The debate about establishing the most efficient and productive national system for the movement of freight and goods should not be focused on preferring one mode over another. Such a national freight system, as Gov. Graves has pointed out, is essential to a strong economy and must be a critical purpose of national transportation policy. The challenge is to achieve a balanced intermodal freight transportation system, in which we can focus the investment of limited resources on the most cost-effective solutions. The report of the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP), relased in June 2009, described such a policy framework. This long-term vision includes the development of a performance-driven federal surface transportation policy that integrates projects, investments, and actions, across modes, in order to achieve clearly articulated national economic, energy, environmental, and safety goals.

Historically, there has been little federal policy involvement in freight transport (except to the degree that federal investments in highways, roads, bridges, and tunnels have enabled trucks to operate in interstate and local commerce). However, the structure of current federal surface transportation funding makes it difficult to plan for, and invest in, projects and improvements across modes, agencies, and jurisdictions, in order to maximize the benefits and returns from those investments.

NTPP's response to these constraints is to recommend the shaping of state and local programs that achieve measurable outcomes and progress toward the achievement of national goals. The strategic programs that would result from such an approach would be those the demonstrate performance toward those goals and provide for the most productive and efficient use of funding and assets, in order to achieve the economic goals that Gov. Graves noted, while improving safety and reducing environmental and energy impacts.

It should be emphasized, however, that reducing the almost total dependence of the nation's transportation system on oil must be a clear purpose of national transportation policy. Ultimately, the choice of the particular mode or modes used in the transport of freight and goods depends on the choices made by shippers, so significant modal shifts are often difficult to achieve. However, we can and must make the reduction of oil use in the trucking sector and the improved energy efficiency of these vehicles a high priority.

Everyday, as we watch oil flow uncontrolled into the Gulf of Mexico and try to mitigate the enormous socal and economic costs of this environmental disaster, we are reminded of the need to reduce transportation's dependence on this resource. That means that we must invest transportation dollars into those assets, including advanced information and management systems, that will allow for the most efficient movement of freight and goods across jurisdictions and modes. Such a transportation system offers the promise of dramatic reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases from, and the use of petroleum by, trucks. That goal is no less important than enhancing the nation's economic growth and prosperity, and the trucking sector must play a key role in achieving these energy and environmental goals, as well as the economic ones.

Our nation’s goal of a cleaner, greener, more efficient transportation system will be achieved only by capitalizing on the strengths of each mode to achieve the best “freight mix.” Under this scenario, railroads are well-poised to increase their market share.

The strength and competitiveness of America’s freight railroads lies in their environmental credentials and cost effectiveness. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, railroads are 1.9 to 5.5 times more fuel-efficient than trucks. Rail rates have also fallen 55 percent from 1981 through 2009, making goods cheaper and our economy more competitive. And, while trucks may move 71 percent of freight traffic by value, the more relevant factor in terms of its impact on the nation's infrastructure is volume. Freight rail moves 40 percent of the nation's freight measured in ton miles. Shifting more of that weight to the freight rail network helps to reduce future maintenance costs on the nation' s highways and helps to relieve congestion. Shipping more freight by rail maximizes these benefits and should be the goal of any transportation plan.

That is not to say that trucks do not have an important role in our nation’s transportation system. While railroads and motor carriers are competitors in many transportation markets, they also are partners in an integrated national freight network that is second to none in the world. Railroads and trucks are constantly working together to enhance transportation efficiencies and improve the economic health and standard of living of our citizens. In fact, rail intermodal – transporting truck trailers or shipping containers on rail cars – has been the fastest growing segment of the U.S. freight railroad industry for many years. Rail intermodal combines the best attributes of different transportation modes to yield a more efficient, cost-effective freight movement.

Railroads and trucks will continue to play the dual competitive and cooperative roles in the transportation marketplace. Working together, we will continue to find innovative, effective solutions to freight transportation challenges.

