Source: www.allstarpics.net

This fall, when President Obama supported the decision by Maine and Vermont to extend higher truck weight allowances on their highways, it was a vote for increasing the productivity of trucking on these states’ highways. Bill Graves, president of ATA, added context to the importance of this decision: “Existing restrictions on truck weight limits constrain the trucking industry's efforts to reduce crashes, help our customers to remain competitive in global markets and lower our carbon footprint."

Not long after, the Association of American Railroads’ (AAR) President and CEO, Mr. Edward R. Hamberger, attacked the decision accusing the President of “train robbery.”

It would be like a day without sunshine if the AAR didn’t publicly attack one of their industry’s largest customers: the trucking industry.  Every time any discussion turns to ways the trucking industry can gain productivity, improve safety, reduce congestion or lower carbon emissions in the movement of freight, the AAR goes on the attack. Hearing these same arguments time and again becomes tiresome.

Mr. Hamberger went on to say “heavy trucks cause infrastructure damage that taxpayers will ultimately have to pay for.  This [extension of the program] will rob the railroad industry of revenue needed for reinvestment and add congestion to the nation's highways."

Mr. Hamberger, let me remind you once again: The trucking industry pays 40 percent of all revenues that comprise the Highway Trust Fund and pays 30 percent of State Highway Fund receipts.  The trucking industry generates these revenue levels while accounting for less than 15 percent of total vehicle miles traveled.  In addition, the trucking industry directly serves 100 percent of the communities in America, whereas the railroad industry serves about 20 percent of America’s communities. That’s an inconvenient truth. Many railroad supporters also cite benefits to the environment and less highway congestion if rail capacity were expanded. Here are the facts: If the rail industry could double intermodal capacity overnight, that additional capacity would equate to removing about 1.5 percent of truck traffic from the nation’s highways.

Not allowing more productive truck configurations to use federal interstates, and instead forcing them to use secondary state roads, does not support efforts to improve safety. In fact, when trucks are forced to use secondary highways, the potential for wear and tear can be greater, since these roads are often not built to the same robust standards as our nation’s interstate highways.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Way Transport Program also confirms the environmental and economic benefits that higher truck weight limits and longer combination vehicles would bring. Importantly, these higher weight standards would not exceed the per-axle weight limits defined by the DOT’s bridge weight formulas. Added benefits would include improved safety, reduced congestion and lower carbon emissions from fewer, more productive trucks on the highways.

When you wipe away all the rhetoric, there is one fact that railroad industry cannot deny: The vast majority of shipments that move by rail start and end with a truck.  Let’s work together to create a national transportation policy that recognizes that all modes of transportation are required to support America’s economy and global competitiveness.

David L. (Dave) Miller is a respected industry expert and an authoritative voice for effective, common-sense government and business policies that enable the freight transportation industry to fulfill its critical role in the nation's economy.

As founder, VP and COO  of Gnosis Management Group, Dave provides consulting and issues management services to public and private companies and advocacy organizations, drawing on nearly 35 years of experience in policy development and strategy and as a senior operating executive in the trucking industry. He recently retired after a 27-year career with Con-way Inc, a national trucking and global logistics company, where he served as senior vice president, global policy and economic sustainability.

Source: www.streetsblog.net

Even casual observers of transportation policy have noticed DOT’s emphasis on livability and, by extension, their fascination with “active transportation’ (aka biking and walking).  Livability is a worthy goal for all communities and, though it is still a somewhat ill-defined policy concept, biking and bike paths are certainly key components.

In an effort to make Washington, DC more livable, the Mayor and Federal policymakers decided to put a bike path down the center of Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to the Capitol with no connections at either end.  For those who do not frequent that area, this is not a typical bike path.  Instead of narrow lanes down the curb side of the roadway, this bike “path” is a full three auto lanes wide going right down the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue.  Yes, approximately one-third of the capacity of an already busy street in our nation’s capital was taken to serve a handful of cyclists.  The result has been increased congestion, increased emissions, long rush hour delays, and the ire of many DC visitors, cabbies, workers, and residents. This is not a very livable result for any but the cyclists and, in apparent reaction to public pressure, DC has just announced that autos will now be able to use the left lanes again.  Good for them, and an important lesson for other transportation policy makers.

