Good afternoon or good morning to those of you to the West. Welcome to the Talking Freight Seminar Series. My name is Jennifer Symoun and I will moderate today’s seminar. Today’s topic is the Freight Elements of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or MAP-21.
Before I go any further, I do want to let those of you who are calling into the teleconference for the audio know that you need to mute your computer speakers or else you will be hearing your audio over the computer as well.
Today we’ll have three presenters – Tony Furst of the Federal Highway Administration Office of Freight Management and Operations, Leo Penne of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and Darrin Roth of the American Trucking Associations.
Tony Furst is Director of the Federal Highway Administration Office of Freight Management and Operations. He directs a multi-level staff, which develops freight policy for FHWA; provides data analysis and decision-support tools for transportation professionals evaluating freight projects; develops and
promulgates professional capacity building programs and training for freight professionals; provides the truck size and weight program guidance and interpretation; and evaluates and promotes freight technology development for national and international deployment.
Leo Penne is the Program Director for Freight Transportation and Economic Development with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). He manages AASHTO’s committees on rail, maritime, trucking, and
intermodal transportation. Mr. Penne is responsible for issues involving freight transportation by all modes and for liaison with industries having significant interests in freight movement and transportation infrastructure. Penne is also responsible for developing and communicating the case for the economic benefits of transportation.
Darrin Roth is the Director of Highway Operations with the American Trucking Associations, where he has worked since 1996.
He serves as a staff manager for ATA's highway policy committee.
The committee has responsibility for setting the association’s policy on, among other issues, trucking industry user fees, highway condition and performance, truck size and weight, and ensuring truck access to a national highway network.
Today’s seminar will last 90 minutes, with 60 minutes allocated for the speakers, and the final 30 minutes for audience Question and Answer. If during the presentations you think of a question, you can type it into the chat area.
Please make sure you send your question to everyone and indicate which presenter your question is for.
The presenters will not be answering questions during the presenting as but I will start off the Q&A session with the questions typed into the chat box.
If we run out of time and are unable to address all questions, we'll attempt to get written responses from the presenters for an unanswered questions.
The powerpoint presentations are available for download on the lower right corner of the screen.
The presentations will be available online the next few weeks with a recording and a transcript. I will notify all attendees once the materials are posted on line. One final note, talking freight seminars are eligible for 1.
5 certification credits for AIC members. To obtain credit, you must have logged in with your first or last name or if with a group of people, type your name into the chatbox. More detailed instructions
and how to obtain your credits after the same are.
For everyone online, download the evaluation form from the file share box and submit it to me after you fill it out. We'll go ahead and get started.
Today's topic for those of White House joined usa is the freight elements for Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century or MAP-21.
Our first presenter is Tony Furst of the federal highway administration office of freight management and operation.
Tony, can you go ahead.
Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you, everybody, for attending today.
We would like to walk you through what we have seen in the senate EPW bill regarding the next authorization, and there are a lot of elements in it this point on another leg up in the program, the nice t, t-21 safety Lou.
Where freight continues to advance and make the presence felt in these national pieces of willing. The first slide, I will walk you through the keystone piece of this bill, as far as freight is concerned,
which is the national freight program and a lot of elements in it. I think in the beginning,
within the content of the national freight program is the policy of the United States to improve the condition of the performance of the national freight network to ensure the national freight network provides a foundation for the U.S.
to compete in the global economy and achieve the goals described below. This is as close as we have gotten to a national freight policy so far and it kind of walks in that direction.
It goes on to state that the secretary shall establish and implement a national program in accordance with the section 2 strategically direct federal resources toward improved system performance for movement of freight on the highways,
including the highway system freight intermodal connectors. Again, the idea is we're going to establish a policy and strategically direct federal resources in support of that policy. Next slide.
The national freight network is composed of three elements. You have the primary freight network, which I will get to in a minute, the portion of the interstate system that are not designated as part of the primary freight network,
and then you have critical freight car door -- corridors, which the states will be able to establish in accordance with the criteria that is lady out within the bill itself. -- lady out within the bill itself.
The primary freight network needs to be distributed by the secretary and can be composed up to 27,000 miles of roadway. It doesn't say they have to be interstate, they're simply roadways that are critical to freight movement.
It could be off the interstate roadways. And then we have the ability to add up to 3,000 miles of roadways, existing or planned, that could be critical to future goods movement. Again, we're not constrained to existing interstate.
The 3,000 miles, the way it reads in the legislation is we may include them but there is no requirement that we do so.
And the primary freight network is to be designated and then redesignated every continue years. Starting in 2015.
The idea is goods movement charges but yet doesn't change on an extraordinarily rapid pace.