We need to get beyond the question of whether there is a future for trucking in the U.S. The question is what we want the American economy to look like. Let’s take Larry Summers’ vision for one that is export-oriented, lower-carbon, and innovation-fueled. Trucking and freight movement are profoundly implicated in such a framework.

An export-oriented economy will require high-functioning global ports and transportation hubs that support, rather than impede, the movement of people and goods. So unlike competitors in Europe and China, which have national freight policies and invest heavily in their major ports and hubs, the U.S. government largely expects our gateways to modernize their facilities and keep pace with global commerce on their own.

A lower carbon future means our infrastructure investments must address global warming, caused, in large part, by burning coal and oil. Yet transportation alone accounts for 28 percent of U.S. emissions and is nearly all petroleum-fueled. Efforts to reduce that dependence are to date ephemeral.

An innovation-fuelled infrastructure policy needs to make quantum leaps on everything from clean technology and renewable energy to transportation and smart grid creation. While some progress is being made, infrastructure debates still revolve around the amount of spending, rather than its quality and impact.

Again, trucking is clearly impacted in each of these areas but it doesn’t drive the conversation. As Joe Giglio says, “transportation systems exist to support the economy not vice versa.” So what do we do?

For starters, the federal government, in collaboration with states, metropolitan areas, the freight-rail industry, and shippers should develop a comprehensive National Freight Transportation Plan as a framework for goods movement policy and investment that spans all modes. The U.S. needs a freight system that can reach globally to maximize export opportunities yet still be efficient and effective domestically, and be responsive to energy efficiency and carbon reduction efforts.

In this context, our move to a low carbon and innovation fuelled economy will demand that we ramp up R&D investments in technologies as alternative propulsion (biofuels, hydrogen, electrification) and vehicle design (power trains, robust materials, advanced computer controls) as well as broader technology development in energy and electricity generation and transmission.

The question is not whether trucking will be part of America’s future but, rather, how trucking will contribute to the transition to the next American economy.

A strong, growing economy must rely on all modes of freight transportation and the market does a good job determining the most efficient mode for the type of freight service required. Shippers choose trucks for the fast, efficient movement of low density, high value goods like food, clothing and electronics.

Few Americans realize that trucking does the heavy lifting to move – through the supply chain – nearly everything we consume or use. Trucks currently deliver more than 68 percent of all U.S. freight tonnage. According to the ATA U.S. Freight Transportation Forecast to 2021, compiled byIHS Global Insight and Martin Labbe Associates, total freight tonnage will increase 25 percent by 2021 with the modal share moved by truck increasing to nearly 71 percent. At least 80 percent of U.S. communities receive their goods exclusively by truck. We must make strategic investments in our National Highway System (NHS) to handle imminent increases in freight demand and ensure the continued success of our freight transportation system.

Repair and expansion of the National Highway System, as suggested by the National Association of Manufacturers, National Industrial Transportation League and others, including Mr. Horsley and Mr. Poole, will help alleviate traffic congestion and improve the efficiency of our supply chain. As Sec. LaHood said, "Truck transportation... will continue to play an essential role in ensuring the economic health of the country and maintaining the United States' position as a leader in international trade," so we must begin by addressing the nation’s worst traffic bottlenecks to improve the flow of freight and reduce commute times. The Federal Highway Administration and the American Transportation Research Institute recently released a study that assesses the level of truck-oriented congestion at 100 locations on the NHS. State and local transportation agencies can use the information to prioritize their highway investments to target critical congestion needs. Improving the operational efficiency of our system comes at a cost, but it will only become more costly the longer we wait to address the problems. Improving highway infrastructure, beginning with critical bottlenecks, will also reduce fuel consumption, thus reducing carbon emissions.

As we consider the future of U.S. freight transportation, it is paramount that we understand the unique characteristics of each mode and the role it plays in the supply chain. Television commercials do not dictate how the market chooses its mode of shipping and we cannot simply shift freight from one mode to another as a substitute for infrastructure investment. Each shipping need must be looked at holistically to determine the best mode of transportation, or combinations of modes, depending on what is best suited to the specific task.

