Bike Path to Nowhere

Even casual observers of transportation policy have noticed DOT’s emphasis on livability and, by extension, their fascination with “active transportation’ (aka biking and walking). Livability is a worthy goal for all communities and, though it is still a somewhat ill-defined policy concept, biking and bike paths are certainly key components.

In an effort to make Washington, DC more livable, the Mayor and Federal policymakers decided to put a bike path down the center of Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to the Capitol with no connections at either end. For those who do not frequent that area, this is not a typical bike path. Instead of narrow lanes down the curb side of the roadway, this bike “path” is a full three auto lanes wide going right down the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue. Yes, approximately one-third of the capacity of an already busy street in our nation’s capital was taken to serve a handful of cyclists. The result has been increased congestion, increased emissions, long rush hour delays, and the ire of many DC visitors, cabbies, workers, and residents. This is not a very livable result for any but the cyclists and, in apparent reaction to public pressure, DC has just announced that autos will now be able to use the left lanes again. Good for them, and an important lesson for other transportation policy makers.

Now, lest you believe I am anti-bike, I want to assure you this is not the case. Two of my three grown children bicycle regularly in Old Town Alexandria, a nearby Washington suburb. One does not own a car and cycles to work every day. If for no other reason than their safety, I support adequate accommodations for cyclists. That having been said, if cyclists are to be taken as serious members of the transportation community, perhaps it is time that reasonable requirements be placed upon them to insure they can safely interact with other road users and provide the necessary funding to support their projects.

Items that DOT and other transportation policy makers might consider are:

• Training, testing, licensing, and minimum age requirements for cyclists.
• Required insurance coverage to protect cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users.
• Minimum equipment standards and safety inspections.
• Mandatory helmet laws.
• Bike path user fees.
• Bicycle and tire excise taxes to fund bike path construction and maintenance
• Enforcement of all traffic laws for cyclists.

For policy makers who support increased use of cycling, failure to consider and provide proper regulatory oversight of new policies – and appropriate funding mechanisms to pay for it all -- is irresponsible and unfair to other road users.

The real issue is not bike paths. It is how do policymakers determine the best use of limited transportation dollars to improve our transportation system while increasing mobility for all Americans? There are many worthy projects, in all modes, that are well worth considering. A bike path to nowhere is not one of them.

TypePad Conversations » Answer this question!

Yes, Rail Is More Efficient … But

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 emissions of some greenhouse gases 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.  

Hey, That’s My Ox!

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, 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.

The Knee Bone's Connected to the Thigh Bone! 

A day does not go by in Washington without legislation intended to fix one problem ultimately affecting a host of other issues. It’s the principle of unintended consequences, and a fact of life in our complex world where everything has become so interconnected. Nowhere is this more evident than the transportation industry, which touches our economy, our environment and our infrastructure in virtually innumerable ways. It’s like the lyric from the popular children’s song that says “The knee bone’s connected to the thigh bone ...” Trucking, it seems, is connected to everything.

One example of how one issue can have a ripple effect on many others is truck productivity. The crux of the issue is truck size and weight, a debate that’s been raging for years in Washington and throughout the transportation sector. Recent forecasts estimate that freight volumes will increase nearly 28 percent by 2018, a growth curve that — absent any change in current size and weight restrictions — will require several million more trucks on America’s highways to meet demand. “More jobs, now that’s great!” you might think … until you consider the interconnected, unintended consequences: more traffic congestion and lost productivity. Increased fuel consumption and higher carbon emissions. The effect of more trucks putting more miles on a highway infrastructure already strained to the breaking point. The knee bone’s connected to the thigh bone ...

Many in the industry think the solution is clear: improve truck productivity. And there is a precedent — our counterparts in Europe, Canada and Australia have already done that and are reaping significant benefits. There’s plenty of research to support it. A 2008 American Transportation Research Institute study found that aligning our truck size and weight with the higher international standards would lead to great gains in productivity, as well as reductions in carbon emissions and a better shot at competing effectively in the global marketplace. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) has produced a list of recommendations — including raising the allowable weight of six-axle vehicles to 97,000 pounds and permitting 33-foot trailer combinations in certain states, and expanding the use of triple trailers where it is safe and practical to do so. We hope Congress will seriously consider them. With the projected rise in freight volumes, maximizing the efficiency of ou r transportation infrastructure has never been more important.