Giving us 10 years of breathing space in between the decisions of the primary freight network allows us to adapt the system based upon what we see going forward,
and that gives the authority to change the 3,000 miles to a lot of the work this we have been doing in NCHRP, our scenario planning, for those of you at the freight partnership meeting,
you have a taste of what we're doing in that area and that will help us think through what we will look at for future goods movement. The rural freight corridors are designated by the states,
the thresholds are set within the legislation itself and the states can spend up to 20% of the money for those rural freight corridors
and the funding in the national freight apportion funds must be kind of directed toward the primary freight network, first and foremost. The primary freight must receive funds of portions under the program, all of it
or the lesser of the amount of the primary freight network in the relationship to the rest of the interstate system in the state times the factor. If, for example,
the state received about $50 million in a portioned fund as a result of this and 10% of their interstate system was designated as primary freight network and they would allocate 5.5 million to the primary freight network
and that charges upon the percentage of primary freight network. The objective and the idea is that the monies would be pushed toward the primary freight network, first and foremost,
and flush out the rest of the freight network going forward. Next slide. For funding eligible projects, the state must demonstration the improvement made is to the efficient movement of freight on the national network
and the new wrinkle is that they can spend up to 10% on freight rail
and maritime projects provided that the expenditure of those funds on the rail of the maritime projects improves the performance of the highway system so it's directly tied to the performance of the highway system.
If the cost it put them on into the rail of the maritime side is less than what it would cost to get the same performance improvement into the highways,
then the Delta can be spent to improve the highway system that wouldn't otherwise be available and that objective is the performance of the highway system and the best way to get us there is the way the mops are designed to do
and for those of you again, this represents the core network relative to the comprehensive network this Europeans have put in place with the 10-T. We're looking at the lapsed national highway system, on the next slide,
talks about the comprehensive piece of it. These are the core trunk lines that move through the system. Eligible likes for the projects, basically o the primary freight network
and the portion of the interstate not designated as the PFM and on roads, off of the system, the PFM funds would improve critical movement and access to the highway interstate system. And that -- and along the lines of what is allowed,
the transportation improvements up to the point of the interchange and does not include things like cranes and the like the state can spend up to 10% of the funds and that requires them to come to the secretary
and to ask for concurrence from the department before they can make the expenditures off of the highway system the enhanced highway system works hand in glove request this and this -- glove with this
and this is the comprehensive piece and works with all the connectivity to the trunk lines. The enhanced national highway system is the current NHS and adds all rural and other routes, border crossings in the part of the NHS,
the connectors are applied and&the thresholds for what constitutes the connector is contained isn't NHS guidance and the network and connectors.
What needs to be kind of resolved given this new look is where the national network fits into this and as many of you know, the national network and NHS are not synonymous.
There many places where they're coincidental and many places where where they're not and how this fits into the new arrangement of the comprehensive piece of the NHS
and the core network of the primary freight network is one of those outstanding questions we need to think about. The next piece is the plan and this is an extensive document
and this is going to be a major undertaking in the department and not going to be done win the four walls of the D.O.T. and we would have to reach out and touch base. And, of course, with the transportation industry book, the carriers
and shippers and thinking through the best way to do this and there are a number of federal advisory committees to use the horsepower there and that access to help us think through the puzzle
and some of it would be done in listening sessions and the like. What you see on the list here are a lot of the elements that are included in the plan and a lot of the work is done
and we would then take this through a more public process in talking about how we would establish highway bottlenecks and identify major gateways and freight corridors,
the ideas that the assessment of barriers to improve freight transportation performance and would require us to have conversations with the industry and state D.O.T.'s to best bet that and talk about it.
And the idea of how we would put in place some medical state projects.
You look at the idea we're redesignating the primary freight network and that we're going have the condition and performance planned and this is going to be stitched together so one follows the other logically.
And freight performance management requires the D.O.T. win two years of enactment requires the performance measures for the freight network
and not on the leave all network but the primary freight network.
The states would need to establish performance target that they would be working toward and the states are not allowed to obligate national freight funds until they have established the targets by the deadlines established
and the establishment of the targets is key and the turning key for the states to obligate the funds within the designated and a portion program. It requires the state's to progress towards the target s and they're must report to the U.S.
D.O.T. on a biannual basis, the progress and the absence progress. The state must submit to the D.O.T. by a performance improvement plan and how they're going to get the achievement of the targets they have set.
The next slide is the freight transportation conditions and performance report and this is almost a subset and requires us to put a report out every two years. And how this coincides with the existing performance report
and how it's going to cop side with the establishment and that redesignation, they need to get stitched to together and work together and we have to work on how that is going to get done. And shifting gears, we have significance.
This is in safety Lou. As many of you know, this is here marked and there was no discretion allowed and this time, it's hoped congress will stick to the no earmark philosophy and this will be a project
or program where we can do some evaluation and selection on tighter and this is specifically targeted with those that we compete and with the state and private funds. It's the element that kicks it over the top.
The eligibility is expanded and to allow many players into the game others than the D.O.T.s and that is under the line of the elements that exist with tiger.
Eligible projects move beyond the existing current log that is part of the safety Lou to include transit and that also is eligible for federal financial assistance under title 23 opposed to several grants under title 23
and that opens the door of eligibility to everything currently included in tifia. The project size,
the dollar figure stays the same with 500 million that is dropping the floor to 30% of apportionment opposed to 75% of apportionment which is how it was crafted with safety Lou and there are many criteria to deal with national&scope
and dealing with significant commitment and there are a number of additional considerations that have to be taken into account and not hard and fast, collaboration between states, geographic distribution, et cetera
and those are considerations and not required to be selected by the secretary. He also dropped the federal share from a 80-20 program as it was in current law, to a 50% limitation or on a private facility to the smaller of that
or whatever the public benefit determines to be. The $4 billion that you see here is over the life of the bills and that is a two-year figure, putting us at $2 billion a year and on PNRS,
it's $1 billion those are general funds opposed to highway trust fund dollars and that is something that is basically an eligibility win a number of other programs
and that is not specifically funded anywhere within MAP-21 but Jason's law basically provides this type of project to being included in the transportation ability program.
