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: 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.

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.

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.