[Senate Hearing 117-706]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-706
FREIGHT MOBILITY: STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S
SUPPLY CHAINS AND COMPETITIVENESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, MARITIME, FREIGHT, AND PORTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 11, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-090 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia Virginia
RICK SCOTT, Florida
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
David Strickland, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
John Keast, Republican Staff Director
Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Steven Wall, General Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, MARITIME, FREIGHT, AND PORTS
GARY PETERS, Michigan, Chair DEB FISCHER, Nebraska, Ranking
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut ROY BLUNT, Missouri
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts TODD YOUNG, Indiana
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
JON TESTER, Montana Virginia
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 11, 2021..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 2
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 60
Statement of Senator Baldwin..................................... 62
Statement of Senator Scott....................................... 64
Statement of Senator Lummis...................................... 67
Statement of Senator Warnock..................................... 68
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 72
Witnesses
Chuck Baker, President, American Short Line & Regional Railroad
Association.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Lamont Byrd, Director, Safety and Health, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters....................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Christopher J. Connor, President and CEO, American Association of
Port Authorities............................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
Trucking Associations.......................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Chuck Baker by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 79
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 80
Response to written questions submitted to Lamont Byrd by:
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 81
Response to written questions submitted to Christopher J. Connor
by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 82
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 84
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 84
Response to written questions submitted to Chris Spear by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 85
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 86
Hon. Raphael Warnock......................................... 87
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 88
FREIGHT MOBILITY:
STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S SUPPLY CHAINS AND COMPETITIVENESS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime,
Freight, and Ports,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary Peters,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Peters [presiding], Klobuchar,
Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Baldwin, Duckworth, Tester,
Warnock, Fischer, Thune, Blunt, Sullivan, Young, Johnson,
Capito, Scott, and Lummis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. First, I want to thank all of our witnesses
for joining us today for this important discussion.
The fact that most Americans can safely assume the things
they will need will be in stock, from groceries to household
goods and more is certainly a testament of the freight
industry. This is especially important during the pandemic.
Deliveries have increased exponentially, so that American
families can get what they need from the safety of their homes.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the workers who have made
this possible by putting themselves into harm's way by working
around the clock.
The freight industry is also critical to our economy at
large and to American competitiveness. Every day the freight
industry moves billions of dollars' worth of goods that power
numerous industries and businesses. As a result, the freight
industry has outsized impact on our economy.
Unfortunately, this outsized impact means that problems in
the freight industry have ripple effects, throughout the entire
economy. This subcommittee held a hearing on April 27, where we
learned that supplies in the auto industry, many of which are
small businesses, are struggling to keep up with rapidly rising
cost of freight and logistics. The issues involved are complex,
and they include problems within and beyond the freight
industry's control, many of which also stem from the pandemic.
But the bottom line is that small businesses are
experiencing higher prices and major delays and these
challenges highlight a major issue that I am certainly
committed to addressing, and that is the resiliency of our
supply chains. Our supply chains are incredibly efficient but,
unfortunately, not resilient. So, when unexpected happens, like
a ship blocking the Suez Canal, thousands of miles away, supply
chain problems can compound dramatically. And ultimately, the
strength of our economy depends on the strength of the freight
industry and our supply chains.
A key part of this economic engine is the flow of
international freight through our country's ports of entry. And
as Chairman of Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Committee, I am focused on the safe and secure facilitation of
trade and travel at those entry points, which are staffed by
our U.S. Customs and Border Protection, also called the CBP.
CBP officers and agricultural specialists are critical to
ensuring that cargo that enters the U.S. is secure and that
pests that may inadvertently travel with that cargo, will not
hurt our agricultural industry. I have led bipartisan measures
to address major staffing shortages for this integral position,
and I will continue to work to ensure that CBP has the adequate
resources to fulfill its mission to keep freight moving
efficiently through ports of entry.
Our competitors, especially China, understand that
infrastructure and supply chains are directly linked to
economic competitiveness. That is why China is making
unprecedented investments in infrastructure and logistics, not
only in China, but around the globe, as part of its Belt and
Road Initiative.
Congress must ensure that the United States maintains its
global leadership by investing in our infrastructure, in our
freight industry, and our workers. The millions of workers
employed in the freight industry are the backbone of our
economy. We must ensure they have the pay and protections they
deserve, along with a safe working environment.
Safety is also essential to protect the public at large.
Whether we are addressing trucks that share the road with
millions of Americans every day, or railroad that move goods
through and near our towns, Congress must make safety a top
priority.
In conclusion, we have a chance to enter a new era of
freight mobility that will support countless jobs and families,
grow new industries, protect the environment, and improve
safety. And I look forward to looking with my colleagues on
this subcommittee to make that vision a reality.
And now, I invite Ranking Member Fischer to share her
opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman
Peters, for convening this hearing.
First, I would like to take the opportunity to thank those
working in the freight transportation industry for their work
throughout this pandemic. The truckers, railroaders,
longshoremen, and other essential freight transportation
workers across this country. They stepped up to deliver the
critical supplies we needed to stay safe, healthy, and maintain
vital services, throughout this very trying year. I am grateful
for all their work and their sacrifice.
Today's hearing on freight transportation is timely, given
the ongoing discussion about the need to invest in our
infrastructure. When we think about what core infrastructure
is, and what America's core infrastructure needs, we think
about the state of our roads and bridges, ports, railroads,
waterways, airports, and also, broadband.
We have heard, time and again, about the need to invest in
infrastructure, either in hearings before this subcommittee,
and also the full committee. From reports, such as the American
Society of Civil Engineers' Infrastructure Report card, and
from numerous organizations, including those represented here
today.
We know that investing in core infrastructure has
bipartisan support. Just look at the FAST Act. We passed that
in 2015, and the FAA reauthorization in 2018. Or the most
recent Border Bills and the Pipeline Safety reauthorizations.
Each of these bills passed either unanimously, or with large
bipartisan majorities. And Congress has the opportunity to work
on infrastructure again, in a bipartisan manner, as we look to
reauthorizing our Federal Surface Transportation Programs, set
to expire this September.
The witnesses here today represent some of the users and
operators of that infrastructure, and they have firsthand
knowledge of what those needs are. Their testimony today will
add to the extensive record that we have about the need for
investments in that core infrastructure.
Of course, a surface transportation reauthorization not
only invests in infrastructure, but it also sets Federal policy
for the safe and efficient movements of goods across that
infrastructure. I look forward to hearing about the wide
variety of issues affecting the freight transportation sector
that Congress should consider in a surface transportation
reauthorization.
The first among these issues is how to improve freight
transportation safety. There are a number of bipartisan
proposals to improve transportation safety, including
legislation I have introduced, with Chairman Peters, to
understand the scope and the severity of blocked railroad grade
crossings. Advances in technology, targeted policies can make
our transportation network safer.
Another important topic is how to improve the efficient
movement of goods by developing Smart policy and removing
unnecessary and burdensome regulations. The freight
transportation industry is a broad and diverse part of our
economy. Federal policies should be based on sound data and
they should recognize the wide variety of operations that are
handled, on a daily basis, across this country. For example, my
bipartisan HALLS Act would provide targeted flexibility for
agriculture and livestock collars, to ensure they can move
their perishable products.
Finally, there has been a widespread reporting of freight
congestion at port facilities, cargo delays, and a lack of
capacity that have been exasperated by the pandemic.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about their
work to address these problems and the potential long-term
impacts the pandemic will have on the freight industry.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you. My apologies, we have a Markup
in Rules Committee, so I will have to excuse myself. I hope you
excuse me, as well, and I will be monitoring the hearing. So,
thank you very much. Thank you to the panel.
Senator Peters. Well, thank you--thank you for your open--
thank you for your opening remarks, Ranking Member Fischer, and
I know you are conducting important business. So, I know you
will be doing that as well, following the developments in this
committee. So, thank you for your opening statement.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Senator Peters. We appreciate that. Our first witness today
is Mr. Chuck Baker, who is President of the American Short Line
and Regional Railroad Association. Mr. Baker is here
representing approximately 600 short line and regional
railroads across the country, many in my home state of
Michigan.
Mr. Baker has many years of experience working with the
rail industry, including as a partner at Chambers, Colin, and
Hardwell. Welcome, Mr. Baker, to the subcommittee and you may
proceed with your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK BAKER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SHORT LINE &
REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION
Mr. Baker. Thank you. Good afternoon, I am Chuck Baker. I
am here representing the Nation's 600 short line freight
railroads. These railroads operate in 49 states, over nearly
50,000 miles of track, or approximately one-third of the
Nation's railroad network.
In the states represented by this subcommittee's members,
there are 242 short lines operating over 20,000 track miles.
Chairman Peters' state of Michigan is one of 10 states where
short lines operate more than 70 percent of the state's rail
network.
Short lines are most often associated with small-town and
rural America, but they also serve large urban areas and many
of the Nation's busiest ports. And they are not always so
short. The Rapid City, Pierre, and Eastern Railroad in South
Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wyoming is 743 miles long.
Regardless of size or location, there are four defining
characteristics of today's short lines. One, most short lines
operate a track that was previously headed for abandonment. As
money losing branch lines, they received little investment by
their previous owners. They were, at one time, the weakest link
in the freight supply chain, but are now a success story,
enabling our customers to remain competitive in the global
economy. To be successful and rehabilitate this track, short
lines invest up to 33 percent of their annual revenues into
their infrastructure, among the highest percent of any industry
in the country.
Two, for larger areas of the country, short line railroad
service is the only connection to the national freight rail
network, providing an economic lifeline for thousands of
businesses, manufacturers, and farmers, and allowing their
products to be competitively priced in the global market.
Three, flexible, friendly, local service is a key driver of
our success. We deal face to face on a daily basis with our
customers and communities, so we can respond quickly to their
needs, and so they can stay competitive.
And four, short lines are small businesses. Our combined
annual revenues across the 600 short lines are less than the
annual revenues of any one of the four largest Class I
railroads.
While it is absolutely crucial to enhance the
competitiveness of American freight, and that is what short
lines are focused on doing every day, it is also crucial to do
so in an environmentally sustainable way. As you may have read
in my written testimony--which incorporates an excellent
environmental report from my friends at the AAR--EPA data shows
that rail, which accounts for 40 percent of U.S. long distance
freight volume, is responsible for just 2.1 percent of the
transportation sector's greenhouse gas emissions.
Freight trains can move one ton of freight more than 470
miles on one gallon of diesel. My testimony highlights a series
of examples where moving products by rail, as opposed to on the
highways, saves millions of gallons of fuel and thousands of
tons of CO2 emissions.
In addition to the supply chain and competitiveness
benefits of supporting rail, and the environmental benefits,
there are other public benefits of policies that support rail,
such as improved safety, reduced road congestion, and reduced
highway maintenance needs.
As this committee develops your portion of a surface
transportation reauthorization package, we offer a few
suggestions that will maximize the benefits that short line
railroads can provide to America's supply chain. We strongly
support the CRISI grant program, as it is the primary grant
program that supports short lines, and it provides for direct
short line eligibility. The authorization levels should be
significantly increased and there should be no new commuter
rail or large project set-asides that squeeze out short line
participation.
We support the INFRA grant program and urge you to allow
the program to support the most efficient freight projects by
removing the $500 million multimodal cap. We know that we are
preaching to the choir on this issue, especially with full
Committee Chairwoman Cantwell and we thank her for her
relentless leadership on the topic. We also support the
Cantwell-Blunt Railroad Grade Crossing Elimination Act and
Senators Thune and Hassan's RRIF Reform Bill.
And we urge you to refrain from any new laws that would
undermine the economics of freight railroading and harm our
ability to be an important part of America's supply chain, such
as increasing truck size and weight limits or mandating
railroad-crew size laws.
In conclusion, we believe short lines are an important link
in the freight supply chain, a link we have worked hard to
strengthen since we began purchasing these light-density lines
decades ago. We understand that in the big picture, our share
of infrastructure funding will be limited. But you should not
underestimate the power and leverage that that funding
provides.
That leverage brings three advantages. One, as described in
my testimony's Michigan examples, properly targeted public
funding helps subtract substantially larger amounts of private
investment by our customers. Two, for rehabilitation of lines
serving our smallest customers, targeted public funding is
often the piece needed to justify our own private investment.
And three, for larger projects, public funds can turn multi-
year projects into single-year projects. So, the economic and
environmental benefits you are seeking are realized much
sooner.
I appreciate the opportunity to present the short line
perspective and I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chuck Baker, President, American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association
I am Chuck Baker, President of the American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association (ASLRRA), the trade association representing the
Nation's 600 Class II and III railroads.
It is a privilege to testify before you today. As this Committee
and the Congress look to make significant, necessary investments to
strengthen America's supply chains and ensure American competitiveness,
rail must be part of the solution.
Freight railroads are a fundamental cornerstone of the Nation's
logistics and supply chain network, providing the most efficient and
environmentally-friendly means of surface transportation. The U.S.
freight rail system is unique in that it is largely provided on a
privately operated and funded right-of-way with a common carrier
obligation. These unique factors combine to form what the World Bank
has recognized as the best freight rail network in the world, offering
the American economy an enduring and crucial competitive advantage,
which should be maintained and expanded.
My comments today will highlight how U.S. short line and regional
railroads are an important part of the U.S. freight rail network,
providing a safe, competitive, and environmentally friendly low-carbon
option to thousands of customers and communities who would otherwise be
cut off from the national railroad network, and I will offer
suggestions for policies that enhance those benefits.
SHORT LINE RAILROADS ARE A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE FREIGHT RAIL SYSTEM
Those of you who have served on this Committee are very familiar
with our story--the variety of goods that we haul, the variety of
operational size, and the variety of ways we aggressively partner with
customers to ensure they remain competitive. Full Committee Chair
Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker, along with many other Members of
the Committee have staunchly supported policies and programs enhancing
the inherent economic and environmental benefits of freight rail,
including short lines, which we greatly appreciate.
The name ``short line'' can create the mistaken impression that
these railroads are all very short rail lines. The fact is they come in
all sizes. The Omaha, Lincoln & Beatrice Railway in Senator Fischer's
State of Nebraska is 2 miles long, while the Rapid City, Pierre &
Eastern Railroad in Senator Thune's State of South Dakota is 743 miles
long. In Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Vermont, short lines operate track
that stretches almost the entire length or width of the state.
Short line railroads operate in 49 states over nearly 50,000 miles
of track, or approximately one third of the Nation's freight railroad
network. In the states represented by this Subcommittee's Members,
there are 242 short lines operating over 20,000 track miles. Short
lines are often called the first mile/last mile of the Nation's
railroad system and handle in origination or destination one out of
every five rail cars moving on the national system. In 36 states, short
lines operate at least one quarter of the state's rail network.
Subcommittee Chairman Peters' State of Michigan is one of ten states
where short lines operate more than 70 percent of the state's rail
network--21 short line railroads operating approximately 2,800 miles of
track.
Although short lines are most often associated with small-town and
rural America, they also serve large urban areas and many of the
Nation's busiest ports, including Seattle and Tacoma, Miami, Los
Angeles and Long Beach, Hampton Roads, Pascagoula, Savannah, Mobile,
New Orleans, and New York/New Jersey. Likewise, various short line
railroads operate as neutral terminal switching carriers for multiple
Class I railroads in Chicago, New Orleans, Kansas City, and St. Louis.
The Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad and the New York &
Atlantic Railway operate freight traffic over two of the busiest rail
commuter corridors in the country.
For the benefit of those not as familiar with short lines, let me
comment briefly on four defining characteristics. Taken together, we
believe these characteristics contribute significantly to sustaining
strong and competitive rail service for regions and businesses that
would otherwise be left behind.
Most short lines operate track that was headed for abandonment
under previous Class I owners. These were light density lines in
smaller towns and rural areas with challenging infrastructure that
could not generate enough revenue to be viable under the cost structure
of the big national carriers. These former branch lines served
customers that were located ``off the beaten path'' for the larger
railroads and that typically shipped smaller volumes. With marginal or
unprofitable financial returns, the previous owners understandably made
minimal capital investment, resulting in deferred maintenance. They
were, in the lexicon of this hearing, the weakest link in the freight
supply chain. Thankfully, rather than abandoning these lines, the
larger railroads spun them off to local entrepreneurs to reconstitute
as independent short lines, and that has been a remarkable success
story over the last 40 years. To be successful, short line owners must
not only eliminate that deferred maintenance but must upgrade the track
to handle the heavier, longer trains that are operated today by our
Class I connecting partners. Short lines therefore invest on average
from 25 percent to 33 percent of their annual revenues into maintaining
and rehabilitating their infrastructure, and this makes short line
railroading one of the most capital-intensive industries in the
country.
Short line railroads are most often the first and last step in a
logistics process. One in five cars on the network originate or
terminate on a short line. We are small businesses, and we keep small
businesses connected to the larger economy. Even our strongest
supporters in Congress support us not because they are particularly
interested in railroads but because they understand the importance of
our service to farmers and businesses in their states. And that's the
right way to think about it--the trains we run keep customers connected
to the national railroad network, allowing them to reach their markets
with safe and reliable service at competitive rates. It perfects the
supply chain for tens of thousands of businesses and that perfection is
required for American businesses to succeed in a competitive global
economy. This is evident in every state in which we do business.
In highly congested areas, we provide critical switching and
transloading operations as supply chain options for shippers and
receivers seeking flexible and creative ways to address logistics
challenges. We do this with a high level of customer-focused service to
ensure that every penny of value is squeezed out of every supply chain
dollar to ensure competitiveness for American businesses in a
competitive global marketplace.
Flexible, efficient local service drives our success. Short lines
create value not through our size or total market share but in who and
where we serve. For large areas of the country and particularly for
rural and small-town America, short line railroad service often offers
the only connection to the national freight rail network. Without short
line service, shippers and receivers in these areas cannot take full
advantage of the efficiencies and reach of the national rail network.
For the businesses and farmers in those areas, our ability to take a
25-car train 75 miles to the nearest Class I interchange equals in
importance the Class I's ability to attach that block of traffic to a
100-car unit train and move it across the country. Our customers depend
on the economics of rail service and our interline services with the
Class I railroads to remain competitive in their domestic and
international markets where pennies per bushel or dollars per ton can
make the difference between winning or losing business.
Short lines can make a go of it in challenging locations and
markets because we deal face-to-face with customers and offer the
flexible service their businesses require. If our customers require an
extra switch on Sunday morning, or they need to double their deliveries
with almost no notice, they can reach the President or the General
Manager of the short line personally who will do everything they can to
make it happen. The short line is a small enough operation with enough
desire for growth, capacity to support it, and flexibility in their
approach to be able to adjust to the ever-changing demands of the
marketplace.
Short lines are a growth engine--particularly for areas of the
country that have not shared in all of the country's economic growth.
Short lines are obsessed with growing our businesses by helping our
customers grow their businesses. While we may only move the traffic a
few miles to the interchange with the Class I, the service and access
we provide each individual customer is critical to that customer's
success. In a recent analysis undertaken by PwC (attached), each job on
a short line indirectly drives an additional 2.6 jobs. In total across
the U.S. economy, 0.51 percent of business inputs rely on
transportation services provided by the short line industry, amounting
to 478,820 jobs, $26.1 billion in labor income, and $56.2 billion in
value added.
Short lines work relentlessly to create new business opportunities
with current and new customers. After all, a railroad can't pull up its
rails and relocate, so they are committed to the success of their local
communities. They invest in technology and innovation that provides
increased safety and new opportunities for customers. They are problem
solvers, seeking new ways to service a customer, and create value for
themselves and the communities in which they operate. As any shipper
will tell you, logistics transportation costs and service are huge
determinants of success and we take that responsibility very seriously.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FREIGHT RAIL
While the transportation sector is the biggest source of greenhouse
gases in the United States, EPA data shows that rail, which accounts
for 40 percent of U.S. long distance freight volume, is responsible for
just 2.1 percent of the sector's emissions. As the AAR has documented
(attached), freight trains move on average one ton of freight more than
470 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel.
Let me bring that down to the local level where short lines are
making a considerable contribution. Tacoma Rail in Washington State
moves an average of 69,000 tons of interchanged traffic daily, using an
average of 350,000 gallons of fuel per year. Comparable truck moves on
the highway would use 645,000 gallons of fuel--that savings is the
energy equivalent of the annual electricity usage of 475 homes.
The Nebraska Central Railroad moves 56,600 tons of corn from the
Stromsburg Subdivision to Columbus, Nebraska using 7,850 gallons of
fuel. For trucks to move an equivalent volume of corn from the same
origins to the same destination would use approximately 39,900 gallons.
The Louisville & Indiana Railroad in Indiana operates two shuttle
moves in Southern Indiana to and from Consolidated Grain and Barge
(CGB) in Jeffersonville. The first runs from Kokomo Grain in Edinburgh
and averages 100 cars annually. Moving this on its privately owned and
maintained rail line rather than the parallel publicly owned and
maintained I-65 and US31 highways saves 8,759 gallons of fuel and,
using EPA's Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator, avoids
discharging 89 metric tons of CO2 into our environment. The
second operates between CGB facilities in Jeffersonville and Louisville
and averages 600 carloads annually. This move saves 18,118 gallons of
fuel and 184 metric tons of CO2--that's the equivalent of
taking 8,000 trash bags to the recycling center instead of the
landfill.
The Lancaster & Chester Railroad in South Carolina ships 281,500
tons of soybeans, soy meal and soybean oil per year between the South
Carolina cities of Chester, Fort Lawn and Kershaw. That move uses an
average of 80,000 gallons of fuel per year. The comparable highway move
would use over 320,000 gallons of fuel. That savings is the equivalent
of growing 35,000 trees for 10 years.
Lake State Railway in Michigan moved 296,000 tons of aggregate from
Alpena, MI to Kawkawlin, Grayling and Flint, MI in 2020. Those moves
used approximately 111,176 gallons of fuel. Comparable truck moves
would use approximately 383,164 gallons of fuel. That savings is the
equivalent of the power needed to fully charge every one of the 295
million cell phones in the United States tonight.
The Fulton County Railway in Georgia handles a huge amount of the
refrigerated food and beverage rail traffic in the southeast United
States, and kept vegetables and beer moving from as far away as Mexico
and Washington State as demand spiked during the pandemic. In 2020, FCR
handled approximately 592,000 tons of cold storage food and beer--
apparently not even the coronavirus could quench America's thirst for
Corona! Railroads largely exited refrigerated transportation in the
20th century, but small short line innovators like FCR have been
winning traffic back. Without this short line, this traffic would have
moved the entire way by truck, consuming almost 8.7 million gallons of
fuel, compared to 2.8 million gallons by rail. That savings is the
equivalent of converting 2 million light bulbs from incandescent into
LED.
These savings are real, and they are realized on every short line
in the country.
INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES FOR SHORT LINES
As Congress begins to develop what will likely be a robust and
ambitious infrastructure program, your Subcommittee will play an
important role in ensuring the continued strength of the American
supply chain, and the competitiveness of businesses large and small
across the U.S. Here we offer some suggestions that we believe will
maximize the economic, competitive, and environmental benefits offered
by the short line freight railroad industry.
A) Include Short Line Railroads Fully in New Infrastructure Investment
We strongly support the CRISI grant program as it specifically
provides for short line eligibility and puts a focus on benefit-cost
analysis. In our experience, with that level playing field, short line
projects fare well. The authorization levels for the program should be
significantly increased (we suggest that the $1.4b/year contemplated by
the House in H.R. 2 in 2020 would be a reasonable target) and there
should be no big, new set-asides or eligibilities (e.g., eligibility
for commuter rail or set-asides for intercity passenger rail or large
projects) to ensure an even playing field for all current applicants
and allow for the potential continued success of short lines in the
annual CRISI competition.
We are also supportive of the INFRA grant program, or a successor
program such as PNRS as proposed in H.R. 2 in 2020. There is value in a
merit-based discretionary grant program open to multiple modes of
transportation, especially one that is focused on freight and goods
movement. We recommend three changes to this program:
1) Allow the program to support the most efficient and effective
freight projects by fully removing or at least significantly
increasing the $500 million cap on non-highway portions of the
multimodal freight projects, as suggested in H.R. 2. We know
that we are preaching to the choir on this issue especially
with Chairwoman Cantwell and thank her for her relentless
leadership on this topic!
2) Ensure that the program can fund efficient and effective projects
by increasing the ``small projects'' set aside. Currently, the
10 percent cap on small projects, defined as a minimum grant of
$5 million for projects that do not meet the $100 million
project minimum, does not provide enough opportunity for INFRA
grants to be used to help with most short line infrastructure
projects. The 10 percent set aside should be increased to 25
percent to more accurately represent the many needs in the less
populated regions of the country. There's certainly nothing
wrong with dedicating funding to mega projects, but if a less
expensive project can achieve significant economic and
environmental benefits and improve America's supply chain and
competitiveness, we should remain open to those smaller
projects also. The proposal in last year's H.R. 2 to eliminate
the small set-aside entirely in PNRS would move in the wrong
direction and we hope will be reconsidered.
3) Maintain reasonable non-federal share requirements for INFRA
grants and consider increasing the maximum permissible share of
INFRA program funding per project from 60 percent to 80 percent
for small projects. Giving increasing preference to grant
requests with ``over-matching'' may appear logical but can lead
to missing otherwise important short line projects that cannot
overmatch with internal funds or are not located in urban areas
that enjoy significant taxing and bonding authority.
We'd also recommend including short line railroad project
eligibility in any new transportation grant programs that are created
targeting emissions, congestion reduction, resilience, or any similar
goal where short lines can help be part of the solution. For instance,
H.R. 2 in 2020 created two new programs (Sec. 1202, Increasing the
Resilience of Transportation Assets--Pre-disaster Mitigation Program
and Sec. 1213--Carbon Pollution Reduction) in which short line projects
were not eligible but could have and should have been. Not only is rail
an environmentally friendly way to move freight, it is also an
attractive option to provide resilient infrastructure that can serve as
a competitive alternative to the highway system and enhance America's
supply chain. Adding freight rail project eligibility would help
achieve the goals of the program and moving some freight to rail also
improves mobility on public roads.
As was done in H.R. 2 in 2020 and in the EPW Committee's America's
Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019, The National Highway Freight
Program should become more multimodal and raise or eliminate the non-
highway cap, so that program can become a source of funds for State
DOTs to support freight rail projects if they choose. Maximizing short
line access to this program, as well as the others I have referenced in
my testimony, provides important leverage to attract private
investment, provides flexibility to allow State DOTs to solve their
transportation challenges in the way that they find most effective, and
allows Congress to get the most bang for its buck out of finite
resources.
Let me give you a couple of examples from Michigan where the
state's Department of Transportation (MDOT) provides funding to help
connect new or expanding businesses to Michigan's rail system, through
their Freight Economic Development Program. The grant program can cover
up to 50 percent of the costs associated with rail infrastructure,
including rail spurs, loading and unloading equipment, and site
preparation.
Cargill utilized these MDOT funds to build the rail infrastructure
needed to serve a new $19 million animal nutrition manufacturing plant
in Owosso. Previously, Cargill's animal nutrition business had 43
manufacturing facilities across the U.S. and none were in Michigan
until this plant was built, and the rail connection was an important
fact in the decision to build.
Zeeland Farm Services utilized MDOT funds to build the rail
infrastructure associated with a new $130 million soybean processing
plant in central Gratiot County. The plant is capable of processing
more than 40 million bushels of soybeans annually and generated 75 new
full-time jobs. Both facilities are served by Great Lakes Central
Railroad and in 2020 they generated an additional 5,572 carloads for
the railroad.
These are huge private investments made possible in part by
comparatively modest public infrastructure investments. Together MDOT
invested $1.435 million in the rail portion of these projects. This
public investment provides important leverage and short line railroads
are well positioned to utilize this leverage to build or repair the
infrastructure that shippers require. These are wins for American
competitiveness and the supply chain at the same time as they're wins
for jobs, the environment, and safety.
Whether as part of existing grant programs or new ones, we would
suggest several principles that would help short lines better utilize
any infrastructure program:
1. Short lines should be directly eligible applicants for project
grants, like CRISI. Too often in the past, Federal programs
have been only open for application to local units of
government, which in turn requires short lines to create
unnecessarily complex and burdensome applicant structures and
which sometimes favors politically popular projects over
economically beneficial projects.
2. The application process needs to be as simple and transparent as
possible. Short lines are small businesses and generally the
individuals writing and engaging with the government on our
applications are employees with other duties on the railroad.
We do not have full time grant writers or the resources to hire
expensive consulting firms.
3. The analysis used to judge a project should not be a rigid one-
size-fits-all process. For example, the process to apply, the
public planning and the engineering required, and the
appropriate benefit-cost analysis format for incrementally
upgrading a ten-mile segment of existing track serving five
small grain elevators should not be the same as building a new
subway line or adding lanes to an interstate highway.
4. If there is to be an associated environmental approval process,
it must be streamlined to be completed in a reasonable period
of time. Approval processes that last for years are a deal-
killer to those running a business.
B) Improve Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety
We support the Cantwell-Blunt Railroad Grade Crossing Elimination
Act (S. 1465) which would make an important contribution to enhancing
safety and reducing traffic congestion. While short line railroads
strive to work closely with our communities and customers to avoid
causing any unwelcome impacts, there are many opportunities throughout
the country to eliminate crossings to improve the mobility of people
and goods, and improve the health and safety of communities. This
legislation will help provide funds to our government and tribal
partners to allow them to work with us to close, relocate or improve
many challenging crossings.
C) Improve the Rail Financing Loan Program, RRIF
We support Senators Thune's and Hassan's RRIF reform bill, the
Railroad Rehabilitation and Financing Innovation Act (S. 468), which
would improve the RRIF program and make it more viable for short lines.
It addresses several important issues that have been hurdles to
participation in the RRIF program for our short line members, including
the streamlining of the application process, the extension of loan
lengths, the increased flexibility regarding collateral requirements,
and the authorization of funds to reduce both the direct cost of
applying and also the credit risk premium charges that have frequently
been a hurdle to completing successful loans, which would bring the
RRIF program more in line with the comparatively more successful TIFIA
program. As Senator Thune said at the bill's introduction, ``States
like South Dakota rely on short line railroads to transport
agricultural products and other goods to market, and the RRIF program
was originally designed to provide stable financing to small railroads
for infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, short lines are often
unable to afford the time and expense associated with the current RRIF
application process, discouraging them from using the program. This
legislation makes necessary updates to RRIF so short lines are better
able to use the program as originally intended.''