-- program and the national freight program. The U.S. D.O.T. is required to conduct and periodically update a survey on the parking needs and to what extent we can incorporate that into the strategic and performance reports
and another plan and keeping them together in some cohesive manner, there is something we would have a conversation about and the next one is special promise during national emergencies.
Many of you who -- the governors to maximize the amount of relief supplies and response equipment that shows up when a national emergency takes place
and we have dealt with the blanket waivers where's number of states decide what to give running in direct traction to a lot of the federal requirements, and we specifically asked the state's routinely issue permits for this
and this enables the state to honor visible load limits and not state declared emergency, but nationally declared emergency in accordance with the stafford act
and the states are within balance to issue the permits they need to provide the kind of relief and support to their constituency that they need to
and to do it within the confines of the permit systems to make sure that the vehicles operating on the system can be supported by the infrastructure and not running within the control of the movement and if this is making it through
and we wind up with this in the legislation, there will be no reason to issue waivers for size and weight requirements on the system and they will have that full authority they need to issue special permits during the national emergencies.
On freight research and national capacity building, both the freight research program and the freight professional capacity building program are both within the legislation.
So we have main taped the capacity that we received in safety Lou to go forward with the national capacity program and NCFRP. The last thing here is the freight data and requires everything on the slide
and we will continue to expand the data and the tools we currently provide to the states and to the MPOs to better understand the goods movement across the system and under section 2203, the research and development sib,
it tells us how to spend our research dollars and we have the full authority under the reducing congestion and enhancing the freight mobility section to spend the funds we need to continue to enhance the framework
and freight performance measures.
And the rest of the tools that we have but in place to help us all understand freight movement on the system. The freight program development progress you see here, we would refine the timeline
and that gives us an idea what it would take to implement the action required and that timeline for the action required and this is the framework and there will be a lot-rolemaking and once it goes into the roll-making,
that is a progress and everyone gets an opportunity to comment and for those of you who have worked through that you understand that has to be issued boo to the agency and that is giving everyone an opportunity to get their day
and to voice their opinions. Last slide, the freight program implementation processes, I think a lot of this activity we have a good foundation win the department to go forward with
and the primary freight network can be used as a starting point and if you look at the criteria that use to define that, you will see it has a lot of the foundational elements that are continued
and we have been through this many different times and have a well-established process in D.O.T.
and have enabled us to look at the progress and different elements gluing the part caused and the environmental piece of it and a lot of experience putting together a CMP report and we'll put together the strategic plans.
We will have a lot of work in front of us if even half of this bill makes it all of the way through to the process. It's work we look forward to doing and something we're advocating for for some time
and this bill presents an awful lot of really exciting opportunities for us and we look forward to tackling, even though it will be a ton of work, and search excited about the opportunity to go forward with this thing. With that,
I will turn it over to Leo.
Okay. Leo, I will bring up your presentation. Tony's presentation available for download. Can you get that link after you download the presentation. Leo, I will turn over to you now.
Thank you. Good afternoon and good morning to those of you on the West Coast. I will cover the same territory that Tony covered and that might be good news and bad news. The good news, where we agreed,
that suggests that two people have interpreted something in the same way and where we disagree, that could be that one of us is right and one of us is wrong and there are things, I think, of special interest to the state
and to that state D.O.T. What Tony suggest side useful to the predication of how the U.S. D.O.T.
would manage or administer the element of this proposal, should it be enacted, and then I think there are also matters that either raise issues or create challenges for the state D.O.T.s.
In addition to simply doing a summary overview of the proposal, I will focus on a few of those at the end. What you see on the screen is the general reaction to the passage of MAP-21 by the senate Environment and Public Works Bill.
I will not read it, but John Horsily, the executive director, a positive comment about progress and a piece of legislation that is over two years late and in its eighth extension, and also positive on the general substance of the program.
The general provisions are, of course, important to state D.O.T.s because the freight program is nested in the more general provisions of MAP-21 and I point out the committee passed it 18-0, and in this time and day is important,
a strong performance within the senate committee in terms of getting agreement amongst all of the parties and not only the political parties, but all of the interests and getting agreement on what is a lot of significant substance.
A two-year authorization, current funding plus inflation, consolidation of programs when you count them all from 90 to 30, when you look at the core programs from 7-5. Expedited project delivery performance management
and no earmarks the major programs, national highway performance program, transportation ability program, national freight program, c-map, tifia, projects of national and regionally is cans and federal lands
and tribal -- significance and federal lands and tribal. I mentioned federal lands because I worked for the state of Nevada for some time and for many states, the federal lands program is very important in those states.
