The Clean Trucks Programs at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach has accomplished impressive results, reducing truck pollution by 80 percent almost 3 years ahead of schedule. The industry-supported program reduces truck pollution through the retirement of older, more polluting diesel engines. Since 2008, drayage companies at the ports have purchased more than 6,500 clean trucks to haul freight from the ports, with the majority of new trucks financed through private investment, not port subsidy programs.

In fact, the trucking industry has spent approximately $600 million to finance clean truck purchases, over 10 times more than the Port of Los Angeles has to date redistributed to the program from its container fee collections. Even though the "retired trucks" are permitted to operate everywhere else in the country, the trucking industry has supported their early retirement at the ports, underscoring our commitment to improving air quality in the maritime transportation-container trades sector.

Contrary to what opponents of the trucking industry state, ATA's litigation against the Port of Los Angeles has no impact on the environmental portions of the Clean Trucks Plan. ATA's litigation focuses only on "concession requirements" that the Port of Los Angeles attempted to implement as part of the clean trucks program, such as banning owner operators and other requirements unrelated to the environment and safety.  The Teamsters Union and the Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) falsely allege that environmental improvements from the clean trucks program are threatened because of the employment status of truck drivers. In addition, the groups also falsely claim that ports do not have proper authority to improve air quality under federal transportation law, a point that is rebuked by the significant environmental improvements from the program.

Independent owner-operators are independent businessmen and women who drive a truck that they own or lease. This segment of the industry has hauled the lion's share of freight from the Port of Los Angeles for decades. The Teamsters want to ban owner-operators from the port to make it possible to unionize all port truck drivers, since owner-operators are independent contractors and cannot join a union.

The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in 2009 that banning owner-operators from ports likely violates federal law. The Court of Appeals also rejected the claim from the Port of Los Angeles, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several other groups that a ban on owner-operators was needed to help the port achieve its environmental and safety goals. The Appeals court belittled the Port of LA's position, noting it "see[s] little safety-related merit in those thread-paper arguments, which denigrate small businesses and insist that individuals should work for large employers or not at all."

The Port of Los Angeles and the Teamsters are asking Congress to change federal transportation law to allow local governments to ban owner-operators. The groups hope to change the motor carrier statute enacted in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) of 1994, which protects the trucking industry and interstate commerce from a patchwork of local regulations affecting the price, route, or service of motor carriers.

In a May 5 Congressional hearing on the matter, ATA defended current federal transportation law. A change to the FAAAA is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. Under current law, trucking companies and independent owner-operators are reducing truck emissions at ports across the country. Trucking companies and owner-operators are able to meet the demands of Clean Trucks Programs in today's economic environment, and there is no reason to believe they will not in the future.

For more information Read ATA's April 23 press release Teamsters Mislead Press on Effects of Port of Los Angeles Lawsuit at: http://www.truckline.com/pages/article.aspx?id=702/%7b8E1C7279-ED27-4C03-B189-CEEEE26BBB12%7d.

Motor carriers have endured some difficult times over the past 18 months, but the American Trucking Associations (ATA) believes freight tonnage volumes will continue exhibiting modest growth. Though recovery will be gradual, we expect overall freight tonnage to increase more than 26 percent by 2020, with the modal share moved by truck increasing to 71 percent. The federal government must seriously consider the adoption of more productive trucks to accommodate this large influx of freight demand. ATA supports allowing more productive vehicles - including 6-axle trucks carrying 21 percent more weight than currently allowed - to operate on the Interstate Highway System, consistent with sound engineering standards and safety.

Last June transportation experts from around the world met at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) to discuss a soon-to-be-released study indicating overly restrictive size and weight limits cause the U.S. to lag in truck productivity, safety and environmental sustainability when compared with Europe, Canada, Australia, and Mexico. Bringing our federal regulations more in line with international competitors will reduce logistics costs for businesses and consumers, allowing them to better compete in the global economy. Properly implemented size and weight increases will also improve safety, and reduce emissions.

At present, 6-axle trucks weighing more than 80,000 pounds are used extensively throughout the industrialized world because of their economic, safety and environmental advantages. Many states throughout the U.S. already allow these trucks to operate on secondary roads, and 26 states have grandfather rights that allow them to operate on safer Interstate highways that were designed to handle heavier trucks.

According to UMTRI, class of roadway is the leading factor in truck-involved fatal accidents. Interstates had the lowest accident rate and undivided roads had the highest rate. The UMTRI study also found trucks above 80,000 pounds have a lower fatal accident rate than trucks of less weight.

