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.

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.

The Obama Administration’s latest proposal to spend $53 billion on an intercity high-speed passenger rail network over the next six years is surprising given the Administration’s previously announced (and unfunded) plans to invest in the nation’s current infrastructure. So, when Vice President Joe Biden unveiled the high-speed passenger rail plan last month, it was met with a mix of support and utter dismay.

Whether deemed good or bad, it is important to stay focused on what this particular spending plan is all about. In my view, there are two points to consider:

1)  This type of “nice-to-have” passenger rail service is a long-term project that diverts already scarce resources from the “must have“ needs of repairing and expanding existing infrastructure.

2)  Because Class 1 railroads need to upgrade existing rail lines to accommodate “high speed” passenger trains, so far, the vast majority of high-speed rail funds — which are public subsidies — have gone directly to the Class 1 railroads.

The annual cost of the entire federal program for highway and transit projects in the United States is about $50 billion. With this proposal, the Administration suggests spending an entire year’s worth of surface transportation funds to move bits and pieces of high speed rail projects forward.  With the general consensus that the United States has underinvested in its current infrastructure and the result is a current infrastructure that is contributing to congestion and related inefficiencies, it is critical that our transportation spending be re-prioritized. Pushing high-speed rail based on unsubstantiated outcomes is probably not the best use of these limited resources.

Improving our existing transportation infrastructure is what the President promised and that is what is most needed right now. High-speed rail won’t help the vast number of Americans, particularly those in rural areas. Improved highways and transit mobility will.

In an October 2010 USA Today article about high-speed rail, Randal O’Toole, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, perhaps said it best:

"Fundamentally, transportation technology improves when we come up with technologies that are faster, more convenient and less expensive than old technology. High-speed rail is slower than flying, less convenient than driving and five times more expensive than either one."

Highway and other freight systems are all about mobility and moving the economy. High-speed inter-city passenger rail is about the same, but they are not substitutes for one another, yet this is the choice we are being asked to make.

Source: www.flixster.com

Since President Obama introduced his new — and massive — infrastructure investment proposal last month, the initiative has been making headlines nationwide. Though we welcome his attention to the issue, it’s difficult not to wonder: Why now and why wasn’t this more of a priority in the stimulus package?

Though there are many strong opinions about his choice of timing, it’s more important to focus on what we know right now. And what we know is that the President wants an up-front investment of $50 billion to expand and repair the nation’s highways, railways and airport runways, and to install a next generation air transportation system, among other projects — all of which would create jobs and reduce the unemployment rate.

The administration’s proposed Infrastructure Bank is central to the initiative and would allow the government to pool federal funds and private capital together to underwrite large projects that are prioritized by national and regional importance. As a result, projects like the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska will compete for funding with more pressing issues like freight bottlenecks, bridges that won’t support increased loads, and stretches of highway that need additional lanes to meet increased demand.

Those projects are particularly important because it is impossible to separate economic growth from the growth of transport. Those of us in the trucking industry saw a big decrease in miles traveled and demand for our services during the economic downturn. We’ll see it increase again as the economy rebounds. As a result, any federal policy that strives to restrict VMTs (vehicle miles traveled) or shift traffic to other modes to avoid investing in the road system is not only impractical, but irresponsible. Like it or not, 80 percent of the communities in this country are only served by truck. And while rail intermodal is an important part of our surface transportation system, even if rail intermodal capacity is doubled, it would remove fewer than two percent of trucks off the road, and next to none from urban or congested areas.

At the end of the day, the Infrastructure Bank, tolls, taxes, and user fees are all euphemisms for collecting money. These funds will come from all of us. So, again, while we appreciate that President Obama is focusing on transportation infrastructure, his proposal won’t move forward until the key issue of where the funds will come from is resolved. To quote Tom Cruise’s famous line from the movie “Jerry Maguire,” “Show me the money!” Especially after this week’s election results, a transportation plan that makes big promises without a way to pay for them is wishful thinking at best.

Throughout 2010, while Congress and the transportation industry debated how to improve our transportation infrastructure, data from an important research study was being analyzed to help accelerate progress in another promising area for truck safety — the adoption of advanced “detect, alert and respond” safety technologies for commercial trucks.

Con-way Freight joined with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute in a 10-month field test of an integrated suite of crash warning technologies, a study which was completed late last year. The suite was designed to provide drivers with early warning of the three most common causes of commercial truck crashes.