It meets an important need. The national freight program. Can I leave to you read the description of it, to support the improved freight movement federal quarter -- for the general purposes of competing in the economy
and to achieve this list of goals which starts with competitiveness, includes reduced congestion, including state of good repair and improved economic efficiency of the freight network. To provide a quick overview,
the MAP-21 freight program includes the national network, it includes funding and eligibility for a wide range of highway projects, but also for maritime and rail project.
It also includes the projects from national regional significance and performance goals provision and the transportation mobility program. The projects must meet certain criteria is constantly improving freight movement,
benefit exceeding cost and that if it is a project on maritime or rail, that it produces a better return on investment than would be an investment in the highway. The National Freight Network and Tony has covered this,
but the decision of at least 27,000 center line miles with the possibility of increasing that by 3 at the -- 3,000 at the discretion of the secretary, based on tonnage old modes,
important point that the network incorporates Maritime waterways, rail in the definition or decision of the network origins, destinations, percentages and armies of truck traffic -- averages of truck traffic
and connectivity to important freight generators. We designated in 2015 and every 10 years critical rural freight corridors to be determined by the state in general arterials that have at least 25% drug traffic
or connect to primary network or interstate for facilities with 50,000 TEU or 500,000 tons of bolt freight per year. The national network per year. The national network and critical rural freight corridors constitute, in general,
the system, the freight system that this piece of legislation would address. The funding beyond my understanding and what it boils down to is 2 bottom plus a year annually
and then state apportionments based on the percentages of primary freight network relative to the interstate mileage in the state. Project costs, what is it that is eligible and it's a very broad eligibility,
which includes the preliminary phases of project, which is important to the states. All facets of capital construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, right of-of-way acquisition, equipment acquisition,
and then a long list of specific items that include, by the way, highway rail grade separation, truck-only lanes, truck parking and then a general provision,
any other activities to improve the flow of freight on the National Freight Network. So, a very broad eligibility for project costs
and it also has a provision that allows for spending preceding the decision of the network that would be grandfathered as freight spending under the program. Where can you have projects? Well, on the primary freight network,
other segments of the interstate off of the primary network and interstate if there is significant improvement. Freight and critical access to the interstate of primary network. Intermodal connectors of the rural freight corridors
and within both public and private intermodals facilities if the projects focused on connecting to the outside. A national freight strategic plan that Tony described which would constitute the framework for the U.S. D.O.T. and win it,
the -- within it, the framework for the states and others as well and on the screen, you see a list of the things to be included in the freight strategic plan. Performance targets, the U.S.
D.O.T. is to establish within two years national quantifiable performance measures for freight movement on the primary freight network and then each state will do the same for its territory.
And then the state must report every two years on progress, and if there is no progress, then the state must provide a description of how it plans to make progress. Forward-looking statements rail
and maritime projects up -- freight rail and maritime projects must demonstrate significant improvement to the national freight network positive benefit cost
and better run to the highway project on a segment of the primary freight network. Other freight provisions, the CMP, the conditions and performance report, the investment data, planning tools, truck parking, which is, as Tony said,
is incorporated in a variety of places, and the mysterious aerotropoles transportation system.
Within a MAP-21, there are other provisions that are important relative to freight, one of them being tifia, which has enough loan guarantee money to leverage, I think, something like $20 billion a year in total project.
Projects of regal significance which, Tony described.
The general planning divisions within which freight reside says and the performance measurements system, which includes the freight performance measures which includes a variety of other performance measures. State issues,
things that mean to me states will want to understand and should this be enacted or something like it be enacted, states will be needing to do or be responsible for and without a lot of elaboration on this, I will simply read the slide.
The decision of freight routes, the states will be consulted in connection with the primary freight system, and they are responsible for the rural freight system or corridors, defining
and selecting freight projects where states are not routinely now doing, quote, freight project. There will be some effort required to figure out what constitutes a freight project
and how you put it into your project selection system in the way that makes sense, makes it possible to actually select freight projects. I should mention, by the way, from the point of view of ASHTO,
the highway program is the freight transportation program and the most important thing to accomplish is a reauthorization with adequate finding for the high program. Within yet,
the freight program offers a focus on freight-specific projects and a great many investments are beneficial to freight movement and to passenger movement. Cross-mode analysis, understanding and comparing investment in maritime rail
and maritime including waterways, relative to highway. Planning for freight is part of the overall planning process and developing, applying, performance measures. Multistate cooperation, ASHTO, in its authorization,
included a proposal for funding, federal funding of multistate freight corridor organizations.
That is not in MAP-21. There is reference to multistate cooperation and where you have significant freight project and recognizing the freight knows no boundaries, multistate cooperation is important.
State-local cooperation here looking at MAP-21 and the allocation of planning responsibilities and the authority between states and locals is important.
That is not something addressed in the freight section but since many of the principle freight bottlenecks or congestion points are in urban areas, figuring out how to make the program work in cooperation between states
and locals is important. So, questions, and most importantly, answers. I am not sure I have the answers and we will turn to questions after Mr. Roth, and I hope people on the call can provide the answers.