Our nation's interstates were engineered and constructed for commercial and military use and can handle weights much higher than the current federal restrictions. Interstates are safer than state highways because they are wider, have shoulders, have lesser slopes, and more gradual curves. ATA supports the use of more productive trucks only on roads and bridges that are engineered to handle the load, as determined by State highway departments. By decreasing the number of trucks needed to haul the same amount of freight, more productive trucks lower pavement maintenance costs, mitigate traffic congestion along critical freight corridors and reduce crash exposure.

The Environmental Protection Agency identified the use of more productive trucks as an effective strategy to reduce vehicle emissions as part of its SmartWay Transport Partnership Program. Truck size and weight reform will increase fuel efficiency because fewer trips are needed to deliver the same level of freight. According to the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), a 97,000-pound truck is 17 percent more fuel efficient than an 80,000-pound truck when load capacity is factored in. 

Today's trucks are already delivering essentials more safely and cleanly than ever before.  Truck engines manufactured since 2007 produce at least 90 percent fewer particulate matter emissions than prior engines. Similarly, truck engines manufactured in 2010 produce at least 90 percent fewer nitrogen oxide emissions than prior engines. These advances in diesel emissions control make new diesel trucks the cleanest truck technology available today. Research by the Maine Department of Transportation and ATRI indicates that expanding the federal gross vehicle weight exemptions to additional portions of the Maine Interstate system would allow trucks to be more fuel efficient, resulting in even less particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions.

Professional drivers, company owners and trucking industry experts consistently told the Federal Motor Carriers Administration (FMCSA) at recent Hours of Service (HOS) listening sessions that the current HOS rules are working.

The four listening sessions - in Dallas, Los Angeles, Davenport, Iowa, and Arlington, Va. - were prompted by special interest groups who insist that the FMCSA amend the HOS rules. The current rules are based on a decade of extensive research and analysis and offer an effective and balanced approach to promote driver alertness. Additionally, the government now has extensive data and information from several years of real-world, operational trucking experience since the new HOS regulations took effect in 2005.

The most recent figures from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) indicate that the truck-involved fatality rate in 2008 declined 12.3 percent to 1.86 per 100 million miles, from 2.12 per 100 million miles in 2007. This decline marks the largest year-to-year drop ever and the fifth consecutive year the fatality rate has dropped. Persons injured in large truck crashes went from 44.4 per 100 million miles to 39.6, an 11 percent reduction. Under the new HOS regulations, the rate of injury-causing large truck crashes has dropped 25 percent and the truck-involved fatality rate has dropped 22 percent. The fatality rate is at its lowest since the DOT began keeping those records in 1975 and has dropped 66 percent since that time.

While the current HOS rules are good, the American Trucking Associations believes they can be improved by allowing more flexibility in the sleeper berth provision, in order to encourage circadian friendly sleep and naps. Constraining drivers to one, inflexible option overlooks the individual needs of each driver. Flexibility quickly became the buzzword at each of the sessions as virtually all who testified agreed that use of rest time should not be constrained by a rule. America's Road Team Captain Ralph Garcia, who has driven more than 2.5 million accident-free miles during his 30-year career as a professional driver, said that flexibility is important because professional drivers are more in tune with their body's clock than most recreational drivers.

ATA believes that to better address the true causes of fatigue in transportation, the FMCSA should focus its resources on (1) sleep disorder awareness, training and screening, (2) promoting the use of Fatigue Risk Management Programs, (3) increasing the availability of truck parking on important freight corridors and (4) partnering with the trucking and shipping communities to develop an educational process that identifies for drivers the location of available truck parking.

"When all factors are considered, most freight currently moving by truck would consume more energy if converted to a 100 percent rail move," said FTR Associates' Noel Perry, who authors a report titled Transportation Fundamentals.

By design, the trucking and railroad industries serve very different markets. While railroads excel at carrying heavier, bulk commodities such as coal and stone, America relies on trucks to deliver lower density, higher value goods, like food, clothing, medicine and electronics. "Existing market forces have already done an excellent job of maximizing fuel efficiency by allowing rail and truck to do what they do best," said Perry.

Virtually all freight reaches its final destination by truck and 80 percent of communities rely solely on trucks for freight transportation. Generally, moving goods by railroad isn't even a financially sensible option unless the destination is greater than 750 miles. Given their cost, speed and reliability, trucks are the moving force behind today's supply chains and deliver nearly 70 percent of all U.S. freight tonnage.

