputs.  While the lower total costs associated with heavier, six-axle trucks are difficult to argue with (with the possible exception of bridge costs), lowering the price of an already underpriced good could be a bad thing for all concerned.  Economists know that price controls, cause shortages because suppliers will refuse to supply at the lower price.  We are facing just such a situation with road infrastructure today.  States are refusing to provide (or maintain) road infrastructure because the revenue received for its use is less the cost to provide it.  In such a situation, lowering the cost still further by permitting slightly more efficient trucks could have the undesired (by some) effect of stimulating increased road use, therefore exacerbating problems with infrastructure financing.

In my opinion, loosening Federal weight restrictions will not occur until usage-based road financing is changed to some scheme that is both accurate and fair.  Such a scheme should be based on the cost of road use.  While many truckers have asked for increased fuel taxes to cover the cost of maintaining roads, few have advocated an approach like Oregon’s experimental VMT tax or Germany’s VMT tax.  Should my colleague’s Mercedes Benz diesel pay the same fuel tax as an eighteen wheeler?  Should a straight truck pay the same tax as a rocky mountain double?

Yes, railroads protest too much, but permitting heavier trucks is no panacea for the highway system either.  Economic sustainability comes from having prices reflect true costs, not from cheaper prices.  Any change that accomplished the later without the former will only make the situation worse.

It is now time for me to step out of the room.

Pete Swan is assistant professor of Logistics and Operations Management at the Penn State Harrisburg School of Business Administration. He is a regular contributor of research, commentaries and papers on freight transportation industry issues and has been a member of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) since 2002. He is currently chair of the TRB’s Freight Systems Group in addition to his academic responsibilities for Penn State.

Source: www.ens-newswire.com

According to a national transportation research group, poor road conditions cost Michigan motorists over $2 billion annually. These costs harm Michigan families and damage the competitiveness of Michigan businesses. Instead of directing funds to this important need, federal policies are diverting taxpayer dollars to wasteful purposes and Michigan citizens and businesses are paying more in gas taxes than is returning to our state.

Taxpayer dollars are not being used wisely. Past Transportation Appropriations bills have included numerous wasteful projects, such as the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. The $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package was supposed to include significant infrastructure spending, but money was wasted on searching for fossils in Argentina , puppet shows, and creating a $5 million energy system for a privately-owned mall that is mostly empty. Our roads are crumbling, yet Congress is wasting our money.

Michigan is not receiving its fair share of gas tax transportation dollars. Since 1957, Michigan has only received 84 cents back for every dollar in gas tax revenue collected. This has improved over the years, but Michigan still only receives back 94 cents on the dollar.

The common sense path is for taxpayer dollars to be spent wisely on priorities such as road and highway repair and construction. Additionally, I support federal legislation that would turn back all gas tax revenue collected in each state to that state. Not only will this ensure that Michigan is no longer a donor state, but transportation funds will no longer be diverted into wasteful federal earmarks.

Tim Walberg has worked in higher education, was previously elected to the Michigan House of Representatives, and served in the U.S. Congress from 2007-2008.  He is running as a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Michigan's 7th District.

Source: www.boston.com

With major league spring training just around the corner, many armchair fantasy baseball fanatics are evaluating their favorite players and starting to draft their rosters. But rather than fantasize about who will have the lowest ERA, hit the most homeruns or have the best on-base percentage, let’s think about a different game: America’s economic recovery in 2010 and beyond. The lineup card for this game plan focuses on creating scoring opportunities early and often with job creation, housing, energy, infrastructure, anti-terrorism, education and health care.

All great baseball teams have excellent scouts and extensive scouting reports that identify the key issues required to defeat the opposition. America is blessed with several visionary “scouts,” among them: Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Department of Transportation Inspector General Calvin Scovel III and columnist Thomas Friedman. We also have the advantage of information-packed “scouting reports” from organizations like the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Ernst & Young and the Urban Land Institute. Collectively, these focus on the need to rebuild America’s transportation infrastructure, emphasizing the scope of the project ($750 billion over 5 years) and, most importantly, the millions of direct and indirect jobs that would be created.

Swift and proper execution of this strategy to invest massively in America’s transportation infrastructure in the “early innings” will lay the foundation for a winning game strategy. Job creation, the key that unlocks the plan, will lift incomes which in turn will be used to lift consumption, pay existing mortgages and purchase new homes. This will reduce and eventually eliminate banks’ bad loans and allow them to repair their balance sheets and begin lending to small businesses which will create more jobs.

However, the infrastructure rebuilding must be funded without adding more national debt. And here, in the “middle innings,” we get the key homerun that puts America on the path to certain victory: a 75 cent-per-gallon federal fuel tax increase pegged to the price of oil so when oil goes down the tax goes up and when oil goes up the tax goes down.