I would does ask that state people or for that matter, anyone who is on the line following this or during this webinar -- or during this webinar there are particular items you think we at ASHTO should be paying attention to
or that you want information o please send me a message at that e-mail address.
Thank you, Leo. We will now move on to our final presentation given by Darren Roth of the American Trucking Association.
Thanks, Jennifer. I appreciate the opportunity to present and a word of introduction, ATA is so that the national representative, the trucking industry and we have members in every state and every segment of the trucking industry
and we're generally pleased with MAP-21, they're issues we would like to see changed. Most importantly, we want to see the bill move forward and the long-term funding provided and that am be the best thing for the freight system.
The highway system, as think Leo alluded to, is the freight system and we pay attention to the whole bill and highway program because that is our workplace and we would rely on the highway system to muff our goods
and if you read the various commission reports when you look at the highway D.O.T. needs report, I think there is a general agreement that we're spending about half of what we need to on the highway system to bring it up to
and accept the level of maintenance and to address the congestion problems we're having and the political reality, we should be satisfied with continuing current funding levels, since it was not that long ago,
since the house was talking about cutting the highway program by 1/3 and to bring it down to the level that the highway trust fund could support and we obviously would prefer a higher level of funding for highways, you know, and we,
you know, I guess we'll be satisfied with simply continuing current revenue considering the environment that we're now in the issue we have with that is if we do have a constrained funding level for highways,
we feel it's imperative that the money gets spent in way that targets the most critical project and part of that is avoiding diversion of the money to non-hoe pro-- non-highway projects and programs
and this is the theme throughout my presenting a, I guess -- presentation, I guess, as the soul contributor to the highway trust fund from -- when you look at all freight modes, we tend to be protective of how that money is pent,
and -- is spent and we're concerned about new or expanded eligibility for non-highway projects, including for freight, rail, and Marine transportation projects and that, frankly, dilute the highway program
and takes away from the money that we feel should be directed toward highways. There was a lost discussion about the enhancements program, and I think the recognition that the enhancements program,
given the constrained level of funding, may not represent the best use of the mean, as far as a federal perspective is concerned and an agreement that states should have the option of investing an enhancement
and they did to the bike pads and to the transportation museum to archaeology projects and there's that one could argue should not be a part of the national transportation program
and there is that general agreement within the senate that the set aside enhancement should go away. What ended up happening is the money for enhancements and similar programs got rolled into the c-mack program
and part of that is set aside and enhancements were renamed and moved to a new program and they're still there. The federal standards, we hope, will result in better decision making and including on freight-related projects
and thanks to the good work that Tony and the freight office has done coming up with the freight data. The national amounts of data that has actually gathered through the freight performance management program to allow us to nowhere
and the reaction of the highway system, you know, we now have the tools to be able to do this effectively win the freight program and I think the one thing that, the one component that is from that is the vehicle inventory and use survey,
which gave us a lot of data that would be useful for this purpose and discontinued in 2002, and we would like to see that restored and to that specific program and many available for highways, frankly,
that is a fairly low level of funding and projects out there would cost $4 billion, therefore, we feel this is the money available under this program and that should be better directed and we oppose the 10% satisfied for freight rail
and maritime projects and ports project alt jilt. The highway network that is eligible is expensive and basically various rural highways and we're glad that their is a new core program for freight
and that most of the money will go to highways and given the funding levels, we feel the eligibility this should be narrowed and at most of the national freight network, we would like to see it narrowed more than that
and there is a reality here and to be acceptable and to get enough votes to make it through the committee and congress and wey what -- what we suggest side to separate the program and into two parts spreading around the state
and another part focusing in on the major freight bottlenecks and the challenge is that there is not a lot of money here to be able to do that and somehow,
we need to be able to really take care of other's major highway bottlenecks that are slowing down the movement of freight. On the PNRS, you know, this is, you know, we generally support this program
and we're glad that it's not earmarked as it was in the safety Lou. The critical piece for us is it's currently refunded out of the general fund, not the trust fund.
If it was the highway trust fund, we would have to close it because of the multimodal nature of the program. Of course, the issue there is, you know, congress is having trouble identifying the 12
or $13 billion in additional money to top of what is available and the highway trust fund to keep the program at current levels and with PNRS, general fund mean, that is another bottom dollars that congress is going to have to find.
One of the issues we have with the PNRS approach is that it rolls the dice on whether you're going to get the most important projects. You're relying on the states to submit good projects
and what we would prefer is a top down approach where the feds identify where the biggest problems are and then at least give preps to the projects and there is an opportunity here. The fate program has a requirement for the D.O.T.
to identify highway freight bottlenecks and what we would like to see is a link between that list and PNRS, where the projects get preference for funding. And we need to ensure that the benefit coastlines is robust. I think, you know,
tiger was kind of a similar program and there is some questions as to whether the benefit cost methodology was sound and we hope that in the process of putting this program together,
we get a benefit cost methodology is for decision making on this program. The parking, we support money for truck parking and there is a pilot program, there was n safety Lou, providing dedicated funding for parking
and we prefer this approach, frankly. The map 21 provides eligibility for parking and not as satisfied in our importance has been when the parking has to compete with other priorities.