Now, lest you believe I am anti-bike, I want to assure you this is not the case.  Two of my three grown children bicycle regularly in Old Town Alexandria, a nearby Washington suburb.  One does not own a car and cycles to work every day.  If for no other reason than their safety, I support adequate accommodations for cyclists.  That having been said, if cyclists are to be taken as serious members of the transportation community, perhaps it is time that reasonable requirements be placed upon them to insure they can safely interact with other road users and provide the necessary funding to support their projects.

Items that DOT and other transportation policy makers might consider are:

• Training, testing, licensing, and minimum age requirements for cyclists.
• Required insurance coverage to protect cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users.
• Minimum equipment standards and safety inspections.
• Mandatory helmet laws.
• Bike path user fees.
• Bicycle and tire excise taxes to fund bike path construction and maintenance
• Enforcement of all traffic laws for cyclists.

For policy makers who support increased use of cycling, failure to consider and provide proper regulatory oversight of new policies – and appropriate funding mechanisms to pay for it all -- is irresponsible and unfair to other road users.

The real issue is not bike paths.  It is how do policymakers determine the best use of limited transportation dollars to improve our transportation system while increasing mobility for all Americans?   There are many worthy projects, in all modes, that are well worth considering.  A bike path to nowhere is not one of them.

Source: nationalgeographic.com

A recent article about the truck versus rail debate got me thinking about the old adage, “It all depends on whose ox is being gored.” Though the origin of this unique phrase appears to be largely unknown (my research traces it back to President Abraham Lincoln and before), it’s not too difficult to glean its meaning. It’s a perfect metaphor for negotiations over regulatory and legislative transportation policy issues. Basically, the good intentions of a policy decision for one constituency may end up causing unintended negative consequences for another. In other words, you fixed your problem but the other guy’s ox got gored in the process.

The point here is that lawmakers and regulatory agencies, as they debate and settle on policy decisions, should remember the ripple effect. What other impacts occur as a result of a new law or policy going into effect? For example, if regulators were to institute policies which legislate moving freight from truck to rail, what would be the benefits?  Some benefits would seem obvious: fewer trucks on the road would help reduce highway congestion, conserve fuel and lower carbon emissions. Yet that same decision also would create a number of other, not so positive, impacts. Deliveries could be slowed and shipping costs could go up — particularly for communities that don’t have rail service. Truck drivers displaced by freight moving to rail would lose their jobs. Truck manufacturers would build fewer trucks — putting more people out of work. Tax revenues and user fees paid by trucks — monies that maintain, repair and upgrade our highways — would go down.

Washington has a full plate of important national issues that need attention — topics such as health care, banking reform, education funding, carbon emissions, job creation and our crumbling transportation infrastructure, just to name a few. Decisions made with respect to narrow interests on one issue should not preclude or prevent action on another, or worse, create new problems in other areas. We need to stop the “hey, that’s my ox!” mentality. The greater good suffers when the solution to one problem shifts the burden to someone else, or disadvantages another constituency in the process. Such is often the case with broad brush policy decisions that are not thoroughly thought out.

Source: fhwa.dot.gov

The message from BNSF Railway Group Vice President Stephen Branscum was strikingly positive. In a recent letter to Transport Topics magazine, he cited as accurate “BNSF’s willingness to work with shippers and American Trucking Associations to develop progressive changes to TS&W (truck size and weight) rules for the betterment of our nation’s transportation system . . .”

Could it be true?  Was the rail industry really ready to join up with us truckers and strike ahead as a united front to improve our nation’s critical transportation infrastructure?  I was giddy with anticipation!

Alas, while the sentiment was encouraging, sadly, it lasted about two seconds. In his letter, Mr. Branscum then quickly reverted to form, attacking the trucking industry, which, oddly enough, is one of the railroad’s largest customers. He criticized the industry and existing government policies, claiming: “The current system of taxation is subsidizing trucks . . . and provides a competitive advantage to the trucking industry, to the detriment of our nation’s roads and overall transportation system.” He also stated that trucking did not pay its fair share of infrastructure costs. These comments are all the more interesting, coming from an industry that is currently seeking a federal investment tax credit.

It’s disappointing to see the railroad industry unable to overcome old habits. Slamming the trucking industry with the same tired rhetoric does nothing to bring meaningful progress to the infrastructure problems we collectively face as a nation and an integrated transportation industry.