This is the turning point in the “game” because it will be used to establish a consistent fixed price for fuel. This will give investors in alternative energy as well as motor vehicles a more stable benchmark for fuel, insulated from OPEC pricing gyrations, against which they can project their profitability which will stimulate investment in nuclear, wind and solar energy and promote competition for fuel efficient motor vehicles. All this activity will create additional jobs.

As investment in improved transportation infrastructure, diversified energy resources and fuel efficient vehicles begins to pay dividends, demand for oil will peak and then decline producing two desirable outcomes: the price of oil will drop which will reduce significantly funds for terrorist activities and the need for cap and trade taxes will be pointless.

This “game plan”, to invest in infrastructure, to create jobs, funded by a fuel tax that will attract investment in alternative energy, will stimulate the economy and rebuild America’s balance sheet so that in the “late innings” the increased tax revenues generated by the stimulated activity will be the “closer” to fixing education and health care.

To transform this “game plan” from fantasy to reality, we need to rise from our comfortable armchairs and demand that our Congressmen lead our country boldly and courageously by putting our country’s needs, not partisan politics, first. With that type of leadership, America will be the “World Series” champion in the 21^st century.

John A. Simourian is Chairman of Needham, Mass.-based Lily Transportation Corp., which opened for business in 1958 and today provides dedicated contract carriage systems and services for customers throughout the United States. John also is a lifelong Red Sox fan and fervently believes that the 2010 season will bring another American League pennant and World Series Championship to the Red Sox Nation.

I recently attended the Intellidrive USA Working Group meeting, which was held October 29^th - 30th in Detroit.  It was an opportunity for IntelliDrive partners and stakeholders to discuss future plans, as well as ways to increase stakeholder involvement.

IntelliDriveSM is a U.S. Department of Transportation initiative focused on advancing connectivity between vehicles and road infrastructure, the objective being to improve the safety and mobility of the U.S. transportation system. A demonstration “test bed” is under way outside of Detroit where 75 miles of roadway has been equipped with 52 Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) devices. The Test Bed can accommodate third party applications, a range of on-board equipment, as well as a variety of vehicle types.

This is potentially exciting technology that has enormous safety implications. The idea behind Intellidrive is to make vehicles smarter and more aware of their surroundings and road conditions, essentially by enabling vehicles to “talk” with each other as well as with sensors in the highway itself.

The program intends to create the platform, specifications, and ultimately, a wireless connectivity network embedded in critical infrastructure that would bind together multi-modal systems – autos, trucks, trailers, highways, traffic flow and control systems, tolling systems, etc. The benefits of such a connected infrastructure would be: improved traffic safety and mobility (better traffic flow and congestion management), improved highway utility, automated e-payment for tolls and user fees, fewer carbon emissions and reduced environment impact, and better roadway system management tools for both private industry and local, state and federal government.

Now in its early stages, much of IntelliDrive’s focus centers on answering basic questions. What will the system look like and how will it work?  Which stakeholders should be brought to the table? How should they be engaged?  How should the U.S. DOT undertake the user ROI assessments that must be made? How do we balance direct user benefits from less tangible “societal” benefits?  What is a realistic project deployment schedule? And finally, where will the development funds come from?

Let me offer a few recommendations:

Increase efforts to get varied stakeholders to the table…  Quickly!

In a room full of interested parties, I was the lone representative from commercial trucking.  The potential issues, experiences and perspectives offered by trucking -- including carriers, vendors and truck manufacturers, are too important to neglect.  IntelliDrive will advance the fastest if it is directed by the collective input of a consortium of parties – government, technology providers, road design and construction and fleet operators - each who will benefit from its progress.

Consider funding prior to the creation of detailed implementation plans

Funding sources – public and private -- should be identified as soon as possible.  This will help to define realistic constraints and will enable near-term implementation of the IntelliDrive services that have the fewest barriers and highest benefits.

Derive an overarching ROI

It is imperative that discrete and quantifiable user returns be identified early on to justify the large investment that IntelliDriveSM will require.  Each stakeholder should have a clear and compelling case for support.

And lastly, approach implementation in a phased manner by identifying “quick wins” that can be rapidly deployed, demonstrating and validating future benefits- think the Pareto rule 80 - 20.  We certainly need an overarching vision. But with the rapid advancements typical of technology and software as user experience is gained and capabilities evolve, smaller investments with direct ROI enable quick receipt of benefits . . . a measured and controlled “learn as we pay, improve as we learn” approach.

Source: www.fhwa.dot.gov

In this way, we can accelerate the promise of smart vehicles and smart highways to the benefit of everyone that shares our nation’s highways, bringing to reality those returns in safety, better mobility, less congestion and less impact on the environment sooner than later.