It generally doesn't get funded and we would, while we like the fact that parking is eligible under the program, we would really prefer a set aside. And finally, the commerce bill was just marked up this morning
and I know there are several amendments and I'm in the sure exactly what is in that bill now. I will take a shot and that does have a freight planning section
and I think some of the language in there will have to be resolved with the planning section, freight planning section in MAP-21. There could be some conflict but it's there
and there is also a multimodal grant program that is similar to PNRS. The original language didn't have hoe funding and that might have been changed to include highway funding. But we'll have to look at the language
and this is something that may have to be worked out or resolved with MAP-21. It's a very similar grant program to PNRS. There is a size and weight, truck size and weight study in the commerce bill which we don't think are necessary
and a lot of -- excuse me experience, a lot of research out there, we don't think that is necessary and this is just a delaying tactic to prevent changes and the size of regulations
and our feeling is that the state should be given additional authority to make appropriate changes. The way the study is written, it will be a huge burden on the resources and it will be an expensive study and we would oppose it
and that is -- that concludes my presentation. I will be happy to take any questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Darren. I know we have a number of questions in here.
I will try to get through them all. A lot of them, I think that probably request any one of the presenters might be able to answer. Let's see. We'll start from the top and these were taken during Tony's presentation.
--tony, I'm not sure if you're the one to answer this them. The question is is there any role for rail. I think this is when you were talking about -- I don't know what section you were talking about at that point.
I think the answer is kind of where were with the eligibility for really projects in the bill, both in PRS and the national freight program and the transportation mobility program provided, of course,
any investments in those modes Wood up with a net benefit to the highway system. These are all directly tied to a benefit to the highway system.
There is no mean for rail other than the benefit for highway and as long as the investments you're putting in there wind up improving system performance on the highways, can you put money into a palea line provided, of course,
that the investments you placed there will cost you less than what it will cost to you get the same system performance improvement planned on the highways and that is what I would say the role for rail is in this.
And then follow up, how would a rail or maritime project need to demonstrate the potential to benefit the highway system?
And I think along the lines we saw, the projects propose today to us in tiger. They would demonstrate the reduction of commercial motor vehicles on the highways by putting the cargo that is moved by trucks on to a parallel system,
which would result in emissions reductions, maintenance cost on the highways, fuel savings and the like and those are quantified to the benefits of the system and the cost to do that.
We have seen a lot of that takes place early in tiger and as Darren inside his remarks,
you really need to refine the benefit cost methodology to make sure that everyone is operating from -- make sure that everyone is operating from the same template and can count things the same way.
I agree with him completely in his part of what it said in MAP-21. We made to -- we need to provide the tools and mechanisms that enable the states and the applicants putting in projects to have a very clear
and definitive cost methodology W. that, I will open it and this is one that they both want to have a bite of the apple on.
Leo or Darren, any thoughts?
I'm happy to just learn. [ Laughter ]
Well, I'm glad Tony agrees with me. [ Laughter ]
The next question is what is the timeframe for the national freight plan?
That is in the legislation itself.
I think it's two years and every five years thereafter, we have to put in place a national freight strategic plan and if you have to go in and take a look at the actual elements of the bill, give me two SECs.
It's not later hap three years after the date of enactment to the secretary and consultation, blah, blah, blah. Put together the national strategic, national freight strategic plan, which shall include x, y, and z.
Which is after the end of the authorization.
Which is after the end of the authorization.
No, not later than three years after -- .
well, yes. Exactly correct. By the time we get this done, the two-year would have expired. You're correct.
And then it says not later than five years after the date of completion of the first strategic plan and every five years thereafter. The secretary shall update. That is -- at three years initially and on a five-year cycle.
What if the state is in the process of establishing performance targets?
Will they need to be redone after the feds establish theirs?
Well, the feds don't establish the -- they establish the performance metrics, my understanding from where this reads. We establish the performance measures. But then the states are the ones that establish their individual targets.
And presumably, the states will be involved in the consultation on the measures.
And that is going to be a very public process.
and states use funds on modal, intermodal and maritime only if they use the measures that establish those modes?
The way the language in the bill is written, it had to do with the performance of the highways. Not the performance of the intermodes. I would think that what Jeff they put in place, whatever projects they had,
there had to be reasonable assurance that whatever freight is moved on to the alternative mode is not going come back to the hoe system after the fact -- highway system after the fact.
If they have to put in place alternate measures to demonstrate and to show the goods stay there, that is one thing. For the purposes of the project eligibility, it's the system performance of the highways
and that is paramount in this bill.
I guess the one exception to that would be PNRS.
True. I'm talking about.
And the trust fund dollars. The PNRS money is general fund.
I believe the next few questions are related to PNRS.
Are applicants till related to governmental EPS or request can private entities apply.
The term eligible applicant means the state department of transportation or the group the state department of transporting a, the local government, tribal government, a consortium of tribal government, transportation agency,
the port authority, planning, other political subdivisions of state or governments or multistate or multijurisdictional group of the a forementioned entities.
It's all public but that doesn't mean the private sector can't partnership with the public entity in proposing a project for PNRS and we saw that routinely and the actual applicant has to be a public enemy.