His comments, at best, are disingenuous. When you consider the billions of dollars trucking pays annually through registration fees, fuel, sales and excise taxes, tolls and other assessments — monies intended for bridge and road maintenance and capacity increases — Mr. Branscum’s argument doesn’t wash. The larger issue is how some of these funds are being co-opted for uses other than modernizing and repairing our highways. Today, about 25% of every gasoline or fuel tax dollar collected from highway users is diverted to non-highway use — projects such as heavy and light-rail mass transit, bridle paths, bicycle trails and Frisbee parks.

The economic success of the United States cannot be decoupled from our transportation systems. It takes all modes of transportation to move America, and it takes a vibrant, well-designed and well-maintained critical infrastructure to provide the foundation for our nation to compete in the global marketplace. Each mode of transportation plays a role. Shippers ultimately determine the mode that provides the best value proposition.

It should be incumbent upon transportation service providers to work together to improve our nation’s infrastructure. Trucking provides exclusive service to about 80% of our nation’s cities and towns. If the rail industry were to double its intermodal capacity overnight, it would remove only an additional 1.5% of trucks from our highways. Those are inconvenient truths for the rail industry.

The Highway Trust Fund and its funding mechanisms perform as designed and ensure that highway users pay their fair share toward the costs of maintaining and improving our infrastructure. What needs to be addressed are those policy decisions that prevent 100% of these funds from being applied to where they are most sorely needed — our highways.

I was talking to a Con-way Freight driver the other day and we got on the subject of distracted drivers. It really lit him up. “It’s getting worse,” he told me, shaking his head in despair. “If it’s not someone distracted on a cell phone, it’s somebody else trying to read or send a text message. They take their eyes off the road and the next thing you know, they’re drifting into me!

It’s time that we ratchet up the volume on this problem and get people to pay attention. Kudos to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, whose Welcome to the Fast Lane blog last week saluted organizations taking steps to combat distracted driving and the threat this presents to the safety of America’s highways.

Con-way has nearly 18,000 employees who are literally working on the road every day. It’s like their office. They treat driving with all the attention and professionalism you would expect of someone who pilots a large commercial truck for a living, and has dozens of businesses reliant on that driver for the safe delivery of their goods. We share Secretary LaHood’s concern over this issue. Congress has held hearings on it and I recently testified before a House committee on this very subject, on behalf of the American Trucking Associations (ATA).

Con-way and ATA believe that while driver distraction can take many forms, the most problematic is the use of hand-held electronic devices and the act of reading, writing or sending text messages while a vehicle is in motion. According to a Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study, text messaging makes the risk of a crash or near-crash 23 times higher (see www.vtti.vt.edu) than normal. That threat to safety is unacceptable. Both Con-way and ATA support the ALERT Drivers Act of 2009 (H.R. 3535), the proposed legislation that would ban texting while operating a vehicle. Con-way already prohibits its drivers from using any PDA device while operating company trucks.

With some other forms of in-cab technology, the issue of distraction becomes more complicated. In-cab communications and driver monitoring systems, used widely in particular by long-haul truckload carriers, are a prime example. While under some circumstances these devices could cause driver distraction — and many companies including Con-way Truckload have addressed this issue through specific policies and usage training — they also enhance drivers’ ability to do their jobs safely, effectively and efficiently. We join ATA in the belief that detailed analysis and public comment should take place if any restrictions on this type of technology are considered.

New policies and, as necessary, legislation, will help battle the problem of distracted driving with the motoring public. But it won’t make a difference or resolve the threat to highway safety unless the change in laws is matched by a shift in public perception, attitude and especially, behavior. If automobile drivers don’t see these distractions as a threat to safety, behaviors simply won’t change. And that’s unacceptable.

Come on, America. Put down your PDAs while driving. You will be safer, as will the hundreds of thousands of professional truck drivers who are sharing the road with you and providing the critical services that keep our supply chains and economy humming.

Here’s a great idea for a bumper sticker: Gotta text? Pull over!

Source: Groundhog.org

Most of us probably remember Bill Murray as weatherman Phil Connors in the 1993 movie “Groundhog Day.” In the movie, Phil finds himself continually waking up in Punxsutawney, PA, trapped in the same rewind of Groundhog Day he experienced the day before, and the day before that.