In addition to touting the environmental benefits of maintaining our nation's modal mix, Perry said the system does have room for improvement. "Modifying existing truck size and weight standards, which have been frozen in the U.S. for over 20 years, would also improve transport's environmental footprint substantially. Both energy efficiency and safety would be improved by the operation of larger, but fewer trucks."

There is evidence that the pro-railroad advertising tsunami is failing in another way. There's still no indication that "green" is a selling point for America's shippers. The railroads are spending millions on lobbying efforts and advertising campaigns in an attempt to overshadow the environmental advances and cost-effectiveness of trucking, but have yet to prompt a sizable freight shift from trucks to trains. According to Purchasing Magazine, very few shippers say green considerations play a major role in their modal decisions. They simply haven't bought into the hype and continue to base modal decisions on cost first.

"Being green is more of an interesting fact than a decision point," says Tom Jones, senior vice president of supply chain solutions at third-party logistics provider Ryder System in Miami. "It would be fair to say that shippers - especially those in retail and consumer packaged goods industries that are more sensitive to consumer perceptions - are probably considering the environment now more than they did a few years ago, but that it is not yet a driving factor in supply chain decisions."

Jones told Purchasing that shipping companies in the current economy are under such cost pressure they have to select the most cost-effective shipping method. He also said that more logistics providers - especially third-party logistics providers - have developed capabilities to analyze and measure the green benefits of various options and help shippers make the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly choices. "It really isn't about which mode is greener, rail vs. truck," said Jones.

The trucking industry recognizes the value of railroads as part of the freight network. Trucking companies are among the railroads' best customers, placing freight on railroads whenever the distance of travel and nature of the cargo make an intermodal rail-truck freight movement economically viable. However, these opportunities are extremely limited and make up less than 2 percent of the freight market. Each ‘shipping need' must be looked at holistically to determine the best mode of transportation, or combinations of modes, depending on what is best suited to the specific task.

In response to the rising costs associated with inefficiencies in the national surface transportation system, lawmakers and pundits alike continue to promote "travel efficiency" policies to increase the accessibility of transportation options, expand travel choices and reduce vehicle miles traveled. There's no denying the need to continually improve the sustainability and efficiency of our nation's transportation system. However, many of the proposed solutions encroach upon our freedom of mobility and our right to live where we want. Smart growth land-use strategies are simply ways to encourage living in high-density areas offering mass transit, which counters the preferred lifestyles of most Americans. Instead of changing the transportation systems to modify our behavior, we should improve our transportation systems to match people's behaviors and preferences.

Personal freedom is a defining characteristic of the American way of life, making us the envy of others around the globe. Enacting a plan to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a direct attack on the freedom of American citizens, many of whom would never be able to venture beyond the confines of their job or neighborhood if subjected to VMT restrictions. Reducing per capita VMT is also a threat to U.S. productivity. There's a very strong relationship between VMT and our nation's GDP. Instead of limiting mobility, we must focus on improving our nation's crumbling infrastructure, which will alleviate traffic congestion.

While billed as "travel efficiency" policies, congestion pricing and VMT tax (VMTT) are not appropriate means for financing infrastructure, and offer little environmental benefit. In London, home of the model urban congestion pricing scheme, reports show that the program has had little effect on congestion, which continues to worsen. And, much of the surcharge paid by each vehicle for entering the city's center is spent on overhead. Taxpayers can't afford to pay high fees for a dismal return and potential declines in commerce, manufacturing and retail sales. Even the Environmental Protection Agency has called congestion pricing "relatively risky to implement" because people would have to pay for a service they had been getting for free. Many people would rather endure congestion than pay more. Many low-income family bread-winners can neither pay the high fees nor reschedule their work hours to a time when congestion is lowest. Because of this it's hard to predict how much emissions would be reduced.

A VMTT system is no more efficient than a congestion pricing scheme. VMTT is an elaborate, expensive, and environmentally unfriendly solution in search of a problem. In fact, the most efficient VMTT system in use in the world today costs 23 cents for each dollar collected, while a fuel tax costs just 1 cent for each dollar collected. Under a VMTT, a less fuel-efficient vehicle like a Hummer would pay the same tax as a hybrid for the same amount of miles travelled - clearly not the best plan for reducing carbon.

The trucking industry strongly supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make our country more energy independent, but anti-motorist policies will create more problems than they solve. Instead of developing intrusive policies in an attempt to alter behavior and personal choices, our nation's transportation policy must look toward improving our infrastructure and utilizing available technology to create a more sustainable system.