Trucking industry leaders have accused the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) of trying to play favorites in the freight transportation sector by supposedly tilting unfairly towards other modes to carry more freight. But nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, the Department is attempting to provide a level playing field for the nation’s freight transportation system as a major component in a strategy to improve safety, promote energy efficiency, achieve clean air goals, preserve our infrastructure investments, and generally enhance our quality of life.

A careful reading of the recently published draft U.S. DOT Strategic Plan does not show any bias for other modes in a way that is intended to compromise the contribution of trucking to freight movement. It is clear from the DOT Strategic Plan that trucking will continue to have key importance in transporting cargo across the United States. The future health and well-being of our economy and our people requires an equitable, fully multi-modal transportation freight system.

The December 2007 Congressionally-mandated report, Transportation for Tomorrow, and other major studies conducted over the past several years, have shown conclusively that the our nation suffers from a highly imbalanced freight transportation system that undervalues the advantages provided by other modes of moving goods including protecting our roads and bridges, reducing air pollution, conserving scarce fossil fuels, and increasing highway safety.

On average, about 5,000 people die annually in truck crashes and 90,000 more are injured at a cost to society of $41 billion. These staggering statistics on deaths, injuries and societal costs cannot be ignored in developing a rationale and balanced transportation system that advances our economic well-being as well as our health and safety.

The DOT Strategic Plan attempts to begin implementation of a comprehensive, multi-modal approach to freight transportation that will continue to ensure that trucking will be economically healthy while slowly allowing future growth in freight shipments to flow to other modes as they develop their capacity to take on increased tonnage. While this multi-modal shift in moving goods develops, trucking also will increase its economic efficiency by investing in more fuel efficient tractors and single-unit trucks to meet new fuel economy standards and EPA clean air goals. Less money spent on fuel means goods moved by truck at lower cost and savings that can be passed on to businesses and consumers. It also means clearing the air of excessive pollution and emissions generated by diesel engines.

The U.S. DOT is serious about a re-evaluation and overhaul of the nation’s freight transportation system. An initial step is the recent preparation of an environmental plan shepherded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for substantially increasing the fuel efficiency of medium and heavy trucks. 75 FR 33565 (June 14, 2010).

In addition, the goal of the DOT Strategic Plan is to move our nation’s highways and bridges to a state of good repair, and to reverse the infrastructure deterioration that has accelerated each year. It is no secret that a highly disproportionate reason for this deterioration is the extraordinarily severe impact that heavy trucks inflict on road pavement and bridges.

In sum, the target of the DOT Strategic Plan is to achieve more livable communities throughout the country by increasing personal safety and reducing the adverse effects of transportation on air quality, fuel costs, noise and congestion. We currently have a surface transportation system that is the leading cause of death for all Americans ages 3 to 33. As transportation professionals and family members we have an obligation to ensure that our transportation system not only moves people and goods efficiently, but safely as well.

Constructing a world-class, 21st Century freight delivery system will create hundreds of thousands of jobs today and give America the multimodal network it must have to meet future needs. Many highway interchanges built 40 years ago were designed before 53-foot-long; 18-wheel trucks existed, and before traffic more than quadrupled. These facilities need to be replaced with interchanges that have wider lanes and geometric designs to allow higher volumes of cars and trucks to exit and merge more safely at higher speeds. This is just one example of numerous freight capacity increases that greater federal transportation investment can support.

The AASHTO Board of Directors has included freight infrastructure expansion as a key part of its policy recommendations for the next federal surface transportation reauthorization bill (http://tinyurl.com/AASHTOfreight), because the data is clear. Even with a shift of some cargo from long-haul trucks to rail and water intermodal service, the volume of freight on our highways is expected to more than double by 2050 to meet the need for goods that a population of 420 million people will demand. The percentage of tons carried by trucks overall is expected to increase over the next four decades even as multimodal transport grows. The interstates are the primary routes for these trucks -- on average; segments of the Interstate system see 10,500 trucks a day.