Can the latest projects be combined to reach the cost requirements and must have each independent utility?
They can be combined. The way it reads for eligible projects for PNRS KIDS,
THE TERM ELIGIBLE PROJECT MEANS A SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT OR A PROGRAM OFANT GREATED SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS CLOSELY RELATED IN THE FUNCTION THIS THEY PERFORM. AND YES, CAN YOU COMBINE PROJECTS.
THEY CAN'T WILL BE ALL OF THE PLACE. THEY HAVE TO BE INTEGRATED.
ANY THOUGHTS OF THE SPECIFIC ELIGIBILITY OF INLAND NAVIGATION, MARINE FUNDING SYSTEM OR FOR NATIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK CONCEPT?
SAY AGAIN, ALONG THE LINES OF what is allowed. There is a 10% in the national program, a 5% transportation mobility. You have a alternative mode, maritime or rail, that can move and improve the performance of the highway system
and then you're there. For PNRS, you stand on your own as Darren noted.
Could funding for new CM include for technology and to enable drivers on board to get better sleep and save money on fuel?
I think there is eligibility for the types of -- in the freight program and in CMACK.
There might be under CMACK. I was thinking under Jason's Law it was a capacity issue and availability of parking issues opposed to the amendments of the parking program.
I agree with Darren that you could look under CMACK to find potential eligibilities and along the line of the question.
I would have to did in and look at that to make that determination.
That is where I would look, though, CMACK.
You have an idea what the network would look like based on saved information? Specifically, what interstate would be considered part of the national freight network?
Hmm. What I would direct you to, Allen s to head to the freight office website and pull down the publication freight story 2008.
In that document, we prototyped the type of analysis talking about within the piece of legislation, where we looked at what's network could look like if we combined all places that generated a more than a million TEUs,
more than a million tons of cargo or $50 million worth of value. When you're talking airfreight, you don't talk value, it's meaningless. Tonnage is insignificant
and you connected all of the freight generators with all major metropolitan areas of a million or more. Along the quarters -- corridors, you move 50 million-tons on an annual basis. That map shows the major freight corridors
and can you look at that in the publication for 2008 and refuel all of the language tanned to the maps and how we construct -- attended to the maps and how we constructed that and those are the thresholds we picked
and can you pick different ones. What if we connected the freight generators or more TEU or 500,000 TEU or population center of 1 million opposed to 2 million?
Where we place the set points is a conversation we're going to have when we talk about the primary freight network x we have the capacity and the data to be able to have that conversation
and to look at what the different networks will look like.
How is the national freight program of MAP-21 related to the freight -- [ Indiscernible ]
I would have to go back and look at the freight -- you have any ideas on that, Leo, Darren?
There have been so many bills I have looked at the last year, I can't recall which elements are attached to which bill. I don't have an answer for you. If you send the information to the website, we'll be able to take a okay at it.
I don't have that off of the top of my head, unless Darren or Leo have.
The outline, the most recent outline of a house bill did not include a freight program. -- program. The so-called overstar build including element of a freight program and that is receded into the rearview mirror and I think, Darren,
at the moment, I don't think that -- I certainly know I don't know what the house think ising about a freight title or freight program.
And the freight act was introduced by the senator Eltonburg earlier this year. Part of that bill was incorporated into the senate commerce mity -- committee bill mocked up today.
And I know that was amended during the mock-up and we don't know what is in there and that does include freight planning language.
As I said in my presentation, you know, some of that is going to conflict with the -- what was in MAP-21.
We saw, as Darren did, a version of I don't -- six months ago of the freight act and my understanding is that it's undergone some significant change, and I have not seen what I assume the commerce committee reported today.
Will the performance measures include environmental measures?
To be determined. I don't have an answer for you. It's not later than two years after the enactment of the section, the secretary and the consultation with the state department of transportation shall publish a role
and make -- the quantifiable performance measures for the freight movement on the primary -- primary freight network and this is going to be a public process, you know, and someone asked earlier,
what if the state is putting in place performance measures, how will that plan to it? States will have a very big voice how we put this together and I can't say yes ory in. We'll find out when we go through the process.
Any thought on what constitutes better return than a highway project on the segment of the primary freight network for the 10% language for maritime and rail?
Again, once we establish performance measures on the system, performance measures are part of the overall MAP-21 construct and then we'll have a better idea of how to quantify the benefits.
I guess the benefits will be established by the performance measures themselves. If you have safety metrics, you have state of good repair metrics, the reliability metrics or potentially a few environmental metrics,
and you can demonstrate how one project will move these metrics farther than with -- than you would with the same amount of money on the highway system, can you put it on the alternative.
The trick is you have to be able to demonstrate the benefit to the highway system and the highway system performance measures, to get access to the national freight -- national freight program funds within the trust fund.
What roles are we seeing of NPOs.
I would examine the same role they have. Probably the construct to the NPO and what is considered a certain size NPO is within the MAP-21 legislation itself. I haven't read through all of the particulars
and I know the checkpoints for an NPO have increased and the ability to aggregate a number of NPOs is available within the legislation. But as far as their role, I don't see it. I might have to go back
and I don't remember understanding that it's different than the role they currently have. Leo v you guys looked at anything within the legislation of NPO roles?