Over a year ago, trucking industry leaders called the nation’s attention to the dangers of text messaging and cell phone use on the road. ATA recommended restricting texting and cell phone use by all drivers. While many trucking companies already restrict their drivers’ use of these technologies, the rest of America is just waking up to the dangers of distracted driving.

U.S. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) acknowledged that distracted driving plagues all motorists, not just commercial drivers. Continuing its leadership on this issue, ATA’s Executive Committee voted overwhelmingly to back Sen. Schumer’s effort to ban texting. His legislation would require states to enact and enforce a law that “except in the event of an emergency, prohibits an operator of a moving motor vehicle from writing, sending or reading a text message using a hand-held mobile telephone” or other personal electronic device. The bill, the Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act, was introduced also by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.).

This legislation was drafted after Virginia Tech researchers found that drivers are 23 times more likely to get into a crash when text messaging. The bill defines a “hand-held mobile telephone” as mobile telephone or other portable electronic communication device with which a user engages in a call or writes, sends or reads a text message using at least one hand. It does not include a vehicle-integrated, voice-activated device.

ATA representatives met with senior transportation officials, elected officials, advocacy groups, law enforcement representatives and academics at the recent Distracted Driving Summit hosted by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in Washington, D.C. There Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that he is pursuing three rulemakings banning or restricting texting and cell phone use by transportation workers. One of the proposals will ban “text messaging altogether and restrict the use of cell phones by truck and interstate bus operators,” DOT said. ATA welcomes the opportunity to work with Secretary LaHood on a comprehensive approach for all drivers.

Driver behavior as the No. 1 cause of vehicle crashes. In addition to restricting the use of non-integrated technologies while the vehicle is in motion, ATA’s progressive safety agenda also includes:

• Uniform commercial drivers license testing standards;
• A CDL graduated licensing study;
• Additional parking facilities for trucks
• Governing large truck speeds at 65 mph or less
• A national maximum 65mph speed limit for all vehicles
• Strategies to increase the use of seat belts
• A national car-truck driver behavior improvement program
• Increased use of red light cameras and automated speed enforcement
• Graduated licensing standards in all states for non-commercial teen drivers
• More stringent laws to reduce drinking and driving

We’re pleased to have the support and leadership of Secretary LaHood and the DOT as we eliminate distractions, improve driver performance and make highways safer for all motorists.

Faced with high fuel prices and a faltering economy, Americans changed their driving habits last year, driving less and slowing down to conserve fuel. This helped improve safety conditions because speeding and driving too fast for conditions top the list of unsafe driving behaviors. Improvements in highway safety also correlate with promoting best practices and increasing drivers' awareness.

ATA encouraged changes to regulations that reduced the number of hours a truck driver can work in a day. Under these Hours of Service (HOS) rules for the last five years, the trucking industry's safety performance dramatically improved. Large truck crash, injury and fatality rates have reached their lowest point since the U.S. Department of Transportation began recording these statistics.

In June, we announced an 18-point highway safety agenda, created by ATA's Safety Task Force. This progressive approach to highway safety focuses largely on the driver, targeting ways to improve performance and behavior, but also looks to create safer vehicles and improve motor carrier performance.

Better education is key. ATA encourages uniform commercial driver's license (CDL) standards and graduated licensing for CDL drivers. On the passenger vehicle side, ATA also supports graduated licensing in all states for non-commercial drivers aged 16 to 19. Studies show a significantly higher risk of accidents among drivers 18 and 19 years old.

Recently, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety released a study attributing 56 percent of fatal motor vehicle crashes to aggressive driving. ATA strongly encourages a comprehensive focus on targeting aggressive drivers of passenger vehicles and trucks. We recommend curbing these aggressive behaviors by instituting a national speed limit of 65 mph and speed governing of all class 7 and 8 trucks at 65 mph or below.

Improving driver performance by eliminating distractions, including those caused by text messaging, will also greatly improve the safety of all motorists. Since October 2008, ATA has advocated for policies that would minimize or eliminate driver distraction caused by using electronic devices while operating any type of motor vehicle. On Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, ATA will represent the trucking industry at the Distracted Driving Summit hosted by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

ATA's safety agenda also supports exploring incentives and penalties that will motivate states to pass primary safety belt laws. Data suggest the trucking industry's focus on encouraging safety belt use is working; figures from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's Roadcheck 2009 indicate that safety belt usage among commercial vehicle drivers rose 22 percent over last year. ATA commends the states of Arkansas, Florida, Minnesota and Wisconsin for passing primary seatbelt enforcement laws this year.

