The long-awaited federal Highway Reauthorization legislation is set to move forward this fall giving Congress the opportunity to modernize American truck weight limits and facilitate economic growth just when we need it most.

Lawmakers are expected to begin drafting the Reauthorization proposal, which will fund our transportation network for the next few years. In this bill, Congress will have the critical chance to include truck weight reform known as the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act (SETA), legislation now pending in both the House and Senate. SETA would give states the opportunity to allow more productive trucks on interstate highways within their borders.

Many trucks carrying heavier goods meet the current federal gross vehicle weight limit before they are fully loaded. The weight limit forces shippers to underutilize these trucks leading to more vehicles on the road, more miles traveled and more fuel used than we really need. SETA would help correct this inefficiency by allowing a properly equipped truck to carry more freight on the interstate.

Under SETA, states could set interstate weight limits of up to 97,000 pounds for single-trailer vehicles that are equipped with six axles instead of the typical five. The sixth axle compensates for the additional weight, allowing shippers and carriers to safely use more space inside each rig. This additional axle maintains — and even improves — current braking, handling and weight-per-tire characteristics for the truck, all of which improve the safety features of the truck.

Transportation Research Board (TRB) and U.S. DOT studies have both confirmed the fact that a six-axle truck traveling at 97,000 pounds maintains the same braking distance as one running at the current federal weight limit of 80,000 pounds with the current five axles. And because of the additional tires, a heavier six-axle rig puts even less weight per tire on the road.

If equipped with six axles, trucks can safely ship more freight and shippers and carriers can significantly reduce the vehicle miles traveled, as well as fuel and emissions necessary to get products to market. At Kraft Foods, about 40 percent of trucks currently hit the weight limit with significant space left in the trailer. SETA would allow the company to annually eliminate approximately 33 million vehicle miles traveled, more than six million gallons of fuel and 73,000 tons of carbon dioxide from its operations (EPA SmartWay calculations). And that's just one company.

So why make this change now? It's imperative that we use our infrastructure as productively as possible. That means more efficient shipping options. And reducing the amount of fuel needed per ton of freight helps us all as we look to better use our petroleum.

When it comes to truck weights, the United States is simply behind. America trails all other developed countries in cargo mass productivity. Our major trading partners, including many European countries and Canada, already employ trucks that can bear higher weights. We are simply at a competitive disadvantage because we can't move freight to market as efficiently. Considering the rapid population growth and the spike in tonnage shipped on our highways, it is imperative we act now.

Now is the time for lawmakers to bring the U.S. federal weight limit up to date. I hope you will join me and the Coalition for Transportation Productivity in asking Congress to include SETA in the Highway Reauthorization legislation. SETA will help U.S. shippers become more productive and reduce our carbon footprint in a way that is both safe for the motoring public and sustainable for our highways.

For more information about SETA and the truck weight reform effort, visit www.transportationproductivity.org.

This blog post by National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Debbie Hersman, originally appeared in  "NTSB Safety Compass" on March 31st.

Late on Wednesday, I hit the road on a two-day, four-state journey from Washington, D.C. My final destination is Louisville, Kentucky, and the 2011 Mid-America Trucking Show, the world’s largest forum for the heavy trucking industry. On Saturday, I’ll have the honor of speaking with about 1,200 of America’s professional women truck drivers at the second annual Women in Trucking (WIT) “Salute to Women Behind the Wheel.” More on that in a moment.

But for now, let me tell you a bit about my journey to get there. I’ve covered some 460 of my 632 mile road trip so far. You might be asking yourself, “Why not just fly to Louisville?” Well, quite simply, it is hard to know what it is really like to be on the road from a federal office building in Washington. When Ellen Voie of WIT offered me the opportunity to “ride” to Kentucky, I jumped at the chance.

There is no better way to get a feel for the issues facing the industry than spend time in the cab with professional truck drivers. Besides, is there any better way to travel to the nation’s largest trucking show than to experience the ride, technology and accommodations in 5 different heavy trucks?

I’ve learned a lot since leaving NTSB headquarters last evening. I have listened to the drivers and they each have a different perspective and have impressed me with their knowledge and professionalism.

Let me start by telling you about my first leg of the trip. I spent the first 150 miles with Stephanie Klang, a driver from Con-way. As we made our way out of the dark and grey city, passing monuments and cherry blossoms, Stephanie remained focused on one thing — safety. In fact, that’s the common thread that I am seeing on this trip. So far it’s been five different and diverse drivers from all over the country — all with one thing in mind — getting to their destination safely, delivering their load, doing it again and again to support their families. Stephanie carefully maneuvered through Washington’s rush-hour hour traffic and calmly faced rain, snow, and, worse yet, sleet in the dark. The entire time, her eyes were on the road. Did I mention that Stephanie has 2.74 million safe miles in her logbook?

When I speak at WIT’s “Salute to Women” event on Saturday, I’ll be saluting Stephanie Klang, Jill Garcia, Angela Jordan, Jo Carty and hundreds of other women who drive safely, every day, on our nation’s highways — delivering the goods to the rest of us.

Got to go and get back on the road again, but I will share more of my experiences soon.

Over and out (for now).