D) Implement Regulatory Policies Thoughtfully
Finally, let me briefly mention two issues that we believe would
severely threaten the economics of short line railroading and that we
hope will not be included in any surface transportation reauthorization
or infrastructure package.
Avoid any Increases to Truck Size and Weight (TSW) limits--Any
increases and exceptions to current Federal limits would further
subsidize freight highway transportation, alter the economics of
freight shipping, and would result in a shift from freight rail to
highway transportation which would impact the environment and the
public infrastructure paid for with taxpayer dollars. We oppose any
legislation that increases current size or weight limits. As this
committee specifically has jurisdiction over the length question, I'll
note that Chairs Cantwell and Peters and Ranking Members Wicker and
Fischer all voted in favor of the Wicker-Feinstein motion to instruct
on this issue the last time it came up for a Senate vote back in 2015,
and of course Ranking Member Wicker has been a tremendous leader on
this issue for a long time.
Avoid unnecessary operational mandates on private railroads, such
as a crew size mandate--This is an unnecessary and unjustified concept,
considering the lack of data regarding any safety benefits of such a
mandate and the overall safety record of freight railroads. It would
also discourage future innovation, while legislating on an issue that
has properly been the subject of labor negotiations for more than a
century. Further, this mandate would disadvantage railroads in the
competition for freight and over time shift freight to the highway,
where it is inherently more dangerous and less environmentally
sustainable.
While less headline-grabbing than a crew size mandate, there are
also other potential unnecessary operational or regulatory mandates on
railroads that are of concern to us, such as banning the transportation
of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail or forcing STB mediation for
commuter rail requests to access freight track. We urge caution on any
new mandates or regulations that aren't supported by solid data, as
they limit flexibility, stifle innovation, and ultimately harm our
ability to deliver benefits to America's economy, supply chain,
competitiveness, and the environment.
For instance, we believe that the Fischer/Tester/Moran/Klobuchar/
Peters blocked crossings portal bill (S. 700) is a thoughtful approach
and likely to achieve a better result for everybody than the more
inflexible approach taken in H.R. 2.
SUPPORTING A BIPARTISAN EFFORT AIMED AT SUCCESS
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to give the views of the
short line industry at this hearing. As I wrap up, I would like to
share a personal observation prevalent among the small businesses I
represent. The short line industry was involved in a decades-long
effort to extend and then make permanent the short line 45G
rehabilitation tax credit, legislation that many of you on this
Subcommittee were instrumental in passing. The tax credit was made
permanent last year.
When we launched that initiative in 2003, short line economics were
little understood by the majority in Congress. Indeed, for many, short
lines were just a quaint name on the Monopoly board. We worked hard at
developing and documenting our story and Members of Congress gave us
the opportunity to tell that story, took the time to understand the
story, and visited our local properties to get a first-hand look at who
we were and what we did. Most importantly, our Congressional allies
committed to leading a sustained bi-partisan effort, regardless of who
controlled Congress. We worked to extend this legislation in seven
separate Sessions of Congress, and party control of the House and/or
Senate changed many times during that period. Regardless of party
control, and often in the face of fierce partisan battles, our chief
sponsors never wavered in their commitment to sticking together in bi-
partisan support of the legislation. It showed that government works
when you work hard at working it out. We need that today more than ever
and I hope that can be the spirit in which you approach creating a
much-needed surface transportation bill or broader infrastructure
package.
Toward that end, Congress should restore the Highway Trust Fund
(HTF) to a user-pays system. The U.S. has historically relied upon a
user-pays system to fund investments in public road infrastructure, and
there is broad agreement in the transportation and business community
and Congress that this is how the program should work. Unfortunately,
since the gas tax user fee hasn't increased since 1993, revenues into
the HTF have failed to keep pace with investment needs, requiring $157
billion in general fund transfers since 2008. It'll be another $195b
over the next 10 years at the current pace.
As my colleagues at the AAR also point out in their written
testimony, general fund transfers to the HTF distort the freight
transportation market in favor of the commercial trucking industry and
put other modes at an unfair competitive disadvantage. This is
especially problematic for railroads which largely build, maintain, and
pay for their own private infrastructure. Congress should address this
modal inequity by reaffirming the user-pays system and increasing the
fuel tax or moving to a VMT fee.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we seek equitable infrastructure investment in short
line freight railroads, an industry with a proven record of success, as
you seek to modernize the country's infrastructure for our collective
future success. Congress should ensure that new infrastructure
investment encourages as much freight as possible to move by rail
because (1) the public benefits when freight moves by rail--in terms of
improved safety, reduced congestion, reduced highway damage, and
reduced environmental impact and (2) private freight railroads largely
pay for their own infrastructure while highways have been relying on
tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to cover what user
fees don't. Investments into rail and policies that support rail or at
least don't harm rail will translate into jobs and foster growth
especially in rural America, reduce transportation's carbon footprint,
and ensure that our Nation's supply chain supports American
competitiveness.
Attachments, additional resources and source material:
Short Line ``101'' 2-pager
http://files.aslrra.org/images/news_file/
Short_Line_Railroad_Industry_101-032021.pdf
PwC short line economic impact report showing economic contributions of
short lines, most notably that 478,000+ jobs are dependent on short
line service
http://files.aslrra.org/images/news_file/PwC_ASLRRA_final_report.pdf
AASHTO Freight Rail Study (update of their original Bottom Line report)
showing benefits of mode shift to rail for pavement maintenance
savings, congestion savings, environmental savings, safety savings, and
shipper savings. It makes the conclusion that ``Relatively minor
investments in rail infrastructure yields major public benefits.''
https://rail.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2019/10/
FRBL-2.pdf
AAR-Freight Railroads and Climate-Change-Report
https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AAR-Climate-Change-
Report.pdf
STB Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council (RSTAC) letter
urging Congress to ``include short line railroads fully in any new
infrastructure investment funding legislation that may be enacted''
https://www.nacd.com/pub/?id=224EF08D-0AE0-771E-2A9C-129E0B497F9F
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Baker, for your testimony.
Our second witness today is Mr. Lamont Byrd, Director of Safety
and Health for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In
that role, Mr. Byrd oversees the development and the
implementation of comprehensive safety and health programs for
the 1.4-million-member International Union. Mr. Byrd also
serves as Chairman of the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Welcome, Mr. Byrd. You may proceed with your opening
comment.
STATEMENT OF LAMONT BYRD, DIRECTOR, SAFETY AND HEALTH,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
Mr. Byrd. Thank you. Chairman Peters, Ranking Member
Fischer, and members of the Subcommittee, my name, again, is
Lamont Byrd. I am the Director of Safety and Health for the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Thank you for inviting
me here today to testify about Freight Mobility: Strengthening
America's Supply Chains and Competitiveness.
The Teamsters Union represents more than 600,000 commercial
truck drivers and through the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees,
we also represent more than 70,000 rail employees. Our members
in these in industry sectors have seen their work demands
increase dramatically over the past several years, and even
during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many are classified as
essential workers.
In this opening statement, I will discuss infrastructure,
globalization and cross-border operations, truck and rail
safety regulations, and related operational policies. But many
additional issues are discussed in our written testimony, and
please feel free to ask me any questions you may have on those
topics, as well.
I would like to begin with infrastructure. The failure to
invest and improve the Nation's infrastructure has adversely
impacted trucking and the rail employers, workers, and
consumers. The explosion of online shopping coupled with
consumer demands has placed more freight in the system and more
pressure on both truck drivers and railroaders to deliver goods
quickly. Structural changes across both industries, such as the
use of precision schedule railroading, by some carriers, has
added to this enormous strain. Our hope is that this
Administration can partner with Congress to move forward on
rebuilding America's infrastructure, while simultaneously
addressing serious operational concerns being raised by
workers.
Globalization and international trade agreements has also
increased new challenges for American workers, including those
in transportation. The renegotiation of NAFTA enabled the
Teamsters Union to work with the U.S. Trade Representative to
require foreign trucks and drivers that deliver goods into the
United States, to comply with all motor carrier and driver
safety laws, allowing us an opportunity to establish a
framework to protect safe, good paying American trucking jobs.
That was a good result, but much work remains to be done.
We must ensure that carriers are prevented from bringing
foreign drivers into the United States, under temporary
business Visas, and violating Cabotage Laws. We must also
address similar cross border issues in the rail industry, where
serious problems have arisen at the southern border.
The Teamsters Union continues to be concerned about the
numerous exemptions to the Teamsters Union continues to be
concerned about the numerous exemptions to Hours-of-Service
regulations that are granted to motor carriers by the Federal
Motor Carriers Safety Administration and legislated by
Congress.
We are specifically concerned about the FMCSA's changes to
the short hour provision for CDL qualified drivers, the
revision to the definition of rest break, which allows all non-
driving work to be considered as rest. As well as the issuance
of two pilot programs, one allowing under 21-year-old drivers
to transport goods and interstate commerce, and the other
permitting CMB drivers to pause their workday up to 3 hours.
None of these regulatory revisions or pilot programs improve
safety, and they should all be repealed.
One of these pilot programs, which would allow under 21-
year-olds to operate in interstate commerce, is apparently,
being driven by the challenges employers face in recruiting and
hiring qualified drivers. While long work hours, difficult
work, and the need for clean driving and drug and alcohol
testing records create hiring challenges for motor carriers, we
do not believe that the solution to these challenges is to hire
more foreign drivers or lower the minimum driving age. Pay and
working conditions need to be improved so that drivers who are
already in the industry are incentivized to stay.
Part of incentivizing drivers to stay also includes taking
a science-based approach to drug testing. The Department of
Health and Human Services issued guidelines for hair testing
for federally mandated drug testing programs late last year.
The Teamsters oppose this method of testing, as there is
significant, unresolved scientific issues associated with hair
testing.
Finally, autonomous vehicles have the potential to reshape
the entire transportation sector, including the trucking and
rail industries. While some of this technology has the
potential to improve truck safety and efficiency, the threat of
self-driving trucks replacing or degrading millions of truck
driver jobs, is of great concern to our members. We need
Congress to ensure that before we move forward with automation
that proper protections are in place.
Many of those safety protections may be needed for
thousands of vehicles that are already on the roads. That is
why we support a study on the use of commercial vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds in
package delivery operations, as required in Section 4101 of
H.R. 2. There is very little data, if any, relating to the
safety performance and these same size vehicles are also likely
to be used in autonomous operations. So, a detailed review of
their operational safety is critical to our members.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before the subcommittee today and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Byrd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lamont Byrd, Director of Safety and Health,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Introduction
Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Fischer and Members of the
Subcommittee: My name is Lamont Byrd, and I am the Director of Safety
and Health for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). Thank
you for inviting me here today to testify on ``Freight Mobility:
Strengthening America's Supply Chains and Competitiveness.'' The
Teamsters Union represents more than 600,000 members who start their
workday behind the steering wheel of a truck. We also represent more
than 70,000 rail employees in the United States who work as locomotive
engineers, trainmen, and maintenance of way workers through the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employees. Whether they are rail workers operating at one of the
five major freight railroads, Amtrak, or a commuter rail system, or a
Teamster driver operating an 18-wheeler or dropping a UPS package at
your door, we have seen the demands on hundreds of thousands of our
transportation members increase dramatically over the past several
years, even as many of them put themselves in harm's way by continuing
to show up to work during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On the trucking side, the pressures these drivers face come from a
variety of sources, some obvious, others not so obvious. But a
recurring theme pushing drivers sometimes to their limit is a claimed
need by carriers for flexibility and greater efficiency. There are many
reasons that put the trucking industry and its drivers under the gun.
And a lot of it has to do with policy or lack thereof that hasn't kept
pace with an ever-changing transportation system. Specific policy
issues relating to infrastructure, driver compensation, Hours-of
Service regulations and exemptions from other safety regulations,
detention time, outright driver harassment, driver health, driver
training and retention, automation and globalization all contribute to
these pressures and are discussed at length in our testimony that
follows. It's a fact that a truck driver operates in a very regulated
arena. From the time he/she obtains a Commercial Driver's License
(CDL), the driver is subject to medical certification, drug testing,
and dozens of safety regulations. Drivers for the most part are paid by
the mile, work the longest hours in any industry (60 to 70 hours per
week) and don't receive overtime pay. They make money by delivering a
product on time, and the odds right now are stacked against them in
doing so by many factors.
On the rail side, many of these same conditions exist. There also
are some stark differences that create great inequity for Rail
Teamsters. Most BLET members have no fixed work schedules and are tied
to a telephone; compounding matters is an almost complete lack of
reliable information from which locomotive engineers and trainmen can
regulate their off-duty time to ensure that they are fully rested when
they have to report for work. A significant percentage of BMWED members
work on traveling gangs that cover huge geographical territories,
taking them from their homes and families for a week or more at a time.
Rail Teamsters, and all rail workers, also face two other industry-
wide challenges. One is a never-ending drive by rail carriers to
replace workers with technology. For BMWED members this has taken the
form of replacing human track inspection with drones. BLET members are
increasingly being forced to run trains--upwards of three miles long--
that exceed the boundaries of safety, and the carriers are actively
seeking to cut the size of road freight crews in half. On top of this,
the railroads have adopted a business model, called Precision Scheduled
Railroading (PSR), which subordinates service, staffing and safety to a
never-ending chase to reduce operating ratios, which is a railroad's
operating expenses expressed as a percentage of its revenue.
Infrastructure
The failure to invest and improve the Nation's infrastructure
impacts the trucking and the rail industry alike, its workers, and
consumers in many adverse ways. The explosion of on-line shopping
coupled with consumer demands of ``I have to have it tomorrow'' and an
even greater emphasis on just-in-time delivery have put more freight in
the system and more pressure on both truck drivers and railroaders
alike to deliver goods quickly. The structural shift to PSR has thrown
gas onto this fire and forced many railroaders to work at breakneck and
unsafe speeds. The annual uncertainty around Amtrak funding not only
makes operational planning for Amtrak difficult, but also leaves
thousands of American railroaders with enormous question marks around
what future they will have in the industry. For truck drivers, traffic
congestion fueled by years of delayed highway construction and
improvement projects, weight limits on deteriorating bridges that
necessitate re-routings, and the general condition of some highways
that cause road closures and detours all put truck drivers behind the
wheel longer than they need to be and in a ``pressure cooker''
environment of stop and go traffic. Traffic jams alone cost the U.S.
$87 billion in lost productivity in 2018 according to data analyzed by
the research firm INRIX. Our hope is that this Administration can
return to the table and partner with Congress to move forward on
rebuilding America's highways, railroads, bridges, ports, and other
much needed infrastructure projects.
Globalization/Trade/Cross-Border Operations
Globalization and international trade agreements have opened new
challenges for the American worker, including truck drivers. Ever since
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force in
1994, the Teamsters Union has fought to ensure that highway safety is
paramount in implementing the NAFTA provision that permitted Mexican
domiciled carriers to perform long haul trucking operations beyond the
commercial border zones. The renegotiation of NAFTA allowed the
Teamsters Union to work with the U.S. Trade Representative to ensure
that the foreign trucks and drivers delivering goods into the United
States will continue to be required to meet all motor carrier and
driver safety laws. The USMCA also afforded us an opportunity to
establish a framework to ensure that good paying American trucking jobs
are not supplanted by lower-paid foreign drivers. Specifically, the
USMCA provides trucking industry stakeholders an opportunity to
petition the International Trade Commission (ITC) and seek remedial
action if it is determined that U.S. carriers and/or drivers have
suffered material harm as a result of long-haul cross-border trucking.
A survey by DOT of operating authority for Mexico-domiciled carriers
currently permitted to enter the U.S. beyond the border commercial zone
is currently underway as mandated under USMCA implementing legislation
(PL-116-113, Title III, Section 327). Additionally, under USMCA, the
DOT Inspector General is required to ``review the procedures and
actions taken by the Secretary to determine whether each Mexico-
domiciled motor carrier with any U.S. operating authority . . . is in
compliance with applicable Federal motor carrier safety laws and
regulations.'' (Statement of Administrative Action accompanying PL 116-
113).
One issue related to cross-border trucking not addressed by the
USMCA cross-border trucking provisions is the use of drivers admitted
to the United States under temporary business visas. Section 4307 (H.R.
2, 116th Congress) requires the DOT Inspector General to report on the
prevalence of these operations, including the country of domicile of
the carriers, the demographics of the drivers and their contractual
relationship with those motor carriers. It also requires a closer look
at point-to-point transportation in the U.S. (cabotage) and possible
violations of that law by foreign drivers. While monitored by Customs
and Border Patrol (CBP), the Teamsters, through an investigation by
EMPOWER, a Mexico City-based research firm, who conducted numerous
interviews with Mexico-domiciled drivers have found evidence of drivers
being transported across the U.S. border, then assigned a tractor
trailer and performing point-to-point delivery in the U.S., a clear
violation of cabotage laws.
This is despite the fact that U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) holds workshops with major B-1 employers about expedited border
crossing programs and U.S. cabotage law. The Teamsters strongly support
an investigation by the Inspector General to more closely examine these
types of operations.
The issues regarding cross-border operations permeates not just the
trucking industry, but rail operations as well. The history of rail
cross-border operations truly is a tale of two borders. To the north,
there was international representation of operating employees and
maintenance of way employees by the two unions that comprise the
Teamsters Rail Conference, which dates back to 1870. Except when a
rogue carrier on either side of the border attempts to exceed its
contractual authority, operations between the United States and Canada
generally are quite stable, with crew changes occurring at the border
or in rail yards immediately adjacent to the border.
It is a far different story on our southern border, where typically
the yards are located beyond the border city. Cross-border trains block
vehicular traffic in these cities for lengthy periods of time, while
they travel through Customs and Border Protection scanners, and this
problem has become significantly worse because of the excessively long
trains the railroads insist on operating. Mexican law prohibits anyone
who is not a Mexican national from performing any railroad work within
that country's borders, making an operation similar to that on the
northern border impossible. Rail carriers are using every trick in the
book to use much lower paid Mexican crews to operate inside the U.S.,
to the point that the last Federal Railroad Administrator essentially
stopped enforcing the locomotive engineer certification regulations
required by Congress at the southern border. We would be happy to
provide detailed information on this subject if the Subcommittee is
interested.
Coercion/Harassment
Similar to the evasion of regulatory requirements going on at the
border for rail crews, motor carriers are increasingly exerting
enormous pressure on drivers to be more productive even if it means
violating various motor carrier safety regulations. For example, the
Union is involved in a case where a driver/member reported that the
cargo he was transporting via truck was loaded with melons on the
bottom of pallets and improperly secured and consequently shifted while
en-route. It should be noted that the driver was unable to thoroughly
inspect the load prior to leaving the terminal because the truck was
fully loaded when he picked it up. After reporting that the load had
shifted and he could not safely deliver the cargo, he was instructed by
management to unload the truck on the roadside, organize the cargo,
reload the truck, and continue on his route. When he advised management
that he could not safely perform these job tasks as he did not have
load securing equipment (load bars--the ones that he had were damaged
as a result of the shifting freight; no straps and shrink wrap) and to
do so on the roadside would place him in danger. He would have also
been at significant risk of work-related injury, having to climb up and
down a small set of stairs to enter and exit the trailer while carrying
cargo. This is a union shop where in addition to regulations and
company policies that preclude the drivers from performing such
dangerous work, there is language in the collective bargaining
agreement that empowers the drivers to refuse to perform dangerous and
illegal work. Yet, this driver was summarily terminated when he
returned a short distance to the terminal for assistance. Although we
anticipate being able to get this driver reinstated at his job, this
practice not only adversely affected him, it sends a chilling message
to other drivers who are aware of this situation.
Hours of Service/Driver's Health
The Teamsters Union continues to be concerned about the numerous
exemptions to Hours-of-Service (HOS) regulations that are granted by
FMCSA through petitions and those special interest exemptions
legislated by Congress. We are also concerned about FMCSA's recent
issuance of two pilot programs--one allowing for under-21 CDL holders
to travel in interstate commerce and the other providing for a split
duty period, permitting CMV drivers to pause their 14-hour on-duty
period (driving window) with one off-duty period of no less than 30
minutes and no more than three hours. The under-21 pilot was initiated
prior to the completion of the pilot program permitting those with
requisite military training. Section 5404 of the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act required FMCSA to conduct research on
drivers who are 1820 years of age, are members of the armed forces or
reserve components, and who are qualified in a military occupational
specialty or rating to operate a CMV or similar vehicle. Not only did
FMCSA not wait until this pilot was completed so a comparison could be
made with drivers in a control group comprised of drivers 21-24 to
determine if age was a critical safety factor, but the agency initiated
another pilot program for under-21 CDL drivers. The split duty period
pilot program will do nothing but extend an already long exhausting
workday for drivers who are already fighting fatigue. Numerous studies
have shown that ``time on task'' is a relevant factor in fatigue-
related crashes. The Federal Register notice itself states that the
``pilot program seeks to gather statistically reliable evidence whether
decisions concerning the timing of such flexibility can be aligned with
employers', shippers', and receivers' scheduling preferences to
optimize productivity while ensuring safety performance . . .''. It's
clear that this rulemaking is all about the ``bottom line'' and nothing
about a driver facing a 17-hour workday! These two pilot programs,
issued at the end of the last Administration, should be rescinded, and
it is why we support a provision in H.R. 2 (116th Congress) that would
have paused the final rule published on June 1, 2020, titled ``Hours of
Service of Drivers'' (85 Fed. Reg. 33396) until a comprehensive review
of hours of service rules and the safety and driver impacts of waivers,
exemptions, and other allowances that limit the applicability of such
rules. This provision would further require a peer review, publication
in the Federal Register and a period for public comment and a Report to
Congress. Unfortunately, the final rule was issued and is now in
effect. But the process for examining the numerous waivers, exemptions
and other allowances is necessary and should move forward.
With regard to the final HOS Rule published on June 1, 2020, the
Teamsters have joined other safety advocates in bringing legal action
against DOT to reverse these latest changes in the HOS regulations. The
most egregious of these is the revision to the Short Haul Provision for
Commercial Driver's License qualified drivers from a 12-hour workday to
14 hours. The IBT has found that the proposed extension of the 12-hour
exception to 14-hours results in short-haul drivers spending additional
time loading trailers, staging freight, and making more deliveries. As
a result, these drivers will continue to experience an increase in the
incidence of occupational injuries and illnesses. Consequently, motor
carriers will experience higher worker compensation costs and may
experience an increase in the costs associated with fatigue-related
crashes.
The trucking industry already ranks among the industries having the
highest occupational illness and injury rates in the United States and
the worker's compensation costs to motor carriers are tremendous.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data for 2017, the non-
fatal occupational incidence rate for truck transportation, nationally,
was 4.2 injuries per 100 workers as compared to 2.8 injuries per 100
workers for private industry.\1\ Several studies show that the majority
of work-related injuries occurring among truck drivers result from non-
driving work activities.\2\ When researchers further investigated these
findings they found that the types of injuries experienced by truck
drivers varied by industry sector but were generally associated with
falling from heights, trips, slips, falls, and overexertion due to
manual materials handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018.
\2\ Friswell, Williamson, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2010
Nov; 42(6): 2068-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drivers who are involved in short-haul operations experienced
occupational injuries primarily while performing three activities:
``(1) Operating the truck; (2) lifting/cranking; and (3) maneuvering
into/out of truck cab.'' \3\ Chandler, et. al., in further describing
the injuries indicated that incidents that occurred while operating the
truck, included losing control of the truck, being struck from behind
by another vehicle, and musculoskeletal injuries associated with
extended routine driving. With respect to lifting/cranking related
injuries, the researchers found that drivers were injured while
manually handling cargo, connecting dollies, and lifting/adjusting
ramps to the trailers. Researchers also reported that drivers
experienced injuries due to trips, slips, and falls as they entered or
exited the truck cab and trailer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Chandler, M., Bunn, T.L., Slavova, S., International Journal of
Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 2017, Vol. 24, No. 1, 120-130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial drivers, including short-haul drivers,
disproportionately experience musculoskeletal injuries and illnesses.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
conducted a review of over forty studies that investigated the
relationship between lowback pain/disorders and determined that there
is strong evidence that correlates physical workplace factors such as
heavy physical work, lifting, bending and twisting, whole body
vibration (WBV), and static work postures with low back pain/
disorders.\4\ All of these contributing factors to lowback pain/
disorders are present in commercial driving, particularly in short-haul
operations. This is critical when one considers that according to the
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) a survey conducted by
the organization in 2003, MSDs costs the trucking industry
approximately $4 billion dollars each year.\5\ The Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported that workers in truck transportation experienced
work-related musculoskeletal disorders at a rate of 62.3/10,000 workers
as compared to 28.6/10,000 for private industry.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141/pdfs/97-
141.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB97141
\5\ American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2003, ``American
Industrial Hygiene Association position statement on ergonomics
[online]. Available from: http://www.aiha.org/1documents/Government
Affairs/P-ergonomics-1403.pdf
\6\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-haul drivers will experience increased fatigue as a result of
having to work an extended number of hours and concurrently experience
more fatigue-related occupational injuries and crashes. The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a report
that summarized over 50 studies that investigated the impact that long
working hours have on illnesses, injuries, health behaviors, and job
performance.\7\ Studies showed that workers who worked long shifts,
i.e., 12 or more hours, each day and more than 40 hours per week
experienced an increase in occupational injuries and ``a pattern of
deteriorating performance on psychophysiological tests.'' \8\ This is
of significant concern when considering the fact that shorthaul
commercial drivers perform safety-sensitive job functions such as
operating large trucks in oftentimes congested areas that are shared
with passenger vehicles and pedestrians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-143/pdfs/2004-143.pdf
\8\ Ibid, p. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, NIOSH conducted an ergonomic study for drivers in the soft
beverage delivery industry during which the researchers evaluated
drivers over a four-month period.\9\ Researchers found that drivers had
to routinely lift products that exceeded the recommended weight limit
per the NIOSH Lifting Criteria.\10\ In addition, researcher collected
data on the driver's heart rates to estimate metabolic output and
determined that such drivers worked in a job that required a high level
of energy. Drivers in this physically demanding job also experienced
twice as many lost workdays when compared to workers in general
manufacturing jobs. Although the study was conducted over twenty years
ago, members of the Teamsters Union who have high tenure in the
industry reported that not much has changed and that the changes that
have occurred are generally not an improvement. For example, these
drivers reported that traffic conditions are much worse; parking for
large vehicles is more limited; they continue to have to manually
deliver large quantities of heavy products such as cases and kegs while
negotiating stairs, curbs, ramps, narrow entrances and exits to
buildings, and having to perform these job tasks in inclement weather
(heat, cold, ice). These external factors which directly contribute to
the difficulty of a driver's workday cannot be ignored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/96-109/pdfs/96-
109.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB96109
\10\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/94-110/pdfs/94-110.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current Hours of Service Regulation for non-CDL qualified
commercial drivers who use the short-haul exception are allowed to work
14 hours each day, extend the workday to 16 hours two times each week
and drive up to 11 hours each day. According to BLS data these drivers
have a higher rate of injury and severity of injury (based on the
number of lost workdays per injury) than other commercial drivers,
i.e., non-CDL drivers who do not use the Short-Haul provision and CDL
qualified drivers. It should be noted that CDL qualified drivers
operate larger trucks that are able to carry more freight that is
larger and heavier than what is typically transported and delivered by
non-CDL drivers. Therefore, one can reasonably expect injury rates to
increase among CDL qualified short-haul drivers if the number of hours
that they are permitted to work increases.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health released a report
\11\ concerning the misuse of opioids among workers who are employed in
industries, such as trucking, that has a high rate of occupational
injuries. Drivers are very concerned about their risk of suffering a
work-related injury, being prescribed pain killers such as opioids, and
the possibility that the use of such drugs could result in not only
adverse health outcomes, but also the chance of becoming medically
disqualified to operate commercial motor vehicles. The Teamsters will
oppose any efforts to expand the short-haul exemption for CDL-qualified
drivers through legislative or regulatory actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.mass.gov/news/department-of-public-health-taking-
steps-to-keep-job-related-injuries-from-leading-to-opioid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a part of their final rule amending the Hours of Service
Regulations, FMCSA also revised the definition of ``rest break'' to
include all time not actually operating a CMV as ``rest''. Prior to the
new HOS regulations, a driver had to take a 30-minute rest break after
8 hours on duty. The new regulations mandate the break after they have
driven for a period of 8 cumulative hours without at least a 30-minute
interruption. In addition, the 30-minute rest period doesn't even
require the driver to actually rest. Under the rule change, drivers are
permitted to take their break as ``on-duty/not driving, meaning the
driver could be loading or unloading cargo, refueling their truck,
interfacing with a customer, or filling out paperwork, all while
technically ``on break''. So long as the driver is not behind the wheel
driving, he can do any type of physically demanding labor and have it
considered as ``rest'' under the rule. The 30-minute rest break is the
only rest period guaranteed to drivers under Federal law and is a
crucial tool for mitigating fatigue. The Teamsters will continue to
fight to have it restored as a true rest period.
Recruiting/Retaining Drivers/Young Drivers
Motor carrier employers face significant challenges recruiting and
hiring qualified drivers. Increasingly long work hours, difficult work,
the need for a clean driving record, and a drug/alcohol testing record
that is free from positive results, create significant hiring
challenges for motor carriers. As a result of increases in the demand
for goods, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that between
2016 and 2026, there will be a need for 108,400 additional drivers in
heavy truck transportation.\12\ It should be noted as an aging driver
workforce retires from the industry, there will be an even greater need
for qualified drivers. According to 2018 data from the BLS over 21
percent of the current driver population will reach 65 years of age in
the next ten years, with over 46 percent reaching 65 within next 20
years.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/
heavy-and-tractor-trailer-truck-drivers.htm
\13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some in the trucking industry who view lowering the
minimum driving age for commercial drivers to 18 as one solution to the
increasing demand for qualified drivers. As noted above, the Teamsters
Union is particularly concerned about this issue as it should be noted
that there is significant evidence which indicates that young drivers
are more likely to be involved in crashes. This issue is even more
concerning when one considers that absence of any comprehensive driver
training regulation for entry-level commercial drivers. Several years
ago, at the behest of the FMCSA, the Teamsters Union and over twenty
other stakeholders participated in a ``negotiated'' rulemaking process
to draft a rule for entry-level driver training. After several weeks of
hard work, the negotiating committee reached consensus and provided the
FMCSA with a draft rule. The Agency has yet to move forward on
promulgating a Final Rule. The Union strongly believes that the Agency
should not even consider revisions to any of the CDL requirements until
such a rule is finalized.
