[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 166 (Monday, August 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44539-44543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21305]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. 95-14]
Framework for Guiding FHWA Policy Decisions Affecting Freight
Transportation
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Interim policy statement; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice requests comments on a draft framework intended to
identify the principles which will guide FHWA policy decisions
affecting freight transportation systems. These principles do not
reflect a priority in their order--they move from the most generic
concepts through to more specific ones, and contain many common
elements. This framework focuses on the highway element of those
freight transport systems but recognizes the importance of intermodal
connectivity for a growing portion of U.S. freight transport. This
interim statement could serve as a building block for a broader
Departmental intermodal freight policy. In addition to a brief
discussion of each of the principles, several key current issues are
discussed that illustrate how the principles are reflected in questions
of Federal interest.
DATES: Comments should be received by October 27, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed statements to FHWA Docket No. 95-14,
FHWA, Room 4232, HCC-10, Office of the Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. All statements received in Docket
No. 95-14 will be available for examination at the above address
between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of their
statements must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Keane, Office of Policy
Development, Transportation Studies Division, at (202) 366-9242; or Mr.
Charles Medalen, Office of Chief Counsel, Motor Carrier Law Division,
at (202) 266-1354, FHWA, DOT, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Efficient, effective, and safe highway systems play a critical role
in the U.S. economy; nearly all the essentials of modern life travel on
them, whether in the delivery of intermediate goods to production
plants or shipment of goods to final market. The highway system is an
especially important foundation of commerce as it provides access to
raw materials, labor, and markets. Maintaining and improving highways
and their connections to intermodal freight facilities, while producing
a safe environment for the traveling public, ensures shippers and
carriers the freedom to adapt quickly to changing markets and
environments with some measure of confidence that the spatial barriers
between markets can be overcome. Therefore, the FHWA has developed a
draft framework of principles by which to guide policy decisions having
an impact on freight transportation systems. The FHWA invites comments
on this draft framework, which is set forth below.
Draft Policy
Part I--The Principles
Highway and intermodal freight transport policy can be fashioned to
improve the Nation's long-term economic prospects and vitality. As in
all policy decisions considering the interests of the public at large,
a balance must be struck among many worthy goals. In defining the
public interest, Federal highway programs and freight-related policies
should advance the following principles:
1. Reflect the Importance of Freight Transportation to National and
Regional Economies
Transportation policy with regard to investment and regulatory
decisions must take into consideration the impacts that such policies
may have on the movement of both people and goods.
The relationship between transportation and economic development is
obvious. Highways and other modes of transportation enable individuals
to commute to their workplaces; transportation is also a critical part
of the production process. While the magnitude of the relationship has
been debated, it is well known that the quality of the transportation
system is closely tied to the industrial and employment base of
regions. Good, dependable transportation is an important factor in any
region's current economic well-being as well as its growth potential.
The U.S. economy as a whole is highly integrated and is becoming more
closely tied to the global economy. To retain and expand its economic
vitality and competitive position, the Nation must ensure that its
producers and carriers have quality access at the lowest reasonable
cost, and in turn, that its markets are accessible.
A basic characteristic of highway networks is that automobiles,
trucks, and buses share the common highway. The combination of large
freight vehicles with a smaller, lighter passenger car fleet causes
special safety risks. Large vehicles impose unique demands on their
drivers and those sharing the road with them. Their size and handling
characteristics must be taken into consideration in the design of
roadways. Increasingly, the environment in which the vehicle is
operated is congested and physically deteriorated. Infrastructure
planners, providers, and operators should adopt a customer orientation
for freight movement, recognizing that freight and passenger
transportation are distinctly different markets with fundamentally
different requirements.
2. Adopt a Long-Term Perspective for Freight Decisions
Since investments in highway infrastructure have such long usable
lives, decisions should be as future-oriented as possible, taking into
account the current and future demands of the freight market.