Measured by value, 93% of the freight moved in this country; everything from the food we eat, to the fuel in our cars and the clothing on our backs, travels by commercial vehicle over Interstates, state routes and city streets. Shifting as much long-haul freight as possible to rail and waterways will help reduce highway congestion. Studies show that intermodal shipping by rail will grow at an annual rate of close to 4% over the next 25 years. Even if this proves to be the case, the percentage of freight by value that will be moved by 2050 is expected to increase to 95% of the total.

AASHTO will soon release the second in a series of reports identifying highway capacity needs around the country. This report will offer numerous policy solutions to create the efficient transportation systems America will need to support economic growth, job creation and the kind of future our citizens have come to expect. You can find AASHTO’s series of reports at: http://expandingcapacity.transportation.org.

Responsible projections of future U.S. goods movement show large increases in truck traffic. For example, the Federal Highway Administration expects truck volume in 2035 to be 2.5 times today’s level. However much federal policy may succeed in shifting marginal amounts of freight to short-sea shipping and rail, it will not change this fundamental fact. Most non-bulk freight goes by road for very sound business reasons: some combination of time, reliability, and cost that makes the best sense for those shipping and receiving the goods in question.

But with large sections of the Interstate system and other high-level highways already at or nearing capacity, there’s no way we can move 2.5 times as many trucks with today’s highway capacity. Some idea of the magnitude of what may be required comes from the US DOT’s 2008 Conditions & Performance Report, released earlier this spring. Considering only the Interstate system (and using a benefit/cost ratio threshold of 1.5 to screen out low-value projects), annual Interstate capital investment should be $39 billion—more than double the current annual average of $16.5 billion.

What would increased Interstate investment buy us? There are 233 major bottlenecks in the US highway system, most of them obsolete Interstate interchanges in urban areas. One estimate is that it would cost $128 billion to rebuild them all, but the benefits (not merely to trucking but to all highway users) would be up to 10 times that much over 20 years. Many key long-distance Interstates (such as I-70 across the Midwest) are still mostly only two lanes per direction and need widening. Missouri’s preferred alternative for rebuilding I-70 calls for four lanes each way, half of which would be separate truck-only lanes that could be configured for higher-productivity (longer, heavier) rigs. The same potential exists in many other truck-intensive corridors (I-5 on the west coast, I-75 in the east, etc.).

Congress seems unlikely to vote a significant increase in either the gasoline tax or the diesel tax, yet current fuel-tax revenues are barely enough to keep pace with ordinary maintenance needs. And even with an increased federal fuel tax, highway projects would still be paid for out of cash-flow, rather than being financed over time. It’s a basic principle of sound public finance that long-lived infrastructure should be financed (e.g., via long-term revenue bonds), so that users pay for it over the many decades they use and benefit from it. And a financing strategy means the capital for needed modernization can be raised up-front, enabling many such projects to be built in the near term, rather than several decades from now.

The most straightforward way to do this is to work out plans for rebuilding and modernizing major Interstates via toll finance. Unlike Pennsylvania’s rejected plan to slap tolls on a basically unchanged I-80 and use the money mostly for non-Interstate roads and transit, under my proposal tolling would be tied specifically to major reconstruction and modernization of the specific Interstate in question. All users--cars and trucks, local and long-distance--would pay tolls, since all would benefit from the dramatically improved facility that would result.

The U.S. DOT’s draft Strategic Plan acknowledges some need for adding highway capacity for goods movement, but is short on specifics. A revised plan should generalize the small existing pilot program for Interstate reconstruction via toll finance, to make it available nationwide, but with suitable controls to ensure that the new tolls are purely a charge for using the improved Interstate, not a general transportation tax for any and every use a state may come up with.

Since tolling alone is unlikely to be sufficient, it would also make sense to refocus the federal highway effort on interstate commerce and international trade—basically the Interstate highways and connectors to major ports and airports. In an era where the federal government is vastly over-extended, we need to better focus it on programs and needs that are truly federal in nature. Interstate travel and goods movement is one of the best candidates.