This Op-ed by James H. Burnley, chairman, CleanerSaferTrucking, Inc. originally appeared in The Hill’s Congress Blog.

As America struggles to reignite its flagging economy, a policy debate is raging in Washington, D.C. about how to increase our productivity, create jobs in our economy, and enhance our ability to compete globally. At the forefront of this debate is finding a workable solution to the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure needs, and how that solution can bring productivity gains to all sectors of transportation to the benefit of every business and consumer.

Among the issues being discussed is the use of longer combination vehicles (LCVs), most commonly known as “triples,” on federally designated national highways. In 1991, the federal government passed a provision in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that stripped the states of their authority to regulate size and weight limits for trucks traveling on federal highways in their states. This despite the fact that a state’s department of transportation is better qualified to determine which truck/trailer configurations are best-suited for that state’s highways.

As a result of this federal “freeze” only 16 states enjoy the safety, efficiency and sustainability benefits from strategic use of triple-trailers. Even as states have seen new communities rise and population densities shift, this outdated restriction has prevented them from making prudent decisions about the use of these LCVs. Even common-sense changes that would allow triples to run on new and more appropriate highways — thereby benefiting local communities — are prohibited.

This undermines the ability of trucking operations to be more efficient in moving freight, and undercuts U.S. manufacturers’ ability to be more competitive with our trading partners in North America, Europe and Asia, which are not bound by the same restrictions.

More efficient trucking also lowers fuel use and curtails greenhouse gas emissions. Triples burn 29 percent less fuel than double 28-foot trailers on a ton-mile-per-gallon basis; this translates directly to a 29 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. One trucking company calculated fuel savings on 10 routes for the month of July 2010 if triples had been permissible. On an annualized basis, 5.7 million gallons of diesel fuel would be saved, with a reduction of 62,967 tons of carbon emissions.

As the industry is able to realize productivity gains from sensible use of LCVs, the opportunity to reduce truck traffic becomes real. Enhanced safety equipment and the special training federally mandated for LCV operators will mean fewer accidents and fatalities. In fact, triples have a better safety record than singles and double 28-foot trailers.

As a nation, we must address ways to manage growth and capacity of our transportation infrastructure intelligently and efficiently. The American Trucking Associations estimates that with just modest economic growth, trucks will haul 30 percent more freight in 10 years than they do today. LCVs can be a key part of the mix that efficiently manages these higher freight volumes, along with strategic and prudent investments to improve our nation’s highways. It’s time to retire this antiquated federal restriction and move toward progress.

This guest post is provided by Michael Koploy. Koploy, an ERP Analyst at Software Advice, provides consumers with reviews and comparisons of transportation management software for Software Advice. The original post on this topic can be found here.

Businesses are successfully run on efficient transportation, and efficient transportation requires cheap gasoline to survive. When fuel costs rise, this affects many businesses' bottom lines. And while many businesses don't pass this on to consumers, this isn't the case for many commodities, including corn, rubber, aluminum, beef, wheat, and cotton, among others. All of these are easily outpacing inflation.

Let's take a look at the impact of rising fuel prices, from both a consumer and business standpoint. It doesn't just affect how much it takes to fill up.

Rising Gas Prices

The '79 oil crisis brought gas to close to $3.50 when adjusted for inflation. Funny that $3.50 gas today seems the norm...even "cheap," by some standards.

US Gasoline Prices vs World Gasoline Prices

In Mid-May, gasoline in Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Sweeden, and Italy cost over twice the average US price.

Businesses are Raising Gas Prices In Response to Higher Fuel Costs

As fuel prices increase, so do the operating costs for businesses. In response, many are forced to raise their prices.

The "Trickle Down" is Leading to Rising Commodity Prices

The change in commodity prices from January 2010 to January 2011 is outpacing inflation - to put it mildly. See what I mean below.

PPI/CPI Inflation

To see the effect on the economy as a whole, just take a look at the indexes.

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.

This blog post by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator Anne Ferro, originally appeared in "The Fast Lane -- The Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation" on March 17th.

Women are thriving in every sector of our society.  We are leading businesses and serving at the highest levels of government.  We are succeeding in careers that our mothers and grandmothers never could have imagined.  And that includes not only driving big rigs, but managing their safe operations.