Transportation agencies should maintain, operate, and improve
highway systems commensurate with current and projected demand. One
element of that investment is the development of an
[[Page 44540]]
understanding (qualitatively and quantitatively) of the demand for
goods movement and its incorporation into planning and forecasting.
Lack of effective transportation can lead to the demise of business and
jobs or be an impediment to growth in any area of the State. Agencies
should recognize that freight demand is dynamic: the mix of supply and
demand changes over time.
Although State Departments of Transportation and Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPO) have relatively sophisticated passenger
transportation planning procedures, most agencies have little
experience in developing forecasts of freight transportation movements
for statewide freight transportation plans. The transportation needs of
basic industries are important criteria in setting program priorities.
Economic considerations should be combined with other measures of
transportation need to develop plans for transportation systems and
networks. Life-cycle cost principles should be reflected at the
program, management system, and project level.
Increasingly all modes of freight transportation are using
computerized technologies to track cargo and improve the efficiency of
pickup, delivery, and terminal operations. Work underway in the
commercial vehicle operations element of the Intelligent Transportation
System (ITS) program holds great promise for augmenting private sector
programs by improving the efficiency and safety of motor carrier
operations, including intermodal operations. These kinds of forward-
looking considerations should be incorporated into a future-oriented
vision of freight demand.
3. Ensure that Priority Consideration for Safety is Affirmed
The DOT's strategic plans have clearly enunciated the importance of
safety. We are guided by a vision statement which leads with ``the
Nation's need for the safe . . . movement of people and goods . . .''
and a mission statement which follows with a pledge to ``[i]mprove all
aspects of surface transportation safety.'' The plan's safety goal is
to ``[i]mprove surface transportation safety through a coordinated
effort to reduce fatalities, injuries, property damage, and hazardous
material incidents.''
The rationale for Federal involvement in transportation safety has
been that the marketplace alone will not produce an acceptable level of
transportation safety and, therefore, it should be provided by the
public sector. Government policies are established to ensure that the
truck and bus industries operate safely. The ultimate goal of these
policies has been to prevent accidents and minimize the loss associated
with accidents. Whenever the government issues regulations or allocates
resources that affect motor carrier safety, it balances the public's
desire for efficiency and mobility in transport services with the
desire for improved safety.
While many truck safety policies are initiated at the Federal
level, responsibility for truck safety investment and oversight is
shared among all levels of government and the industry. The recognition
of this shared responsibility has led to major improvements in truck
safety over the last several years.
Improving truck safety will require increased attention to:
operator proficiency; improvements in vehicle design and performance;
improved data collection and more comprehensive information to target
resources at high risk carriers; better analysis and more focused
research on vehicle and driver performance, coupled with greater use of
technical innovations; a stronger link between Federal, State, local,
and private industry safety initiatives; and designing road systems to
accommodate large vehicles.
Technology, innovation, and research hold great potential to
improve the productivity and safety of freight transportation. Various
technologies being developed under the ITS program should substantially
improve motor carrier safety and productivity. On-board safety sensors
to automatically measure the safe condition of the vehicle can be a
reality in the near future. Existing vehicle technologies such as
antilock braking systems, B-trains and double drawbar dollies also are
available to improve the safety of multi-trailer combinations.
4. Promote Equity and Cost-Effectiveness
Decisions regarding allocating resources and imposing regulatory
controls should be equitable and cost-effective. They should recognize
the costs imposed across industry sectors, across transport modes,
across regions, and across classes of consumers. To the maximum extent
possible, each mode and class of user should pay the costs of public
facilities and services provided for their operations.
Direct or indirect subsidies may affect competition among the
freight modes. Such subsidies result when user fees and other policies
result in the various modes not paying the full costs of their
operations. To the extent compatible with other goals, government
subsidies that affect competition among the modes should be minimized.