Another issue that affects retention is driver compensation.
Teamster Union drivers are among the highest paid in the industry, with
good health benefits and pensions, as well as a direct voice on the job
allowing them to address operational and disciplinary concerns through
a transparent, collectively bargained process. That is why the
retention rate is much higher among unionized truck drivers than their
non-union counterparts. Our National Master Freight Agreement also
addresses the issue of detention time--that period of time where a
driver is kept waiting for his truck to be loaded or unloaded. Under
that Agreement, the Teamster Union drivers are paid for this time that
they are waiting, which is why the practice is not prevalent in our
sector of the industry. Paying drivers for wasting their valuable on-
duty time gives motor carriers and shippers an incentive to have a load
ready when a driver arrives at the loading dock. It also prevents
drivers from being frantic to try and make up for lost time and
possibly violating safety regulations in the process. Congress should
take the necessary steps to mandate that drivers be paid for this
detention time. That is why we support provisions in H.R. 2 (116th
Congress) that require the Secretary to initiate a rulemaking
establishing limits on the time that a CMV operator may be reasonably
detained before loading or unloading occurs, if that operator is not
compensated for the time detained.
Truck Size and Weight
Certain industry stakeholders continue to call for increases in
truck size and weight. Whether it's increasing the weight limit on
Federal highways to 90,000 lbs. or expanding the use of the twin 33'
trailer configuration, the Teamsters Union opposes any increase in the
current Federal weight limits for trucks or any increase in the current
size of double trailers traveling on the National Highway System. Our
Interstates and other major highways are in serious disrepair and half
of our bridges are more than 40 years old with one in four being
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Increasing truck size
and length will put further stress on an already deteriorating
infrastructure system. While a properly deployed 6th axle can mitigate
weight increases on road surfaces, the same cannot be done on bridges.
In addition, our highways are not designed for longer combination
vehicles. Our merge lanes and entrance and exit ramps are not designed
for eighty-four feet long vehicles. Longer and heavier trucks take more
time to get up to speed and require greater stopping distances. From a
driver's perspective, our roadways are already congested like never-
before. Reaction times are pushed to the limit as drivers attempt to
maneuver big rigs around slowed-down vehicles and avoid quickly
changing lanes in a maneuver that could put themselves and other
drivers at risk. The claim that increasing truck lengths and weights
will result in fewer trucks on the road is unfounded. Historically,
each time increases have occurred truck traffic has grown as shippers
take advantage of cheaper rates and divert freight from rail to
highways. Currently, 39 states prohibit twin 33-foot trailers on their
highways, and there is no justification to allow them to operate on our
interstate highways.
According to FMCSA's Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts, ``the number
of large trucks involved in fatal crashes increased 10 percent from
4,251 to 4,657, and the large truck involvement rate (large trucks
involved in fatal crashes per 100 million miles traveled by large
trucks) increased 6 percent, from 1.48 to 1.56.'' Deaths from large
truck crashes reached their highest level in 29 years in 2017,
according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data.
Fatalities from big truck crashes rose even though the overall traffic
fatality rate declined. Large truck fatalities rose 9 percent to 4,761,
an increase of 392 lives lost over the prior year. Congressionally-
approved exemptions to weight and length limits based on a specific
section of highway or a specific industry should be rejected. Piecemeal
approaches undermine Federal transportation policy and further
jeopardizes safety on our Nation's highways.
Safety-Assist Technology and Autonomous Vehicles
Autonomous vehicles have the potential to reshape the entire
transportation industry, not just the trucking industry. While some of
this technology holds the potential to improve truck safety and
efficiency in the short term, the threat of self-driving trucks
replacing, or degrading millions of truck driver jobs has many of our
members on edge. We believe that the trucking industry will have the
need for skilled drivers for decades to come. But some of that relies
on this committee making sure the industry isn't forced into a self-
destructive, and self-reinforcing race towards unsafe and job-killing
automation without the proper protections in place.
As this hearing examines ways to strengthen our supply chains and
competitiveness, the common refrain from industry that automating
sectors of our supply chain could somehow strengthen our
competitiveness deserves a closer review. Drivers feel like disposable
cogs in a machine when some members of this body talk gleefully about
the prospects of automating away their jobs. What's worse, many
drivers' only interaction with lower levels of automation have actually
deepened their mistrust of new technologies. Our members have reported
dangerous malfunctions of automatic braking systems that are in their
trucks right now. These systems are supposed to make a driver's life
easier, and we would gladly support them if they did. But drivers tell
us stories of these systems often detecting snow or an oncoming
overpass as an obstacle, and mistakenly slamming on the brakes without
any warning. The driver is then the only thing stopping the truck from
jack knifing or skidding off the road. Imagine surviving that incident
and then having to show up to work the next day and drive a truck with
the exact same technology on board? No one should have to feel like
they are taking their life into their own hands just by showing up for
their job. That is why the Teamsters have insisted that a Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard be created to establish performance
requirements for the system itself and the software that it operates.
Section 4404 (H.R. 2, 116th Congress) directs NHTSA to promulgate a
rule for automatic emergency braking systems, and requires consultation
with drivers regarding their experiences as a part of that process. We
strongly support these safeguards. Congress must bring a healthy dose
of skepticism whenever it is approached with a piece of automation
technology that is being touted as improving safety or one that will
make a driver's life easier. It may not live up to closer scrutiny.
Another emerging issue with automated vehicles is the lack of
uniform reporting around automated commercial vehicle testing and
deployment. While some states like California have implemented laws and
regulations addressing the disclosure of some elements of operation
involving automated trucks, others have not. It is in the direct
interest of public safety that people know where testing,
demonstrations and commercial operations are being conducted. Section
5311 of HR2 (116th Congress) is a step in the right direction. It would
require the Secretary to establish a repository for motor carriers to
submit information on operations of automated commercial vehicles. The
Teamsters have been working with the self-driving industry to fine-tune
those provisions so that the data required by motor carriers is not
overly burdensome for industry, while still providing the necessary
information to identify the company, the type and weight class of the
vehicles being operated, the level of automation being used, safety
protocols in place, including fatigue plans, training or certifications
provided to drivers, and most importantly, through rulemaking;
requiring motor carriers to report malfunctions, collisions, bodily
injuries, and property damage, and make that information available on a
public website. Road users, especially other truck operators, should
have the right to know if they are sharing a road where commercial AVs
are prevalent. We strongly support these reporting requirements as a
necessary step to ensure the safe operation of these vehicles on our
highways.
Finally, the impact automation will have on truck drivers will not
only come from self-driving trucks. Self-driving cars and delivery bots
are already taking work currently done by truck drivers. A major
Teamster employer is in the process of testing self-driving minivans to
haul packages on a route currently driven by Teamster trucks. Nuro, a
company focused on last-mile deliveries using a self-driving bot about
half the size of a car is aiming to upend the work currently done by
food grocery delivery drivers who currently haul the same loads in
larger vehicles. The safety, performance, and impacts on workers by
smaller AVs must be a core consideration as Congress contemplates any
legislation to incentivize or pave the way for widespread adoption of
commercial autonomous vehicles, regardless of their size.
Small Commercial Vehicle Study
The Teamsters support the study of the operation of small
commercial vehicles utilized in package delivery as required in Section
4104 (H.R. 2, 116th Congress). These vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of below 10,000 are increasingly used for ``last mile''
delivery, especially as e-commerce has exploded, and even more so
during the pandemic. They are not regulated by FMCSA in any capacity,
and there is little if any data relating to their safety performance as
their numbers exponentially increase. In addition, there are increasing
complaints by drivers of these vehicles being pushed beyond reasonable
work schedules and delivery demands. It is not uncommon to see these
vans ``stacked to the brim'' with packages, often overflowing into the
driver compartment and even on dashboards obstructing the windshield
view of the driver. Unreasonable numbers of packages to be delivered
during a work shift can potentially cause the driver to speed and or
drive recklessly, creating an unsafe environment for those who not only
share the road but for pedestrians as well. The study, which will
collect information from both direct and contracted carriers, will
evaluate such things as fleet structure and miles traveled, scheduling
of deliveries and maintenance practices, driver compensation, training,
and hours-on-duty, and safety performance including crash rates, moving
violations inspections and other safety factors. This burgeoning
segment of the package delivery industry should not operate outside the
realm of safety.
Problems with Truck Leasing Arrangements
The Teamsters Union has long called for an examination of
exploitative truck leasing arrangements, especially in the ports, where
the union represents drayage drivers. In fact, the Teamsters arranged
to have port drivers testify at a House Transportation and
Infrastructure hearing several years ago which examined the abhorrent
working conditions and exploitative leasing practices prevalent in the
ports. Drivers testified to being charged by their company each night
to park the company's leased vehicle in the company's own lot. They
also reported the double-leasing of a single truck to more than one
driver, paycheck stubs that showed drivers owing the company more money
then they earned at the end a pay period because of the numerous
``charges and deductions'' made by the leasing company, and other
abuses and shortfalls which the current system has allowed to occur
over and over again. We strongly support provisions contained in
Section 4305 of H.R. 2 (116th Congress) which establishes a Truck
Leasing Task Force to examine predatory leasing agreements in the
trucking industry and recommendations on changes to statutes or
regulations that will address abuses impacting commercial motor vehicle
drivers. This is long overdue in holding accountable those that would
take advantage of driver who many not fully understand the ``fine
print'' of a leasing agreement.
Hair Testing
In September of 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) proposed guidelines for the use of hair samples as a method for
drug testing Federal employees and safety-sensitive employees in
federally regulated industries, including commercial motor vehicle
operators. The Teamsters oppose this method of testing for several
reasons. Hair testing is unreliable and inherently unfair; variations
in hair texture and even length can impact test results, and false
positives can occur because of absorption into the hair from second-
hand smoke, external contaminants, and other environmental elements.
While some motor carriers use hair testing to detect drug use for pre-
employment testing at their own expense, hair testing should not be
used in place of urinalysis testing for random testing purposes,
reasonable suspicion/cause, postaccident, return-to-duty, or follow-up
testing purposes until such time as the HHS is able to scientifically
determine the accuracy of testing and account for the various
differentiating elements like hair color, thickness, absorption rates,
hair receptivity in relation to its location on the body and other
factors.
Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers
The Teamsters Union supports provisions in Section 4408 (HR 2,
116th Congress) which calls for updating the required amount of
insurance for commercial motor vehicles from the current amount of
$750,000. The amount of required insurance coverage has not changed
since 1980. Since that time, the cost of living has increased over 200
percent. Medical costs have skyrocketed and with people living much
longer, the revised value of statistical life elements has increased
significantly. Even vehicle values and other property that might be
damaged or destroyed have risen to a point that the current coverage
would not begin to cover the costs of a serious accident.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee today and I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Byrd. Thank you for
your testimony. Thank you for being here today.
Our third witness today is Mr. Chris Conner, President and
CEO of the American Association of Port Authorities, also known
as AAPA. The AAPA represents more than 130 public port
authorities in the U.S., Canada, the Caribbean, and Latin
America. Mr. Conner has a wealth of experience, having spent
over 35 years in the ocean shipping industry, before leading
AAPA.
Welcome, Mr. Connor. You may proceed with your opening
comments.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. CONNOR, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES
Mr. Connor. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chairman Peters,
Ranking Member Fischer, and members of the subcommittee. My
name is Chris Connor, President and CEO of the American
Association of Port Authorities. I would like to thank this
subcommittee, as well as the full committee, for holding this
hearing. And I appreciate the opportunity to discuss maritime
and trade infrastructure, and the related investment needs, on
behalf of public port authorities throughout the U.S. and its
territories.
Our Nation's seaports deliver vital goods to consumers,
facilitate the export of American-made goods, create jobs, and
support local and national economic growth. Ports also play a
crucial role in our national defense, witnessed by the
designation of 17 of our Nation's ports as Strategic Seaports
by the Department of Defense.
Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, the total economic value
generated in terms of revenue to businesses, personal income,
and economic output by U.S. deep draft ports, accounted for
$5.4 trillion annually, or roughly 26 percent of GDP. Research
also shows that nearly 31 million Americans were employed in
jobs generated as a result of port activity.
AAPA is mindful of and grateful for this committee's
positive efforts on the passage of MTSERA, as well as for the
increased authorization levels for PIDP. It is imperative,
however, as this committee considers reauthorization of our
Nation's surface transportation policies, that we develop and
fund a robust national freight strategy to remain competitive
in the global economy.
The FAST Act made significant strides in this regard,
through the creation of the discretionary INFRA grant program
and the formula based National Highway Freight Program. These
existing freight programs are primarily highway focused. And
while highways are essential to our freight network, ports are
multimodal facilitators connecting trains, trucks, and ships,
all of which need access to ports.
As we look to build off the progress made under the FAST
Act, it is critical that the following be considered. All
freight program funding should be made 100 percent multimodal.
Second, lift the 10 percent state caps for BUILD grants. Third,
continue freight planning through State freight plans and a
national freight strategic plan. Finally, establish an Office
of Freight and Multimodal Infrastructure policy.
We also have an opportunity to lower carbon emissions, and
improve air quality at near port communities and reduce
congestion on highways. Let us eliminate the double HMT
taxation and incentivize increased use of marine highways, the
cleanest, safest, and most efficient form of transport in the
U.S.
Ports across the country were pleased to see dedicated
funding proposed in the President's American Jobs Plan, as well
as in the Republican Roadmap. It is a great start and an
encouraging development. Investments, such as those outlined in
both plans, will be critical to ensuring that the U.S. has a
21st century, multimodal freight network to compete globally
and deliver locally.
To support our Nation's deep draft ports and maritime
industry, AAPA recommends the following be included in any
large-scale infrastructure package. Including $20 billion for
deep draft port infrastructure and intermodal freight movement
connectors, robust funding for electrification of dockside ship
connections and zero, or near zero, emission port equipment, $6
billion for the U.S. Army Corps Coastal Navigation Program, and
$500 million for port development of offshore wind energy, in
order to catalyze it at scale.
Finally, I want to bring to light something that our ports
are not able to say themselves. Ports are being held hostage by
CBP to pay for extravagant facility upgrades and officer
staffing shortfalls. The brave men and women at CBP need and
deserve a designated facilities fund. I know that Chairman
Peters is aware of this issue, and we thank him for his
interest and support.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to share with the
subcommittee our thoughts regarding freight mobility and I hope
you will consider the steps outlined here, that Congress can
take to help ports and our Nation's trade infrastructure remain
strong. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher J. Connor, President and CEO,
American Association of Port Authorities
Good morning Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Fischer, and members
of the Subcommittee.
My name is Chris Connor, and I am the President and CEO of the
American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). I would like to thank
the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, Freight, and
Ports and the full Committee for working to ensure that our Nation's
maritime transportation system remains functional during the ongoing
pandemic and responsive to the surges recently seen throughout our
supply chains. Your recognition of the important role played by our
ports and by our partners throughout the maritime supply chain has been
critical, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our maritime
infrastructure and investment needs as it relates to infrastructure
investment and the reauthorization of our Nation's surface
transportation policies.
AAPA is the unified voice of the seaport industry in the Americas,
and my testimony is given on behalf of state and local public agencies
located along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts, the Great Lakes,
and in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
For more than a century, AAPA membership has empowered port authorities
to serve global customers and create economic and social value for
their communities. Today, AAPA represents ports in our Nation's Capital
on urgent and pressing issues facing our industry, promotes the common
interests of the port community, and provides critical industry
leadership on security, trade, transportation, infrastructure,
environmental, and other issues related to port development and
operations.
AAPA's members remain committed to the continued flow of freight
and goods to markets across the Nation and across the globe. I am here
today to discuss what investments and policy changes are necessary to
ensure that ports, our trade infrastructure, and our national supply
chains remain resilient and are able to accommodate the movement of
trade in the future. It is critical that we make the investments
necessary now to ensure that we do not fall behind our global
competition and risk losing market share and access.
Seaports are Vital to the United States Economy
Port authorities are governmental entities that own facilities at
one or more ports. While the role of port authorities in port
operations vary, most ports can be categorized as Operating Ports or
Landlord Ports. Operating Ports own and construct port facilities, own
cargo handling equipment, and hire labor to move cargo through port
premises. At these operating ports, stevedores hire dockworkers to move
cargo between ships and the dock. Landlord Ports, on the other hand,
own the land and wharves of a port and lease these premises to our
partners in the Marine Terminal Operator industry.
Our nation's seaports deliver vital goods to consumers, facilitate
the export of American-made goods, create jobs, and support local and
national economic growth. Ports also play a crucial role in our
national defense--a point acknowledged through the designation of 17 of
our Nation's ports as ``Strategic Seaports'' by the Department of
Defense.
According to Martin & Associates,\1\ an internationally-recognized
economic and transportation consulting firm, prior to the outbreak of
the COVID-19 pandemic the total economic value generated in terms of
revenue to businesses, personal income, and economic output at U.S.
coastal ports accounts for $5.4 trillion annually, or roughly 26
percent of GDP. This research also showed over 30.8 million Americans
are employed in jobs generated as a result of port activity. Ports also
generate significant tax revenue, with $47.1 billion annually of
direct, induced, and indirect Federal, state, and local tax revenue
created through the economic activity taking place at ports across the
Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2018 National Economic Impact of the U.S. Coastal Port System.
(2019, March). http://aapa.files.cmsplus.com/
Martin%20study_executive%20summary%202018%20US%20coastal%20
port%20impacts%20final.docx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight Policy Modernization Will Support Our Trade Infrastructure
Nations across the globe have recognized the need to make
significant investments in their multimodal freight networks to
accommodate increasing trade volumes, larger vessels, and dynamic
shifts in trade to be globally competitive. The port industry is
mindful of-and grateful for this committee's positive efforts on the
passage of the Maritime Transportation System Emergency Relief Act
(MTSERA), as well as for the increased authorization levels for the
Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP). It is imperative, as
this Committee considers reauthorization of our Nation's surface
transportations policies, that we develop and fund a robust national
freight strategy to remain competitive in the global economy. To do
this, the United States must make a sustained investment in its
multimodal freight network.
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act made
significant strides in committing sustained funding to our Nation's
multimodal freight system through the creation of the discretionary
Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant program and the
formulabased National Highway Freight Program. These investments
totaled $11 billion in dedicated freight funding over the five-year
authorization. However, of that total, only $1.13 billion was
multimodal eligible. AAPA and its members appreciated seeing increased
flexibility and funding levels to invest in freight infrastructure in
last year's bipartisan America's Transportation Infrastructure Act.
The immediate challenges confronting these freight programs are
funding levels, as well as project eligibility. The current freight
programs are funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, which means that
eligible projects are primarily highway-focused. Highways are essential
to our freight network, but ports are multimodal facilitators, and
trains, trucks, and ships all need access to them. One could argue that
as our supply chain becomes more sophisticated, and there are more
inland distribution centers with the advent of e-commerce, demand for
multimodal funding will increase. A top priority for the port industry
continues to be multimodal funding.
As this Committee considers reauthorization of our surface
transportation policies and as we look to build off the progress made
under the FAST Act, it is critical that all freight program funding be
made 100 percent multimodal. A first step in accomplishing this would
be to lift the multimodal cap on INFRA grants and on the National
Freight Highway Program.
Equally important from a supply chain perspective, the FAST Act
requires that states complete state freight plans to continue receiving
their freight formula funding. The results have been telling. Only
three years after FAST Act passage, 95 percent of the states had
submitted multimodal state freight plans to USDOT, signaling those
states recognize the value and have the demand for multimodal projects.
States and ports will need increased eligibility through INFRA grants
and the National Freight Highway Program to build out their state
freight plans. A dedicated freight fund should also be considered.
State freight plans and a new National Freight Strategic Plan can
be the blueprint for multimodal state and Federal investments. By
establishing an Office of Freight and Multimodal Infrastructure Policy,
the Department of Transportation can best leverage planning tools and
resources made available in the FAST Act across all modes. This new
Office would be in a prime position to administer state freight plans
and coordinate a national freight plan. As states and the Federal
Government look to strengthen supply chains and build out multimodal
infrastructure, coordination will be paramount and this Office will be
positioned to work with these programs and to develop the multimodal
network necessary to meet 21st century supply chain and transportation
needs, while ensuring that our trade infrastructure remains world
class.
Similarly, as authorization of the Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE), formerly TIGER
and BUILD, discretionary grant program is considered, the Committee
should explore expanding port eligibility for the program. In the past,
BUILD awards to any given state have been capped at 10 percent. These
limitations put ports at a distinct disadvantage in competing for these
grants, and artificially limit investment in our Nation's trade
infrastructure. Far from only supporting the states where they are
located, ports are national infrastructure resources that support all
states, areas, and supply chains, both urban and rural. In fact,
according to a recent AgTalks report, participants in virtual townhalls
agreed that ``investing in infrastructure improvements will ensure
America's agricultural producers continue to be the global leader in
food production while supporting jobs.''
We also have other opportunities to lower carbon emissions, improve
air quality at near-port communities, and reduce congestion on
highways. An increased use of marine highways--the cleanest and safest
means of cargo transportation--can help accomplish these goals. Ports
are actively exploring expanded use of the Maritime Administration's
Marine Highway Program to accomplish freight distribution. The process
involves imported cargo being transferred to barges and then
transported to a second location for unloading. Freight unloaded from
the ship to the dock and then transferred to a barge has the Harbor
Maintenance Tax (HMT) collected twice: once as imported cargo and a
second time as domestic cargo. AAPA seeks to have the HMT collected
just once. This is a very minor amount of HMT revenue, less than 1
percent, but the tax is an additional cost and serves as an impediment
to Marine Highway use.
Seaports Need Federal Investment in Port & Trade Infrastructure
America's ports need robust support from the Federal Government to
make investments in infrastructure that will enable the efficient flow
of trade while ensuring that port operations do not harm the
environment and their surrounding communities. Ports exist to
facilitate an integrated, end-to-end supply chain, and to optimize
goods movement. America's ports serve as an engine for economic
prosperity in our communities and provide access to markets across the
globe for communities nationwide.
Ports serve as the beginning point for our Nation's multimodal
freight system. For the decade spanning 2018-2028, AAPA identified $20
billion in multimodal and rail access needs at ports.\2\ Federal
investment in these multimodal projects can leverage billions of
dollars in additional port investment. Freight volumes may double by
2045, according to the Department of Transportation. Our country has an
opportunity to invest $1 in infrastructure on the front end to produce
$2 to $3 of economic growth on the back-end, based on an analysis by
the U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The State of Freight III--Rail Access + Port Multimodal Funding
Needs Report. (2018, May 16). https://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/
State%20of%20Freight%20III.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ports across the country were pleased to see dedicated funding in
President Biden's American Jobs Plan and in the Republican Roadmap.
As populations shift, cargo volumes grow, and as we continue to
embrace e-commerce and direct to consumer shopping, investments such as
those will be critical to ensuring the United States has a 21st century
multimodal freight network to compete globally and deliver locally.
To support our Nation's coastal ports and maritime industry, AAPA
recommends the following to be included in any large-scale
infrastructure investment package:
$20 billion for coastal port infrastructure and intermodal
freight movement connectors, such as expanded on-dock rail and
off-port assembly of efficient unit trains; expansion and
development of double stack rail--the next generation of
containerized freight movement. These funds could be allocated
through the Department of Transportation's existing Port
Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP).
Robust funding for electrification of dockside ship
connections and zero or near-zero emission port equipment.
Ports are already making investments in decarbonization. Some
have adopted Clean Air Action Plans to reduce emissions, with
others are investing in these technologies and looking to plan
for the future. Implementing plans to replace cargo handling
equipment, drayage trucks, and other port equipment with lower
emissions technologies will require significant resources to
ensure success, likely requiring an investment on the scale of
$50 billion to replace current equipment with zero or near-zero
emissions cargo handling equipment. This investment would
result in improved environmental quality at ports and near-port
communities.
$6 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' coastal
navigation program; $3 billion for completion funding of 12
Federal navigation channel improvement projects, currently
underway or awaiting initial funding; and $3 billion to repair
and restore Federal navigation channels and 140 critically
deficient coastal navigation structures that are essential for
safe and efficient freight movement. The jetties, and other
coastal navigation structures work, will address sea level rise
and resilience.
$500 million for port development in support of offshore
wind energy, identified by the Administration as necessary to
catalyze the development of offshore wind at scale. These funds
are critical to strengthen docks for storage, assembly, and
transport of offshore wind energy components. These loads are
up to 10 times the normal dock operating loads.
And finally, in addition to infrastructure investment, it is
important to consider how cargo screening impacts the efficient
movement of freight. Our members rely on Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to inspect cargo and keep our country safe. But, in recent years,
more of the cost of inspection has been shifted onto ports. As a result
of CBP facilities cost-shifting and understaffing, more and more ports
are being told they must pay for extravagant facilities upgrades and
overtime costs for officers. These demands place onerous burdens on
ports' already tight budgets; ports are threatened with business
slowdowns, which would make worse the supply chain congestion the
pandemic has wrought.
We ask that Congress work with ports, CBP, and other stakeholders
to find a funding mechanism for CBP's facilities needs and staffing
shortfalls in order to give CBP the resources it needs without saddling
ports with the bill.
Conclusion
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the infrastructure needs of
our Nation's ports. Over the past year, since the beginning of the
COVID-19 pandemic, ports and port workers have tirelessly worked to
continue to move cargo; to ensure that food, medical equipment, and
other essential goods are available for the citizens of this country.
While we have faced challenges, we are proud of the fact that ports
have remained open. As we continue to recover from the pandemic, ports
can play a role by ensuring that our supply chains remain strong.
Investments in our multimodal-and port infrastructure is critical
to meeting the current and growing needs of our supply chains as we
look to expand America's reach to global markets. Robust, thoughtful
investment is key to ensuring that we are successful in accomplishing
this goal.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to share with the
Subcommittee thoughts regarding Freight Mobility: Strengthening
America's Supply Chains and Competitiveness, and I hope you will
consider the steps outlined here that Congress can take to help ports
and our Nation's trade infrastructure remain strong.
Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Connor, for your
testimony and your presence here today.
Our last witness is Mr. Chris Spear, who serves as
President and CEO of The American Trucking Associations, also
known as ATA. ATA represents every sector of the trucking
industry across all 50 states. Prior to joining ATA, Mr. Spear
worked in the private sector and served in the Federal
Government. His career spans working in the transportation,
energy, labor, and technology sectors across five continents.
Most recently, Chris worked for Hyundai Motor Company, where he
served as Vice President for Governmental Affairs.
Welcome, Mr. Spear. You may proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS SPEAR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. Spear. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Fischer, and members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the more
than 34,000 members of the American Trucking Associations,
thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify.
ATA is an 87-year-old federation of 50 state trucking
associations and the largest, most diverse trade association
representing the trucking industry. Trucking now employees, 7.8
million Americans in every State and Congressional district,
including 3.6 million truck drivers. That is 1 in 16 jobs in
the United States, where the top job in 29 states is a truck
driver. And despite commercial vehicles being only 4 percent of
the vehicles on our Nation's highways, the trucking industry
moves more than 71 percent of the Nation's freight tonnage and
pays nearly half of the tab into the Highway Trust Fund.
Today, more than 80 percent of U.S. communities rely
exclusively on trucks for their freight transportation needs.
Coming into the global pandemic, trucks moved $10.4 trillion
worth of goods annually, more than half of U.S. gross domestic
product. And despite a chronic and growing shortage of drivers,
our industry and our intermodal partners here today, are the
glue that kept this economy together these past 14 months.
Despite near biblical accounts of empty store shelves, we never
ran out of milk, eggs, toilet paper, or even fuel. There was
plenty in the supply chain and always a hard-working, patriotic
drive to make sure that those shelves were restocked.
America's supply chain yields tremendous potential. It is a
catalyst for economic growth, beyond that of any other nation.
For that to happen, however, I ask that this committee consider
four key elements that both feed and benefit our Nation's
supply chain--infrastructure, safety, workforce development,
and environmental stewardship. These elements together, shape
and define the resiliency of our supply chain.
Those of us testifying here today, have no problem
identifying issues of difference. But there is no argument,
between any of us, that our dependency on one another is what
allows our supply chain to withstand the pressures of a global
pandemic. In fact, no pandemic, hurricane, flood, fire--no
tariff, no tweet, or senseless partisan bickering, is going to
keep our industry from doing its job. But we are here today to
ask that you do yours.
Investments in our supply chain are desperately needed,
including the roads and bridges that connect our ports,
railyards, and airports to the national highway system. Do that
and you will witness measurable efficiencies including gains in
productivity and safety, job growth and sustainable employment,
and historic reductions in carbon emissions.
Infrastructure is not partisan. And if anyone in Congress
believes that roads and bridges are political, you have not
been driving on them. But they are in desperate need of your
leadership and support. In just the last year, Congress spent
$6 trillion in response to the pandemic, of which $4 trillion
was passed with bipartisan support. Reasons aside, this was an
unprecedented level of spending our country has never
witnessed, not ever. And not one cent of it was paid for. Yet
according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal
Highway Trust Fund will be bankrupt, flat broke, next summer.
The good news for Congress is that it can and should be paid
for by users, all of them, including truckers.
However, you craft legislation, please consider the written
testimony provided to you today and understand that, if these
investments are indeed made, you have an opportunity to go
home, before your constituents, and point and say, ``That road,
that bridge, that railroad, port, waterway, airport, I did
that. I made that happen.'' In other words, stop blaming each
other for the things you do not do, and start taking credit for
the things you should do.
These investments are long overdue. They are the things
Americans--your constituents--need, use, and rely on every
single day. They will be grateful, and I guarantee you that the
nearly eight million people that make up the trucking industry
will be, too.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to taking your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spear follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Trucking Associations
Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Fischer, and Members of the
distinguished subcommittee, on behalf of the American Trucking
Associations (ATA)\1\, thank you for providing me with the opportunity
to testify before you today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Trucking Associations is the largest national trade
association for the trucking industry. Through a federation of 50
affiliated state trucking associations and industry-related conferences
and councils, ATA is the voice of the industry America depends on most
to move our Nation's freight. Follow ATA on Twitter or on Facebook.