In addition, ATA supports increased national standards for commercial driver's licenses, making testing uniform across the nation; creating a national clearinghouse for positive alcohol and drug test results, providing trucking companies access to a driver's history of failed tests and test refusals; and improved crash worthiness standards for newly manufactured class 7 and 8 trucks.

These policies and the accelerated deployment of advanced safety systems for commercial vehicles will help improve trucking safety. Fleet owners cite high costs as the primary impediment to adoption of technologies such as brake wear monitoring systems, stability control and roll stability systems, lane departure warning systems with blind spot detection, and collision warning systems with adaptive cruise control. Providing tax incentives to make such systems more affordable will help increase their use and reduce crashes, injuries and deaths. Congress is considering legislation to provide these incentives, and ATA encourages Congress to increase the caps on these tax credits.

As an industry, we'll continue pushing for continued improvement in highway safety, but regulations can only go so far. We need a commitment from all motorists.

There is no doubt that the transportation industry must further its commitment to the environment, but impeding our nation's mobility by enacting policies to limit growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) should not be a national policy. Personal freedom is a defining characteristic of the American way of life, making us the envy of others around the globe. Enacting a plan to reduce VMT is a direct attack on the freedom of American citizens, many of whom would never be able to venture beyond the confines of their job or neighborhood if subjected to VMT restrictions.

Instead of limiting vehicle use, we must become more efficient and utilize technologies to decrease fuel use and limit carbon emissions. It's pleasing to see support for a few of the sustainability recommendations already supported by the trucking industry.

Through a strong partnership with engine manufacturers, new over-the-road truck engines far exceed the environmental standards set in 2007. The Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study released by the Coordinating Research Council found that engine models produce 98 percent less carbon monoxide, 10 percent less nitrogen oxide, 95 percent less non-methane hydrocarbons and 89 percent less particulate matter than required by EPA's 2007 diesel engine emission standards. Today, if a white cloth were held over the tailpipe of a new truck, the cloth would remain spotless.

Regulatory policies to limit and enforce speed limits are also important, not only for highway safety, but also for the reduction in fuel use. ATA recommends enacting a national speed limit not to exceed 65 miles per hour and govern speeds of trucks manufactured after 1992 at no more than 65 miles per hour. A truck traveling at 75 mph consumes 27 percent more fuel than one going at 65 mph. Bringing speed limits for trucks down to 65 mph would save 2.8 billion gallons of diesel fuel in a decade and reduce CO2 emissions by 31.5 million tons - equal to a year's CO2 generated by 9 million Americans. Automobile consumption of gasoline would drop by 8.7 billion gallons, with an accompanying drop in CO2 emissions of 84.7 million tons.

Reducing traffic congestion is also vitally important for reducing fuel consumption and carbon emissions. The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that Americans waste 2.8 billion gallons of fuel each year as a result of congestion on our highways. "Lost hours" from sitting in traffic also reduce American productivity.

As we continue to focus on limiting our fuel use and reducing emissions, it is clear that we must have a system for highway infrastructure funding that will effectively support these necessary environmental goals. The federal fuel tax is still the most efficient way to collect revenue for the HTF, but it must be updated to keep up with our current needs. The current tax --18.4 cents per gallon charge for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel -- has not been adjusted for inflation since 1993, yet costs of highway projects continue to escalate with the costs of labor and materials. This is a very poor formula for maintaining a healthy, let alone robust trust fund. The simple answer for increasing trust fund revenue is to increase the federal fuel tax to increase the HTF's purchasing power. The trucking industry supports this increase, so long as the revenue goes directly to highway infrastructure and is not diverted to non-highway uses, as it has been in the past.

Whether it's a fuel tax or other alternative funding methods like tolling or VMT tax, all funding systems require that we pay for our use. Fuel taxes are the least expensive, most efficient source of highway funding available today. At present, 99 cents out of every dollar in collected fuel tax goes to the HTF. Other systems such as VMTT cannot come close to offering taxpayers that efficiency. Only about two-thirds of every dollar collected in a VMTT system goes toward the cost of collecting it.

The trucking industry is deeply committed to reducing fuel consumption and GHG emissions, but these objectives do not have to come at the expense of a safe and effective highway transportation system to move the food, medicine, clothing and fuel we need to live and the consumer goods that make our lives comfortable.