Since governmental agencies are allocating scarce public resources,
investment options should be evaluated against the opportunity cost in
the private market. Threshold criteria should require benefits to
exceed the cost. The benefits and costs which accrue directly to
freight carriers and indirectly to their customers should be explicitly
included in evaluations of system improvements and/or regulations. The
assessment of infrastructure investment and regulatory controls should
include measurement of the full range of impacts, appropriately
discounted over their entire life cycle. For example, this means that
the impacts of delay and vehicle operating costs, rehabilitation and
maintenance activities in work zones should be taken into
consideration. Another example relates to incorporating economic
benefits derived from system efficiencies which accrue to communities
and shippers, often referred to as economic development benefits.
5. Encourage an Integrated, Intermodal Systems Approach
The difficulties that result from different modes and carriers
working together should not be aggravated by unnecessary governmental
barriers or inadequate connections due to poor system design.
The productivity of trucking firms and their customers depend on
highways and their connections with truck terminals, ports, railroads,
and airports. Moving freight by a combination of two or more modes in
an integrated manner is an option that allows the superior attributes
of each mode to be utilized. This does not mean that multi-modal
movements are inherently better than single-mode movements. It does
mean that, given the latitude to choose the best mode(s) for the move,
carriers will be able to provide the most efficient transport with the
potential for the lowest cost. Developments in U.S. manufacturing
practice contribute to the growing trend toward intermodal shipments.
It is critical that State and MPO plans, programs, and management
systems address intermodal access and connections.
The National Highway System (NHS) will facilitate U.S.
international trade and growing domestic productivity through improved
efficiencies in the movement of goods produced for and by U.S.
businesses. Improving the quality of connections among transportation
modes, aiming toward smooth and seamless interchange, along with
improving the highway links
[[Page 44541]]
themselves, are two examples of the benefits that will accrue from
designation of the NHS.
6. Be Sensitive to Externalities Caused by Transportation of Goods
Take appropriate action to reduce or mitigate externalities.
Many costs of highway freight transportation are not accounted for
in the marketplace and thus are not recognized directly by motor
carrier operators. These costs include environmental impacts (such as
exhaust emissions, noise, and community impacts) and safety. Some of
these external costs can be mitigated by regulatory actions (e.g.,
requiring cleaner or quieter vehicles), or programmatic means (e.g.,
improved traffic safety inspection programs). Market pricing approaches
such as emissions or congestion pricing have also been proposed.
It is important to estimate the incidence and magnitude of external
costs associated with highway freight transportation before regulatory
or pricing solutions are implemented. It also is important to estimate
the impacts of such solutions on motor carriers, including impacts on
their competitive position versus other modes. A further consideration
is the extent to which external costs are associated with operations of
those competing modes.
The importance of these estimates is reflected in Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) planning reforms,
which require consideration of factors such as social, economic,
energy, environmental, and land use/development effects of
transportation decisions. Quantification should be encouraged as a
means to bring these issues into the policy equation, with a common
measure of value. The estimates and their use should reflect the
limitations of such analysis. Methodologies and techniques for
capturing these impacts should be pursued vigorously.
7. Provide an Environment That Will Enable the Transportation Industry
To Be Strong and Internationally Competitive
Recognize that a strong and internationally competitive
transportation industry requires a sound and effective regulatory
framework that reserves economic regulation only for the most obvious
instances of transportation market failure. Within that framework,
market-based approaches to regulation can provide carriers with the
flexibility needed to comply with regulations while maintaining an
incentive to offer cost-effective, competitive service. In this spirit,
the U.S. Department of Transportation has stated in its report to
Congress on the functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission that a
new regulatory approach has emerged in recent years, one which is
``recognizing competition as the best regulator of transportation * *
*.'' The Department therefore, has recommended removing various archaic
Federal laws which are no longer applicable because of structural
changes in the market for freight transportation.
Also, the Department encourages innovation through public-private
financing partnerships to achieve greater efficiencies in both the
private and public sectors. Cost-sharing and public-private partnership
concepts provide new opportunities for the States to increase
investment in needed transportation facilities and to work with the
private sector to promote innovative solutions to transportation
problems. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provides an
example where the public and private sectors can work together to
eliminate unnecessary cross-border barriers to trade.
