���ϳԹ���

Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.

b>By Annette Sandberg

i>Chief Executive Officer

ransSafe Consulting LLC

As the former administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, I have watched with great interest the interplay between the railroads and commercial trucking. The dynamic between the two was evident early on when I realized my confirmation as administrator was being held over the truck size/weight issue. Once again, I see this issue emerging in the national transportation debate.

The facts are not new to anyone involved in transportation. Freight growth is expected to increase by more than 65% from 1998 to 2020. Of that increase, trucks are expected to see the largest amount of growth when compared with rail and domestic water modes.

Unfortunately, in its current configuration our transportation system can only handle some of the increased capacity — thus creating additional pressures between freight movement and the traveling public. Congestion and other regulatory factors only increase the cost of goods delivered to the end consumer, thus having an effect on our nation’s economy.

During the last reauthorization, it seemed we dodged the proverbial bullet. However, we will not be so fortunate in the future. The ever-increasing complexity of demands on our transportation infrastructure is only exacerbated by the increasingly complex regulatory demands of the government. Many of these demands have been brought about by the 9/11 terrorist attacks and others by increasing pressure to make our nation’s transportation system safe and environmentally sound. All these regulatory goals are laudable — but not without a cost.

As administrator of FMCSA, I was increasingly concerned about the number of statutory mandates required without a clear understanding of their overall cost to the system. As head of the agency, I was supposed to find the middle ground on many very controversial issues. In addition, time and again I saw mandates that started in one mode of transportation suddenly spill over and affect others. Somehow, government executives were supposed to balance the many interests and not impede commerce.

The many mandates surrounding identification of drivers and workers in the transportation system are a good example of this conflict. First, there was the requirement for a fingerprint background check on all truck drivers with a hazardous-materials endorsement. Now, there will be another fingerprint-based check for the Transportation Worker Identification Credential — TWIC. Still looming will be a new requirement for all drivers’ licenses under the Real ID Act. Each of these rulemakings adds a cost to doing business and often has redundant requirements.

Many government executives attempt to watch the landscape for these very types of redundancies or conflicts. It is often difficult, since the new requirement is statutory and as a government executive, you have very little choice but to carry out the mandate.

This is where the industry as a whole needs to intervene. Safety, security and a clean environment are in everyone’s best interests, but we must have a rational approach and avoid redundant or counterproductive mandates. Rather than protecting individual interests — like the size and weight issue — the industry needs to pull together to make the system as a whole work together. Industry has a very strong voice if it is unified.

As we approach the next authorization, it will become increasingly important for all ideas that can expand capacity to be on the table.

I agree with recent comments made by American Trucking Associations President Bill Graves and Senior Vice President Tim Lynch that size and weight need to be considered in the next authorization bill.

In fact, the language creating the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission requires the commission to conduct a comprehensive study that “with respect to the surface transportation needs . . . shall specifically address . . . the expected use of the surface transportation system, including the effects of changing vehicle types, modes of transportation, fleet size and weights, and traffic volumes.”

The newly formed commission has a big job in front of it, but it can only succeed with constructive solutions. This means there will need to be a great deal of give and take. Rail, air, water and highway modes all make up the transportation system and all need to be at the table to find solutions.

In addition, there needs to be a strategy for addressing the hidden costs of issues like driver and vehicle regulations, emissions regulations, safety and security, since all these regulatory mandates affect the system’s ability to move goods efficiently. A systems approach to the problem will be the only way we can effectively move freight and people in the future.

In order to accomplish this in time for the next authorization cycle, all users of the system must put aside their parochial interests and partner for the good of our nation’s transportation system. Given the timing of the next authorization and the political cycle, it will be incumbent on the users of the system to carry the solutions forward.

I look forward to contributing to these solutions. With the expected growth in freight, we can’t afford any other approach.

TransSafe Consulting, Alexandria, Va., provides transportation, public safety and security consulting services.

This opinion piece appears in the May 22 print edition of Transport Topics. Subscribe today.