Today, the trucking industry is trapped in its own version of Groundhog Day.  In our case, it’s yet another round of rulemaking over Hours of Service (HOS) regulations that govern how long a truck driver can be on duty.

As background, HOS regulations were basically unchanged for 60 years until 2003 when new rules were issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).  Almost immediately, an opposition coalition emerged comprised of The Truck Safety Coalition, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Public Citizen and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. This coalition was determined to fight the new rules, suing not once but three times.

In 2004, the court vacated the HOS rule on the grounds that the government did not adequately consider the effects of longer driving hours on individual truck driver health and traffic safety.  In 2007, the same rule was reissued by the FMCSA, was again challenged in court and again vacated.

In this latest instance, the rule was overturned because the agency did not let the public examine and comment on the new crash risk analysis used to support reissuing the same exact rule.  And then just a few weeks ago, DOT agreed to have FMCSA do another round of HOS rulemaking.  As a result, the opposition coalition asked the court to “press the pause button,” and hold the coalition’s most recent lawsuit in abeyance (the court agreed). Under the agreement, FMCSA must begin a new rulemaking process and submit a notice of proposed rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget within nine months and publish a final rule within 21 months.

Much like Groundhog Day, this continuous litigation and rulemaking merry-go-round virtually guarantees another challenge.  If the opposition coalition does not agree with the new rule, they will simply resume their current court challenge. If the trucking industry feels harmed, it will likely go to the courts with a challenge of its own.  Either way, get ready for round four.

What is obscured by this debate (as is often the case) are the facts.  Under existing HOS rules (which have now been in effect for five years), the rate of fatalities resulting from large truck crashes is at a record low level, even as vehicle miles traveled has increased.  It’s an inconvenient truth for the opposition coalition.   One can expect they would argue that the results would be even better under rules they prefer.  But that’s just speculation at this point.

One point of total agreement is that there is no more important job for FMCSA (and for the trucking industry) than safety.  The means of achieving that vision varies and requires informed debate, not just emotionally charged rhetoric.   In the view of the HOS petitioners, there is no cost too high.  At the same time, many in the industry feel the current rules are working and achieving desired safety results. So despite the best efforts of FMCSA and DOT to balance differing views, it seems we have not seen the last HOS Groundhog Day.

RMAH4GMD63SM

In their discourse over climate change legislation, lawmakers continue to propose reduced vehicle travel as a strategy to lower fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The transportation industry must further its commitment to the environment, but impeding our nation's mobility by enacting policies to limit growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) should not be a national policy. In addition to eliminating personal freedom and threatening our nation’s productivity, getting people out of their cars and off the roads also means less revenue for the ailing Highway Trust Fund (HTF).

Instead of limiting vehicle use, we must become more efficient and utilize technologies to decrease fuel use and limit carbon emissions. It’s pleasing to see support for a few of the sustainability recommendations already supported by the trucking industry.

Through a strong partnership with engine manufacturers, new over-the-road truck engines far exceed the EPA’s diesel engine emission standards set in 2007. Hold a white cloth over the exhaust stack of a new truck today and the cloth stays white.

Regulatory policies to limit and enforce speed limits are also important, not only for highway safety, but also for the reduction in fuel use. Enacting a national speed limit not to exceed 65 miles per hour and governing speeds of all trucks manufactured at no more than 65 miles per hour would drastically reduce fuel consumption and reduce CO₂ emissions.

Reducing traffic congestion is another vitally important strategy for lowering fuel consumption and carbon emissions.

Source: www.corrosioncost.com

The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that Americans waste 2.8 billion gallons of fuel each year because of congestion on our highways. We must have a system for highway infrastructure funding that will effectively support these necessary environmental goals.

The federal fuel tax is still the most efficient way to collect revenue for the HTF, but it must be updated to keep up with our current needs. The current tax – 18.4 cents per gallon charge for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel – has not been adjusted since 1993, yet costs of highway projects continue to escalate. This is a very poor formula for maintaining a healthy trust fund. The trucking industry supports an increase in the fuel tax, so long as the revenue goes directly to highway infrastructure and is not diverted to non-highway uses, as it has been in the past.