Part II--Contemporary Issues
The above principles represent those values that we feel should be
reflected in a freight policy. The remainder of this document discusses
a series of topical issues in a manner which illustrates how many of
the functional areas which the Department must address should be
approached in the context of a comprehensive freight policy. They
reflect a perspective that embraces highway system stewardship from
both a facilities management and motor carrier operational perspective.
The above principles are a starting point for the questions of
governmental interest, generally, and the Federal interest, in
particular.
1. Infrastructure--System Design and Investment
One of the strengths of the highway motor carrier transport mode is
its inherent flexibility advantage and thus high service quality. New
economic processes and arrangements place high value in the
characteristics of reliability and security in addition to speed. The
environment in which large vehicles operate is key to improving truck
safety. Road design significantly affects truck accident rates. For
example, the rate of fatal combination truck accidents on non-
Interstate roads is significantly higher than the rate on Interstate
roads. The interface between roadway geometry and truck safety requires
scrutiny when road design alternatives are considered or highway
improvements are made.
A revolution in freight transportation is occurring as our domestic
highway programs face a major crossroads. The completion of the
Interstate System and designation of the NHS signal a new stage in our
highway network. Due to demographic and economic changes throughout the
United States, the Interstate System alone cannot adequately serve the
needs of modern goods movement. The NHS is intended to concentrate
Federal resources on those elements of the principal arterial system
which are crucial to interstate and international commerce.
Much of the Nation's industrial capacity has moved from its
northeastern urban origins to rural areas of the country. International
manufacturing arrangements are growing in importance. With
implementation of the NAFTA, the need for fast, reliable transportation
connecting Mexico, the United States, and Canada will become even more
vital. The NHS will be focused on and provide for the current and
future national highway transportation needs such as those resulting
from changing trade and traffic flows.
Improving the capacity, safety, and structural life of the NHS will
facilitate U.S. international trade and growing domestic productivity
through improved efficiencies in the movement of goods produced for and
by U.S. businesses. With Federal input, State transportation plans and
specific projects must ensure that the objectives of States and
localities contribute to the NHS's goal of improved economic
competitiveness through improved mobility.
Although the NHS will enhance the economic competitiveness of U.S.
businesses by improving highway transportation, these gains will not be
maximized unless the quality of connections among transportation modes
is improved. The National Transportation System planning framework will
help in the development of a smooth and seamless interchange among the
transportation modes by highlighting for planners the important
intermodal connections nationwide and identifying any impediments to
the efficient movement of goods through these connections. This, in
turn, will enhance the efficiency of freight carriers and the general
economic performance nationally as transport costs decrease.
[[Page 44542]]
3. Intermodal Freight Planning
An important step in freight planning is to see the system as a
whole--to understand freight movements as a system of supply chains and
distribution networks. Since an important Departmental goal is to
contribute to the Nation's economic performance, this implies the
desire to select the most important movements to address, not just the
best way to address them. This requires the identification of the needs
of shippers with respect to infrastructure and/or freight operations.
As our concerns have matured to the perspective of total system
management, six specific management systems (pavement, bridges, safety,
traffic congestion, public transportation, and intermodal
transportation facilities) and the traffic monitoring system have been
identified that will provide information concerning both the condition
and the performance of the existing and future transportation system.
Although no ``freight management system'' is specifically
identified in the aforementioned list, freight transportation should be
an important consideration within each of the management systems. The
freight customer can be said to affect, and be affected by, all these
systems. Freight consumers' perspectives can take on several
dimensions, corresponding to the service provider/carrier, the shipper,
and the ultimate consumer of the commodities (the value of which
contains a transport component). Goods movement deserves significant
treatment beginning with the inventories/descriptions of usage and
systems. This should be followed up by evaluations of those systems as
input to public decisionmaking to identify strategic freight
investments.