One state that may prove to be a good test bed is Maine. The Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation Appropriations bill recently signed into law by President Obama includes a provision to create a one-year pilot project to study the effects of eliminating the 80,000-pound vehicle weight limit on Maine’s federal highways. Allowing heavier trucks for a year will give researchers a chance to assess the impact on the much-debated areas of safety, commerce and road wear and tear.

It will be interesting to see how this experiment will educate the debate and, ultimately, the policy decisions which result. If the experience of our international colleagues is any guide, the consequences of more productive trucks will bring measurable benefits — for highway safety, the economy, our environment, congestion, business efficiency, energy policy and many other issues. The knee bone is connected to the thigh bone ...

Distracted Driving: Gotta Text? Pull Over!

I was talking to a Con-way Freight driver the other day and we got on the subject of distracted drivers. It really lit him up. “It’s getting worse,” he told me, shaking his head in despair. “If it’s not someone distracted on a cell phone, it’s somebody else trying to read or send a text message; they take their eyes of the road and the next thing you know, they’re drifting into me!”

It’s time that we ratchet up dialog on this problem and get people to pay attention. Kudos to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who’s Welcome to the Fast Lane blog last week saluted organizations taking steps to combat distracted driving and the threat this presents to the safety of America’s highways.

Con-way has nearly 18,000 employees who are literally working on the road every day. It’s like their office. They treat driving with all the attention and professionalism you would expect of someone who pilots a large commercial truck for a living, and has dozens of businesses reliant on that driver for the safe delivery of their goods. We share Secretary LaHood’s concern over this issue. I recently testified on it before a House committee on this subject, on behalf of the American Trucking Associations (ATA).

Con-way and ATA believe that while driver distraction can take many forms, the most problematic is the use of hand-held electronic devices and the act of reading, writing or sending text messages while a vehicle is in motion. According to a Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study, text messaging makes the risk of a crash or near-crash 23 times higher (see www.vtti.vt.edu ) than normal. That threat to safety is unacceptable. Both Con-way and ATA support the ALERT Drivers Act of 2009 (HR 0000), the proposed legislation that would ban texting while operating a vehicle. Con-way already prohibits its drivers from using any PDA device while operating company trucks.

With some other forms of in-cab technology the issue of distraction becomes more complicated. In-cab communications and driver monitoring systems, used widely in particular by long-haul truckload carriers – are a prime example. While under some circumstances these devices could cause driver distraction — and many companies including Con-way Truckload have addressed this issue through specific policies and usage training — they also enhance drivers’ ability to do their jobs safely, effectively and efficiently. We join ATA in the belief that detailed analysis and public comment should take place if any restrictions on this type of technology are considered.

New policies, and as necessary, legislation, will help battle the problem of distracted driving with the motoring public. But it won’t make a difference – and resolve the threat to highway safety – unless the change in laws is matched by a shift in public perception, attitude and behavior. If automobile drivers don’t see these distractions as a threat to safety, behaviors simply won’t change. And that’s unacceptable. Come on, America. Put down your PDA’s while driving. You will be safer, as will the hundreds of thousands of professional truck drivers who are sharing the road and provide the services that keep our economy humming.

Here’s a great idea for a bumper sticker: Gotta text? Pull over.