The trucking industry is deeply committed to reducing fuel consumption and GHG emissions, but these objectives do not have to come at the expense of a safe and effective highway transportation system.

Two months?  Six Months?  Eighteen months?  Who knows?  As policymakers in Washington spar over the length of the next extension of the current surface transportation bill, it strikes me that this focus on the length of time also leads one to consider timing more generally.  As in, how does the Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) bill fit within the current legislative cycle and perhaps more importantly, the political one.

Nearly every serious observer of transportation issues believes that additional federal funding is necessary to restore our highways to world class status.  There is a sense of urgency led by Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica to get a bill out sooner rather than later.   According to many supporters, the infrastructure projects made possible by the bill are the very stimulus needed to put people back to work during the current economic crisis.  This is a credible argument and the projects involved are tangible, long-term investments in one of the most important underpinnings of our economy – transportation infrastructure.

Many transportation stakeholders and policy makers are supportive of the House T&I Committee’s $500 billion price tag for the next bill.   There is just one small detail – there is no clear way to pay for it!    This is not unusual in Washington and, though there is no clear favorite, there is no shortage of funding proposals.  Everything from VMT (vehicle mileage tax) and user fees, to taxes on each barrel of oil, to old fashioned (but elusive) increases in fuel taxes at the pump are being evaluated.   Even less clear than the means to raise the revenue is the will of the Congress to impose the chosen revenue mechanism on the motoring public, and the timing of doing so.

That brings us to timing.  Apparently the administration has decided that it is likely a tax increase will be necessary to pay for the next surface transportation bill.  It makes sense then that they desire an eighteen month extension, delaying any votes on highway/fuel tax increases until after the 2010 elections.  In fairness to the Administration, they do have quite an aggressive legislative agenda (including climate change and health care) that they want to complete before moving on to transportation.

Then there is the other timing issue. If Congress passes climate change legislation that significantly raises fuel prices before the T&I bill is passed, there will be absolutely no appetite to raise taxes to pay for the investment in transportation spending that is so desperately needed.

Chairman Oberstar is correct to keep the pressure on and insist on the shortest possible extension.  Only in that way will there be multiple windows of opportunity to focus the debate and insert surface transportation reauthorization into the legislative agenda with timing that enhances the chances.  So as you can see, often times in Congress, timing is everything!

Source: www.whitehouse.gov

The 9/11 Act passed by Congress in 2007 included the requirement to scan 100% of U.S. inbound containerized cargo. In the years since the law passed, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the international community have spoken out loudly in opposition to the mandate and the impact it would have on global trade, economic recovery and the negative effects on security. Despite this vocal opposition and the universal opinion that CBP will not meet the 2012 deadline, Congress keeps the mandate in place.

I believe recent comments by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce capture the heart of the argument. These provide a realistic baseline for moving forward with a reasonable approach to global security:

“A policy of blanket inspection misdirects limited resources away from programs with the greatest security benefits and places an unnecessary burden on the global supply chain. Since the passage of the 9/11 Act in 2007, it has become evident, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reported, that the 100 percent mandate is impracticable and abandons the effectiveness of the multilayered risk based approach. Beyond the direct costs of implementation, the hidden costs contribute to greater supply chain delays and increased trade barriers. In light of the operational shortcomings of this mandate, keeping the law in place sends a confusing message to the international community and threatens U.S. credibility toward developing a viable trade security program.”

Primary concerns over this mandate, outlined below, have been shared with Congress by current and past leadership at DHS, the Governmental Accountability Office, and the international community. These concerns include:

• significant technical and affordability challenges with current technology;
• insufficient infrastructure at foreign ports;
• threat of reciprocity by the international community;
• strong opposition from U.S. trading partners;
• focusing the limited resources of Customs on an ineffective program;
• security that is actually diminished, not enhanced, and;
• substantial impact on global trade and economic recovery.

The United States should reach out to its trading partners to develop a comprehensive, multilateral supply chain security program that promotes trade and security on both sides of the transaction. We can accomplish these goals by furthering discussions on the WCO SAFE Framework and moving forward on mutual recognition.

The end game for business and government is to come up with a harmonized approach that both enhances the security of global supply chain operations and facilitates legitimate trade. Congress should end this unworkable mandate, and show the international community that they are serious about making real progress on this issue.