Thus, determining transportation infrastructure needs for freight
is as much a demand-side assessment as it is a supply-side one. An
important element of system strategy is to determine the facility or
operational change needed to fit the job. Designing a quality and cost-
effective facility--that is, the supply side--comes after determining
which services are the most needed.
3. Safety Analysis and Research
Truck accidents are frequently caused by errors of either truck
drivers or drivers of other vehicles involved in collisions with
trucks, rather than failures of vehicle components. Nevertheless,
vehicle design and performance affects truck drivers' ability to
respond to, or recover from, those errors. Additionally, safe highway
design and special safety features reduce the potential for accidents
and the severity of accidents that occur. Therefore, a balanced program
focused on optimizing driver, vehicle, and highway performance is
warranted. Attention will be given to issues of human behavior,
operator proficiency, emergency response, and training to reduce the
influence that deficiencies in any factor may have on accidents.
Additionally, efforts will be made to optimize vehicle collision
avoidance and crashworthiness performance.
Understanding the factors that influence truck accident rates will
lead to better, more informed freight policy decisions. Assessing the
value of safety investments so that informed public decisions can be
made requires that truck travel data, accident information, and the
investment levels themselves be more comprehensive and accurate. Since
a variety of factors affect the safe operation of trucks, a more
comprehensive approach to data collection is needed. Factors such as
the growth in truck travel, industry structure, traffic densities, and
passenger and freight vehicle dimensions and weights are changing.
Improved data is needed to better monitor both safety program
performance and carrier performance.
More analysis and research on motor carrier safety is needed to
identify changes in safety levels and the factors producing these
changes, evaluate policies that may affect these factors, and target
safety investments accordingly. The analysis must be coupled with
research to answer questions on vehicle, roadway, and driver
performance and develop new technologies that will improve motor
carrier program effectiveness and efficiency.
4. Finance and Taxation
Publicly provided facilities and services for highway/motor carrier
freight transportation are financed in whole or in part by user fees.
The extent to which user fees assessed on each mode cover public costs
varies widely. Several criteria are important in evaluating the level
and structure of user fees, including:
1. To the maximum extent possible, user fees should cover
appropriate costs of public infrastructure improvements and other
public programs;
2. Users should contribute a proportionate share of their costs of
facilities and services; and
3. Federal subsidies to one mode should not unfairly affect
competition with other modes.
Federally-sponsored studies of freight user fees have been
conducted for highways, airports, railroads, and waterways. These
studies vary significantly in detail; comprehensive cost allocation
studies have been conducted for highways and airways while more general
studies have been conducted for the other modes. The last major Federal
Highway Cost Allocation Study in 1982 showed that heavy trucks paid
substantially less in Federal user fees than their estimated Federal
highway cost responsibility. User fee adjustments were made in 1982 and
1984 to partially address study findings. However, recent increases in
the fuel tax have likely changed the equity of the overall user fee
structure. Also, the ISTEA changed the Federal program structure,
system responsibility, and flexibility in the use of funds, which would
likely change cost responsibility among users. A new Federal cost
allocation study is underway to evaluate implications of these and
other prospective changes in highway or intermodal programs.
5. Truck Size and Weight (TS&W) Policy
The question of appropriate size and weight limits for trucks has
always been a difficult one. It conjures up images of ``grandfather
rights'' from the Interstate era, conflicting views of proper State-
Federal relationships, rival economic interests, and uncertainty as to
the operational safety of various types of trucks.
The TS&W issues are extremely complex; they relate not only to
questions of highway safety and stewardship but to local, State, and
national economic performance. At a time when transportation is
becoming a larger part of the goods production as well as distribution
systems, the effects of additional regulation on productivity take on
renewed significance.
The macroeconomic impacts of change to these regulations are
initially private ones: equipment costs; fuel consumption; and
personnel expenditures. The direct costs imposed, if not
counterbalanced, are public ones: pavement and bridge deterioration;
and safety consequences. However, changing trucking productivity
quickly translates to changes in costs and efficiency for shippers, the
economy as a whole and, thus, the consuming public.
