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.

Over the course of history, the White House Rose Garden has been the venue for many Presidential decisions which heralded a new direction for our country. Earlier this summer, I had the opportunity to participate in one such event that, hopefully, we can look back on years from now and recall as the beginning of important change for our citizens, our nation and our industry.

The event was the signing by President Barack Obama of an official presidential memorandum on Fuel Efficiency Standards, which directed his administration to establish fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for commercial medium- and heavy-duty vehicles beginning with the nation’s 2014 models.

In a country so reliant on fossil fuels, increasing fuel efficiency while reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a goal worthy of everyone. The President’s action recognized the efforts of a group of industry leaders who see this goal as not only worthy for the environment, but necessary for our business.  And that’s the Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Leadership Group, a diverse coalition of trucking fleets and related technology providers formed earlier this year.

The mission of the group is to assist federal agencies in formulating effective policies to reduce GHG emissions and increase fuel efficiency in heavy-duty commercial vehicles, while avoiding unintended consequences that could disrupt the industry and our economy.

This group, of which Con-way is a founding member, believes that a strong GHG/fuel efficiency program can result in significant environmental, economic and national security benefits. Encouragingly, the President’s call to action emphasized the importance of collaboration between government and industry as the path forward to developing, refining and implementing effective policy.

To that end, the leadership group created and presented to the Administration and federal agencies a Statement of Principles to support and help guide the rulemaking process. These basic principles call for future regulations to:

• Leverage and build upon on existing programs proven to be effective

• Emphasize the prompt deployment of viable technologies

• Recognize the diversity of medium- and heavy-duty fleets

• Are complemented by financial incentives and transportation policies that accelerate results

At Con-way, we’ve already taken many critical steps in that direction. We’ve implemented initiatives that include reducing the speed of our tractors, moving to single wide-base tires for decreased rolling resistance and better fuel economy, no-idling policies and reengineering our freight network to run fewer miles and use less fuel.

As President Obama noted that day, freight vehicles are thought to be responsible for approximately 20 percent of the GHG related to transportation. He believes that we can increase tractor-trailer fuel economy by as much as 25 percent using technologies that now exist.

This is an achievable goal — if industry and government work together in a true partnership to make it a reality. The outcome will be the first-ever national GHG/fuel efficiency program for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. It’s a goal that has benefits for all — and one that, for the sustainability of our industry and our environment, deserves our full support.

Doug Stotlar is president and chief executive officer of Con-way Inc. He, along with Tommy Hodges, chairman of American Trucking Associations, and other industry executives joined President Obama at a Rose Garden signing ceremony earlier this year that laid the groundwork for new fuel efficiency standards for the trucking industry.

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: wikipedia.org

Soon the Secretary of Transportation will decide whether Pennsylvania can toll I-80.  In the end there is only one choice, but it’s not an easy decision because several good things might come from tolls on I-80.  First, Pennsylvania could fund maintenance on I-80 and other Pennsylvania roads.  Prior to Act 44, Pennsylvania’s annual maintenance shortfall was $1.2 billion (including transit).  And although tolling I-80 would likely divert traffic to other roads with higher crash rates, some trucks might divert to the PA Turnpike.  Currently trucks bound for Philadelphia and Harrisburg (distribution capital of the Mid-Atlantic) travel via I-80 and US-322, US-15, or I-476.  I know this from my many years living in Boalsburg, PA.  Setting I-80 tolls equal to those of the Turnpike could end much of this diversion.  Unfortunately for Pennsylvania, it might also result in DCs relocating to other States.

Second, it is worth noting that the value currently provided by the PA Turnpike is relatively low.  The Ohio Turnpike charges 80,000 pound, five-axle trucks a rate of 13.4 cents per mile while Pennsylvania charges similar trucks 42.7 cents (over three times as much).  From experience I can say that the Ohio Turnpike is a better road.  There may be many reasons for the difference, but clearly Pennsylvania has been using its Turnpike for things other than providing maximum value to travelers.

Third, while tolls on I-80 may provide a solution to Pennsylvania’s problems, they create more problems for the Nation.  Tolls above the cost to maintain the toll road are essentially a tax on local and interstate traffic.  If all States tax interstate commerce, then the economy and the Nation will suffer.  Just as setting fuel taxes too low to maintain roads is a bad idea, setting toll rates above incremental (or average) cost is a bad idea.  People and firms make bad decisions for the economy (but good for them) when their costs do not represent the true costs of doing business.  This is why provisions of TEA-21 and SAFETY-LU require toll revenues be used only for financially and physically maintaining interstates converted to toll roads.  The Pennsylvania plan violates both the intention and the letter of the law.

So with mixed feelings I predict that Secretary LaHood will deny Pennsylvania’s request a second time.  Pennsylvania will have to find an alternate way to maintain its roads, perhaps by reaching into the pockets of the citizens of Pennsylvania.

Pete Swan is an Assistant Professor of Logistics and Operations Management at Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania.  He researches issues involving productivity, operations, and transportation markets and is an active member of the Transportation Research Board.

As much as I’d like it to be otherwise, for the foreseeable future, the trucking industry will continue to be virtually 100% dependent on fossil fuels for energy to power our fleets. As such, the industry will remain for some time a significant source of carbon emissions.

Hybrids, electric trucks and other emerging technologies all have promise, but as we all learned in high school, the physics of applying energy to mass to achieve motion are pretty absolute. It takes a certain amount of energy to pull a heavy-duty Class 8 tractor- trailer – up to 80,000 pounds of truck and freight -- down the road. And while diesel engines are getting more efficient and eco-friendly every year, they still burn diesel, which at Con-way, equates to about 150 million gallons a year.

Yet when it comes to how we operate trucks, there are small and relatively easy actions that can lead to big victories for reducing carbon emissions. One of the answers is found in two simple words: Slow Down.

We did this in 2008 for both our less-than-truckload and full-truckload operations at Con-way.  In our LTL operations, which run both in cities and between them, we turned back the throttle governors of our trucks to run at a maximum speed of 62 mph, down from 65.  In our truckload operation, which runs mostly long-haul highway miles across the nation, we turned back their speed governors to 65 mph from 70 mph.

In the process, we made a couple of discoveries.  We saved fuel, to the tune of 6.6 million gallons annually, and saw a roughly 3% to 5% improvement in fuel mileage.  We lowered annual emissions of CO2 produced by our fleets, reducing them by more than 73,000 tons over previous levels.   The change didn’t impact on-time service since on an average run of 500 miles, the speed reduction in our LTL operations added about 25 minutes to the run time.

We also found benefit from an entirely different perspective.  Slowing down can make trucks safer.   At 70 mph, a truck will travel 257 feet in the average reaction time it takes a driver to apply the brakes when recognizing an object in the road ahead.   At 65 mph, that reaction distance goes down to 238 feet, so the truck slows and stops quicker.  And at 62 mph, the reaction distance shortens even further, to 227 feet.  With today’s congested highways, the shorter reaction distance gained by slowing down can mean the all the difference.

The second answer lies with driver behavior.  When truck drivers are trained to progressively shift, to avoid fast starts, hard stops and not idle their tractors, studies have shown that fuel economy can be improved anywhere from 5%  to 10%, depending on the skill of the driver.

The American Trucking Associations has called for a nationwide maximum truck speed limit of 65 mph and supports training drivers to maximize fuel economy. And while we’re not going to be speeding up our fleet (our LTL trucks already are at 62 mph), we believe the ATA standard is one we can and should rally around. It would be good for our industry, good for our environment and good for the motoring public with whom we share the road every day.