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.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.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.