Trucking Moves America Forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATA is an 87-year-old federation and the largest national trade
organization representing the trucking industry, with affiliates in all
50 states. ATA's membership encompasses over 34,000 motor carriers and
suppliers directly and through affiliated organizations. Our
association represents every sector of the industry, from Less-than-
Truckload to Truckload, agriculture and livestock transporters to auto
haulers and movers, and from the large motor carriers to the owner-
operator and mom-and-pop one truck operations. In fact, 80 percent of
our membership is comprised of small-sized carriers, and only two
percent of ATA's membership would be classified as large carriers.
As evidenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, trucking is the dynamic
linchpin of the United States' supply chain that keeps the wheels of
our economy turning. This year, our industry will move more than 70
percent of the Nation's freight tonnage. Over the next decade, trucks
will be tasked with moving 2.4 billion more tons of freight than they
do today, in addition to delivering the vast majority of goods to
American communities.\2\ Trucks will continue to be the dominant
freight transportation mode for the foreseeable future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Freight Transportation Forecast 2020 to 2031. American Trucking
Associations, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 80 percent of U.S. communities rely exclusively on trucks
for their freight transportation needs. In 2017, trucks moved $10.4
trillion worth of goods, representing more than half of U.S. gross
domestic product.\3\ The trucking industry is also a major source of
employment, with nearly eight million people employed in trucking-
related occupations, including 3.6 million truck drivers.\4\ Indeed,
trucking accounts for 1 in every 18 jobs in the U.S.,\5\ and ``truck
driver'' is the top job in 29 states.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Census Bureau Commodity Flow Survey, 2017.
\4\ American Trucking Associations, American Trucking Trends 2020.
\5\ American Trucking Trends 2018, American Trucking Associations.
\6\ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/keep-on-truckin-in-a-
majority-of-states-its-the-most-popular-job-2015-02-09
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without trucks, our cities, towns, and communities would fail to
thrive, and would lack essential necessities such as food and drinking
water; there would be no clothes to purchase, nor parts to build
automobiles or fuel to power them. The rail, air, and water intermodal
sectors would not exist in their current form without the trucking
industry to support them as the final link in the supply chain. Trucks
are central to our Nation's economy and our way of life, and every time
the government makes a decision that affects the trucking industry,
those impacts are also felt by everyday Americans and the millions of
businesses that could not exist without trucks.
As you hold this hearing, the trucking industry, the infrastructure
that we operate upon, and our national economy are all rapidly
approaching a crisis point. Even as the Nation claws its way back from
the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are facing
significant headwinds, hurdles, and challenges that threaten to grind
the engines of our economy to a halt. Headwinds--such as deteriorating
roads and bridges, severe congestion, bottlenecks, and unprecedented
backlogs at our maritime ports--delay the movement of people and goods,
threatening our global competitiveness and the continuity of the
international supply chain. Hurdles--like the crippling shortage of
drivers and mechanics, recruitment pipelines that were decimated by the
pandemic, and barriers preventing the industry from reaching a new
generation of drivers--increase freight transportation costs and
imperil the supply of consumer goods. And challenges--such as
antiquated regulatory barriers that could delay a technological
transformation in the movement of freight--threaten to impede an
industry-wide shift toward greater sustainability, allowing trucks to
move more safely and efficiently, and with less impact on the
environment than we ever dared to imagine.
That said, the serious headwinds, hurdles, and challenges that led
us to this crisis point can be overcome if Congress, the
Administration, the stakeholders at this table, and the American people
come together in the pursuit of a meaningful investment in real
infrastructure. As Transportation Secretary Buttigieg has often said of
late, including in testimony before this very Committee, before us is a
``generational opportunity'' for America's infrastructure. An
opportunity to meaningfully invest in the safety and efficiency of our
transportation network. An opportunity to spur technological
advancements and innovations in our trucks, cars, and highways. An
opportunity to address labor shortages that threaten the trucking
industry and the fragility of our supply chain. And a moment to look to
the transportation sector to lead our Nation's efforts to confront the
impacts of climate change.
As this subcommittee considers infrastructure legislation and a
possible surface transportation reauthorization, we encourage you to
look to four key areas, including (1) Infrastructure Investment, (2)
Safety Improvements, (3) Workforce Development, and 4) Environmental
Stewardship. Each of these important policy areas are addressed in my
testimony below and will have a direct and meaningful impact on the
trucking industry, the supply chain, the economy, and the American
public.
As you know, just over a year ago, our industry dutifully answered
the Nation's call to deliver medicine, food, fuel, water, and other
basic necessities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, tasked
with critical vaccine distribution, trucking proudly and courageously
shouldered the important responsibility of moving COVID-19 vaccines
safely across the country. We welcomed these challenges because it was
the right thing to do. We now call on Congress, in that same spirit, to
likewise embrace the challenges and work before it to ensure our
Nation's infrastructure needs are met. In that effort, America's
trucking industry stands ready to support and work hand-in-hand with
you, as we build a better America for all Americans.
We commend you for holding this important hearing today, and for
your continuing efforts to address the challenges that impact the
trucking industry, interstate commerce, and the millions of Americans
and U.S. businesses that rely on the safe and efficient movement of our
Nation's goods.
1) INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT:
THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW:
The trucking industry welcomes the efforts of Congress and the
Biden Administration to pursue a real and meaningful investment in our
Nation's infrastructure. For decades, Federal policymakers have
deferred and delayed infrastructure investments that American families
and businesses desperately need to enhance safety, reduce congestion
and improve commerce. The thoughtful leadership of this subcommittee
and Congress over the coming weeks and months can provide a road map to
address the past, present, and future needs of our Nation's roads and
bridges.
A well-maintained, reliable, and efficient network of highways is
crucial to the timely delivery of the Nation's freight--both
international and domestic--and is vital to our country's economic and
social wellbeing. Underfunded roads and bridges are increasingly
choking the economy's supply lines, making it costlier and more time-
consuming to get goods to market. Decrepit roads and bridges cost
motorists $1,600 annually in wasted gas, lost wages, and vehicle
damage.\7\ The typical motorist loses 42 hours of their life every year
sitting in traffic, and the trucking industry loses 1.2 billion hours
of productivity to congestion, which is the equivalent to more than
425,000 drivers sitting idle for a year.\8\ Highway congestion also
adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of freight transportation each
year.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Bumpy Road Ahead: America's Roughest Rides and Strategies to
make our Roads Smoother, The Road Information Program, Oct. 2018; 2015
Urban Mobility Scorecard. Texas Transportation Institute, Aug. 2015.
\8\ Ibid.
\9\ Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2018 Update.
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This caused the trucking industry to consume an additional 6.87
billion gallons of unnecessary fuel in 2016, representing approximately
13 percent of the industry's fuel consumption, and resulting in 67.3
million metric tons of excess carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions.\10\ Mr. Chairman, the large investments the private sector
trucking industry has made over the last three decades to significantly
reduce emissions--to the point that today's trucks emit up to 60 times
fewer emissions than trucks manufactured in the 1980s--have been
decimated by a lack of public sector commitment to build the highway
infrastructure capacity necessary to accommodate growing traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Fixing the 12 percent Case Study: Atlanta, GA. American
Transportation Research Institute, Feb. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A report \11\ by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) requested
by Congress focused specifically on the current state and future needs
of the Interstate Highway System. This critical network connects
American communities across the Nation and reaps immeasurable economic
and national security benefits for the United States. Most importantly,
interstates are far safer than surface roads; the construction of the
Interstate System has prevented nearly a quarter million people from
losing their lives in vehicular crashes since 1967.\12\ Furthermore,
the Interstate Highway System accounts for about one-quarter of all
miles traveled by light-duty vehicles and 40 percent of miles traveled
by trucks.\13\ The TRB report estimates that, conservatively, the state
and Federal investment necessary to address the Interstate System's
maintenance and capacity needs will have to double or triple over
today's expenditures in the next 20 years.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway
System: A Foundation for the Future (2018). Transportation Research
Board, National Academy of Sciences.
\12\ Ibid, p. 2-18
\13\ Ibid, p. 2-10.
\14\ Ibid, p. S-5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent pattern of shoring up the Highway Trust Fund (HTF)
without providing the long-term stability that transportation planners
need is troubling and highly inefficient. According to the American
Society of Civil Engineers, the U.S. spends just over half of what is
necessary to address critical surface transportation needs.\15\ As the
investment gap continues to grow, so too will the number of deficient
bridges, miles of roads in poor condition, number of highway
bottlenecks, and, most critically, the number of crashes and fatalities
attributable to inadequate roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. American
Society of Civil Engineers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facing those glaring realities, it is abundantly clear that the
time to invest in infrastructure is now. The impacts and compounding
ramifications of underinvestment in our roads and bridges are serving
as a roadblock to mobility, economic growth, and job creation
nationwide. As we emerge from a severe economic crisis, putting
Americans back to work and getting our economy's wheels turning once
again hinges on our collective ability to solve this problem in the
right way. We hope you will act with the urgency and expediency that
this moment requires.
TRUCKING INDUSTY PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS:
As this subcommittee and Congress consider targeted investments in
infrastructure which will inevitably have a significant impact on the
trucking industry, supply chain and economy, the below priorities merit
your strongest consideration.
Freight Intermodal Connectors
Freight intermodal connectors--those roads that connect ports, rail
yards, airports, and other intermodal facilities to the National
Highway System--are critical to trade and a seamless supply chain.
While intermodal connectors are an essential part of the freight
distribution system, many are neglected and are not given the attention
they deserve in spite of their importance to the Nation's economy. Just
nine percent of connectors are in good or very good condition, 19
percent are in mediocre condition, and 37 percent are in poor
condition.\16\ Not only do poor roads damage both vehicles and the
freight they carry, but the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) found
a correlation between poor roads and vehicle speed. Average speeds on
connectors in poor condition was 22 percent lower than on connectors in
fair or better condition.\17\ FHWA further found that congestion on
freight intermodal connectors causes 1,059,238 hours of truck delay
annually and 12,181,234 hours of automobile delay.\18\ Congestion on
freight intermodal connectors adds nearly $71 million to freight
transportation costs each year.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Freight Intermodal Connectors Study. Federal Highway
Administration, April 2017.
\17\ Ibid.
\18\ Ibid.
\19\ An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2018 Update.
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018. Estimates
average truck operational cost of $66.65 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One possible reason connectors are neglected is that the vast
majority of these roads--70 percent--are under the jurisdiction of a
local or county government.\20\ Yet, these roads are serving critical
regional, national, and international needs well beyond the geographic
boundaries of the jurisdictions that have responsibility for them, and
these broader benefits may not be factored into the local
jurisdictions' spending decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While intermodal connectors are eligible for Federal funding, it is
clear that this is simply not good enough. We urge Congress to set
aside adequate funding for freight intermodal connectors to ensure that
these critical arteries are given the attention and resources they
deserve.
Resources to Address Port Congestion and Bottlenecks
The dramatic increase in freight entering the Nation's ports has
received a great deal of attention, both in Congress and in the media,
in recent months. Ports have had difficulty managing an influx of
container ships, and the increased traffic in the maritime domain has
created significant challenges for every link in the worldwide supply
chain. Intermodal motor carriers play a critical role in the global
supply chain, moving freight to and from the ports and railyards, as
well as providing the last mile of delivery to get products directly to
customers. Bottlenecks and congestion at ports have a trickle-down
effect on the motor carriers who haul intermodal freight, and existing
shortages of containers, chassis, terminal appointments, draymen, and
truck drivers only exacerbate these supply chain disruptions. These
supply chain issues have also created problems for American exporters,
especially in agriculture, by making it more difficult for producers to
get their products to overseas markets.
The increased cargo volumes at ports and the resulting bottlenecks
have demonstrated the importance of reliable, well-maintained
infrastructure to handle the intermodal aspect of international trade,
which will continue to grow in the coming years. Without question,
additional resources are needed to facilitate truck drivers' timely
access to ports, as well as their ability to obtain equipment to load
and unload containers in a timely fashion. Greater focus and attention
from all parties on ways to enhance efficiencies at ports will improve
the trucking industry's ability to get international freight from
overseas producers into the hands of American consumers, and to get
American products into international markets.
ATA applauds the many members of this subcommittee who have
recently raised concerns about growing congestion at our Nation's
ports, and the impact that is having on our supply chain. Additionally,
ATA commends Committee Chair Cantwell for prioritizing ``mega-project''
infrastructure, which would provide much-needed resources to address
the serious congestion at our ports. As Congress and this subcommittee
consider infrastructure legislation in the coming months, we urge you
to prioritize forward-leaning investments in our Nation's ports to
ensure that intermodal operations can keep pace with ever-increasing
freight demand. We are eager to work with Congress, port authorities
across the country, and our partners in the supply chain to find long-
term solutions that will ease the movement of products around the
globe.
Freight Funding Programs
With the creation of two new freight funding programs in the FAST
Act, Congress recognized the crucial role that the Federal government
plays in facilitating the efficient movement of freight in interstate
commerce--a role memorialized by the U.S. Constitution. Both the
Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program (AKA INFRA)
and the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) provided dedicated
funds for projects that improve traffic flow and enhance safety on
transportation facilities with significant freight volumes.
These programs should be continued with increased funding.
Moreover, ATA supports maintaining the 10 percent cap on non-highway
projects under these programs. Trucks move 70 percent of freight
tonnage and are key to the efficient movement of intermodal freight.
Furthermore, trucking is the only freight mode that contributes
directly to the Highway Trust Fund and should not be forced to further
subsidize modes that do not contribute. We urge Congress to give
priority under the INFRA program to projects that address freight
bottlenecks identified under 49 USC 70102(b)(4). Furthermore, we
recommend eliminating the NHFP's 50 percent transferability to other
apportioned programs in order to ensure that all available resources
are used for their intended purpose.
Truck Parking
Research and feedback from carriers and drivers suggest there is a
significant shortage of available, safe parking for truck drivers in
most regions of the country. In 2019, the FHWA found that the 98
percent of drivers regularly experience difficulty finding truck
parking, and that truck parking is most problematic along key freight
corridors, near major ports, around intermodal facilities, and in
metropolitan areas.\21\ Given the projected growth in demand for
trucking services, this problem--as well as the clear safety
implications for truck drivers and the motoring public--will likely
worsen. FMCSA regulations require drivers to take rest breaks after
they have driven for a specified number of hours, and if a driver is
unable to find safe, legal parking, he or she is in a lose-lose
conundrum, forced to either operate illegally or park in an unsafe or
unauthorized location. Federal hours of service (HOS) rules were
designed to promote the highest levels of highway safety, but the
shortage of safe truck parking spaces makes it difficult, if not
impossible, for drivers to follow the law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ National Coalition on Truck Parking. Office of Freight
Management and Operations, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation. 1 December 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding for truck parking is available to states under the current
federal-aid highway program, but increasing truck parking capacity has
not been a priority due to a shortage of funds for essential highway
projects. Therefore, we urge Congress to enact the Truck Parking Safety
Improvement Act (H.R. 2187), legislation that would establish a
competitive discretionary grant program and dedicate $755 million from
the Highway Trust Fund over the course of five years for truck parking
projects across the country. With a focus on increasing capacity, the
bill would provide funding for the construction of new spaces at both
public and private facilities, while also helping public entities
convert existing facilities--such as weigh stations and closed rest
areas--into truck parking locations. The Truck Parking Safety
Improvement Act will both provide truck drivers with the means to
comply with their Federal HOS requirements and enhance the safety of
our Nation's highways.
Resiliency Funding
ATA recognizes that changes in climate put highway infrastructure
at risk, and adaptations must be implemented to avert or reduce this
risk. However, the potential costs are likely to be significant. Given
the overall lack of funding for core infrastructure projects, setting
aside funds for resiliency without a significant increase in Highway
Trust Fund resources will accelerate highway system deterioration. ATA
urges Congress to either increase HTF funding to levels sufficient to
address highway funding shortfalls and pay for resiliency projects, or
fund resiliency from sources that do not deplete funding for core
highway programs.
HOW TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE:
As the leading payer into the Nation's Highway Trust Fund, trucks
cover nearly half the entire user-fee tab while accounting for only
four percent of vehicles on the road. Our industry is proud to pay our
fair share, and we'll continue to do so. But, we call on policymakers
to maintain an equitable system that draws on the contributions of all
who use and benefit from it. Although fuel expenses are one of the
largest cost centers in our business, the trucking industry supports
modest and phased increases in the fuel user-fee, because we know the
following to be true:
In order to create value for road users, infrastructure
needs funding predictability. An infrastructure bill with no
dedicated funding stream has no efficacy. Without budget
certainty over a multi-year window, transportation officials
can't move projects from the planning phase to the construction
phase. Ground can't be broken, jobs are frozen, and any
progress is bogged down by Congress' annual appropriations
cycle. Major projects await the certainty of longer-term
funding streams, which increases backlogs and puts fewer
construction professionals to work.
There's no tax that safeguards taxpayer dollars as
vigorously as the fuel user-fee does. Contrary to the
ideological demagoguery surrounding this policy, the ``fuel
tax'' is a model example of Federal revenue efficiency. That's
because it is collected at the wholesale level long before
gasoline reaches the retail pump. There are roughly 1,300
wholesale racks across the country collectively operated by
less than 270 entities--meaning fewer than 300 entities
actually remit this tax.
The result is a tried-and-true system that minimizes overhead costs
and maximizes efficiency--i.e. value--for road users. Ninety-
nine cents of every dollar collected flows directly into the
Highway Trust Fund. Compare that to alternatives like tolling
or vehicle-miles tax systems, where as much as 20 cents of
every dollar is lost to administrative and collection costs.
Decoupling infrastructure funding from user-fees will only
make a bad situation worse. For many decades following the
creation of the interstate highway system, the user-fee model
formed the bedrock of our Nation's transportation systems,
powering interstate commerce and fueling America's economic
engine. Dismantling this system by linking the Highway Trust
Fund to corporate tax rates would destabilize current funding
formulas by introducing political uncertainty into the
equation.
Other proposed funding mechanisms, including those that attempt to
impose a sales tax on freight, are fraught with high
administrative costs, are highly susceptible to evasion, and
enjoy little support among the business community.
The Build America Fund: A Pathway to Nationwide Highway
Improvements:
ATA's proposed solution to the highway funding crisis is the Build
America Fund. The BAF would be supported with a new 20 cent per gallon
fee built into the price of transportation fuels collected at the
terminal rack, to be phased in over four years. The fee would be
indexed to both inflation and improvements in fuel efficiency, with a
five percent annual cap. We estimate that the fee would generate nearly
$340 billion over the first 10 years. It would cost the average
passenger vehicle driver just over $100 per year once fully phased
in.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2019, Table
VM-1. Average light-duty vehicle consumed 518 gallons of fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also support a new fee on hybrid and electric vehicles, which
underpay for their use of the highway system or do not contribute at
all. We look forward to working with the subcommittee to identify the
best approach to achieve that goal.
Ultimately, the fuel tax is the most immediate, cost-effective, and
conservative mechanism currently available for funding surface
transportation projects and programs. Collection costs are just 0.2
percent of revenue.\23\ There is a misguided perception that the fuel
tax is no longer a viable revenue source due to the availability of
electric vehicles and improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. This
notion is belied by the facts. In 2019, Americans consumed more on-road
fuel than in any previous year.\24\ Furthermore, according to the
Congressional Budget Office's latest estimates, annual revenue from
fuel taxes will drop by just $1.1 billion over the next decade.\25\ A
modest increase in the fuel tax, coupled with a new fee on alternative
fuel vehicles, can easily recover these lost revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ American Transportation Research Institute. A Framework for
Infrastructure Funding, Nov. 2017.
\24\ Federal Highway Administration. Highway Statistics.
\25\ Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook:
2021-2031, Feb. 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUTURE REVENUE SOURCES:
While ATA considers an increase in the fuel tax to be the best and
most immediate means for improving our Nation's roads and bridges, we
also recognize that improvements in fuel efficiency and the development
of new technologies may eventually render the fuel tax to be a
diminishing source of revenue for surface transportation improvements
over the long term. We therefore encourage Congress, in consultation
with the executive branch, state and local partners, and the private
sector, to continue to work toward identifying future revenue sources.
ATA urges Congress to include in the imminent surface
transportation reauthorization bill a plan to bolster current highway
funding mechanisms in the short-term, and ultimately replace them with
new, more sustainable revenue sources in the long-term. We recommend a
ten-year strategy that includes the creation of a blue-ribbon
commission to explore the effectiveness of existing pilot programs, and
provide recommendations for Congress to consider as it eventually
transitions away from the fuel tax.
VMT Taxes
While a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax might ultimately be the
favored approach, as many have suggested, full implementation faces
several hurdles. Such a tax would have to be collected from millions of
taxpayers--all those driving vehicles in the taxing jurisdiction.
Indeed, there are over 276 million registered vehicles in the United
States, and nearly all would need an account under a VMT tax
system.\26\ A recent report by the American Transportation Research
Institute (ATRI) estimated that the capital cost of implementing a VMT
tax could be as high as $13.6 billion, and administrative costs could
consume 10 to 20 percent of revenue.\27\ As for the recorders now
outfitted on commercial trucks, Federal regulatory requirements for
these devices were designed to ensure an accurate record of hours
driven, not the number of miles driven. Nor do the requirements provide
an ability to broadcast data to taxing authorities. Furthermore, most
commercial vehicles--72 percent--are not required to be equipped with
recorders. They are not, as currently configured, adaptable for taxing
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2019, Table
VM-1.
\27\ American Transportation Research Institute. A Practical
Analysis of a National VMT Tax System, March 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just some of the challenges we have identified; there are
many hurdles to full-scale implementation that are known, and likely
many more that are currently unknown. This is why rushing into a VMT
tax system is unwise, especially as the HTF looms toward insolvency. We
would be especially opposed to a truck-only VMT tax, or any other
scheme that unfairly targets the trucking industry exclusively. ATA
would oppose any reauthorization legislation that attempts to extract
revenue only from trucks.
However, ATA supports a robust research and testing regime for VMT
taxes. It should also be noted that most experts--and even ardent
advocates of VMT taxes--believe that we are at least a decade away from
full implementation.\28\ Failure to provide interim funding for urgent
surface transportation needs while these solutions are developed would
be highly irresponsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ For example, this was universally acknowledged by witnesses
during a March 7, 2018 House Transportation & Infrastructure hearing on
longterm surface transportation funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate Tolls
Interstate highway tolls are highly inefficient compared to many
other funding options. On average, toll collection takes 16 cents out
of every dollar paid, compared to a penny in administrative costs for
collecting state fuel taxes and 0.2 percent for the Federal fuel
tax.\29\ Furthermore, the diversion of traffic to alternative routes
created by tolls causes needless safety, congestion, environmental, and
quality of life problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ American Transportation Research Institute. A Framework for
Infrastructure Funding, Nov. 2017 and American Transportation Research
Institute. A Financial Analysis of Toll System Revenue: Who Pays & Who
Benefits, Jan. 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, ATA opposes the implementation of tolls on
existing Interstates. Federal law governing tolls on existing
Interstates should be revised to ensure that the public interest is
taken into account, that the negative impacts of diversion and other
consequences of tolling are accounted for and minimized, and that
tolling authority and the use of revenue derived from tolls are
limited.
While restrictions on states' authority to toll Interstate highways
have been imposed since the inception of the Interstate Highway System
in 1956, over the years, a patchwork of exceptions has been created.
Federal law governing where, how, and under what circumstances a state
may toll existing, generalpurpose lanes of the Interstate System is now
a confusing, contradictory mess that serves neither transportation
agencies nor highway users very well.
While ATA will continue to oppose all attempts to toll existing
Interstates unless a viable toll-free option is available, we recognize
that some in Congress would like to maintain some level of tolling
flexibility. We believe it is important to have a tolling regime that
is easily understood and is tied to Federal policy considerations that
take into account fairness and equity for highway users, safety,
interstate commerce, the environment, as well as states' desire to use
tolls as a tool to address congestion and fill their transportation
funding gaps.
2) SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS:
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROVIDE THE GREATEST
BENEFIT TO HIGHWAY SAFETY & EFFICIENCY:
As Congress contemplates a surface transportation reauthorization
and accompanying infrastructure package, this subcommittee and the
broader Committee have a responsibility to ensure that those
transportation policies are coupled with a comprehensive safety title.
Forward-learning investments in infrastructure must be considered in
tandem with forward-leaning safety policies to ensure that
infrastructure and reauthorization efforts are reflective of 21st
century safety innovations and investments.
Safety on our Nation's roads and bridges, and the safety of the
motoring public, is of the utmost importance. And safety anchors the
very foundation of the trucking industry, shaping our core values and
decision-making. That is why the trucking industry invests
approximately $10 billion annually in safety initiatives. While some of
these investments are made to comply with a myriad of regulatory
requirements, many of them are voluntary, progressive safety
initiatives that are paying dividends in highway safety. In that vein,
like this subcommittee, the trucking industry remains committed to a
goal of accident and fatality-free highways.
Since 1980 when the trucking industry was deregulated, both the
number of fatal truck crashes and the rate of fatalities have declined
dramatically. From 1980-2018, there has been a 68 percent decrease in
the large truckinvolved fatal crash rate, and a 70 percent decrease in
the combination truck-involved fatal crash rate.\30\ This decline since
the 1980s is due, in part, to industry-supported initiatives, many of
which were commonplace among motor carriers prior to becoming Federal
mandates. For example, the voluntary use of Electronic Logging Devices
(ELDs) was prevalent in ATA member fleets dating back to the early
2000s. Now, Federal regulations require motor carriers to utilize ELDs,
and highways safety has since improved dramatically. Hours of service
violations have dropped significantly--a direct result of the ELD
mandate.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2017,Trends chapter, Table 4,
page 7, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2020-09/
LTBCF%202018-v5_FINAL-09-15-2020.pdf.
\31\ https://eld.fmcsa.dot.gov/File/Open/18f45f72-df16-e41b-e053-
0100007fe49a .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, ATA is also acutely aware that the rate of truck crashes
has increased in recent years. This trend is concerning and has driven
ATA's ongoing consideration of important safety-related policies. To
address this, ATA is taking proactive steps to support regulations,
technology, and policies that have a direct impact on highway safety.
Meaningful improvements will require an acknowledgement of the
principal causes of truck crashes and a commitment to making data-
driven countermeasures the highest priority.
Notably, in response to an increase in speed-related crashes and
the evolution of technologies to combat this, ATA updated its decade-
old speed governing policy to reflect a more holistic approach that
recognizes safety technologies widely deployed in fleets today. The
updated policy includes provisions for the use of Automatic Emergency
Braking (AEB) and Adaptive Cruise Control technology. Further, the
policy includes a direction that the Department of Transportation
conduct a recurring 5 year review of speed governing regulations to
ensure that the regulations are appropriate and consistent with
currently deployed technologies. ATA believes that the development and
promotion of proven safety technologies, coupled with speed control
measures, will result in the greatest positive impact on road safety.
ATA members support the use and deployment of additional
initiatives that will improve safety, such as a requirement for states
to manage an employment notification system to alert employers of
drivers' moving violations and license suspensions in a timely fashion,
the use of alternative testing specimens to detect drug use, and
vehicle safety technologies to create a safer environment for all road
users.
TRUCK CRASH CAUSATION STUDY AND CRASH DATA:
For the trucking industry to continue improving upon our safety
record, we must focus more research and attention on the root causes of
truck-involved crashes, with a particular emphasis on countermeasures.
According to multiple studies, available data, and other indicators,
the vast majority of large truckinvolved crashes are the result of
passenger vehicle driver behavior and errors. Furthermore, data
indicates that other motorists, not professional truck drivers, are
more likely to be at fault. According to a Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) report, 70 percent of fatal crashes involving a
large truck and a passenger vehicle are initiated by the actions of, or
are the fault of, passenger motorists.\32\ The American Automobile
Association (AAA) conducted their own version of this study and found
that in truck-related crashes, the critical factor leading to the crash
was attributed to the passenger vehicle driver 75 percent of the
time.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Financial Responsibility Requirements for Commercial Motor
Vehicles, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, January 2013, page xii, footnote 2.
\33\ Kostyniuk LP, Streff FM, Zakrajsek J. Identifying Unsafe
Driver Actions that Lead to Fatal Car-Truck Crashes. Washington DC: AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety, April, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2020, when I testified before this subcommittee, I
reiterated ATA's desire for an updated Large Truck Crash Study. ATA was
pleased to see that Congress has since appropriated funding for a Large
Truck Crash Causal Factors Study (LTCCFS).\34\ It has been more than 16
years since the last major investigation into the root causes of, and
contributing factors to, crashes involving commercial motor vehicles.
In the intervening time, data has shown an uptick in the rates of
truck-involved crashes.\35\ To better understand this increase, our
industry needs accurate information that can direct our efforts to
deploy appropriate countermeasures and invest in the most effective
safety technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 85 Fed. Reg. 2481 (January 15, 2020).
\35\ Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2017,Trends chapter, Table 4,
page 7, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/
fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/safety/data-and-statistics/461861/ltcbf-2017-
final-56-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as a LTCCFS will help identify the causes of large truck
crashes, unified electronic crash report data will help to provide
accurate and timely data on truck-involved crashes. Several states have
already adopted electronic collection of crash reports, and many of
those states have successfully leveraged the ability to provide more
timely and accurate information to stakeholders. Real-time data allows
law enforcement and transportation safety professionals to respond more
quickly to escalating trends and ``hot spots,'' and helps ensure
limited resources are allocated to areas with the greatest need. ATA
supports Federal funding for states to adopt electronic crash report
data collection, along with consistent funding to support and upgrade
existing systems, implement NHTSA's Model Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria data fields, and train staff on new systems.
HOURS OF SERVICE:
Driver hours of service continue to be a foundational block of
motor carrier safety. The Federal rules governing working hours were
specifically designed to ensure drivers get adequate rest, take breaks
when they need them, and remain refreshed throughout the workday--all
to achieve the highest levels of highway safety. Our industry's
operations are diverse, and it's nearly impossible for all segments to
agree on any one standard. However, as the trucking industry comes into
full compliance with the ELD mandate, drivers and motor carriers now
have a better understanding of how the underlying HOS rules can be
further improved for safety and efficiency.
This is why ATA was pleased when, last year, DOT incorporated new
flexibilities into the hours of service rules. DOT's process followed a
two-year rulemaking that considered over 8,000 public comments from
nearly every stakeholder. Many aspects of this rule make good sense
from both a safety and operational standpoint. For example, instead of
requiring drivers to operate in potentially hazardous conditions, the
extension of the adverse driving provision by two hours encourages
drivers to pull off to the side of the road and wait out hazards. In
addition, rather than requiring drivers to use on-duty time sitting in
their truck cab as loads are loaded and unloaded, drivers can
productively count idle time toward their required rest break. And
DOT's approval of a new 7/3 sleeper berth split better allows a driver
who prefers to sleep seven hours with a longer nap later in the day to
choose that option, instead of requiring eight consecutive hours.