Source: www.examiner.com

A few weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued a regulatory proposal that would revise the hours-of-service (HOS) requirements for commercial truck drivers. Why you ask?

In October 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) signed an HOS litigation settlement agreement with the Teamsters Union and Public Citizen. As part of the settlement, DOT agreed to have the FMCSA publish a new proposed rule that must be finalized by July 2011.

You may ask, “Why the need?” Consider this: The number of truck-involved traffic fatalities declined 20 percent in 2009, dropping from 4,245 in 2008 to 3,380 in 2009. Also, the number of large-truck occupants injured in crashes dropped 26 percent. This marks the lowest number recorded by DOT in history. The current reduction also marks the fourth straight annual decline and a 33 percent drop since the new hours-of-service rules first went into effect in 2004.

Yet, FMCSA’s opening sentence in their proposal summary states the reason for the proposed change is to “promote safety and to protect driver health.” Why would FMCSA make such a claim?

According to American Trucking Associations (ATA), it appears that FMCSA is treating every crash in which fatigue is listed as an associated factor as a fatigue-caused crash. This is troubling and contradictory with DOT’s own report to Congress on the 2006 Large Truck Crash Causation Study, in which it stated that, for associated factors, “No judgment is made as to whether any factor is related to the particular crash, just whether it was present.”

Why is this troubling?

As stated in ATA’s letter to FMCSA, in its data inconsistency, “FMCSA has nearly doubled in its analysis of the number of truck-involved crashes that are likely caused by fatigue.” Therefore, the benefit estimations cited by the Administration are grossly inflated.

For many years our industry has worked under a rule that has been accepted, tested and proven to work. During these years, we have also seen a steady improvement of truck safety on our highways. And yet, we are once again facing significant, untested rule changes by FMCSA.

One has to ask why?

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.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.

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.

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.

After graduating high school in 1976 I was living in an old steel/manufacturing town where there were few employment possibilities.  At that time continuing on to college just wasn’t an option.   I was 18 years old. I needed to decide what to do with my life. How do you know what you want to do when you’ve experienced so little?

My father ingrained in me simple but important qualities that you should always work hard and give a job your best effort.  Surely there were employers looking for workers with such traits. But what could I offer an employer? My father worked in a small family business alongside his 4 brothers.  The rest of my family worked in one of the large manufacturing plants.  There was no room in the family business, and the large plants were all in decline.

The only things at that time that interested me were truck driving and serving in the military.  If I wanted to enter a truck driving school, I would have needed to take out a loan.  Most employers wanted their drivers at a minimum age of 21. If I didn’t get a job in trucking how would I pay back the loan? If I entered the military, they would train me to drive a truck, and when my enlistment was up I would be 21.  So that’s the course I took, serving my country and being a truck driver in the military.

I came out of the service three years later, smack into a slumping economy. I decided to focus all my efforts on one employer that was hiring drivers.  I submitted 54 applications to this employer in hope for an opportunity.  Finally I got an interview and a road test.  While being tested, the safety manager told me he was impressed with my determination, and I got the interview because I always filled out a consistent application and never gave up.

I was so excited to get that job.  Not only did it alter my career, but it changed my life. It gave me purpose. It reinforced basic principles about respect, integrity, dignity, being accountable to yourself and others, and the value of an honest day’s work. It gave me confidence that I could achieve things I once doubted, such as owning a home and providing well for my family.

I have been a professional truck driver for 28 years now, and increasingly I ask myself, where will we find the next generation for our industry?  I realize that today’s young adults are different (Twitter? Facebook? Online everything all the time?) from my generation in lots of ways.  Yet many of them will come out of high school much like I did: unsure of their future, not knowing what options are available to them to shape it.  They will ask many of the same questions I did 28 years ago.

How do we attract them to the trucking industry? Simple. Just ask them. Take a page out of the past, invite them to join as an “apprentice” (when did you last hear that term) where they can learn and experience the profession through paid, on-the-job training.

That’s exactly what my company, Con-way Freight, has set up, and what I will be doing as a driver-training instructor in this new program. Apprentice drivers will be offered a part-time 20 hour week working on the dock to provide them with income.  The other 20 hours will be spent learning the industry’s rules, safety regulations and how to drive a truck – at no cost. When the candidate successfully completes the program, they’ll be offered the opportunity for promotion to full-fledged Con-way Driver Sales Representative.

This program is designed to do much more than fill the seats of Con-way Freight’s trucks.  When the student completes the program, not only will they have their Commercial Drivers License (CDL), they will have learned how to be CSA 2010 compliant – a requirement for the future. They’ll be among the best trained, safest and most knowledgeable drivers in the industry.

Many things have changed over my 28 years of trucking, but the need for good people has not.  Tomorrow’s drivers will have to be better and more knowledgeable than I was when I started.  I’ve learned a lot over the years, and as a driving instructor I hope to share that insight and experience with the young people who join our program.  For me, it’s time to “Pay it Forward” by giving back to an industry that’s given me so much.

David May is a driver-sales representative for Con-way Freight and works a city route for the company’s Buffalo, NY service center. A 28-year industry veteran, he is an America’s Road Team captain and a vocal advocate for the trucking industry, professional truck drivers and improving safety for all motorists on America’s highways.