Groundhog Day

Most of us probably remember Bill Murray as weatherman Phil Connors in the 1993 movie “Groundhog Day.” In the movie, Phil finds himself continually waking up in Punxsutawney, PA, trapped in the same rewind of Groundhog Day he experienced the day before, and the day before that.
Today, the trucking industry is trapped in its own version of Groundhog Day. In our case, it’s yet another round of rulemaking over Hours of Service (HOS) regulations that govern how long a truck driver can be on duty.
As background, HOS regulations were basically unchanged for 60 years until 2003 when new rules were issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Almost immediately, an opposition coalition emerged comprised of The Truck Safety Coalition, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Public Citizen and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. This coalition was determined to fight the new rules, suing not once but three times.
In 2004, the court vacated the HOS rule on the grounds that the government did not adequately consider the effects of longer driving hours on individual truck driver health and traffic safety. In 2007, the same rule was reissued by the FMCSA, was again challenged in court and again vacated.
In this latest instance, the rule was overturned because the agency did not let the public examine and comment on the new crash risk analysis used to support reissuing the same exact rule. And then just a few weeks ago, DOT agreed to have FMCSA do another round of HOS rulemaking. As a result, the opposition coalition asked the court to “press the pause button,” and hold the coalition’s most recent lawsuit in abeyance (the court agreed). Under the agreement, FMCSA must begin a new rulemaking process and submit a notice of proposed rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget within nine months and publish a final rule within 21 months.
Much like Groundhog Day, this continuous litigation and rulemaking merry-go-round virtually guarantees another challenge. If the opposition coalition does not agree with the new rule, they will simply resume their current court challenge. If the trucking industry feels harmed, it will likely go to the courts with a challenge of its own. Either way, get ready for round four.
What is obscured by this debate (as is often the case) are the facts. Under existing HOS rules (which have now been in effect for five years), the rate of fatalities resulting from large truck crashes is at a record low level, even as vehicle miles traveled has increased. It’s an inconvenient truth for the opposition coalition. One can expect they would argue that the results would be even better under rules they prefer. But that’s just speculation at this point.
One point of total agreement is that there is no more important job for FMCSA (and for the trucking industry) than safety. The means of achieving that vision varies and requires informed debate, not just emotionally charged rhetoric. In the view of the HOS petitioners, there is no cost too high. At the same time, many in the industry feel the current rules are working and achieving desired safety results. So despite the best efforts of FMCSA and DOT to balance differing views, it seems we have not seen the last HOS Groundhog Day.

Timing is Everything

Two months?  Six Months?  Eighteen months?  Who knows?  As policymakers in Washington spar over the length of the next extension of the current surface transportation bill, it strikes me that this focus on the length of time also leads one to consider timing more generally.  As in, how does the T&I bill fit within the legislative cycle and perhaps more importantly, the political one. 

Nearly every serious observer of transportation issues believes that additional federal funding is necessary to restore our highways to world class status.  There is a sense of urgency led by Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica to get a bill out sooner rather than later.   According to many supporters, the infrastructure projects made possible by the bill are the very stimulus needed to put people back to work during the current economic crisis.  This is a credible argument and the projects involved are tangible, long-term investments in one of the most important underpinnings of our economy – the transportation system.   

Many transportation stakeholders and policy makers are supportive of the House T&I Committee’s $500 billion price tag for the next bill.   There is just one small detail – there is no clear way to pay for it!    This is not unusual in Washington and, though there is no clear favorite, there is no shortage of funding proposals.  Everything from VMT user fees, to taxes on each barrel of oil, to old fashioned (but elusive) fuel tax increases is being evaluated.   Even less clear than the means to raise the revenue is, the will of the Congress to impose the chosen revenue raising mecahanism on the motoring public, and when the timing is correct to do so.

That brings us to timing.  Apparently the Administration has decided that it is likely a tax increase will be necessary to pay for the next surface transportation bill.  It makes sense then that they desire an eighteen month extension, delaying any votes on highway/fuel tax increases until after the 2010 elections.  In fairness to the Administration, they do have quite an aggressive legislative agenda (including climate change and health care) that they want to complete before moving on to transportation.  That brings us to another timing issue.  If Congress passes climate change legislation that significantly raises fuel prices before the T&I bill is passed, there will be absolutely no appetite to raise taxes to pay for the significant increases in transportation spending that is so desperately needed.   Chairman Oberstar is correct to keep the pressure on and insist on the shortest possible extension.  Only in that way will there be multiple windows of opportunity to focus the debate and insert surface transportation reauthorization into the legislative agenda.  You see, timing (and politics) really is everything!