This month the Council on Women and Girls released a new report on Women in America that shows few women are working in the construction, production or transportation sectors.

But I know there is an untapped pool of talented women drivers and women who would be well suited as safety managers. We know, too, that the current gender imbalance for drivers deprives trucking of a vital source of talent.

Trucking is a strong industry.  It’s a leading indicator of our nation’s economic health, hauling 70 percent of the tonnage carried by all modes of domestic freight transportation.  And women in trucking have contributed to that strength.  But we can do a lot better.

We must take action on our own to encourage the women we know to consider trucking as a career or to help them advance in the trucking industry.  I have a few suggestions for the women already in the industry:

1. Be a mentor to women interested in trucking. Take time to advise others on how they can succeed and advance in their positions.
2. Pay it back.  Get involved at the community level so others can learn about what you do.
3. Be an ambassador.  Seek opportunities to represent the trucking industry.  Be visible.  Be accessible.  Inspire someone.

Our country is made better by working women.  Women have played a significant role in building and sustaining a strong economy.

Trucking can also be made better by adding women. To make that happen, we need to educate the industry on how they can benefit from every additional woman behind the wheel or in the boardroom.  Let’s move forward today and continue removing the challenges that hold women back in trucking.

Last month, American Trucking Associations (ATA) and Volvo Trucks North America, part of the Volvo Group based in Gothenburg, Sweden, co-sponsored an event at the Swedish Embassy in Washington, D.C. “The Future of Freight Transportation” was attended by more than 100 transportation executives and other stakeholders and served as a timely forum to discuss important issues affecting the industry in years to come — particularly as a new decade of challenges begins.

The purpose of event was to spark a dialogue that would help the industry identify how best to address the transportation challenges created by the growing U.S. population and increased demand for freight along three fronts: truck productivity, environment/fuel efficiency and safety. Representatives from Volvo Trucks North America and ATA moderated three panel discussions which included participants from commercial trucking companies, truck drivers and industry associations.

Though the group acknowledged that the industry had made a great deal of progress reducing accidents and emissions, the general consensus was that the most effective low-cost strategies have already been widely adopted. And so the question on the table remained: Is there another way to have a substantial impact on both safety and greenhouse gas emissions?

Most concluded that the silver bullet is to increase truck productivity. With that said, it’s difficult to convince the public and members of Congress that it’s safer even if we have the research to back it up. It’s simply not an intuitive concept. One of the most important comments to come out of the panel was that the debate about truck productivity is no longer about whether the science supports increased limits, but whether policy and politics will allow commonsense changes. We need to adapt the trucking industry’s rules and regulations to a changing world — and more productive vehicles would yield greater fuel efficiency, enhance safety and relieve congestion.

The event at the Swedish Embassy was truly a substantive, pragmatic discussion that enabled broad exploration of the trucking industry, where we’ve been and what we have yet to accomplish. We’ve got a great deal to be proud of, particularly with the progress we’ve made on both environmental and safety issues. The fact that truck productivity emerged as a common thread in each of the three panels was powerful and helped reveal and confirm to all those in attendance that the issue is indeed one that will take center stage in 2011 and beyond.

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.businessweek.com

New federal legislation presents a unique opportunity to safely improve the efficiency and sustainability of truck shipments. The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act (SETA), now pending in both the House and Senate, would give states the option to set interstate weight limits of up to 97,000 pounds for trucks equipped with a sixth axle. Without lengthening the truck, the sixth axle maintains braking and handling capabilities, with a slight decrease in the current weight per tire.

SETA is critical to making the shipment of heavy goods more efficient. Many trucks packed with weighty goods hit the 80,000-pound federal weight limit before the truck is fully loaded. That means these trucks leave the loading dock partially empty. Under SETA, however, shippers could safely utilize more space in their rigs — and avoid using more truckloads and fuel than necessary.

As the largest food company in the United States, Kraft Foods supports SETA because it would shrink our carbon footprint without compromising safety. About 40 percent of our trucks currently hit the weight limit with significant space left in the trailer. Under SETA, we could reduce the number of trucks we’re using by about 6 percent. That translates to 60,000 fewer loads and 33 million fewer vehicle miles traveled each year. And we could also eliminate 73,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually.