Despite some attempts to claim otherwise, these changes did not
alter the maximum number of driving hours--they merely provide drivers
with a means to better account for factors that influence their
operations. Importantly, these changes provide flexibility for real-
world situations, while at the same time preserving the same level of
safety. ATA believes other flexibilities can be incorporated into the
current regulations so long as the data supports such changes and
safety is not compromised.
Moving forward, any changes to truck drivers' HOS rules must be
grounded in the same science, data, safety, and stakeholder engagement
that was exhibited in the regulatory process that led to the 2020 HOS
rule changes.
COMPLIANCE, SAFETY, ACCOUNTABILITY:
Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) was launched by FMCSA in
2010 as a way to use data to streamline enforcement programs and target
the least safe motor carriers for enforcement intervention. Since its
inception, the methodology behind CSA ``scores'' has been called into
question with regard to its correlation with future crash risk. The
relationship between scores and crash risk is a reflection of the many
methodological and data problems that plague the system. These include
the flawed weighting of violations, a lack of data on a large portion
of the motor carrier population, and the scoring of carriers on all
crashes they are involved in, regardless of fault. In light of these
issues, Congress requested that both the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) and the DOT Inspector General conduct reviews of the CSA
program and its scoring methodology. Ultimately, both entities
confirmed that the system is still grappling with serious flaws. In
December 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
removed motor carriers' CSA scores from public view while the National
Academies of Science (NAS) conducted a thorough review of CSA.\36\ The
FAST Act also stipulated that FMCSA prepare a corrective action plan to
address the shortcomings identified by the study and remove carriers'
CSA scores from public view until the study and resulting
implementation plan are completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2017. Improving Motor Carrier Safety Measurement. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2018, FMCSA released their corrective action plan
responding to the NAS review of CSA.\37\ FMCSA indicated that they
would pursue a different methodology, known as an Item Response Theory
(IRT), and would conduct testing of the IRT methodology to determine
its accuracy in identifying motor carriers who are at risk for future
crashes. As of today, the agency has yet to implement any changes to
the CSA program. Motor carriers seek changes to this program so that
they are not mischaracterized by a flawed scoring system that has
proven ineffective in identifying unsafe carriers. Congress should
continue to monitor FMCSA's corrective actions, and ensure that any
changes to the CSA system are available for stakeholder review and
comment prior to implementation. During the period of time that such
changes are made, CSA scores should continue to remain unavailable to
the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The National Academy of Sciences Correlation Study, Corrective
Action Plan Report to Congress. Retrieved January 27, 2020, from
https://cms8.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/ docs/mission/
policy/407251/nas-correlation-study-corrective-action-plan-enclosure-
finaljune-2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRACTED DRIVING:
While many of the regulatory items discussed in this testimony are
specific to trucking, there are safety regulations that can be
implemented and should be applied equitably to all road users. For
example, Federal regulations prohibit commercial motor vehicle drivers
from using a handheld mobile device at any time while driving,
including while stopped at traffic control devices. And although 70
percent of fatal crashes involving a large truck and a passenger
vehicle are initiated by the actions of, or are the fault of, a
passenger vehicle,\38\ there is no Federal law preventing passenger
vehicle drivers from using handheld mobile devices while driving. Our
nation's professional truck drivers encounter distracted drivers all
the time, and, unfortunately, no level of defensive driving can prevent
all accidents from occurring when there is limited accountability for
passenger vehicle drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Financial Responsibility Requirements for Commercial Motor
Vehicles, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, January 2013, page xii, footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, ATA believes that the SAFE TO DRIVE Act (S. 195),
introduced by Senator Klobuchar, is a tremendous opportunity to focus
greater resources and attention on accidents that our professional
drivers cannot easily anticipate: those caused by distracted passenger
motorists. In commercial trucking, we require drivers to keep their
eyes on the road ahead at all times--and we should expect the same
vigilance from every motorist on the road. Sadly, convenient access to
social media and streaming services has only increased the number of
potential road hazards, leading to increases in the quantity and
severity of distracted driving incidents. In 2019, the number of
fatalities in distraction-affected crashes was 3,142, or 8.7 percent of
all fatalities in 2019. This represents an increase of 284 more
fatalities than the previous year--an increase of 9.9 percent.\39\ We
believe S. 195 represents an important first step towards combating
this disturbing trend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Traffic Safety Facts: Overview of Motor Vehicle Crashes in
2019, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, December 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYER NOTIFICATION SYSTEM:
ATA supports the establishment of a national employer notification
system to provide motor carrier employers with timely alerts to
driver's license actions, such as suspensions, revocations, and
convictions for moving violations. Use of this system should be
voluntary, at least initially. Under the current process, motor
carriers are often not notified about drivers' convictions in a timely
manner. Employers are required to check each driver's record once per
year, and this check may reveal violations committed up to 11 months
earlier. Employees are required to notify their employer of a violation
of any State or local traffic law (other than a parking violation)
within 30 days of a conviction, and of a license suspension,
revocation, or cancellation within one day. However, they are often
reluctant to do so because of the potential negative ramifications on
their employment. FMCSA estimates that at least 50 percent of drivers
may not notify employers of convictions and licensing actions within
the required timeframes.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Driver Violation Notification Service Feasibility Study, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, July 2005, figure 1, page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, a pilot ENS program was conducted to assess the
feasibility, cost, safety impact, and benefits of such a system. The
pilot program, tested in Colorado and Minnesota, allowed motor carriers
to register with the driver's express permission, which enabled them to
receive timely electronic notification of driver convictions and
suspensions. The results of the pilot indicated that a nationwide ENS
is needed and would likely have significant safety and monetary
benefits for motor carriers. ATA supports a standardized ENS approach
and advocates for a national ENS system to further enhance the safety
of our Nation's highways.
DRUG AND ALCOHOL CLEARINGHOUSE:
Since the late 1990s, ATA has supported the establishment of a
database to close a known loophole in existing regulations that allows
CDL drivers who test positive for prohibited substances to escape the
consequences of their actions. As required by the 2012 highway
reauthorization legislation (MAP-21), FMCSA published a final rule
creating a Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse in December 2016. The
Clearinghouse would act as a central repository for drug and alcohol
violations of CDL drivers, allowing carriers to search its database
when hiring a driver for the first time and on an annual basis. On
January 6, 2020, the Clearinghouse became operational, and as of April
2021, 70,652 DOT drug and alcohol violations have been entered into the
Clearinghouse, with 54,237 drivers currently in a prohibited operating
status. Within only 16 months of operation, the Clearinghouse has
become an essential safety tool for motor carriers in reducing
preventable, substance-involved crashes.
Even though the Clearinghouse is helping to prevent motor carriers
from hiring drivers in a prohibited status due to a DOT drug and
alcohol violation, many drivers with unaddressed drug and alcohol
violations continue to hold an active CDL and operate on our Nation's
highways, putting themselves and the motoring public at risk. For FMCSA
to close this dangerous regulatory loophole, the agency must first
fully implement the requirement that State Drivers Licensing Agencies
(SDLAs) downgrade active CDL holders with DOT violations. Although
required under FMCSA's final rule, the agency announced a three year
implementation delay due to ``a forthcoming rulemaking to address the
States' use of driver-specific information from the Clearinghouse, and
additional time needed to develop the information technology platform
through which States will electronically request and receive
Clearinghouse information.'' \41\ ATA urges Congress to ensure no
additional delays of FMCSA Clearinghouse requirements for States are
needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 84 Fed. Reg. 68052 (December 13, 2019). https://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/rulema
king/2019-26943
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAIR TESTING:
An increasing number of motor carriers are conducting pre-
employment and random drug tests using drivers' hair as a testing
sample. Hair tests provide a longer, more accurate picture of an
applicant's past drug use and are more difficult to subvert compared to
other testing methods. However, since urine is the only sample type
permitted under DOT regulations, companies that voluntarily conduct
hair tests must do so in addition to mandatory urine tests. This
duplicated time and expense deters fleets from adopting this more
effective testing method. To help eliminate this redundancy and
incentivize fleets to utilize this effective means of testing, ATA
strongly supports the recognition of hair testing as a federally-
accepted drug testing method.
Congress sought to address this issue in the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 by including a provision that
would facilitate the adoption of hair follicle testing as a federally
recognized drug testing method. The provision directed the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop technical guidelines for
the use of hair testing as an alternative to urinalysis for motor
carriers to meet DOT drug testing requirements. Regrettably, we are now
more than 5 years since the enactment of this important provision, but
nowhere closer to unlocking this critical safety tool.
In the fall of 2020, HHS issued proposed guidelines to allow
Federal Executive Branch agencies to incorporate hair testing into
their Federal drug testing programs. However, these guidelines neither
met the requirements included in the FAST Act nor provided a path
forward for the use of hair testing as an alternative drug testing
method for motor carriers. Regrettably, the proposed guidelines
included several alarming implementation stipulations that, if
codified, could have devastating effects on current levels of highway
safety, and could increase private-sector employers' employment and
liability litigation risk. For example, HHS's proposed ``two-step
approach'' to confirm a positive hair test would result in thousands of
false-negative drug test reports by medical review officers (MROs)
annually because a negative follow-up urinalysis is far more likely to
reflect a shorter detection window than the initial hair test. In their
proposed guidelines, HHS provided zero evidence that false-positive
hair testing results are a material problem that justifies reversing
thousands of laboratory-confirmed and MRO-reviewed positive hair test
results. ATA conducted a small survey of 12 motor carriers, who employ
over 68,000 drivers \42\ and found that if DOT were to have adopted
HHS's additional evidence requirement, 89.47 percent of MROconfirmed
positive hair test results would have been reversed in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ ATA Collected Motor Carrier Driver Data from FMCSA Safer
Company Snapshot https://safer.fmcsa.dot.gov/CompanySnapshot.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the years since the FAST Act was signed into law, our Nation
has experienced a growing substance abuse epidemic, and particularly a
massive prescription opioid abuse crisis, which the trucking industry
is not immune from. This is a glaring reminder that drug-impaired
driving remains a very serious issue, which poses a tremendous risk to
the safety of our Nation's highways. And, yet, we are unable to fully
realize the tremendous safety benefits of hair testing--which was
mandated by Congress in 2015--and, therefore, prevented from truly
making our highways safer and achieve our shared goal of zero highway
fatalities.
Ultimately, HHS failed to heed the Congressional intent of the hair
testing provisions included in the FAST Act. This failure will have a
significant impact on motor carriers' ability to keep drug users from
behind the wheel of their trucks and will unnecessarily endanger our
Nation's roads, bridges, and the motoring public. For these reasons,
and because the proposed guidelines have fallen so far outside of the
instructions required by the FAST Act, it is imperative that Congress
and this subcommittee take the legislative steps necessary to pave the
way toward adoption of this important safety initiative.
MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION & IMPLICATIONS FOR ROAD SAFETY:
Recent marijuana legalization efforts have uniquely challenged our
industry, and have exposed critical issues related to workplace and
highway safety. As states move to legalize marijuana, the trucking
industry, like the rest of American society, is evaluating and
considering changes to keep pace with the evolving regulatory
environment. Our members also recognize that public opinion toward
marijuana legalization has shifted dramatically over the last two
decades. However, trends and popular opinion do not always lead to good
policy, and while debates about decriminalization are timely, policies
that limit employer drug testing programs to the detriment of
transportation safety will result in more crashes, injuries, and
fatalities.
An example of this can be found in the Marijuana Opportunity
Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, legislation approved by the
U.S. House of Representatives last Congress. As originally drafted, the
MORE Act neglected to recognize the significant impact that removing
marijuana from the schedule of controlled substances would have on
highway and workplace safety. The legislation would have effectively
prevented motor carriers from testing for marijuana as a condition of
employment, which would adversely impact the safety of our Nation's
roads, bridges, and the motoring public. Thankfully, before final
passage of the MORE Act, the House included a drug testing carve-out
for federally mandated drug testing programs.
Until there is an enforceable national impairment standard for
marijuana, and until Congress grants DOT the authority to specifically
regulate marijuana use, any marijuana-related legislation must take
into account the impacts that such changes would have on the safety of
our transportation network, as well as employer's ability to maintain a
safe working environment.
AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING, ADVANCED DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS:
Substantial advancements have been made in commercial vehicle
collision mitigation technology throughout many types of advanced
driver assistance systems (ADAS). Automatic emergency braking (AEB) is
a form of ADAS that has been supported, promoted, and scrutinized
before becoming the most impactful safety technology since the
deployment of anti-lock braking systems in cars and trucks. In fact,
forward collision warning and AEB-equipped commercial vehicles can
prevent up to 52 percent of rear-end crashes annually, including an
estimated 11,499 crashes that result in 7,703 injuries and 173
deaths.\43\ In 2016, NHTSA and the automotive industry announced a
commitment to standardize AEB on virtually all Class 1 vehicles sold in
the U.S. by 2022, and Class 2 vehicles by 2025.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Glassbrenner, D., Morgan, A., Kreeb, R., Svenson, A., Liddell,
H., Barickman, F. (2017, July). A Target Population for Automatic
Emergency Braking in Heavy Vehicles (Report No. DOT HS 812 390).
Washington DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
DOT.
\44\ NHTSA. (December 17, 2020). NHTSA Announces 2020 Update on AEB
Installation by 20 Automakers. Washington, DC: Retrieved from https://
www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-announces-2020-update-aeb-
installation-20-automakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since NHTSA's 2017 mandate that tractors be equipped with
electronic stability control (AEB sourcebased technology), Class 7 & 8
manufacturers have voluntarily made AEB standard on most models. ATA
supports mandating AEB on all new vehicles--passenger and commercial--
after the technology is adopted successfully over time by manufacturers
for fleets. Like passenger vehicles, tractors have matured
significantly with the availability of AEB, and both sets of vehicle
classes should be considered for regulation to improve highway safety.
In addition to mandating AEB, incentivizing investments in safety
technology and equipment will increase adoption rates of ADAS (i.e.,
AEB across Class 1-8 vehicles), thereby reducing crashes and saving
lives.
AUTOMATED TRUCK OPERATIONS:
The trucking industry remains firmly supportive of automated
vehicle (AV) technologies, which will increase safety for all road
users and provide more freight efficiency to support our Nation's
economy and society overall. For decades, truck manufacturers and
suppliers have improved safety and efficiency technologies that
demonstrate measurable improvements to freight transportation and
highway safety. As technical solutions have evolved, and as costs have
become more reasonable, policymakers and regulators are trying to catch
up to the market-driven innovation and proliferation of advanced
technologies. New technology companies, as well as traditional
equipment suppliers, are also developing AV technology specifically for
the trucking industry, further accelerating the development of
automated trucking operations.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ (April 27, 2021). Plus, Cummins Partner on Self-Driving CNG
Trucks. Retrieved from https://www.ttnews.com/articles/plus-cummins-
partnerself-driving-cng-trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some have raised concerns about the potential impacts of
automation on the workforce, ATA does not perceive this technology to
be completely ``driverless'' for the trucking industry, but instead a
vital service in monitoring and operating certain freight deliveries.
We expect that there will continue to be a role for drivers in trucking
for the foreseeable future and have confidence in how the role of
drivers assisted by automation will be modified and adjusted as the
technologies continue to advance.
Because of the complexity and diversity of the trucking industry,
drivers will retain an essential role in trucking for a long time to
come, with automated truck technology applied to improve their safety
and productivity. In addition to monitoring automated driving systems
and manually driving in the cityscape and at loading docks, drivers
will retain their current responsibilities related to securing cargo--
particularly hazardous materials--as well as interacting with
customers, shippers, and receivers. Additionally, these new
technologies are expected to make drivers safer and more productive,
making truck driving a more attractive career choice, and attracting
new people to our industry.
ATA holds the unwavering belief that the deployment of AV
technology for all vehicle types has the potential to improve safety,
reduce congestion and overall environmental impacts, and save fuel. The
widespread benefits of these technologies include a reduction in crash
risk and roadway fatalities, improved quality of life, enhanced
mobility for all individuals, lower energy usage, and streamlined
supply chain management.
For those reasons, as this subcommittee and Congress consider AV
legislation, we strongly recommend that any legislation establishing a
Federal role overseeing the advancement, development, and deployment of
AV technologies should capture all road users, including passenger
vehicles, commercial trucks, buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists, as
well as the supporting infrastructure.
CONNECTIVITY & 5.9 GHz TRANPSORATION SAFETY SPECTRUM:
The safety benefits from advancing automated truck technology also
parallel the importance of intelligent transportation systems. Plans to
enhance vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I)
communications--collectively known as V2X--have significant future
safety benefits to next-generation U.S. transportation.\46\ NHTSA
estimates V2V technology alone has the potential to prevent 89 percent
of all light duty crashes.\47\ In addition, NHTSA estimates that V2V-
equipped commercial motor vehicles can prevent 45,775 crashes, and save
857 lives and $7.8 million in crash comprehensive costs annually.\48\
V2V crash warning applications for trucks have an estimated 49 percent
crash avoidance effectiveness. Importantly, these V2X technologies are
dependent on a 5.9 GHz spectrum originally dedicated to vehicle safety
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Chang, J. (2016, July). Summary of NHTSA heavy-vehicle
vehicle-to-vehicle safety communications research. (Report No. DOT HS
812 300). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
\47\ 82 FR 3854. (January 12, 2017). Pg. 3991.
\48\ Guglielmi, J., Yanagisawa, M., Swanson, E., Stevens, S., &
Najm, W. J. (2017, November). Safety benefits of heavy-vehicle crash
warning applications based on vehicle-to-vehicle communications (Report
No. DOT HS 812 429). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, while much work has been done to develop V2X
protocols and applications,\49\ recent actions taken by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to reallocate the 5.9 GHz spectrum have
turned back the clock on highway safety. The decision made by the FCC
in November 2020 rejects the foresight the Commission demonstrated when
it originally allocated spectrum for improving traveler safety,
decreasing traffic congestion, and reducing air pollution. The FCC's
decision will increase the already-large spectrum allocation for Wi-Fi
so that it can be used to connect our TVs, refrigerators, washing
machines, and even toilets, because the FCC believes that connected
consumer devices are evolving quickly and are more widely deployed than
the vehicle communications services in the 5.9 GHz spectrum. There is
no reasonable justification for prioritizing faster Internet speeds and
streaming infotainment over saving lives and reducing the environmental
impact of our transportation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ (October 4, 2018). Preparing for the Future of Transportation
Automated Vehicles 3.0. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/
av/3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC's 2020 decision clearly demonstrates that the agency
undervalues efforts that could overwhelmingly improve the safety and
efficiency of our transportation network. ATA urges this subcommittee
and Congress to support retaining the full 75 MHz spectrum of the 5.9
GHz band for V2X technology to improve safety, reduce traffic
congestion, and curb emissions.
MISGUIDED SAFETY TECHNOLOGY MANDATES:
Safety technologies are paramount to achieving our shared goal of
zero highway fatalities. However, a clear distinction must be made
between proven safety technologies and other technologies that have yet
to be effectively researched, tested, or deployed. One such technology
that has not been proven effective in operational scenarios is
underride guards equipped to the side and front of commercial motor
vehicles. Over the past few years, ATA has raised strong concerns about
the Stop Underrides Act because the legislation promotes a solution
that is neither data-driven nor proven to be effective in real-world
highway settings. While we remain committed to the goal of zero
fatalities on our Nation's highways, we cannot ignore the serious and
potentially dangerous consequences of this legislation.
The Stop Underrides Act calls for mandating these devices on the
sides and front of all newlymanufactured commercial vehicles.
Unfortunately, the bill disregards proven safety technologies, such as
automatic emergency braking, camera monitoring systems, and active lane
keep assist. And, it ignores the diversity of our industry, failing to
take into account the fact that trucking is not a one-size-fits-all
industry, and that investments in certain technologies that one company
makes may not make sense, or be safe, for another. Standards for new
truck equipment should be based on sound economic and engineering
principles that enhance safety, take into account real-world
operations, and weigh possible unintended consequences.
Our concerns regarding the operational feasibility of installing
front and side underride guards on all new commercial motor vehicles
are shared by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In April
2019, in response to a Congressional request, the GAO published a
report \50\ on the topic of underride crashes. After a yearlong
investigation, which included numerous interviews with State and
Federal government officials, local police departments, foreign
governments, and over 29 industry groups--including those supportive of
this mandate--GAO concluded that the Department of Transportation ``. .
. should conduct additional research on side underride guards to better
understand the overall effectiveness and cost associated with these
guards and, if warranted, develop standards for their implementation.''
\51\ When these results were published, ATA concurred with GAO's
findings and recommendation for additional research on the efficacy of
side underride guards. To date, this additional research has not taken
place, and until it does, any Congressional action on the Stop
Underrides Act would be premature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ (March, 2019). Truck Underride Guards, Improved Data
Collection, Inspection, and Research Needed (Report No. GAO-19-264).
Retrieved from United States Government Accountability Office: http://
www.gao.gov/assets/700/697585.pdf.
\51\ Ibid, pg. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, ATA is committed to our shared goal of eradicating
highway fatalities, including those resulting from underride crashes.
We believe, however, that the Stop Underrides Act should be reimagined
to help mitigate crashes before they have occurred. Rather than
expending limited resources on unproven mitigation efforts, we should
instead focus on proven and emerging mechanisms to reduce the
likelihood of crashes occurring altogether.
This subcommittee and the broader Committee have a responsibility
to create a forward-leaning safety framework for the imminent surface
transportation reauthorization and accompanying infrastructure package.
Just as safety shapes the trucking industry's core values and decision-
making, safety should also be the guiding principle that buttresses all
investments in our transportation networks. ATA remains unwavering in
our commitment to improving the safety and security of our Nation's
roads and bridges, and we look forward to our continued work with
Congress, the Administration, enforcement, and other interested parties
to that end.
3) WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT:
THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY IS ESSENTIAL, AND THE DRIVER SHORTAGE IS AN
ECONOMIC AND SUPPLY CHAIN CRISIS:
The trucking industry has always been essential--more than 80
percent of American communities rely exclusively on trucks for their
freight transportation needs--but the COVID-19 pandemic greatly
underscored that fact. Essential workers, like truck drivers, kept
America moving forward even as the Nation hunkered down. The trucking
industry worked diligently behind the scenes to ensure that Americans
all over the country had access to critical goods like food, medicine,
fuel, and even toilet paper while they were quarantining at home. The
trucking industry shouldered this incredible responsibility with the
fortitude that being `essential' demands, all while grappling with a
devastating driver shortage.
Seventy percent of the Nation's freight is carried by commercial
trucks, and while demand is projected to increase over the next decade,
the current driver shortage threatens to disrupt the continuity of the
supply chain. This is especially problematic as the Nation and our
economy recover from the monumental impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The trucking industry's successful mobilization in response to the
public health crisis demonstrates how essential our industry truly is
to the economy, our emergency response supply chain, and our way of
life. The driver shortage is a looming threat that, if unaddressed,
could destabilize the continuity of our operations throughout the
country. And those monumental impacts threaten to ripple across the
supply chain and hamstring our Nation's recovering economy.
NOW MORE THAN EVER, THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY IS HIRING:
According to a recent estimate, the trucking industry needs an
additional 60,800 truck drivers immediately--a deficit that is expected
to grow to more than 160,000 by 2028. In fact, when anticipated driver
retirement numbers are combined with the expected growth in capacity,
the trucking industry will need to hire roughly 1.1 million new drivers
over the next decade, or an average of nearly 110,000 per year.
The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated the truck driver
shortage, and the temporary closures of state DMV's and truck driver
training schools disrupted the already-fragile pipeline of new drivers
entering the trucking industry. While portions of the trucking industry
have somewhat weathered the pandemic's economic storm, according to the
BLS April 2021 Report, the trucking subsector had a net loss of 42,500
jobs in 2020.\52\ As a result of the already-crippling driver shortage,
companies in supply chains across the economy are now facing higher
transportation costs, leading to increased prices for consumers on
everything from electronics to food. Perhaps the best evidence of the
acute need for more drivers is the recent media reporting of a possible
summer gas shortage.\53\ The country depends on a qualified
transportation workforce, and the trucking industry offers great
middle-class careers that do not require the debt that often
accompanies a college degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Employment in trucking rebounds after modest decrease in
February (landline.media)
\53\ https://abcnews.go.com/US/lack-truck-drivers-lead-fuel-
shortage-summer/story?id=7737
4905.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported a mean salary of
$47,130 for truck drivers in a May 2020 report.\54\ Additionally, an
industry survey shows the average truck driver earns over $54,000 per
year, plus benefits like health insurance, a retirement plan (e.g.,
401(k)), and paid time off.\55\ Since 2014, private fleet drivers have
seen their pay rise from $73,000 to more than $86,000, or a gain of
nearly 18 percent.\56\ In addition to rising pay, many fleets offer
generous signing bonuses and other expanded benefit packages to attract
and keep drivers. We want to welcome more individuals into the trucking
industry, but we need Congress' help to open up career pathways that
are otherwise closed to qualified people due to obsolete regulatory
barriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Heavy and Tractor-trailer Truck Drivers: Occupational Outlook
Handbook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov)
\55\ ATA Driver Compensation Study (2017); American Trucking
Associations. https://www.ata
businesssolutions.com/ATAStore/ProductDetails/productid/3852684.
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DRIVE SAFE ACT, A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION TO THE DRIVER SHORTAGE
GROUNDED IN SAFETY:
Given the severity of the existing driver shortage and the
overwhelming expectation that the shortage will continue to grow in
tandem with freight demand, we encourage Congress to explore
initiatives that will expand the pool of qualified drivers and reduce
backlogs. To stem the growing driver shortage immediately, we urge
Congress to consider proposals to remove obsolete regulatory barriers
that prevent trucking from replenishing its aging workforce with
younger, qualified workers who have received the appropriate training
and experience required to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV).
Although forty-nine states and the District of Columbia currently allow
18 to 20-year-olds to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce, Federal law
prevents these same 18 to 20-year-olds from driving across state lines.
ATA believes the most effective and safety-focused solution to the
trucking industry's dire workforce dilemma is the DRIVE Safe Act
(S.659), legislation championed by subcommittee Members, Senators Todd
Young and Jon Tester, and supported by several Members of the Commerce
Committee and United States Senate. Data and experience both show that
properly-designed training--such as the training regimen found in the
DRIVE Safe Act--can enable young people to operate equipment and
machinery safely.
As a testament to the safety considerations underpinning the DRIVE
Safe Act, all qualified drivers who participate in the apprenticeship
program established by the bill would only be allowed to drive trucks
outfitted with the latest safety technology, including active braking
collision mitigation systems, forward facing event recording cameras,
speed limiters set at 65 miles per hour or less, and automatic or
automatic manual transmissions. Professional drivers training within
the program are also required to be accompanied by an experienced
driver throughout the process. Ultimately, the DRIVE Safe Act is not
just a workforce replenishment tool--it's a job creation and safety
enhancement bill.
Importantly, the DRIVE Safe Act would impose a robust safety regime
for 18 to 20-year-old qualified drivers where one currently does not
exist. Under current law, the day a 20-year-old turns 21 is the magical
day that they are arbitrarily deemed to be safe enough to drive in
interstate commerce. This bill would add an extra level of safety by
requiring qualified 18 to 20-year-old CDL holders to complete a
rigorous multi-step apprenticeship program before they drive in
interstate commerce so that they can develop the skills and attitudes
necessary to lead a long, safe and successful career in trucking.
Significantly, even though the minimum age for interstate driving
is 21, the reality is that the average age of entry-level drivers
enrolled at private truck driver training schools is actually 35.\57\
This means that many drivers entering our industry may be on the back
end of their second, third, or fourth careers pursuing a job in
trucking as an opportunity of last resort. As such, the trucking
industry is unable to tap into the ambitions of the next generation's
workforce and replenish its aging workforce with younger workers.
Unfortunately, blue-collar professions are still stigmatized in our
society and culture, which place a disproportionate emphasis on four-
year-degree colleges at the expense of vocational schools and the
skilled trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ The average age of a truck driver is 49, 7 years older than
that of the typical U.S. worker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the proven safety performance of 18 to 20-year-old
drivers--who are already allowed to operate trucks in forty-nine U.S.
states and the District of Columbia--and given the threats that the
driver shortage poses to the cost of moving freight and to supply chain
efficiencies, ATA urges Congress to address this problem now, by
including the DRIVE Safe Act in any forthcoming surface transportation
reauthorization package. In making that recommendation, I would also
note that this bipartisan legislation was previously cosponsored by
over one third of the House and Senate last Congress, and now enjoys
the support of over 120 organizations and companies throughout the
supply chain with a presence and impact in every state and
Congressional district across the nation, and support is still growing.
ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO HELP STEM THE DRIVER SHORTAGE:
ATA supports other legislative initiatives designed to bring
greater attention to the growing driver shortage and attract a new
workforce into the industry. Empowering individuals to seek rewarding
careers enjoys broad, bipartisan support, and ATA overwhelmingly
supports legislation that would help promote job opportunities for all
Americans, regardless of race, gender or socioeconomic status. Two such
bills are the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act (S. 469) and
the Promoting Service in Transportation Act (S. 3303 in the 116th
Congress).
The Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act, introduced by
Senators Moran, Baldwin, Tester, and Subcommittee Ranking Member
Fischer, rightly notes that although women currently make up 47 percent
of the U.S. workforce, they make up less than 7 percent of truck
drivers, and only a quarter of all transportation and warehousing jobs
in trucking. Through the establishment of a Women of Trucking Advisory
Board under the leadership of the FMCSA, this legislation will bring
greater attention to the recruitment, retention, training, and
mentorship of women in the trucking industry. This, in turn, will lead
to increased female representation in trucking and greater industry
diversity, while providing another tool to help the trucking industry
confront and stem its growing driver shortage.
The Promoting Service in Transportation Act, introduced by
Subcommittee Chairman Peters last Congress, is a further crucial step
that will enhance the use of broadcast, digital, and print media public
service announcement campaigns to promote job opportunities, and also
encourage improved diversity in the transportation workforce. ATA
supports both of these important legislative efforts, and encourages
their inclusion in any forthcoming safety title to accompany a surface
transportation reauthorization bill.
