Logistics executives face many transportation-related challenges, both today and in the future: volatile fuel prices, capacity constraints, road congestion, driver shortage, hours-of-service and safety regulations, sustainability initiatives, new taxes and fees (e.g., carbon emissions tax? vehicle miles travelled fee?), and the list goes on. This reality has led many shippers and carriers to focus on ways to improve the productivity of their transportation operations. Some have invested in technology like transportation management systems, others have innovated their operations in other ways (see “Innovating the Lowly Truck Trailer”).
But investing in technology and streamlining processes are not the only options available to shippers and carriers. Productivity improvements can also be achieved via legislative and regulatory changes, which is what The Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP) is trying to do. CTP is a coalition of more than 150 shippers and allied associations “dedicated to increasing the federal vehicle weight limit to 97,000 pounds for vehicles equipped with an additional (sixth) axle.” The organization is lobbying for The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009 (H.R. 1799), which is currently under consideration in the House of Representatives. If you’re interested in more details, I encourage you to visit the CTP website.
A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to speak with Harry Haney, Associate Director of Transportation Planning at Kraft Foods, as well as John Runyan, Executive Director of CTP. Kraft Foods is a leading member of CTP. Below is an edited transcript of my conversation with Mr. Haney.
*********
AG: Why did Kraft Foods decide to participate in CTP?
HH: As the largest food company in the United States, Kraft felt it must take a leading role in raising awareness about the benefits of truck weight reform as outlined in the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act (H.R. 1799). Kraft decided to spearhead this effort because overwhelming evidence shows that this legislation would make truck shipment greener and more efficient without compromising safety. It allows Kraft and other companies to reduce our carbon footprint and ensures that we can continue to get our products to consumers safely and cost-effectively.
AG: CTP refers to its proposal as “responsible” reform. What is “responsible” about it?
HH: The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act is “responsible” because it would improve safety, the environment, and efficiency – and not at the expense of other interests. For example, even though the net benefits far outweigh bridge repair expense, this bill includes a provision for a user fee designated for bridge repair and rehabilitation.
As its title suggests, the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act makes safety and efficiency a top priority. The bill only raises the allowable weight limit for trucks equipped with a six axle. It is a fact that six-axle rigs can safely operate at 97,000 pounds with slightly less weight per tire and stopping distance as a five-axle truck weighing 80,000 pounds.
SETA is also a sensible proposal because it is not an immediate mandate. The bill simply allows state DOTs to implement targeted weight limits of up to 97,000 pounds on interstates within their borders. At the same time, states that opt-in would be required to regulate the use of these six-axle, higher productivity trucks and restrict them to roads and bridges that can safely handle the increased load.
Not only does the bill responsibly reform truck weights, it is designed to safeguard our entire transportation infrastructure. Freight hauled by trucks in the U.S. is expected to double by 2035, and a 2010 study by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials predicted that 1.8 million more trucks will be on the road in 10 years. To that end, SETA would minimize the trucks we need to meet demand and limit congestion in the years ahead. Many trucks hit the federal weight limit right now with significant space in their trailers – putting more vehicles on the road than necessary and wasting fuel. By adding an extra axle, shippers could maximize truck space and reduce truck loads, vehicle miles traveled, fuel use and emissions for each ton carried. Fewer vehicle miles mean safer roads. A 2009 Wisconsin Department of Transportation study found that 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.
The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act would also make American goods more competitive in the global marketplace. Many European countries, as well as Canada and Mexico, have already increased their weight limits. Since the United Kingdom raised its weight limit to 97,000 pounds for six-axle trucks in 2001, it has experienced exactly what we want to replicate in the U.S. More freight has been shipped, while VMTs have leveled off and fatal truck-related accident rates have declined by 35 percent. As we recover from the recession, anything we can do to safely spur manufacturing is a good thing.
AG: If the proposals in HR 1799 make so much sense, why haven’t they been implemented already? What are the counter arguments?
HH: We believe it is in no small part because this has been considered a “trucking” issue and not seen for what it really is: a safety, environmental, and productivity issue. For the first time, a critical mass of shipping companies across a wide range of industries are engaged in the debate, which is critical in helping Congress understand why this legislation is important and how it positively impacts business, public safety and the environment.