Extended fact-finding and debate are necessary to do justice to
TS&W issues. Good TS&W policy helps ensure safe and efficient freight
movement on our Nation's highway and intermodal systems. Beyond the
general freight principles which began this document,
[[Page 44543]]
changes at this juncture should also, to the extent possible, address:
1. Highway and vehicle safety through a performance based
regulatory approach;
2. Efficient interstate and international commerce through advanced
highway and vehicle technologies;
3. Streamlined, uniform, and enforceable administrative procedures
and requirements for permitting and taxation purposes;
4. Compatible vehicle and infrastructure design; and
5. Equitable recovery of public costs.
The TS&W policies directly influence truck designs and
configurations. Choices made in this regard by motor carriers and truck
designers, in response to size and weight constraints, affect not only
the amount of weight carried by a truck and the effect that weight has
on highway infrastructure, but also the braking and handling and
stability properties of the vehicle. Vehicle size and weight policies
should be structured to encourage and ensure vehicle designs and
configurations that are optimized relative to all these concerns.
The TS&W policy and highway user fee issues are virtually
inseparable. Pavement and bridge costs attributable to heavy vehicles
will rise (or fall) as the result of size and weight policy changes.
Significant changes in size and weight limits should not be considered
without evaluating appropriate motor carrier user fees. Fines and other
penalties have proven to be ineffective deterrents to overweight
operations because they are too low to offset potential profits from
operating overweight. This is borne out by Federal estimates that show
10 to 20 percent of all combinations operate illegally overweight.
State permit fees for overweight operations generally are too low to
cover added pavement and bridge costs associated with the overweight
operations. States that issue overweight and oversize permits should
consider setting permit fees at levels that reflect added highway costs
of overweight operations to improve the effectiveness of their TS&W
enforcement efforts.
In an effort to better understand the effects of TS&W policy
changes on these many factors, the Department has undertaken a
comprehensive TS&W study to examine the relationship between TS&W
policy and safety, pavement and bridge condition, shipper logistics,
truck operating costs, intermodal operation, and energy and
environmental concerns, to evaluate the appropriate scope and extent of
Federal involvement. The FHWA published a notice in the Federal
Register on February 2, 1995, announcing the study and soliciting
comments (60 FR 6587).
Regarding international commerce, wide disparity between the
standards across the United States, Mexico, and Canada (as well as
those across our States) often inhibit the efficient flow of
continental trade. In a NAFTA context, the Department is committed to
finding a means, in consultation with Congress, to make TS&W and safety
standards compatible. Further, significant growth in international
container traffic, combined with varying international TS&W standards,
has created enforcement and economic efficiency concerns.
6. Highway Freight Transportation and Air Quality
With the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the
subsequent Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for California in 1994,
concerns have been raised as to the effects that air quality
regulations may have on freight transportation in the near future,
especially in California. While air quality improvement is an important
public policy objective, it is important to remember that there are
typically multiple objectives and implications in all major public
policy decisions, and these must be balanced. For instance, the
original FIP issued on May 5, 1994, contained several proposals which
it was thought might significantly impact the freight industries, and
hence regional and national economic performance. Since that time, the
FIP has been revised, based on public comment, to more effectively
balance the national objectives of improving air quality and
maintaining economic competitiveness. The currently proposed standard
of 2.0 g/bhp-hr (grams per brake-horsepower-hour) for nitrogen oxide
emissions and the implementation time frame is considered more feasible
by industry.
Freight concerns are likely to play a more prominent role in other
State Implementation Plans now being considered. Recognizing these
concerns, the Environmental Protection Agency recently set up a
government and industry task force to look at various freight and air
quality issues.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 U.S.C. 301, 302, 305; Pub. L. 102-
548, 106 Stat. 3646.
Issued on: August 21, 1995.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-21305 Filed 8-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P