THE PRO ACT, LEGISLATION THREATENING TO FURTHER EXACERBATE THE DRIVER
SHORTAGE:
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not address a piece of
legislation the Senate may consider that would be extremely harmful to
the trucking industry and hurt the very workers it purports to help:
the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (S. 420). The PRO Act,
which I know many of you support, includes a provision that would
effectively bar the trucking industry from utilizing the independent
contractor business model. The trucking industry and American consumers
depend on independent contractors, and the implementation of a
restrictive national test to limit independent contractor status would
jeopardize the livelihoods of over 350,000 owner-operators,
destabilizing America's supply chain and irreparably harming the U.S.
economy.
The involvement of independent contractors in trucking promotes
efficiency and an increased ability to meet customer demand, which has
been acutely necessary during heightened delivery periods like the
COVID-19 pandemic, and annually during the holidays. Americans choose
to work as independent contractors because of the economic opportunity
it provides and the empowerment to select the conditions (e.g., hours
and routes) that suit their lifestyles. Accordingly, the Americans who
choose to become owner-operators in trucking should be respected and
supported in their endeavors, not driven out of business because of the
authoritarian view that employee status is better for them. Enactment
of the PRO Act would be a clear signal to the 350,000 owner-operators
in the trucking industry that Congress is indifferent to their chosen
professions and apathetic about the loss of their livelihoods.
REGULATORY SOLUTIONS TO HELP ADDRESS THE DRIVER SHORTAGE:
ATA appreciates and supports the steps agencies have taken to
address driver recruitment bottlenecks by issuing emergency waivers and
declarations during the pandemic, and believes some of those should be
made permanent. For example, permanent waivers on certain requirements
for Commercial Learners Permits and Third Party Testing could assist in
easing the current delays associated with the testing of drivers who
wish to obtain their CDL. These delays existed prior to the COVID-19
public health crisis and have only been exacerbated by the pandemic.
ATA anticipates that the existing backlog of testing appointments will
steadily increase in the future and encourages FMCSA to harmonize state
licensing procedures, including, for example, state of domicile
requirements and Third-Party Testing.
FMCSA has mandated that an individual's state of domicile must
accept the results of a CDL skills test that was administered out-of-
state; however, the rule does not require the state of domicile to also
accept the results of an out-of-state knowledge test. As a result,
driver candidates who obtain training out-of-state are required to
travel back to their state of domicile to obtain their credentials,
creating an unnecessary burden. It has become all the more important to
allow trainees to test, train, and receive their relevant credentials--
be it a CLP or a CDL--without having to travel back and forth to their
state of domicile during the pandemic, and there's no safety
justification that would warrant returning to that requirement as we
recover from the public health crisis.
4) ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:
THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY'S COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT:
The trucking industry's commitment to sustainability is well-known
and ongoing. Before 1985, there was no such thing as Federal emission
standards for trucks. The historical progress made since then is
nothing short of phenomenal. Since the mid-1980s, newly-manufactured
trucks have reduced emissions of both nitrogen oxide (NOX)--
associated with smog and ozone formation--and particulate matter (PM),
or ``soot,'' by over 98 percent. Put another way, 60 new trucks
purchased today emit the equivalent NOX and PM emissions of
a single truck back in 1988.
Trucking virtually phased-out sulfur in diesel fuel beginning in
2006. This fuel, more commonly referred to as ultra-low sulfur diesel
fuel or ``ULSD'', practically eliminated sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions and further reduced overall fine particulate
matter emissions from trucks.
But it does not stop there. In 2011 and 2016, our industry
supported two separate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations
establishing first-ever standards for truck engine, vehicle, and
trailer greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption standards (known
as Phase 1 and Phase 2 respectively) to promote a new generation of
cleaner, more fuel-efficient trucks and engines.
The Phase 1 standards, implemented between 2014 and 2018, were
projected to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 270
million metric tons, save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50
billion in fuel costs, and eliminate the use of 530 million barrels of
oil over the lifetime of new vehicles purchased under the program.
Phase 1 improved fuel efficiency and reduced carbon emissions from each
new truck/engine by up to 23 percent. The Phase 2 standards being
implemented between 2021 and 2027 are expected to further lower
CO2 emissions by 1.1 billion metric tons, save vehicle
owners fuel costs of around $170 billion, and reduce oil consumption by
up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under
the program. In short, Phase 2 picks up where Phase 1 left off,
improving fuel efficiency and reducing carbon emissions from new
trucks, engines, and trailers up to an additional 34 percent.
Our industry is also working closely with EPA and other
stakeholders to further reduce NOX emissions from new trucks
under EPA's Cleaner Trucks Initiative (CTI). While the latest round of
NOX reductions for new trucks was implemented in 2010,
achieving unprecedented near-zero levels, CTI will raise the bar even
further, likely achieving 90 percent or greater NOX
reductions from all new trucks A proposed rule is expected later this
year and should be finalized by the end of 2022.
When discussing sustainability, we should not forget about the
award-winning, voluntary EPA SmartWay Transport Partnership program
developed to reduce freight fuel use, curb greenhouse gas emissions,
and improve transportation efficiency. Since 2004, this groundbreaking
public/private partnership, developed between EPA and Charter Partners
such as ATA, has saved fleets $42 billion in fuel costs, reduced
consumption by over 312 million barrels of oil, and eliminated over 150
million tons of air pollutants.\58\ SmartWay and its 3,700+ partners
continue to stand out as a stellar example of how the Federal
government can work side-by-side with industry to achieve real results
outside regulatory frameworks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ SmartWay Program Successes, U.S. EPA, https://www.epa.gov/
smartway/smartway-program-successes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are entering a major transitional period as transportation moves
towards a new generation of loweremission and zero-emission equipment.
However, it is important to note that this transportation shift will
not happen overnight, and fossil fuels will not magically disappear
with the flip of a switch. It is therefore essential to address the
existing and near-future stock of equipment and their corresponding
fuel needs given trucking's essentiality in moving the Nation's economy
forward. To this end, ATA has identified the following areas to help
further decarbonize the trucking sector:
The Road to Sustainability Must be Multi-Modal
ATA urges Congress to better address the needs of the medium-and
heavy-duty truck sector in the context of the current infrastructure
and clean energy debates. Many bills being introduced in Congress lack
specificity and tend to be focused on the advancement of light-duty
vehicles. For instance, while an electric charging location may be
compatible for an electric car, it is incompatible for a big rig
pulling a 53-foot trailer. The real estate requirements, energy needs,
charging connectors, facility costs, and physical placements are far
different than those for other vehicle classes. Other bills focus
exclusively on electric charging as the sole fuel solution to reduce
carbon emissions, with no reference to other sustainable fuels, such as
hydrogen, renewable natural gas, or other energy sources utilizing
carbon capture. If goals related to increased grid demands,
infrastructure build-out, financial incentives, and carbon reduction
are to be successful, discussions must include a diverse array of
potential solutions.
Research and Development Funding is Critical
ATA supports increasing Federal financial support for research and
development (R&D) in all aspects involving the decarbonization shift.
Several Federal entities serve key roles in overseeing, analyzing, and
researching advanced vehicle technologies and their supporting needs.
The Department of Energy (DOE), for example, funds a wide range of
research activities on heavy-duty trucks through its Vehicle
Technologies program. The DOE's 21st Century Truck Partnership
addresses important national challenges related to medium-duty and
heavy-duty truck efficiency, safety, and emissions by pursuing
collaborative research and development among government and industry
partners. The DOE's 17 National Labs conduct R&D work to tackle the
most critical scientific challenges of our time and possess unique
instruments and facilities, many of which are found nowhere else in the
world. Additionally, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a
significant role to play in the assessment of the transmission of
electricity in interstate commerce, the reliability of high voltage
interstate transmission systems, and the monitoring of national energy
markets. Finally, the military's extensive research on alternative
fuels and vehicles is critical in assessing new fuels and technologies
as it seeks safer and cleaner mobility options for national security
interests.
Increased funding for R&D is not only needed by all Federal
departments and agencies to ensure that advanced vehicle technologies
and fuels for the transportation sector are feasible, affordable, and
do not result in unintended consequences, but also for non-federal
research needs as well.
While current research has resulted in a steady decline in battery
costs and continuous improvements in battery energy density, weight,
and size, more critical research is still necessary. Therefore, R&D
funding levels must be robust enough to finance, at a minimum, a more
thorough analysis of the Nation's electrical grid system, an assessment
of the availability of precious metals and feasible alternatives, and
further research into green hydrogen production, alternative fueling
infrastructure expansion, trailer refrigeration electrification,
vehicle technology pathways, and battery development and storage.
Without sufficient and coordinated funding for R&D on all aspects
involving advanced vehicle technologies and fuels, the timelines for
the transition to zero and near-zero trucks may be delayed or may
prompt disruptions in the Nation's supply chains.
Zero-Emission Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure Incentives are
Needed
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
(FCEVs) are widely-recognized as the most promising technologies to
reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and air
pollution in trucking. However, the chicken-or-egg quagmire continues
in that zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) require compatible ZEV fuels--
whether that fuel is electricity or hydrogen. Scaling up charging
infrastructure is a necessary enabler for a widespread ZEV transition.
Whereas local and regional hauling operations are generally anticipated
to be powered by ``electric'' fuel, longer hauling operations may trend
towards the use of hydrogen fuel given their unique challenges. The
Federal government is not--and should not be--in the business of
choosing fuel and technology winners and losers. Likewise, not all
fueling locations are created equal. The cost of a single 150-350 kW
electric truck charger and installation can cost up to $220,000.\59\
Likewise, an onsite hydrogen fueling station with a capacity of 700kg/
day with delivered hydrogen could cost $2 million or more.\60\ If
hydrogen production were to occur on-site, that figure could increase
exponentially by over eight-fold.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ South Coast Air Quality Management District, Second Draft
Staff Report, Proposed Rule 2305--Warehouse Indirect Source Rule--
Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program
and Proposed Rule 316--Fees for Rule 2305, Page 127, April 2021.
\60\ Id at 130.
\61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATA stands ready to work with Congress and the Biden Administration
to establish programs and provide economic incentives to reduce costs
and barriers facing EV charging infrastructure installation and the
expansion of a hydrogen fueling infrastructure along key freight
corridors. Such efforts could include participation on the anticipated
task force with Federal agencies and the private sector to support
vehiclegrid integration, the creation of load management strategies,
public-private co-financing approaches, and the standardization of
smart charging infrastructure.
Truck Purchase Incentives are Important
Fleets will encounter markedly higher vehicle costs when purchasing
BEVs or FCEVs. Today, while product availability remains limited, the
price of a new Class 8 BEV can cost over $200,000 when including
payment of the 12 percent Federal Excise Tax.\62\ Class 8 FCEVs, which
are not currently available in the marketplace, are expected to retail
for $300,000 or more.\63\ Given that 97 percent of trucking companies
own 20 trucks or less and are, by definition, small businesses, these
companies will be hard-pressed to expend increased capital outlays for
new equipment given that they already operate on razor-thin profit
margins. It is therefore critical to provide sufficient financial
incentives to trucking companies to ensure ZEV equipment is affordable
to all users, while also achieving greater market penetration rates of
such equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/06/head-to-head-
nikolas-hydrogen-fuel-cell-trucks-vs-the-tesla-semi/.
\63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Funding Must Continue
The transition to ZEVs in the trucking sector will take
considerable time since diesel-powered trucks can operate for 15 years
or more. Given their long, useful lifespan, ATA has strongly supported
the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) to reduce emissions from older
diesel equipment, and has worked to secure continued funding for the
program since 2008. DERA provides funding in the form of grants and
rebates to incentivize owners to retrofit or replace older diesel
engines and equipment. Since implementation, DERA has become one of the
most cost-effective Federal clean air programs.
The EPA's most recent estimates indicate that every $1 in Federal
assistance is met with $3 in non-federal matching funds, including
significant investments from the private sector. Furthermore, each
Federal dollar generates between $11 to $30 in public health and
economic benefits, including $2 in fuel savings for each dollar
invested. Moreover, states benefit because 30 percent of the funding is
directed to support state programs. As demonstrated in the EPA's fourth
report to Congress, the value of this program continues to provide an
important tool to allow the EPA and communities around the country to
meet their Clean Air goals in the most cost-effective and feasible
manner.
ATA supports the expansion of DERA funding to incentivize ZEV
purchases through increased Federal cost-sharing. Increased funding
would require legislation, though diesel eligibility could be addressed
through EPA regulatory action.
The trucking industry recognizes that it is good business to be a
conscientious environmental steward, and we hope to collaborate with
Congress, the Administration, and like-minded stakeholders to further
our shared goal of becoming a cleaner and greener industry. ATA looks
forward to partnering with you to tackle the numerous challenges ahead,
and stands ready to assist as you consider solutions to rebuild our
Nation's infrastructure, improve the safety of America's roads and
bridges, promote employment opportunities in the transportation sector,
and tackle the climate crisis.
CONCLUSION:
Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Fischer, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you again for providing ATA with the opportunity to
testify before you today. Due to a variety of circumstances, the
trucking industry, our Nation's infrastructure, and the broader supply
chain are facing increasing pressure, which is fast approaching crisis
levels. The absence of Congressional action to address this imminent
crisis will yield catastrophic consequences. However, I am confident
that your leadership, along with that of the entire Congress and the
Biden Administration, will address the infrastructure challenges of
today with forward-leaning solutions that will bring much needed
certainty, sustainability, and opportunity to the trucking industry,
our Nation's supply chain, and the economy as a whole.
The actions of this subcommittee, Congress, and the Administration
over the coming weeks and months could shepherd the trucking industry
towards tremendous advancements in safety, efficiency, and
productivity. We urge you to take the steps necessary to provide the
resources and regulatory framework that will make our fleets safer and
more connected. Your efforts could empower our industry to safely meet
the growing driver shortage head-on and recruit a workforce for the
next generation of trucking. Providing a significant investment in real
infrastructure will help stem and reverse the continued decay of our
Nation's roads and bridges, and meaningfully address climate change.
With your leadership, we remain hopeful that Federal action can solve
this growing national crisis.
Our steadfast hope is that Congress and the Biden Administration
will now roll up their sleeves, work together and make the tough
decisions to support infrastructure, the economy, and the industry that
moves it. In that effort, ATA and the trucking industry stand ready to
work hand-in hand with you. Thank you.
Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Spear. Thank you for
your opening statement. We have a day with a lot going on.
Members are going back and forth, a number of markups. And so,
I am going defer my questions as members are here. Senator
Blumenthal, you are recognized for your 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Baker, I am very, very focused on freight because I agree that
it is really critical to our future, even in a small state like
Connecticut. As you may know, we have ports in New London,
Bridgeport, and New Haven. Rail lines connect each of them,
although most people in Connecticut really are not aware of it.
The rail in eastern Connecticut is being revived so that it can
carry freight from New London, up through Connecticut to
Massachusetts. And I wonder if you have any thoughts about how
we can raise awareness about the potential for freight, not
only in the Congress, but also in the country?
Mr. Baker. Thank you for the question, Senator. One of the
ways, I think, to raise awareness--and I associate myself with
the comments that Mr. Spear made and both Senator Peters and
Senator Fischer made in their opening statements--is
recognizing the incredible role that freight transportation and
freight workers played over the last 14 months, helping our
country survive a once in a century disruption.
You know, in general, in the freight world, we are used to
not being particularly high profile. There is, of course, this
famous political saying, ``Freight don't vote'', and you know,
that is OK. We do not necessarily need to be in the limelight.
But I do think, with this surface transportation bill
pending in front of you, there is a historic opportunity on the
freight rail side. The CRISI grant program is a huge
opportunity to support those kind investments. Then, we would
also point to the INFRA grant program and the ability to make
that more multimodal. I think with those sort of investments
and the success will garner attention.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Mr. Byrd, in--in many of the
fatal truck crashes, as you know--and there seem to be quite a
few of them--truck driver fatigue is often a factor, in fact, a
leading factor. What recommendations do you have to prevent
truck driver fatigue causing these kinds of accidents?
Mr. Byrd. I thank you for your question, Senator. I think
you have raised a very important point, in terms of the
contribution that fatigue makes toward unsafe driving and
contributes toward truck crashes. I think that if we--what we
really need to revisit the hours-of-service regulation. These
drivers are working in excess of 60 hours a week. More often
than not, they are working 14 hours a day and they are
constantly--their constant pressure on changing these
regulations to further relax them or weaken them.
I think we really need to revisit the hours-of-service
regulation and we need to look at this from the perspective of
the impact that it makes on driver--driver health and the
ability to get restorative rest. So, I think a first step is
just revisiting the hours-of-service regulation because they
allow just too much--too many hours for drivers to work each
week.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Spear, do you agree?
Mr. Spear. Oh, I certainly agree, Senator, that it is a
problem. We acknowledge it. I also agree with Lamont on hours
of service. We are not out there pounding pavement for hours-
of-service suspension. Those suspensions have to be a really
high bar.
We have a driver shortage. You are well aware of that. And
to--having a suspension of hours of service and work our
existing drivers even harder, is going to exacerbate that
problem that you just described.
But I am also remiss that you also have to look at the
overall fatalities involving trucks. And DOT data shows that
two-thirds of the accidents, fatal accidents, involving trucks
are actually caused by passenger vehicles and the two leading
causes are speeding and texting.
So, as we look at this panoramically, you have to deal with
tired drivers, you have to deal with keeping the hours in
check. ELD's, electronic logging devices, we certainly
advocated that, and I think it is having measurable benefits
since we put that technology in place to making certain that we
are staying with the hours. And we have a long way to go, in
terms of really bringing the overall fatalities down. We share
that goal. We will certainly work with you and members of the
Senate to make sure that happens.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks very much. Thanks to the whole
panel for your testimony today. My time is expired. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator
Baldwin, you are recognized for your questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. In
Wisconsin, we make things. And in this discussion about
stronger supply chains, we need to ensure that we have a
stronger workforce to transport our goods to market.
Women currently make up less than 10 percent of the truck-
driving workforce and removing barriers that get in the way of
women pursuing, retaining, and advancing in careers in trucking
is key. Those are jobs as drivers and freight firm owners.
Senator Moran and I have introduced a bipartisan bill, also
supported by Senators Tester and Fischer, which would support
women in the trucking industry and establish a Women in
Trucking Advisory Board. And I will be working to include that
bill in our surface transportation reauthorization.
Mr. Spear, thank you for your support of that legislation.
Could you share a little bit more about how we need to break
down these barriers for women in trucking and how that would
improve the strength of our supply chains and competitiveness
in the United States?
Mr. Spear. Absolutely, Senator, and thank you for your
leadership and sponsoring that bill. ATA is a supporter of it.
And we do need to acknowledge the short falls in our workforce.
Bringing more minorities and women into it is certainly a
challenge and you just cannot talk about it. You have to do
something about it. Your introducing this bill is a significant
step forward. We, internally, at ATA have set up diversity
workforces to define policies and create platforms that we can
help you all advocate; to make it attractive to people out
there that may not need to know about our industry, and to
bring them in.
We have a seven percent participation rate for women in our
driver workforce. That is way too low. And we need to take
steps really highlight why that is a good profession for anyone
interested in being in our industry. It is good pay--pays in
the mid-50s on average, with full benefits. It is a very, very
supportive environment with a lot of diversity and options for
anyone to choose from to earn a good salary and living.
For women, we have to make it safer for them out there on
the road. It is a bit intimidating when you are on--when you
are doing long haul as a woman and going to truck stops at
night. Many do not feel safe to get out on their own. We have
to work with our partners, our members in the truck stop sector
of our industry, to make certain that they feel just as welcome
as anyone else that moves freight.
And we have also gone to great lengths, Senator, really to
highlight the champions in our industry, including women, by
putting them on our America's Road Team. We have had them at
the White House; we have had them on panels; we have had them
meet with Members of Congress; and really showcasing that women
very much are a part of this industry. But we need to do more.
And with your leadership and support of this legislation, I
believe we are on the right path.
Senator Baldwin. Well, thank you. Mr. Connor, like you, I
am incredibly supportive of the Port Infrastructure Development
Grant Program, both as a member of this committee and on the
Appropriations Committee. I was so pleased to hear that the
Port of Milwaukee was a great--was a recipient of the first
round of grant funding. And ports across the Great Lakes are
competing well for these funds.
I would like to have you share a little bit more about how
these grants are being put to work to make us more competitive,
and including how they can help ensure our port infrastructure
as more resilient to varying and higher lake levels in the
Great Lakes?
Mr. Connor. Senator Baldwin, thanks for that question. I
just want to make one quick anecdotal comment to you previous
question to Chris. I am just proud to inform you that amongst
the 80 U.S. port members that AAPA has, 14 percent of the CEOs
of those ports are women, which is about double the average of
the Fortune 500 companies. So, I think that is interesting. In
a rough and tumble business, as ports may be perceived to be,
that we have such a strong representation of female CEOs.
To your question, yes, I was delighted to see about Port
Milwaukee getting that grant. That program is, you know, one of
a kind. It is the only program, you know, for ports only. It is
amazingly oversubscribed. Each time--so we are in our third
cycle, I believe now. The grant requests exceed about a billion
dollars, where the grant authorization has been somewhere in
the neighborhood of, 250-300, depending on the year. It has
trended up in the last couple of years, so we are encouraged by
that.
But these are important dollars to allow ports to improve
their infrastructure, to prepare for the challenges that you
are now seeing played out in front of us in real time, by the
volume surges and the long-term resiliency challenges that we
have from, not only sea level rise, but weather events--
Earthquakes, fires, or any kind of major accidents. So, these
are important dollars. But I have to say, Senator, but they
fall short of what is needed.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you and I yield back my time.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. Senator Scott,
you are recognized for your questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SCOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Scott. I want to thank Chairman Peters and Ranking
Member Fischer for holding this important meeting. I want to
thank all the witnesses for being here today.
So, I became Governor of Florida back in January 2011 and
we were in a big down trend in our economy. But we figured out
how to invest in our ports--our ports--our seaports and our
airports. We invested $85 billion over 8 years and we did it
without raising any taxes.
I understand there is a labor shortage for commercial truck
drivers. My dad was a truck driver. He drove for Navajo Freight
Lines. This shortage directly impacts the supply chain of goods
and causes delays for the manufacturers, consumers, and
corporations across the U.S. And as you all know, we are seeing
significant inflation right now.
I have heard from our State's Ag community. They have been
hit hard by COVID-19 and many unfair trade practices and they
are struggling, on top of that, to find drivers to transport
their crops.
I watched my dad be gone a lot. He was an over road truck
driver, he was gone a lot and it is a tough job. I recently co-
sponsored the Drive Safe Act with my colleagues, Senator Young
and Senator Tester, which would allow 18- to 21-year-olds to
drive trucks safely across state lines, once they have
completed an apprenticeship, enhanced safety training in job
opportunities for young truckers.
Mr. Spear, Mr. Connor, do you believe allowing 18 to 21
years olds to drive nationally will help the commercial truck
driving labor shortage we see today? And do you think it makes
sense?
Mr. Spear. I do, Senator, and thanks for the question. I
think it is one of several things we need to be doing. On its
own, it will not do everything we need to sure up the shortage.
But it is a significant step. We need access to younger talent
pool.
And just let me, quickly, just point out that the folks
that oppose this legislation need to understand that 49 states
and the District of Columbia, right now, allow an 18-year-old
to drive a Class 8. You just cannot cross state lines. So, you
can go from Texarkana, Texas to El Paso and back, but you just
cannot cross into Texarkana, Arkansas. That makes no sense.
But what makes really no sense, is the fact that these 49
states and the District have no training standards or
technology attached to it. The bill that you are sponsoring has
400 hours of training, of which 240 you have to have an
experienced driver in the cab. You also have collision and
mitigation systems, AEBs, speed limiters, cameras attached to
the equipment. This is a step toward safety, much better than
what you have in 49 states and the District, not away. And if
we can entrust an 18-year-old, my son included, who commissions
as a Second Lieutenant next Saturday, into the Army to go serve
and protect our freedom--if we can train them to do that, on
our behalf, I am quite confident that we can train them to
cross state lines in a Class 8.
Senator Scott. First off, for Senator Peters and me, thank
you very much for your son's service. This committee is very
supportive of our military and--so, thanks for doing that. I
guess it was a hard year to get in the Navy? Is that what it
was? I was in the Navy.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Spear. It was not at the Air Force; I can assure you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Scott. So, Mr. Connor?
Mr. Connor. Senator, thanks for the question. I would just
simply say that AAPA and its members would be fully supportive
and would strongly encourage Congress to pass legislation,
which improves the cargo fluidity across our Nation and
strengthens our freight network.
Senator Scott. Yes. I mean, it probably is--it probably,
you know, if you think about it for a small state, it is a
bigger deal. But Florida, it is still an important--it is
important for us and places like Texas. But boy, for smaller
states, it is probably even a bigger deal.
I guess for everybody, I was a big supporter of our ports.
In my eight years, we invested $1.4 billion in our ports. And
we have 15 seaports in Florida. We are the closest ports on the
East Coast to the Panama Canal. So, it was a big opportunity,
and we actually created a lot of jobs.
As you all know, the Panama Canal now accommodates the new
Panamax vessels, and it is clearly changing shipping patterns.
Our goal was to get all the shipping that goes to the West
Coast to come to Florida, if it can. So, what do you--what do
you all think Congress should be doing to ensure that all of
our ports have the opportunity to deal with these Panamax
ships? Probably not somebody in the Great Lakes, but clearly,
along our East and West Coasts?
Mr. Baker. Well, I am sure that Chris Connor, with the
AAPA, will have a lengthy answer to this, also. But I would
add, from a rail point of view, one of the places that we are
very much in agreement with ports, in addition to supporting
the Port Infrastructure Development Grant Program, which was
just discussed. We would also point to the INFRA grant program
and recommend to Congress removing the multimodal cap on that
to allow the applicants to choose to invest wherever they think
is most beneficial. And often times, those are port projects
or, perhaps, rail access to port projects, which would be a two
for one for Chris and I. And I would--I would point to both of
those as attractive options.
Senator Scott. Yes, it is--rail connection is pretty--it is
pretty important to us and how fast--what I learned in the
ports--I am not an expert on the ports but what I learned on
the ports is how fast things got off those ships and got into
the rails. It was a big deal, especially as it came up the East
Coast. And so, if our--if the Port of Miami could do better
than Brunswick, it would really create a lot of jobs in
Florida.
Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. It is a very--the freight network is
extraordinarily interconnected, and we rely on trucks and rely
on ports and we all work together. But it is also
extraordinarily competitive and, you know, competition is an
incredible motivator for folks. And ports competing with each
other and competing with coasts and rails--competing with each
other and rails, competing with trucks, tends to have
beneficial results.
Senator Scott. I do not know if this happens in all the
states, but in my years as Governor there were so many
companies that showed up that just created logistics. They were
just logistics companies that were trying--I do not know if--
if, Senator Peters, if that happened in your state, but you
have all these people that all they did was create logistics
all day long. And they were--everybody was bidding to figure
out the cheapest way of doing things. And so, if we can--my
experience is, if we can invest in our ports and our airports
and our roads, it really does create a lot of jobs, so--anybody
else?
Mr. Spear. Just a quick note, Senator, on the freight
intermodal connectors, these are the roads to ports, railyards,
and airports. We are looking at that data. Nineteen percent of
that is mediocre condition. Thirty-seven percent of that is in
very poor condition. We really started to understand, when
ports invest they dredge, they modernize technology, and so on.
All that money getting poured in--I remember touring the
New York-New Jersey Port Authority, about 3 years ago after
they poured, you know, several million--several hundred million
into their port. And when you look at the heat map around that
and freight was still red. It was all bottlenecked around the
port because these intermodal connectors were not invested. And
we looked into that and 70 percent of those roads--those
intermodal road connectors, are under the jurisdiction of local
and county governments.
So, the Federal and the State role in that is--there is a
huge separation there that has to be addressed because, no
matter how much money you pour into the ports, if the boxes are
still sitting there and we cannot get out of the port area, a
lot of good that did you. So, I think the coordination, when
you look at legislation to make sure that we are pulling those
counties and local governments in and make sure they get the
money, I think you are going to see more efficiency there.
Senator Scott. So, I will tell a cute story. This will be
off a little bit. We put up all the money for the--to go
underneath the port so the trucks could get out, straight from
the port, up to, I guess it was 95 in Miami. And the Feds came
down, put up no money, and we had to wait for them to start the
event. And we all--they were on time for the other one, but we
also did the same thing in Tampa. We--we made it easier to get
from the Port of Tampa onto, I guess, 75--75 in--whatever the
road is on the bypass. So, over toward I-4. It does--it really
made a big difference, so--and then, when we were doing the
announcement, the first truck that was supposed to come though,
somehow was delayed. So, for, like, 15 minutes we were all
waiting there.
It was--it is--it really paid off--what you just brought
up, it really paid off for the Port of Miami and the Port of
Tampa. So--but we are--you are right. We all have to work
together and every part of it really matters, so--although my
dad did not like anything going on rail when I was going up.
Thank you.
Mr. Connor. Senator, if I could just add one final comment
to your question about the larger ships coming through the
canal. Of the $6 billion, that I mentioned earlier in my
testimony, $3 billion of that would be specifically for
completion funding of 12 Federal navigation channel improvement
projects that are currently underway or awaiting initial
funding. So, we--we certainly recognize the advent of the
larger canal and the deeper draft ships that come with that and
encourage Congress to include that spending in any
infrastructure package. Thank you.
Senator Scott. It is a lot--it is a lot of good paying--by
the way, those are really--the people around the ports, they
have got a lot of money. It is really good paying jobs. It is
really nice, so--Thanks, everybody, thank you.
Senator Peters. Well, thank you. Thank you, Senator Scott,
for you question. Senator Lummis, you are recognized for your
questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And one of the fun
things about this job is you get to hear about all of the
different states and the issues they deal with. I come from the
very large landlocked state of Wyoming, through which
interstate 80 passes, which I think is now the major corridor
for truck traffic that is going coast to coast. So, we see a
lot of trucks. I farm on one side of the state and ranch on the
other side, and I take I-80 all the time and there are so many
trucks it is just unbelievable.
My question for Mr. Spear. Because of the hours-of-service
regulations, there is a lack of dedicated truck parking and I
see it. I see it with my own eyes on interstate 80. How large
is the gap between the number of trucks we have on the road and
the amount of parking made available to them?