Further, the U.S. DOT predicts that freight shipped by truck will dramatically increase over the next decade as our economy grows. By boosting the amount of freight each truck can safely carry, SETA will reduce the number of trucks and vehicle miles necessary to meet demand — and therefore make roads safer now and in the future. In fact, based on the findings of a 2009 Wisconsin Department of Transportation study, if a law like the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act had been in place in 2006, it would have prevented 90 truck-related accidents in the state that year.

SETA will no doubt improve safety records for U.S. shippers, lower their environmental profiles and save major companies tens of millions of dollars per year in shipping costs.

Please contact your members of Congress, and help us show them that SETA will make truck shipment safer, greener and more efficient. For more information about SETA and this truck weight reform effort, visit www.transportationproductivity.org.

Kraft Foods makes delicious foods consumers can feel good about in 150 countries around the globe and is a customer of Con-way Inc. Harry Haney also serves as chairman of the Coalition for Transportation Productivity, a group of over 160 shippers and related industry organizations advocating for the passing of SETA.

www.fleetowner.com

If you are looking for news from Washington that will brighten your day, please stop reading now!

Since the 1950s when legislation was enacted to build the Interstate Highway System, Congress has passed, and the President has signed into law, a renewal of the federal commitment to surface transportation infrastructure every few years. While initially dedicated to highways and funded by fuel taxes through the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), federal aid to transit was added to the mix about 30 years ago. This was and is justified by the need to reduce congestion on our roads, particularly in urban areas.

Of course, each renewal of these programs triggered vigorous debates about issues such as raising fuel taxes, equitable distribution of funding among the states and numerous other issues. But the need for a robust federal program to build and maintain a vast national road system was virtually universally recognized. We have had a consensus among those who govern us that interstate commerce, international trade and the right of Americans to have individual mobility over long distances all made such a program essential.

Furthermore, until the end of 2008, the consensus seemed to be strengthening. Two commissions created by Congress in the last surface transportation reauthorization bill focused on the need to find additional funding to expand our highway system and related facilities. While there was disagreement about where to find the money (i.e., higher fuel taxes, or a vehicle miles traveled tax or private investment or some mixture of the three), there was recognition that a projected doubling of freight over the next 20 years would overwhelm our existing system. There was also a consensus that, despite the advertising campaigns of the Class I freight railroads, trucks would have to continue to carry the vast majority of freight.

No more.

The last surface transportation reauthorization bill expired on Sept. 30, 2009. The Obama Administration announced in its earliest days that it opposed any fuel tax increase. Furthermore, the Administration not only hasn’t proposed an alternative source of funding, it hasn’t even sent Congress a request for specific legislation provisions. So the country is limping along with periodic short-term extensions of the old legislation. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee became so frustrated with the Administration that it passed a draft bill, but with no numbers in it!

Worse still, because of the recession and other factors, the HTF has virtually collapsed.  Over the last two years, Congress has transferred more than $70 billion to highway and transit programs from general revenues and deficit financing. The majority of this money was included, on a one-time only basis, in the so-called “stimulus” bill. Fuel taxes dedicated to the HTF can no longer support current highway and transit programs, much less any expansion. The whole concept of users paying into a trust fund that covers federal surface transportation programs is being undermined.

But the Administration and Congress have poured money into another aspect of surface transportation. Using deficit financing, over the last year and a half the federal government has appropriated more than $10 billion into our rail system, for both passenger and freight service (over 80 percent has gone to “high-speed” intercity passenger service). While most of these dollars have not yet been spent, the U.S. Department of Transportation has been vigorously making grant announcements.

Thus, even though Congress hasn’t passed new surface transportation legislation authorizing such a radical policy change, it is well under way.

If you believe that America needs a strong, growing freight transportation infrastructure system as a key element in a healthy economy, and that trucking must continue to play a vital role in that system, then it really is time to let your senators and house members know.  If they don’t hear from you, they aren’t likely to straighten this out. The consequences for us and for our children will be an America ever less able to compete.

Jim Burnley is a partner in the Washington office of Venable LLP, and is widely recognized as one of the nation's foremost authorities on transportation law and policy