We found the results of the study so compelling, we chose to invest in these technologies for our fleet this year, ahead of any government mandate. We put into service 1,300 new trucks with these technologies installed. For our drivers, it was a worthwhile investment to make them better and help improve their safety and those with whom we share the nation’s highways.

Since then, interest in these technologies has been growing. And we were particularly pleased that John D. Dingell, Michigan’s representative for the 15^th Congressional District, chose to take action and reached out to his colleagues to share the findings of this important study and its potential to improve safety. Rep. Dingell’s support is exactly the type of leadership we need to advance highway safety in meaningful ways. Following is his letter, which was sent this month to members of Congress:

Dear Colleague,

I am writing to you today about an issue I have long been passionate about — transportation infrastructure and the safety of America’s roadways. Every day commercial trucks keep freight and our economy moving, so improving their safety performance positively impacts us all.

To date, we’ve been focusing on the important task of repairing and updating our antiquated interstate highway system. Now, we are learning about new ways to concurrently enhance safety over the roads — through the use of advanced “detect, alert and respond” technologies in commercial trucks.

On Sept. 9, the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) and trucking company Con-way Freight announced the positive results of a year-long field test of an integrated system of crash warning technologies for commercial vehicles. The study, which was funded by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office of the U.S. Department of Transportation, revealed significant safety benefits from technologies installed in a number of Con-way Freight’s tractors. They not only helped drivers avoid the most common examples of crashes involving commercial trucks, such as lane departures and rollovers, but also drivers’ awareness of the traffic environment around their vehicles. As a result of these findings, every new Con-way Freight truck will be equipped with these technologies.

As legislators, I believe it’s our duty to learn about — and advocate for — new ways to make our highways safer for truck drivers and the motoring public. Clearly, this was a successful partnership between the public and private sectors, and I hope you share the study findings with your staff. A full copy of the report is available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2010/811362.pdf.

With every good wish,

John D. Dingell

Member of Congress

source: www.pennlive.com

As those of us in the transportation industry are all too aware, America’s infrastructure of roads and bridges is crumbling, and cash-strapped states are digging deep to find funds to take on the problem. It won’t be cheap and it won’t be easy — a recent Transportation Funding Study found that more than $3 billion annually in highway and transit needs is currently unfunded in my state of Pennsylvania alone. With the number of trucks on U.S. roads widely projected to increase by 50 percent in the next 20 years, that’s a serious problem, indeed.

I recently had the opportunity to testify on this issue representing the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Transportation Committee. In that testimony, I stressed the importance of developing and implementing fair and sustainable funding sources to repair and maintain our national infrastructure.

This is more critical than ever — there is an unmistakable connection between economic health and an effective transportation system. As American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) President Larry L. "Butch" Brown has said, "The simple fact is: no transportation, no economy. They are inseparable. “

That’s a point that can hardly be questioned given that more than 40 million tons of goods travel over roughly 12 billion ton-miles of U.S. roads on the average day.

Those roads are already in trouble, serving much more traffic than they were designed to hold, with repairs typically few and far between and construction of new capacity equally rare. A recent report prepared for AASHTO found that traffic at the 10 most extreme U.S. interchange bottlenecks is already responsible for more than a million hours of truck delays a year, which costs industry $19 billion while unnecessarily increasing fuel consumption and carbon emissions. The lack of effective and sustainable funding mechanisms will only make those problems worse.

As a major user of roads and highways, Con-way Freight is willing to pay our fair share, as I testified before the Transportation Committee. First, we would support increased fuel, highway or license taxes for highway infrastructure improvement provided that the funds be used solely for that purpose and not redirected to other areas. We currently pay in excess of $3.6 million in highway-related taxes, fees and tolls in Pennsylvania alone every year, so this is no small statement.

We would also favor the use of tolls to cover the costs of new highways, but not tolling of existing highways. Finally, we would encourage states to explore public-private partnerships to fund additional capacity, as long as no one franchisee is given a monopoly and free alternatives remain.

As I told the committee, Con-way Freight commends Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell for his efforts to address the transportation issues facing his state. We’re nearing a national crisis point (if we’re not already there) and simply must create and support long-term strategies to ensure sustainable funding for our transportation infrastructure. We look forward to helping leaders — in Pennsylvania and across the nation we serve — to craft reasonable highway funding solutions that are fair to the transportation industry and all American citizens.

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.