Mr. Spear. Well, thank you, Senator, for that question and
we have legislation now introduced up here on the Hill, that
would channel monies to the Highway Trust--from the Highway
Trust fund into truck parking, $755 million of it, through the
Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act. And it is a huge problem.
You do not have to go far from this--this dais. You can go
just up way here and get on 95 to Baltimore and you are going
to see multiple trucks parked on the shoulders, on the on and
off ramps, and it is a hazard. But they have to comply with
their rest breaks, and without parking to do that, they are
putting the motoring public at risk. And this has become a
national problem. So, you do not have to go far from here to
see it.
It exists in Wyoming. I always call Wyoming, my home state,
the high--you know, land of high altitude and low multitude.
But there are a lot of trucks and there is not a lot of
parking. And it becomes a problem when that intermixes in
states as sparse as Wyoming with motoring traffic, passenger
vehicles.
So, it definitely needs to be part of any legislation that
you consider. This component really is key, and our entire
industry is very much behind it. So, really appreciate you
drawing attention to it, Senator.
Senator Lummis. Yes, thank you for that. And in addition to
that, there is some traffic bottlenecks in my neighborhood. The
American Transportation Research Institute identifies each
year, the top 100 freight bottlenecks in the country. Three of
them are in my neighboring state of Colorado and trucks can sit
for hours on the way to Wyoming. So, that drives up prices and
sometimes delays business for people in my state.
So, do these large bottlenecks require attention from
Congress, as well? And how much economic input, or output, is
lost from these larger bottlenecks?
Mr. Shear. They--they are considerable. We put that report
out every year. I am on the Board of ATRI and I think that data
is extremely useful for Members of Congress to see their
states, districts, and where these bottlenecks exist. We track
it through GPS data, and it is really an outstanding report.
Real-time, I have to give a shout out to Senator
Blumenthal. He has seven of them in the State of Connecticut.
Small state of Connecticut has seven of the top 100. And so, I
applaud him for being here. He has a vested stake in this.
Colorado, as you said, Senator, has three.
We can certainly--we have shared that with your staffs.
That report is very, very helpful in showing the impact that
congestion and the lack of investment of infrastructure is
having 425,000 drivers sit idle every year, for an entire year,
sitting in those top 100 bottlenecks. That is $75 billion to
the annual cost of freight transportation each year. And for
anyone that has cared about the environment, that is 67.3
million metric tons of CO2 being omitted, just
sitting in traffic.
If we can just deal with those top 100 bottlenecks, and
those intermodal freight connectors I spoke about earlier, you
would see so many efficiencies, so many improvements in
productivity, safety, and environment. If you are a driver and
you are sitting in traffic--we already have a driver shortage--
you have a lot of time on your hands to think about, hey, I
could probably being doing something else.
And so, congestion is very impactful, and not just to
mention, as the Senator rightfully did, the impact on the
prices we pay for goods. So, making that a key component of any
legislation would draw a lot of support from ATA.
Senator Lummis. Well, thank you. We have all seen a
dramatic increase in e-commerce and the need for logistics and
deliveries of all of this e-commerce. And I do not see that
changing just because COVID is starting to lift. So, thank you
for you testimony today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Senator Lummis, for your
questions. Senator Warnock, you are recognized for you
questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAPHAEL WARNOCK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Warnock. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank all of you for your testimony today.
Georgia is known for its freight transportation and
logistics prowess, due to an extensive infrastructure network.
We have one of the busiest airports in the world, but we also
have the third top container port, with the most extensive rail
terminal facility in the country. We have nearly 4,700 freight
rail miles, operated by nearly 30 railroads. We also have six
interstates, 1,200 highway--that cover 1,200 highway miles.
This allows our state to serve as a freight hub for the entire
Southeast.
Mr. Baker and Mr. Connor, could you speak to the importance
of investing in multimodal freight infrastructure, not just
highways? And to ensure that all of our freight transportation
systems are able to interact and connect efficiently, why is
that important?
Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator for the question.
As we have discussed a little bit already today, freight is
very much an integrated network and rail works closely with our
friends in port, our friends in the trucking industry. There
our competitors, but they are also all part of an integrated
network.
But we would very much agree with the premise of your
question, that investment in rail and ports is crucial. I have
suggested a few ways that Congress could help that. Our Class I
railroad friends do the investment on their own. They are
privately owned and funded, and they largely just need policies
to not harm their ability to do that. On the short line side
and, as you have noted, there are dozens of short line
railroads in Georgia, many smaller businesses in rural areas.
We agree with our friends at the Class I's and we also--we
do ask Congress for a little bit of help on the grant funding
side. We think there are huge benefits to doing that for the
Georgia economy, for rural Georgia, and for the environment,
also. So, I would point to, in particular, the CRISI grant
program and the INFRA grant program, as two areas that we would
love your support on.
Senator Warnock. So--so, it seems, given what you have said
and spoke to this--much of this earlier in the--in our hearing
today, it would suggest that we simply cannot rely on one mode
over another. That part of the reason Georgia has been
successful at attracting manufacturing and its businesses, is
we have diversified our transportation network.
What more can we do here in Congress, to ensure that we are
making smart investments that would improve safety and
efficiency, while reducing congestion and harmful emissions?
Mr. Connor. Well, Senator, thank you for the question. This
is Chris Connor from AAPA. One of the things that we are
strongly advocating in the reauthorization of the FAST Act is
the creation of a--within DOT, an Office of Multimodal Freight
Transportation, so that DOT has the ability to better leverage
all modes.
As my colleagues on the panel, I think, have nailed it each
time, it is a connected network. Regrettably, we have not
always looked at it that way. It has not been invested in that
way. But I think a much more high-level, strategic approach,
which was originally outlined in the 215--2015 passage of the
Freight Act.
If we could take that equality of that national freight
strategy up a few floors higher, I think we could really start
to look upon our country as a system of connected networks. One
that includes ships, trucks, trains, and short sea transport,
not only along our coasts, but also in our navigational inland
routes, to deliver goods and services to our citizens.
Senator Warnock. So, it is all of the above and this is
work that cannot be efficient and at the same time, operate in
silos. We have to see it in an integrated manner that does not
place, kind of, arbitrary caps on intermodal infrastructure. It
is really an integrated approach.
Thank you so much and I look forward to working with you to
make sure that that is the kind of vision that we put forward,
certainly for the State of Georgia, but for our country at
large.
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Warnock, for you
questions. Mr. Byrd, my first question is for you. You know,
Mr. Byrd, I am someone who supports technological innovation.
If we are able to make workplaces safer, if we create new jobs
in the process, I think there is just tremendous opportunity
there.
But I would also agree with the statements that you made in
your opening testimony that we have to tread carefully with the
rise of automation, which is happening now, and will continue
to happen in the future. I would categorize it as--automation
is, perhaps, one of our biggest opportunities, as well as one
of our biggest challenges for our country and the world in this
next century.
And we certainly have our work cut out to ensure that
technology continues to be a force for good and that everybody
benefits from technological advances and innovation, not just a
few. And that probably really depends on enacting the right
policies today. You cannot wait, particularly as technology is
moving as rapidly as it is now. We have to have those policies
today, so that these advances have real benefits for workers
and for the American middle-class, not in the future, but now.
So, my question for you, Mr. Byrd, is when it comes to the
freight industry, if we could harness technology in a way that
vastly improve safety, also will expand job opportunities--if
we can do that to help our country, is that something that we
should be striving for? And would you support that type of
innovation within our country?
Mr. Byrd. Thank you very much for your question, Senator.
Yes, we could--we could support that type of innovation, but we
have to make sure that, as you indicated, on the front side we
have to make the necessary investment to ensure that--that
there--there is regulatory authority established and we
understand which agency, or agencies are going to have that
regulatory authority.
We have to keep in mind what has to be done for the
training of the workforce, to ensure that they can adequately
operate the new vehicles or be retrained to provide maintenance
or other support functions for those automated vehicles.
So, I think if we take a step back and take a comprehensive
look at all of the elements that are necessary to move forward,
we could do this in a way that would not be necessarily harmful
to the existing workforce. It could help move us forward, in
terms of us being able to innovate as a country.
Senator Peters. Well, that is good to hear. And we have
to--we probably have to do it simultaneously. You mentioned
stepping back, but technology is moving rapidly. From a
competitive standpoint, you know, we are facing international
pressures from significant competitors. The Chinese are
investing billions of dollars into this technology--Europeans.
So, if we do it simultaneously, that--and we are thinking
about both equally, that sounds like something you would
support, and your organization would support?
Mr. Byrd. Yes, and I also think that it is important that
we understand, as a country, what companies are moving forward
with the innovation. Where is this happening? We need to have
information about the challenges that these companies have
encountered, in terms of implementing these types of
technologies, the type of malfunctions, the other types of
problems that they may have encountered. Then, we need to get
input from the workforce that is actually interacting with this
technology, to get their input, to understand how this is
having an impact on workers, also.
Senator Peters. Right, thank you. Mr. Baker, in 2017, a
notorious railroad crossing in Plymouth, Michigan was blocked
for 9 hours. Unfortunately, blocked railroad crossings are not
something unique to Plymouth. That is a problem that happens in
towns all across my State, all across the country, as you are
fully aware.
Unnecessary delays hurt local businesses, making it harder
for them to operate, and hurts families trying to get their
kids to school and activities. Makes it difficult for them to
get to and from work, and worst of all, it can be an enormous
public safety problem. Blocked railroad crossings can prevent
first responders from attending to life-or-death situations,
and many other safety concerns.
That is why I work--I am currently working with Ranking
Member Fischer to address this problem. Chair Cantwell and
Senator Blunt are also working on this issue with legislation
that they have put forward.
So, my question to you, Mr. Baker, is do you support my
efforts and Senator Fischer's efforts, and the efforts of many
other members of this committee, to address delays at rail
crossings, to improve safety at these crossings? And could you
comment on how your members are addressing this incredibly
important issue?
Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. Let me--I will try to answer each of
those questions. We--on the addressing it first, the short line
railroads are extraordinarily committed to addressing those
individually, in real-time, with communities. Frankly, it is
probably a little bit easier for short lines than some of my
Class I friends, given that we typically have smaller track
and--or shorter track and simpler networks to manage. And we
generally can address those problems and we work very hard to
mitigate any of those impacts before you would ever hear about
them. However, there, obviously, are still challenges and we
are not perfect and sometimes they are unavoidable.
We are very supportive of Senator Cantwell and Blunt's
proposal to fund grade crossing elimination and we have
endorsed that publicly. And we think that in times where we
cannot solve the problem operationally, throwing some money at
the problem, frankly, to help separate the crossings would
address the issue.
And with--with this Fischer/Tester/Moran/Klobuchar/Peters
bill--S. 700, I believe--I believe we have said publicly we do
not oppose the bill. Frankly, I would say we find it a much
more thoughtful approach than your friends in the House took in
H.R. 2 last year. And if that bill finds its way into surface
transportation authorization, we do think that it would be
beneficial to gather some of that data and it would be a
useful, productive step.
Senator Peters. Great. Good to--good to hear that. Mr.
Spear, just to follow up to that. I mentioned some of the
challenges when you have railroad crossings blocked. But
certainly, that means problems for the trucking industry, as
well. Could you just briefly tell the Committee what happened
when you have Plymouth, for example, with a 9-hour delay, what
that could mean for the freight industry? For your industry,
what sort of challenge does that present? And why do we need to
fix this problem?
Mr. Spear. Yes, I think it really underscores the
intermodal, you know, nature of our supply chain now and it has
repercussions. It certainly backs up the movement of freight.
We have seen it there. We have seen it in, you know, blockage
of the Suez Canal, as was mentioned earlier. These things are
very measurable. You know, and we have to look at each one
individually as they are all a little bit different.
This latest cyber-attack of the Colonial Pipeline,
certainly something that we are working hand in glove with DOT
to ensure that, you know, not only as a backup, but we get that
fuel to where it needs to go. We do not want long lines. We
want to make certain we maintain supply.
But when you talk about resiliency, it is these instances;
they have a compounding effect on our ability to get freight on
time. It not only delays, but it escalates what we pay. And it
is also an issue of safety, particularly when you have hours of
service suspensions and working that, you know, already
depleted workforce harder.
So, these are all things that you have to look at
panoramically and really understand the complexity of a supply
chain. How resilient, really, is it? You know, one of these
instances, we are pretty darn good at managing--even a natural
disaster, to a global pandemic. But when you compound all those
at the same time, there is a break point. And that is what I
think the--the next bill really needs to look at is, in
totality, the whole supply chain and equip government with its
private sector partners in a way that we can manage those
instances effectively.
So, you are spot on right looking at these problems
because, added up, they are going to be a real, real
significant impact on the economy.
Senator Peters. Yes, absolutely, Mr. Spear. Thank you for
that answer. Senator Thune, you are recognized for your
questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all the
witnesses for being here today to discuss the importance of a
robust, fluid, and interconnected freight transportation
system. It is crucial that freight policy continue to recognize
the importance of rural areas where the vast majority of
agricultural and industrial commodities originate. And while
they may not be located in major cities or experience high
traffic volumes, rural freight corridors are a crucial
component of the Nation's transportation system, ensuring goods
are transported around the Nation and the world safely and
efficiently.
Mr. Connor, record container volumes in our Nation's ports
have exasperated port congestion and highlighted the need for
investments that alleviate congestion throughout the Nation's
freight transportation system, including ports. This is
especially true as we look forward to a strong recovery from
the pandemic.
The container shortage has harmed a wide swath of shippers,
but exporters of agricultural commodities whose container
turnaround times are often longer, have been hit especially
hard. With more than 20 percent of agricultural production
exported in the United States, our producers depend on access
to foreign markets. Could you describe any actions that port
authorities are taking to alleviate the harmful effects of the
container storage--shortage, I should say?
Mr. Connor. Senator, thanks for that question. Let me
respond this way. There was a report that dropped on Friday by
the World Bank and IHS market that was headlined, ``American
Ports Fail to Make the Grade on Efficiency''. And it was a
report on the container port performance index from 2020 called
the CPPI. And they measured--they ranked the 351 of the world's
largest container ports on dwell time, which is a measure that
is largely seen as a reflection of how ports have processes and
their infrastructure.
The topped ranked U.S. port in that study was ranked number
53. The second ranked U.S. port was ranked number 87. Not
surprisingly, Asian ports led the way. So, you know, we are
getting--we are getting beat on infrastructure spending,
particularly by China.
I would highlight, anecdotally, that AAPA is in the early
stages of a white paper that we are writing called, ``Staying a
Superpower''. And in the early analysis that we have done, when
it comes to public spending on all things related to water
borne transportation, China outspends the U.S. by a measure of
two to one.
So, getting back to your point, I think all of the problems
we are experiencing right now are a function of decades of
underinvestment in port and intermodal connections to move
freight. I do understand your specific question about access to
markets, particularly by interior state producers. I think, on
that note, you know, the good news is that, you know, barge and
rail car traffic is reaching the ports to be exported overseas.
I think the challenges are on the container side and
containers not being dispatched to interior point locations.
That is a legitimate concern, one where AAPA and some of its
leading members have convened with the FMC and others to try
to, really, come up with the best strategy. Because, of course,
all of these shortages, in a way, take place on the port's
footprint. But the ports do not necessarily control all the
levers, nor the commercial relationships that govern whether or
not that empty container gets out to the center of the country
to load an export load overseas.
Senator Thune. Thank you. Mr. Baker, I appreciate that your
testimony mentioned the Railroad Rehabilitation and Financing
Innovation Act, which is legislation that I introduced, along
with Senator Hassan, this year to improve the accessibility and
viability of the RRIF loan program for smaller railroads,
including short lines. Could you elaborate on why the current
RRIF application process presents such a formidable barrier to
entry for short line railroads?
Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. RRIF has
long, as you know, for decades, held this tantalizing promise
to help the short line industry invest and grow, and
particularly in places like South Dakota. And it has never
quite--it has never quite gotten there. And over the last 10
years in particular, RRIF has essentially stopped working for
short lines.
I think your bill would be remarkably helpful. It does a
few things that we--we find crucial. It would streamline the
application process. It would extend the length of the loan
terms, out to as long as 50 years, which would better match the
length of the assets. It would increase flexibility regarding
collateral requirements. And then, perhaps most importantly, it
would authorize funds to pay for the credit risk premiums,
which would make RRIF look and function a little bit more like
TIFIA. I do not know if folks would say TIFIA is the world's
most successful program, but compared to RRIF, it is
gangbusters.
So, we think your bill would be--would be a huge step in
the right direction. We appreciate you introducing it.
Senator Thune. Thank you. My time has expired, Mr.
Chairman. But yes, I look forward to working with you and your
organization. It would be nice to get that enacted. We need
that program to be accessible to short lines and smaller
railroads in this country.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Thune, for your
questions. Mr. Connor, my next question is for you. You know,
the Great Lakes navigation system is essential to freight
mobility in the United States and there is no question our
Great Lakes ports support countless jobs all across the
country.
I want to talk about one particular piece of critical
infrastructure, and that is the Soo Locks, which are the--
really, the lynch pin for the whole system. They are located
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and they connect Lake Superior to
Lake Huron. And roughly 80 million tons of cargo pass through
the Locks each year and most of that is iron ore produced in
the United States. So, that starts up in Minnesota and travels
down to Michigan and steel mills all along the Great Lakes. An
essential link in the supply chain for domestic steel
production and manufacturing that relies on steel--certainly,
the auto industry in particular.
But there is a major problem that only one Lock in the Soo
Locks complex, the Poe Lock, is big enough to handle large
cargo vessels. And as a result, the Poe Lock handles roughly 89
percent of the total tonnage that transits the Soo Locks. And
if the Poe Lock fails, it would be devastating to the whole
economy. In fact, a 2015 report from the Department of Homeland
Security, estimated that an unanticipated closure of the Poe
Lock would trigger a national recession and would cost upwards
of 11 million jobs in the United State.
That is why I fought, along with my colleagues in my
delegation, to fund construction of another large Lock in that
complex that will create the redundancy and mitigate the
threat. But we also need to make other infrastructure
improvements in the Locks.
In fact, as I toured the Locks with the Corps of Engineers,
some of the pumps that pump the water were made back in the
early 1900s. That is certainly a testament to how good the Army
Corps of Engineers is in keeping things running. But we should
not have pumps that are from the early 1900s for a critical
piece of infrastructure that could have a devastating impact,
should it fail.
So, my question to you, Mr. Connor, is specifically related
to that. You have addressed it with the congestion at the ports
but talk to me how important it is to make sure, in any
infrastructure package--we are funding projects, like the Soo
Locks and other pieces of infrastructure, that may not be a
port but are an integral link to the mobility system.
Mr. Connor. Yes, absolutely and, Senator, you said it so
well yourself. You know, the inland waterways are essential
mover of goods to coastal ports and to the global marketplace--
to and from the global marketplace. And specific to the Soo
Locks project, in our $6 billion Army Corps of Engineer ask
that I articulated earlier, we are seeking completion funds, so
that the Sioux Locks project can--can be completed and no
longer be a bottleneck for trade.
But there are so many essential pieces of the integrated,
intermodal network from coast to coast that facilitates trade
between nations that need to be addressed in this
infrastructure package. I think now is the moment to make the
commitment to get the spending in place and to prepare this
country for not only the next generation, but maybe the next
two generations, if not three generations, so that we can
compete in the world economy.
Senator Peters. Well, you are absolutely right, Mr. Connor.
And another issue that I would love to have you address here,
too, and you talked about that with previous questions related
to ports and the crowding that we have, particularly on the
East and the West Coast and the need for significant
infrastructure investments. But as you are well aware, we have
a lot of smaller ports across this country, and in the Great
Lakes, for example, the number of smaller ports where
investments--considerably less in terms of dollar amount.
Investments in those ports could yield huge returns toward--in
terms of capacity and to bring some of that freight up the St.
Lawrence Seaway and into the heartland and then, to connect
with rail and trucking and other assets.
What is your sense of the necessity for us to make sure
that we are funding infrastructure improvement projects in
smaller ports, located across our country, but in particular,
those in the Great Lakes that, historically, have always been a
major center of commerce?
Mr. Connor. Yes, absolutely and again, I would cite what I
said to Senator Baldwin earlier. You need only to look at the
PIDP process over the last couple of years and the--the
subscription for that program was in excess of a billion
dollars each year. I four-fold exceeded the amount of the
appropriation to get a sense of the need from ports of all
sizes, including many, many of the small to mid-size ports of
which you are referring. These ports include those in the Great
Lakes, who are seeking to improve their port infrastructure, so
that they can be more efficient and more competitive in the
global marketplace.
So, it is a huge priority and something we are a big fan
of, PIDP. But we would be an even bigger fan if we could see
that dollar appropriation get significantly higher.
Senator Peters. And one final point related to that point.
In your testimony, you discussed the challenges that ports
have, due to CBP screening requirements and resources. Clearly,
the Department of Homeland Security and CBP have a really tough
job. They have to do two very important things. One, they have
to keep us safe, first and foremost. And second, they need to
move trade, as efficiently as possible, across the border. But
sometimes, smaller ports, smaller facilities have challenges
getting the security personnel--the CBP personnel necessary to
facilitate that trade.
In your mind, how can we best balance security concerns and
evolving threats, with port operations, to move freight more
efficiently? What should we be thinking about doing?
Mr. Connor. Yes, what I mentioned in my opening remarks is,
you know, some type of a funding mechanism for CBP; so that
they can create what they need, at ports, to best do their job.
In the absence of that, the trend that we have seen, and has
become a growing concern for our members, is a shifting of the
cost burden for facility upgrades and for officer shortfalls,
away from CBP onto the shoulders of the ports.
This has gotten very problematic in that, it, at times,
comes with concerns over if the ports do not pony up, that the
speed in which cargo is screened, will slow down, you know,
further compounding the whole freight movement issue we have
been discussing here, this afternoon. So, I think it is
incredibly important that we address this, we bring it out into
the open, and we find a permanent solution to make sure that
CBP has the funds that they can operate, true to their original
mission.
Senator Peters. All right, thank you. Mr. Spear, in my
final question here, as we wrap up the hearing today I am going
to talk a little bit about international ports of entry. In
Michigan, we have two of the busiest ports of entry in North
America. In fact, of the top five, in terms of the volume of
cargo that goes across an international border, two of them are
in Michigan--Port Huron Sarnia and Windsor, Detroit.
And in certainly any kind of infrastructure package
requires us to make sure that we are moving that freight more
efficiently. And right now, the construction of the Gordie Howe
International Bridge is underway to alleviate some of the
traffic that is on the current bridge. In fact, you can see
trucks just lined up, as they try to come across that very,
very, busy, busy border.
So, my question to you is, how will investments to enhance
capacity at these ports of entry--how is that going to improve
your ability of your industry to move cargo and freight in a
resilient and timely fashion, and why is it something that
should be a priority for us?
Mr. Spear. Well, I think partnerships are something that I
would emphasize, especially when you are looking at crossing
borders. You mentioned a significant crossing. I have been to
Laredo, as well. You know, I have seen 11 to 14,000 a day going
across that. It is staggering to watch the dance unfold. And
that dance involves a lot of partners. And when you look at the
private sector industry, we have a vested stake to move that
freight quickly, but safely and securely. And we take that very
seriously.
The partnerships that we have with DHS, but beyond CBP, we
have got FMCSA looking at the safety of that equipment, making
certain that, you know, those crossing in that are not U.S.
plated, are doing it according to the law. These are all rules
of the game that we have to play very well, and those that do,
have very strong understanding of the relationships that we
have with our Federal law enforcement agencies.
So, I think we build on those partnerships. I think it
builds trust. Creating programs that really underscore
efficiency is extraordinarily important. You then toss in good
infrastructure and alleviating those choke points, you will be
able to see those partnerships really take advantage of the
throughput, and not compromise safety and security.
So, the infrastructure is important. I also think good
trade policy and good tax law is important. You do all those
things at the same time; I think you are really coming up with
a good recipe.
So, something that we really underscore, we really want to
partner and really have good transparency with our law
enforcement partners. We do, and going forward, I think any
legislation that you fund or insert any policies, we would look
for that to be a leading part of the bill.
Senator Peters. Right. Well, thank you, Mr. Spear. And as
this hearing concludes, I certainly would like to reiterate my
appreciation and my thanks to each of our witnesses for being
here today and offering your thoughts. Certainly, the freight
industry is the backbone of the American economy and I look
forward to working with my colleagues on this committee to
support workers and to invest in infrastructure, so we can
ensure a bright future for the industry and for our Nation.
The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks. And any
senators that would like to submit questions for the record
should do so within 2 weeks. And with that, this hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Chuck Baker
Railroad Crossings. There are at least 50 railroad crossings in the
State of Washington that are each blocked by trains for an average of
two hours every day. Eliminating each of these crossings would cost an
average of $30 million, while some projects like the Lander Street
project in Seattle can cost over $100 million. Many cities and towns do
not have the funds needed to undertake these projects, and Federal
programs are not currently meeting the needs of communities across the
Nation. That's why I introduced the Railroad Crossing Elimination Act
with Senator Blunt, which would provide dedicated funding to help
address desperately needed grade separation projects across the
country.
Question 1. How will the funding included in the Railroad Crossing
Elimination Act impact your ability to deliver goods across the
country?
Answer. Chairwoman Cantwell, the American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association supports the Railroad Crossing Elimination Act
proposal, which you and Senator Blunt introduced. As I've said
elsewhere, short line railroads strive to work closely with our
communities and customers to avoid causing any unwelcome impacts.
Still, opportunities exist throughout the country to improve or
eliminate highway-rail grade crossings. Doing so can aid the mobility
of people and goods and improve the health and safety of communities.
If passed, this legislation will help provide funds to our governmental
and tribal partners closing, relocating, or improving many challenging
crossings, and we look forward to doing so whenever and wherever
possible.
Freight Congestion. Freight congestion has real economic impacts
for consumers and businesses. Nationally, truck congestion increases
business operating costs by about $74.5 billion annually. In my home
state of Washington, a 20 percent increase in truck congestion could
cost freight-dependent businesses $14 billion. But it's not just
freight bottlenecks that can increasing shipping costs. Significant
disruptions to the supply chain, like the blockage of the Suez Canal
and ongoing container shortages, can also lead to a significant
increase in the price of moving freight--costs that are passed on to
manufacturers and consumers.
Question 2. What investment or policy priorities would best
mitigate congestion impacts and improve the efficiency and reliability
of goods movements?
Answer. The short line and regional railroad industry strongly
supports the CRISI (Consolidated Rail Infrastructure Safety
Improvement) grant program, which has helped fund more than 80 short
line freight rail infrastructure projects across the country at an
average of approximately $6.4 million per project. We urge the
Committee to continue to support the program and to consider raising
the authorized funding level while ensuring the bulk of the funding
goes to eligible recipients for the relatively small size of the
individual projects where true need does exist. Using CRISI for large
passenger and commuter rail projects that can be more appropriately
funded under programs intended specifically for large passenger and
commuter projects limits the available funding for small operators such
as short lines. We also support other grant programs such as the BUILD
program. Finally, we are also strong supporters of the rail-highway
grade crossing program under 23 USC 130, as well as the application of
Federal funding for grade crossings arising from eligibility through
other programs.
Rise of E-Commerce and Multimodal Freight. E-commerce accounted for
792 billion dollars in sales in 2020--that's 14 percent of all retail
sales. This resulted in an average of 10 million packages per day
travelling through our ports, over rail, and on trucks to reach
consumers last year. With the value of freight already set to increase
40 percent by 2030, this shift in consumer behavior will only further
strain the freight system. We need to make sure our policies and
investment address end-to-end supply chain resiliency and support
infrastructure that can accommodate rising freight traffic.
Question 3. What is the importance of providing adequate multimodal
funding, especially with regard to first and last mile delivery of
goods?
Answer. As short line railroads, we are the actual first and last
mile. Toward that end, as noted above, we are strong supporters of
grant programs such as CRISI and BUILD that enable short lines to
address projects that are generally small when compared to those of
some other modes, but are very large to those small businesses that
operate Class II and Class III railroads. The typical short line
railroad reinvests 25 percent to 33 percent of its gross revenue in its
operation to upgrade track that it took over after the major North
American railroads abandoned it due to lack of profitability. But those
tracks are the vital link that keeps towns and cities--often located in
rural areas -connected to the national economic mainstream. In many
instances, short lines provide the majority of rail transportation in a
state. Increased Federal funding availability will further enable short
lines to improve efficiencies while continuing to provide safe and
environmentally friendly freight transportation.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Chuck Baker
Background. There was a lot of focus on disruptions to our supply
chains at the beginning of the pandemic where we saw how our reliance
on foreign sources for everything. From pharmaceutical ingredients and
medical supplies to basic household items, the supply chain and foreign
shipments were subject to disruptions largely outside of our control.
Now, more than a year into this pandemic, our supply chains are still
suffering--but not from a lack of goods. Our ports are experiencing
significant increases in cargo volume as most sectors of the economy
are returning to full strength. This has led to congestion at several
bottlenecks across the Nation that is challenging our ability to meet
cargo movement demands. Dozens of ships sitting are offshore waiting to
get into ports to offload their goods. Imports and exports are both
delayed. This harms our economy, our global competiveness, and our
national resilience.
Question 1. For each of your sectors, can you briefly share what
actions can be taken right now to provide immediate relief to the
crippling congestion in our vital supply chains?
Answer. Short line railroads have generally been performing well
throughout the pandemic, and that includes the current situation. By
our nature, short lines generally tend to have comparatively simple
operations to manage and we generally have available capacity.
Therefore, while we agree with the premise of the question and are
witness to many bottlenecks and delays throughout the supply chain at
the moment, we are generally not the cause of those delays nor are we
able to directly affect them. However, we happily renew our public and
private pledges to do everything within our power every day to serve
our shippers, communicate effectively with our partners, and keep
freight flowing as efficiently as possible.
Question 2. Your written testimony urged appropriate streamlining
for NEPA approvals. Additionally in your testimony, you noted that a
project to improve 10 miles of shortline track to rural grain elevators
should not have the same burdens as a project to add a new subway line
or add lanes to an interstate highway. Do you have any specific
examples or anecdotes of needless project delays in shortline railroad
projects you could mention?
Answer. I am aware of a short line project in Massachusetts that
was rehabbing 10 miles of track--it would have normally been granted a
categorical exemption (CE), but b/c of a 20 foot long ``bridge'' in the
middle of the project, it ended up being subject to a lengthy Section
106 Historical Review delay. It progressed eventually, but time and
money was wasted.