Many people are quick to confuse the higher productivity vehicles outlined in the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act with “bigger trucks.” Even though the bill doesn’t affect truck size, certain truck “safety” groups have misconstrued the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act, labeling it as a way to put “bigger trucks” on the road.
The railroad industry is also opposed to increasing truck weight limits. They feel that increases in truck efficiency will divert freight from railroads, but there is no evidence to suggest that SETA would hurt railroad business. A 2009 study by the Wisconsin DOT predicted that SETA would yield no significant displacement of freight from rail to trucking. The findings were later confirmed by another major study by the Soy Transportation Coalition. Rail is – and will remain – the first choice for shipping. But CTP believes that making truck shipment safer, cleaner and more efficient is beneficial to the entire shipping industry – both rail and truck.
AG: HR 1799 allows states to opt-in. Is there a critical mass of states that are in favor of this reform? Is there any concern that the bill might pass but most states will opt out, not wanting to be first or preferring to wait for data to come in from other states before they move forward?
HH: Many states have indicated interest in raising interstate weight limits. Still, it’s difficult to predict how SETA would be received on a national scale because the very nature of the bill promotes carefully crafted, selective weight increases. Remember, SETA doesn’t require a state to open all its interstates to heavier trucks. States that opt in would be free to selectively raise weight limits in designated areas to create their own transportation corridors and pilot programs.
We do feel that SETA would be especially beneficial for more than 40 states where local weight limits exceed the federal limit. Heavier trucks traveling in these states are currently forced onto rural roads that wind through towns, past schools and driveways. Under SETA, states could harmonize federal and state weight limits and give heavier vehicles access to the better engineered interstate system, where accidents are much less likely to occur.
In January, Maine and Vermont implemented truck weight pilot projects that synchronized federal and state weight limits and opened interstates to heavier vehicles. Many residents and truckers all say that the pilot project has already made roads noticeably safer and more efficient. We are confident that SETA will bring the same benefits for states across the country.
AG: Has Kraft Foods or any of the other CTP members quantified the impact that raising the weight limit would have on your transportation operations—e.g., dollar reduction in transportation spend, % reduction in miles driven, reduction in number of vehicles required, reduction in carbon emissions, etc?
HH: As all 160 CTP members have found, SETA will no doubt improve safety records for U.S. shippers, lower their environmental profile and save major companies tens of millions of dollars per year in shipping costs.
Kraft, the world’s second-largest food company, could reduce the number of trucks it uses by about 6 percent. That translates to 60,000 fewer loads and 33 million fewer vehicle miles traveled each year. Kraft could also eliminate 73,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually.
AG: There are other things shippers can work on to improve transportation productivity, such as collaborating with other shippers and 3PLs to reduce empty backhauls or to share capacity. Will the reforms you’re pursuing with HR 1799 provide a better return than other productivity-related initiatives? Which will be more difficult: collaborating with other shippers to reduce empty backhauls or getting HR 1799 passed and implemented across a critical mass of states?
HH: Certainly there are a number of projects that shippers can undertake to improve transportation efficiency, and we are collaborating with other shippers to reduce empty backhauls as you suggest. Our strategy is to work on a portfolio of initiatives where the return timetables vary. Due to the nature of opt-in and the need in many cases to acquire six-axle vehicles, the reality is the full benefits of SETA will not be realized this year or even next. It is nevertheless critical to our long term success – not only as company but as a country.
AG: What is the status of HR 1799 today? In light of other priorities in Congress and mid-term elections coming up, any chance the bill will make it through the House this year?
HH: Our goal is to attach the Safe and Efficient Act to the pending highway reauthorization bill. It’s true that progress on the highway bill has been delayed due to other legislative priorities, financial constraints and midterm elections. However, we feel that CTP has made a great deal of progress in creating a more favorable climate for truck weight reform, so that when action is taken on the highway bill, the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act will have the necessary support.
AG: What can companies or individuals that support CTP’s mission do to help?
HH: We have a real chance to enact significant weight reform for the first time since 1982, yet the battle is far from over. To learn more about CTP and how you can help, visit www.transportationproductivity.org. We also invite you to contact your member of Congress and ask them to co-sponsor the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act.
*********
Do you agree with what CTP is trying to accomplish? Yes or no, post a comment and share your viewpoint!