There is a similar project in Arkansas with a short line track
upgrade project being held up for reviews involving bat habitats, even
though the project was just upgrading and maintaining existing track
and bridges.
I believe the Alaska Railroad in your home state has had multiple
challenges involving historic preservation reviews also. While each of
these reviews and delays are likely within the letter of the law and
individually may appear reasonable, in total, they result in projects
taking more time and money than necessary, and given that railroads are
an environmentally preferable solution as opposed to trucking, project
delays ironically result in environmental harm.
Question 3. FRA's Consolidated Rail & Infrastructure Safety
Improvement grants allow eligibility for shortline railroads, including
the Alaska Railroad, which has benefitted from these grants. In your
testimony. it says these grants should be equally available to
shortline railroads and to not add a set-aside for only large mega-
projects over $100 million or $500 million. I agree that saying ``small
railroad projects need not apply'' would not make sense for the Alaska
Railroad. Since, I am not personally aware of efforts in this committee
to steer these funds to large mega-projects, could you please
elaborate?
Answer. This committee's rail title, as written in the Surface
Transportation Investment Act, which passed your committee on June 16
by a vote of 25-3, is excellent for short lines, including in the way
it handles the CRISI program. The concern I was referencing is from the
House bill, which while it does include a substantial increase in CRISI
authorization levels, also sets aside 25 percent of the program for
mega projects over $100m. While short lines do not mind competing
against mega projects for funding dollars on an even playing field, we
do not see why projects that can provide substantial benefit but cost
less than $100m would be excluded from any portion of the program.
Generally spending less is desirable!
Similarly, the House version of the surface transportation bill
transitions the INFRA program into the Projects of National and
Regional Significance program but eliminates any eligibility for
projects under $100m, whereas the current INFRA program has a 10
percent set-aside for smaller projects. The Senate Commerce bill
increases that small project set-aside to 15 percent.
On both the CRISI issue and the INFRA/PNRS issue, we support the
Senate version of the legislation and request that you do everything in
your power to ensure that the Senate version prevails in public law.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Lamont Byrd
Background. There was a lot of focus on disruptions to our supply
chains at the beginning of the pandemic where we saw how our reliance
on foreign sources for everything. From pharmaceutical ingredients and
medical supplies to basic household items, the supply chain and foreign
shipments were subject to disruptions largely outside of our control.
Now, more than a year into this pandemic, our supply chains are still
suffering--but not from a lack of goods. Our ports are experiencing
significant increases in cargo volume as most sectors of the economy
are returning to full strength. This has led to congestion at several
bottlenecks across the Nation that is challenging our ability to meet
cargo movement demands. Dozens of ships sitting are offshore waiting to
get into ports to offload their goods. Imports and exports are both
delayed. This harms our economy, our global competiveness, and our
national resilience.
Question. For each of your sectors, can you briefly share what
actions can be taken right now to provide immediate relief to the
crippling congestion in our vital supply chains?
Answer. Senator, one of the most important actions that can be
taken to alleviate disruptions throughout the entire supply chain is to
address a self-destructive business model that has overtaken the
freight rail industry. This Wall Street-driven practice known as
``precision scheduled railroading'' has crept in like an invasive
species and is causing pain for everyone in the supply chain, minus the
railroads themselves. Class 1 freight carriers are making an
intentional choice to squeeze both shippers and their employees,
thereby limiting efficiency and freight volumes in order to maximize
short-term profits. This practice is jeopardizing long-term freight
capacity, rail worker safety, and harming American companies trying to
get their goods to market, as well as the consumers now experiencing
painful delays and higher costs. We will gladly provide you with
additional details on what this process is, how it is harming shippers
and workers alike, and how we believe it can be addressed.
On the trucking side, the best way to alleviate disruptions is to
keep more drivers in the industry. Some segments of trucking have over
90 percent turnover year-over-year. That means companies are losing
almost every driver that they bring in or have to hire multiple times
for the same position during a one-year period. Keeping drivers happy
and reducing turnover ensures that there are more ``butts in the seat''
ready to haul our Nation's freight, while having the added benefit of
increasing the number of drivers who are experienced, safe, and for the
sake of this question, efficient. Experienced drivers know the best
routes to take, where to stop in order to maximize their allowable
driving time, how to accelerate and brake in order to save fuel
(thereby limiting the number of stops they need to make during a run),
and are less likely to be involved in accidents. The nature of long-
haul trucking is somewhat to blame for these high turnover rates, but
drivers will tell you this is not the full story. They say that it is
more a direct result of carriers who have made a conscious choice to
embrace a high-turnover business model rather than ensuring drivers are
well compensated, provided with good equipment, and have decent working
conditions. The entire supply chain is now reaping the consequences of
this short-sightedness and the continued mistreatment of truck drivers.
Increasing pay and benefits, working to limit the time drivers need to
wait at a shipping facility to pick up or drop off a load, scheduling
drivers so that they have more of a work-life balance and aren't on the
road every week out of the year are all steps that can be taken right
now to attract more drivers into the industry, get them to stay for the
long run, and help our entire supply chain get through the ongoing
pandemic.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Christopher J. Connor
Freight Congestion. Freight congestion has real economic impacts
for consumers and businesses. Nationally, truck congestion increases
business operating costs by about $74.5 billion annually. In my home
state of Washington, a 20 percent increase in truck congestion could
cost freight-dependent businesses $14 billion. But it's not just
freight bottlenecks that can increasing shipping costs. Significant
disruptions to the supply chain, like the blockage of the Suez Canal
and ongoing container shortages, can also lead to a significant
increase in the price of moving freight--costs that are passed on to
manufacturers and consumers.
Question 1. What investment or policy priorities would best
mitigate congestion impacts and improve the efficiency and reliability
of goods movements?
Answer. Ports are keenly focused on safe and efficient freight
movement and this requires a strong and resilient supply chain that
includes ports, rail, roads, barge, and intermodal connectors. Also
trucks and equipment, such as cranes. Much of the current supply chain
issues are linked to the decades of a lack of this type of investment.
AAPA offers three key recommendations:
Invest more. AAPA views programs like the Port Infrastructure
Development Program (PIDP), Rebuilding American Infrastructure
with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) and Infrastructure for
Rebuilding America (INFRA) as essential investments for 21st
century freight movement. AAPA advocates for increased funding
both in annual appropriations and infrastructure investment
opportunities. Funding for these programs is critical to U.S.
export cost competitiveness in the global marketplace. U.S.
agricultural exports have seen their transportation cost
differential essentially wiped out over the last decade as
other countries, such as Brazil, have made infrastructure
investments that reduced transportation costs.
Minimize truck use. Marine Highways move freight with decreased
truck transportation, and reduced highway congestion, while
having the lowest carbon emissions. One way to increase the use
of Marine Highways is to eliminate the Harbor Maintenance Tax
for freight moved on them. The `HMT Double Tax' occurs when
fright arrives at a port and is transloaded from ships to
barges, first as an import and then as domestic cargo when it
arrives at a secondary location. This is a relatively small
amount of national HMT revenue but a significant operating
expense when businesses and ports consider establishing this
service.
Policy priorities. Buy America is a common-sense approach
supported by everyone, including ports, that has become mired
in bureaucracy as Federal agencies seek to assure all
legislative and agency implementation requirements are met. So,
you may get put in a position where, in order to keep a project
on track, you would have to delay the project or borrow
dollars--which is what you tried to avoid when you pursued the
grant.
A second issue is that the threshold for Buy America exemptions has
been raised to such a level that exemptions are practically impossible.
This is true even for items that haven't been manufactured in the U.S.
for decades, for example ship-to-shore cranes--equipment essential to
safe and efficient freight movement. Over the medium-and long-term
Congress can help incentivize the reshoring of key supply chain
equipment aand inputs such as cargo moving equipment.
Finally, there is currently a suggestion that Buy America
requirements apply to even the components of basic construction
materials like concrete, where legislation is proposed to disallow
foreign components such as sand, gravel, and cement. Such a policy
would exacerbate shortages of these aggregates in coastal areas and
drive up construction costs, which are already soaring.
Rise of E-Commerce and Multimodal Freight. E-commerce accounted for
792 billion dollars in sales in 2020--that's 14 percent of all retail
sales. This resulted in an average of 10 million packages per day
travelling through our ports, over rail, and on trucks to reach
consumers last year. With the value of freight already set to increase
40 percent by 2030, this shift in consumer behavior will only further
strain the freight system. We need to make sure our policies and
investment address end-to-end supply chain resiliency and support
infrastructure that can accommodate rising freight traffic.
Question 2. How do our transportation policy priorities need to
change to adapt to the impact of this continued growth in e-commerce?
Answer. AAPA and our member ports are aware of reports indicating
U.S. consumer purchasing practices may be shifting from traditional
retail stores to direct-to-consumer delivery. We interpret this as an
increased demand for imported products, and thereby increased freight
movement through ports. Accommodating increasing freight volumes will
require continued focus and funding for freight transportation to meet
the needs of both consumers and the manufacturing sector.
Remove multi-modal caps. Removing caps on programs like INFRA and
the National Freight Highway Program would allow the Department of
Transportation more flexibility to put dollars where the need is
greatest, rather than basing those decisions on arbitrary allocations.
Expand freight corridors. Increase investments in on-dock rail and
dedicated connectors to Interstate and Federal highways.
More CBP inspectors. This will expedite security screenings
enabling freight to move through ports quicker. It will also end CBPs
current reliance on ports to pay for overtime costs.
Buy America waivers. Allow Federal funds to be used towards
purchase of cranes and other port equipment. This is currently subject
to near-impossible Buy America waivers, even though the equipment
hasn't been made in the U.S. in decades.
Question 3. What is the importance of providing adequate multimodal
funding, especially with regard to first and last mile delivery of
goods?
Answer. The `first and last-mile' component of freight movement is
extremely important and usually outside the port's property. The
opportunities for expanded truck lanes, additional inspection personnel
and equipment, rail connectors to yards building unit trains, and at
grade crossings, would have significant impact on the speed and
efficiency of cargo movement.
The current freight focused Federal investment programs have been a
tremendous success. Programs like PIDP and RAISE have been over-
subscribed and show a great return on investment. AAPA strongly
supports increased funding both in annual appropriations and in
infrastructure investment legislation.
Port Infrastructure Investments. Ports serve as a critical gateways
for our Nation's exports and our economic success. Washington state
alone shipped over $440 billion in freight through its ports in 2018.
But if we can't get the goods coming from rural America moving because
our ports and freight infrastructure are in disrepair, no one will
benefit from that rural investment. I am concerned about the port
congestion in Los Angeles, as well as serious container availability
and export challenges facing American farmers and businesses working to
export their products to the Asian market. These disruptions in the
network only hurt U.S. businesses. Increases in e-commerce will
continue to stress the shipping and port infrastructure.
Question 4. What port infrastructure investments should be made to
prepare our economy for this emerging opportunity as consumers pivot to
e-commerce?
Answer. As we have acutely seen during the global pandemic, our
country's supply chain infrastructure is in desperate need of
investment if e-commerce purchasing continues to rise. To allow for the
expansion of cargo volumes, Congress must prioritize and adequately
fund improvements to the freight network. In addition to general
increases in infrastructure funding, such as expansion of PIDP, AAPA
suggests the following policy changes:
Remove multi-modal caps. Removing caps on programs like INFRA and
the National Freight Highway Program would allow the Department of
Transportation more flexibility to put dollars where the need is
greatest, rather than basing those decisions on arbitrary allocations.
Expand freight corridors. Increase investments in on-dock rail and
dedicated connectors to Interstate and Federal highways.
More CBP inspectors. This will expedite security screenings
enabling freight to move through ports quicker. It will also end CBPs
current reliance on ports to pay for overtime costs.
Buy America waivers. Allow Federal funds to be used towards
purchase of cranes and other port equipment. This is currently subject
to near-impossible Buy America waivers, even though the equipment
hasn't been made in the U.S. in decades.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Christopher J. Connor
Promoting Rural Exports. Over the last 20 years, Minnesota's total
agricultural exports grew by over 200 percent, making us the fourth
largest agricultural exporting state in the country. To get exports to
market, our farmers in Minnesota need to have access to efficient,
workable, and timely rail service. I introduced legislation that would
establish a Rural Export Center at the U.S. Commercial Service to
provide support to rural businesses looking to export their products to
new international markets.
Question 1. Can you speak to how creating a center that helps rural
businesses export their agricultural and forest products can help to
spur economic growth?
Answer. With only 5 percent of the world population, exports such
as agricultural and forest products are essential to our Nation's
continued economic growth. There's wisdom in the statement that `we can
only sell so much to ourselves'. While U.S. goods are preferred by
global consumers, they must be cost competitive. A key component of
what makes U.S. exports competitive in the global marketplace are the
water transportation cost savings which requires getting goods to
coastal ports safely and efficiently. Having a Center that can explain
use of the supply chain will encourage participation through educating
business leaders on the benefits of global marketing. Such a Center
could encourage participation through explaining and assisting with the
processes required to pursue business globally.
Multimodal Port Infrastructure. The Port of Duluth is the largest
and busiest port on the Great Lakes and is a national leader for
shipping. In 2017, a new intermodal terminal opened for Canadian
National Railway and Duluth Cargo Connect to improve the flow of
freight in and out of the Midwest.
Question 2. How can investments in multi-modal port infrastructure
help reduce delays and congestion, and the economic benefits for local
economies?
Answer. One of the major contributors to economic growth is safe
and efficient freight delivery. This is true of imports and exports.
Ports are keenly focused on safe and efficient freight movement and
this requires a strong and resilient supply chain that includes ports,
rail, roads, barge, and intermodal connectors. Also trucks and
equipment, such as cranes. Much of the current supply chain issues are
linked to decades of underinvestment, particularly at the Federal
level.
The current freight focused Federal investment programs have been a
tremendous success with a great return on investment. AAPA views
programs like the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP),
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
(RAISE) and Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) as essential
investments for 21st century freight movement. AAPA strongly supports
increased funding both in annual appropriations and in infrastructure
investment legislation. The opportunities for expanded truck lanes,
additional inspection personnel and equipment, rail connectors to yards
building unit trains, and at grade crossings, would have significant
impact on the speed and efficiency of cargo movement. All these efforts
contribute to reduced delays and congestion, both for freight movement
and the commuting public.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Christopher J. Connor
Background. There was a lot of focus on disruptions to our supply
chains at the beginning of the pandemic where we saw how our reliance
on foreign sources for everything. From pharmaceutical ingredients and
medical supplies to basic household items, the supply chain and foreign
shipments were subject to disruptions largely outside of our control.
Now, more than a year into this pandemic, our supply chains are still
suffering--but not from a lack of goods. Our ports are experiencing
significant increases in cargo volume as most sectors of the economy
are returning to full strength. This has led to congestion at several
bottlenecks across the Nation that is challenging our ability to meet
cargo movement demands. Dozens of ships sitting are offshore waiting to
get into ports to offload their goods. Imports and exports are both
delayed. This harms our economy, our global competiveness, and our
national resilience.
Question. For each of your sectors, can you briefly share what
actions can be taken right now to provide immediate relief to the
crippling congestion in our vital supply chains?
Answer. Senator, thank you for that question. I will turn to the
national picture in a moment; but I must tell an interesting story
about the Port of Alaska first.
The American Association of Port Authorities holds regular
`surveillance' members with its members in order to watch market trends
and share best practices. You might imagine that the issue of
congestion--which is a phenomenon all around the world and not just
limited to America--has been one of the biggest topics we have been
trying to address.
I have to give a big shout out to Port of Alaska--in one of the
recent calls, the Port gave a presentation about how it operates longer
hours by necessity and with flexibility and therefore has avoided many
of the bottleneck issues we see elsewhere around the world. The Port
has no choice because Alaska is a `secondary' port of call for many
carriers, and so it must be ready at all times to take inbound vessels
after they have stopped elsewhere.
Nationally, the ports have been heroic and innovative in trying to
fit the proverbial eleventh gallon through the ten-gallon bucket. In
the face of certain spates of close-proximity workers getting sick,
ports and terminal operators have used new work schedules and
protocols. They have tried to hire up to meet the increased throughput,
they have increased health and safety protocols for workers generally,
they are using longer gate hours, and they are maximizing capacity and
efficiency--some of the largest ports are operating at 98-99 percent
capacity, which means they are truly stretching the limits of what is
possible. Terminal operators have made allowances where appropriate for
`free time' where cargo owners are not charged `overages' if
disruptions outside their control make it impossible to pick up or
return boxes. Some of the overflow of ships simply find less-crowded
ports, or big container ships will, where possible, re-order their port
calls.
Congress has a generational opportunity to help invest in port and
transportation infrastructure to meet persistently growing
international trade and the U.S. ports' ability to handle more and
faster throughput--yes, partly driven by the much-talked-about rise in
ecommerce; and to handle the larger means of trade such as larger
container vessels and the next generation of cargo moving equipment. We
respectfully call on Congress to make these investments in our ports,
which are literally the gateways to our economy.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Chris Spear
Railroad Crossings. There are at least 50 railroad crossings in the
State of Washington that are each blocked by trains for an average of
two hours every day. Eliminating each of these crossings would cost an
average of $30 million, while some projects like the Lander Street
project in Seattle can cost over $100 million. Many cities and towns do
not have the funds needed to undertake these projects, and Federal
programs are not currently meeting the needs of communities across the
Nation. That is why I introduced the Railroad Crossing Elimination Act
with Senator Blunt, which would provide dedicated funding to help
address desperately needed grade separation projects across the
country.
Question 1. How will the funding included in the Railroad Crossing
Elimination Act impact your ability to deliver goods across the
country?
Answer. First and foremost, I would like to offer ATA's full
support and endorsement of your and Senator Blunt's important
legislation, the Railroad Crossing Elimination Act. As you well know,
train passage through at-grade crossings can block traffic for hours at
a time, and is one of the leading causes of rail-related fatalities.
Your legislation would go a long way in eliminating these
intersections, greatly improving safety on our Nation's roadways.
With respect to the implications for the trucking industry's
ability to deliver freight, the Railroad Crossing Elimination Act would
take significant steps in improving the industry's productivity and
efficiency. Each minute that a truck is forced to sit at a railroad
grade crossing adds $1.09 to the cost of that truck's operation. Given
that there are over 200,000 grade crossings that regularly interrupt
deliveries, the legislation would save the trucking industry and
consumers significant costs.
Megaprojects. Large infrastructure interchanges are critical to
keeping goods and our economy moving across the country. The I-5 Bridge
in Vancouver, Washington across the Columbia River is a prime example.
The bridge, which includes a span that is more than 100 years old,
carries 135,000 vehicles and 110 million dollars in freight traffic
each day. Other examples include the I-70 Highway in Missouri, which
carries 100 million tons of freight annually, and the I-10 Highway in
Louisiana, which carries over 160,000 vehicles per day. These
infrastructure projects are critical for keeping commerce and goods
moving not just regionally, but across the country and around the
world. However, like many megaprojects across the country, these
interchanges were not built to handle the level of traffic they see
today and are in need of repair. In fact all three of those
interchanges are on the top 100 most bottlenecked areas in the country.
Question 2. What would it mean for freight transportation if those
three bottlenecks were repaired or improved to accommodate increased
freight and trade movement?
Answer. The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) ranks
the Nation's top 100 bottlenecks annually, and the 3 bottlenecks you
mentioned were identified as being particularly problematic in terms of
congestion. The 1-5 bottleneck in Vancouver, WA is ranked #23, the
bottleneck along 1-70 in Missouri is ranked #54, and the I-10
bottleneck in Louisiana is ranked #18. The identified bottlenecks are
key segments in major freight routes that serve both regional and
national needs. The congestion experienced by trucks at the 3
identified bottlenecks, as well as the other 97 bottlenecks identified
in the ATRI report, substantially increase the cost of moving freight.
These costs are borne, in part, by consumers, who pay a higher price
for retail goods, and by businesses, who are trying to compete in a
global economy. In addition, freight bottlenecks are a major cause of
mobile-source emissions. For these reasons ATA has recommended that $5
billion per year should be set aside in a surface transportation bill
to target improvements at major highway freight bottlenecks.
Freight Congestion. Freight congestion has real economic impacts
for consumers and businesses. Nationally, truck congestion increases
business operating costs by about $74.5 billion annually. In my home
state of Washington, a 20 percent increase in truck congestion could
cost freight-dependent businesses $14 billion. But it's not just
freight bottlenecks that can increasing shipping costs. Significant
disruptions to the supply chain, like the blockage of the Suez Canal
and ongoing container shortages, can also lead to a significant
increase in the price of moving freight--costs that are passed on to
manufacturers and consumers.
Question 3. What Federal policy or investment priorities would help
prepare you to accommodate increased freight movement and to avoid
congestion on our highways?
Answer. First and foremost, a long-term, dedicated, user-based
revenue source that is sufficient to address highway maintenance and
capacity needs is essential. Second, a portion of this revenue should
be dedicated to address major highway freight bottlenecks. In addition,
environmental review requirements for highway projects, which take, on
average, seven years to complete, must be reformed. The highway
reauthorization legislation recently passed by the Senate EPW Committee
includes several of these reforms, including codification of One
Federal Decision. In addition, as Congress pursues policies to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, we urge this Committee to ensure that such
policies do not further restrict states' abilities to increase highway
capacity, as such restrictions will result in additional congestion and
the unintended release of GHGs. These include restrictions on the use
of federal-aid money to increase highway capacity, decreasing the share
of Highway Trust Fund revenue that is dedicated to highways and
increasing eligibility for non-highway projects.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Chris Spear
Infrastructure. In order to meet the demands of our 21st-century
economy, including getting goods to market, we must invest in a 21st-
century infrastructure network. In your testimony, you note that 80
percent of American communities rely on trucking for delivery of goods.
Question 1. Can you speak to the importance of direct Federal
investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure, particularly
our multimodal freight system?
Answer. The Federal government has played an historic role in
building the Nation's transportation infrastructure, whether it was
construction of the canal system, the transcontinental railroad or the
Interstate Highway System. This role is critical because an interstate
transportation system must serve the needs of all Americans, and these
systems cannot function properly if they stop at state borders.
Moreover, states should not be saddled with the cost of building or
maintaining infrastructure that all Americans benefit from. Without
Federal involvement, state and local transportation agencies'
investment and planning decisions would be too parochial to account for
the impacts of those decisions on the movement of freight beyond their
borders. For example, Interstate 35 in Iowa carries a large number
amount of grain and livestock from southern Minnesota farms to Iowa
processing facilities and to Mississippi River barges for international
export. Without Federal funding, it is unlikely that the transportation
infrastructure that allows these Minnesota farms to prosper would have
ever been built. Continued Federal involvement is necessary to ensure
that the infrastructure is adequately maintained.
Question 2. Can you speak to the importance of these investments
for rural communities?
Answer. Agriculture is the economic bulwark of rural economies. In
turn, agriculture is largely dependent on the trucking industry for
moving raw product to processing plants and finished goods to
consumers. Trucks move 69 percent of the value of agricultural
commodities, and almost every agricultural shipment includes at least
one truck move. Agriculture is an internationally traded commodity, and
the highway system is key to the success of America's agricultural
sector and its ability to compete globally. An efficient transportation
system has always allowed U.S. farmers to maintain their competitive
edge, even as their competitors enjoy a land and labor cost advantage.
However, our deteriorating highway infrastructure at home pales in
comparison to the transportation improvements pursued by global
competitors, and the disadvantage threatens U.S. farm income. Because
rural roadway systems tend to be less dense than urban systems, any
disruption can have major impacts. For example, when bridges are closed
or load-posted, trucks are forced to add many miles to their trips,
adding significant cost and time to the trip. Furthermore, goods that
are shipped through ports to international destinations often get hung
up in urban traffic, adding additional cost and time in transit to
those shipments.
Meanwhile, other countries are improving their transportation
systems to better compete with U.S. producers. For example, in 2013
Brazil took over the U.S.'s preeminent role as the largest exporter of
soybeans, in part due to its highway and railway investments. If we
fall further behind, American farmers will lose income and market
share, and rural communities will suffer the consequences.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to
Chris Spear
Speed Limiters. According to the Institute for Safer Trucking,
urban fatal truck crashes have increased by 100 percent from 2009 to
2019 in Georgia. From 2009 to 2019, 82 percent of trucks involved in
fatal crashes were class 7 or 8 trucks, which weigh over 26,000 pounds.
Speed limiters, which are already standard on most heavy trucks, are
proven effective at preventing high-speed fatal crashes like the one
that tragically took the life of Georgia native Cullum Owings in 2002.
Over the past few years, motor carriers have begun adopting automated
emergency braking and adaptive cruise control on most purchased and
leased vehicles, and the integration of these devices with speed
governing technology is showing enormous promise for transportation
safety.
Question 1. How would requiring the use of speed limiters,
especially on commercial motor vehicles without other advanced safety
technologies, impact the safety of all road users?
Answer. We agree that equipping commercial motor vehicles with
speed limiters--especially used in combination with other advanced
safety features such as Automatic Emergency Braking and Adaptive Cruise
Control--can positively improve road safety. In 2016, when DOT
initially published a proposed rulemaking concerning speed limiters,
ATA and many motor carriers shared concerns about the efficacy of such
a one-size-fits-all solution. Foremost among ATA's concerns were the
possible unintended consequences of limiting commercial drivers to one
universal speed limit despite the varying limits set for passenger
vehicles on interstate and secondary roads. ATA was also unsure of how
a rule would adapt to the rapid evolution of vehicle safety
technologies. Since then, technological advancements have increasingly
enabled motor carriers to adopt proven technologies, prompting ATA to
support new and safer approaches to speed management. As you rightly
point out, automated emergency braking and adaptive cruise control on
purchased and leased vehicles show tremendous promise for
transportation safety. The growing consensus around the benefits of
these proven safety technologies has not only driven ATA to update its
decade-old policies to reflect the current operating environment, but
has also led Congress to reconsider its stance on legislation directing
CMV speed governance. This year, ATA and Road Safe America--the
nonprofit organization led by Cullum's father, Steve--partnered in
supporting the Cullum Owings Large Truck Safe Operating Speed Act,
which requires speed-limiting devices on commercial motor vehicles over
26,000 pounds and promotes incentives to encourage adoption of newer
technologies. This legislation, which reflects ATA's updated safety
policy on speed governance, calls for speed limits of 70 mph for trucks
equipped with Automatic Emergency Braking and Adaptive Cruise Control.
If a truck does not have these technologies, the legislation sets a
maximum speed of 65 mph, incentivizing fleets to adopt safety
technologies. Furthermore, given the constant emergence of new safety
technologies, this legislation calls for a recurring 5-year review of
any speed limiting regulations to make sure that these regulations are
most impactful with currently-deployed technologies.
Question 2. What other benefits are there for requiring speed
limiters especially in heavy trucks that don't have other advanced
safety technology?
Answer. ATA's updated policies are inclusive of speed limiters for
trucks with and without safety technologies, and we believe any future
legislation or rulemaking should account for both scenarios. Fleets
that utilize Automatic Emergency Braking and Adaptive Cruise Control
would be afforded a maximum of 70 mph, and fleets that do not have
these added safety technologies would be limited to 65 mph. This
differential may incentivize a fleet to equip vehicles with safety
technologies beyond speed limiters. ATA's safety policy on speed
governance and the Cullum Owings Large Truck Safe Operating Speed Act
both reflect the proven benefits of safety technologies that mitigate
these concerns and the decades-long process to reach industry and
stakeholder consensus on this issue.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Chris Spear
Background. There was a lot of focus on disruptions to our supply
chains at the beginning of the pandemic where we saw how our reliance
on foreign sources for everything. From pharmaceutical ingredients and
medical supplies to basic household items, the supply chain and foreign
shipments were subject to disruptions largely outside of our control.
Now, more than a year into this pandemic, our supply chains are still
suffering--but not from a lack of goods. Our ports are experiencing
significant increases in cargo volume as most sectors of the economy
are returning to full strength. This has led to congestion at several
bottlenecks across the Nation that is challenging our ability to meet
cargo movement demands. Dozens of ships sitting are offshore waiting to
get into ports to offload their goods. Imports and exports are both
delayed. This harms our economy, our global competiveness, and our
national resilience.
Question. For each of your sectors, can you briefly share what
actions can be taken right now to provide immediate relief to the
crippling congestion in our vital supply chains?
Answer. Highway congestion adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of
freight transportation each year. In 2016, truck drivers sat in traffic
for nearly 1.2 billion hours, equivalent to more than 425,000 drivers
sitting idle for a year. A disproportionate share of these impacts are
caused by bottlenecks, primarily on the Interstate Highway System. For
example, a single bottleneck on I-10 in the Los Angeles area caused
trucks to be delayed more than 217,000 hours in 2019, adding over $164
million to the cost of moving freight. Many of these bottlenecks will
require significant investment, and many states do not have sufficient
resources to address them. Furthermore, their benefits often extend
well beyond state borders, with freight moving through these
bottlenecks to and from locations nationwide, in addition to serving
international markets. Therefore Congress should set aside funds to
address major highway bottlenecks, refrain from imposing limits on
states' ability to expand highway capacity and streamline the NEPA
process, which unnecessarily delays projects and increases their costs.
Furthermore, the extraordinary volume of imported freight we are
seeing come through our Nation's ports is creating extreme challenges
to a struggling supply chain. While our ports are having trouble
accommodating the unprecedented numbers, the volume has also
overwhelmed inland intermodal hubs in places like Chicago, Dallas and
Memphis. Though it is certainly true that the pandemic has created its
own challenges, many of the issues we are seeing are not new and have
been present for years. Motor carriers in particular face a unique set
of challenges that are the result of long-term inequities and the fact
that many parties in the supply chain actually see economic benefit
from inefficiencies. In today's environment, this is particularly true
of foreign-owned ocean carriers who are making record profits and
appear to have little incentive to work with other parties and provide
the access to information that is needed to ensure the efficient
movement of containers. This means that truckers face a host of
challenges every day that often require them to make multiple trips to
different locations in order to find the right chassis, drop off empty
containers and pick up loaded ones. The time and cost associated with
these additional moves are significant and are eventually passed on to
American consumers as are the skyrocketing detention and demurrage
charges that result from the inability to operate efficiently. Focusing
all parties in the supply chain on the data sharing that will provide
the long-term visibility needed to properly allocate equipment where
and when it is needed is critical and long overdue.
[all]