We have. I don't feel competent to speak to it and I think you were right the basic responsibles reman the same and there are -- there are changes with respect to side thresholds
and there are some changes with respect to authority concerning projects within the NPO territory and I think people need to go to the bill or AMPO,
the metropolitan planning associations for insight on that.
We had a comment come in from Ed from the office of -- [ Indiscernible ] State operations. NPOs do have a role of creating performance measures and -- [ Indiscernible ]
Can you talk about the relationship of the freight program community ability?
Well, you know, all I would point to is the eligibilities. The cost, there is, there are eligible project costs to reducing environmental impacts, state movement and national network.
They're eligible across for environmental mitigation and the freight program is designed to make goods and not designed for the issue and everyone understands there are a lot of environmental justice and issues to frat movement
and in some urban areas. They need to be done with the communities and there are eligible costs to the program enabling those accommodations to be made. Specifically, regarding what the projects do,
they're designed to move more efficiently and in a way that is environmentally sustainable.
Do they have to be approved by the commerce committee which has free jurisdiction over the issues?
Not to my handle. I will turn that over to Leo or Darren.
I would imagine the MAP-21ble controls dollars and they operate win their authority.
And I think -- and I think some of what you so with respect to justification for spending on others on highway is language that is attentive to jurisdiction between those committees.
Yeah, the planning process where it involves multiple freight modes is sort of a gray area as far as jurisdiction between the committee's concern.
I think part of the reason for including those provisions in the senate commerce bill was to establish committee, community jurisdiction so that is where you see some discussion between the committees over which language prevails.
I have the next question for Darren. Will or has ATA lobbied for -- [ Indiscernible ]
We have talked to committee staff about it, and I think that it's -- I think they're open to it. It's just a question of finding the resource within the constrained bill to fund it,
and so I would encourage everyone to contact the committee and members of the committee and express your support for it.
Darren, will you explain VIAS?
Sure, I will try. It -- Pacifically what it does, you look at various vehicle configuring as and -- configurations and allow you to -- give you an understanding of the extent to which those vehicles are operating at what weight
and what length, you know, and sort of break out the various types.
Without that information, we 99 general how many miles trucks are traveling and how many miles passenger vehicles are traveling and you can't dig down any further than that. You can tell, you know,
we have information of straight trucks versus semi trailers, for example, but we don't know how many axles on the trucks, how much the trucks weigh. We do take -- but VIAS gives us more information about that
and I am sure Tony knows --en toy knows about it more than I do.
The video inventory and use serve have a is the translator we use to take the tonnage we have in the commodity flow survey and get that by mode and convert that into truck trips
and the video is the translator that allows us to allocate a ton am across a fleet of vehicles -- tonnage across a fleet of vehicles to move to the network and assign that movement to the network.
That is a key piece of how we do the business and we're working off of the extrapolated data off of the 2002 vius, which is what we have, and I great that that -- I agree that that is a key piece of data
and we need the movement around the country.
What is the significance of the 27,000-mile figure?
Again, if you go to freight story 2008, and look at the length of centerline miles that are major freight corridors described, it's about 27,000 miles. I can ole surmise the senate DWP staff made the same publication
and came to the same kind of conclusion.
Is the provision that allows commercial operation, like food services and publicly owned rest areas and parking spaces, re- stated in MAP-21.
I have no idea. I haven't read, that I don't know.
I don't think it's addressed. Therefore, it remains in place. Darren, do you know?
I think that is correct. Yes.
So this -- MAP-21 is an amendment to current law and where there is something in current law not repealed by MAP-21, then it remains enforced.
Regarding dare know's comment on states not seeing funding projects of interstate regional significance, could the corridor coalition's actually make funding provisions or could a greater portion of national funding be withheld
and awarded on the national level -- withheld and awarded on the national level?
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the question, frankly.
Abby, I want some clarification on that.
The latter part of this, could a greater portion of the national funding be withheld and awarded on a -- that is projects of national regional significance. The bottom dollars is the national funding awarded at the national level.
People would compete nationally along the same lines as for tiger for the PNRS money and whether or not they could make funding decision, decisions are applications but the way it's constructed, a state
or a multiple of states could come forward with a number of projects and project to be competitive for PNRS and propose a project. We saw that in tiger.
There were five different states coming forward and I think there were five different states that came forward with the national gateway proposal. Sure, can state comes together as a coalition
and advance projector a group of integrated projects for the complete hold under PNRS? Yes, absolutely they can.
Abby commented and said the I-95 corridor coalition has money to study but no money for projects.
and the member states of that coalition could come together and put forward a project or a series of projects that work as an integrated hole and a number of ways the same states came forward and a number of states came forward
and supported national gateway.
Yes, that is perfectly doable and workable within the current construct.
Is anyone nationally looking at the cumulative effects of the incoming trends of major highways or commercial freight long haul or otherwise? I guess ATA, we're very much aware of, and you know -- of that, and you know,
[audio problems] not the best way to fund the system, you know, it's -- it's for more expensive and, frankly, you know, if you do that, you will see a lot of vehicle, including trucks, moving off the interstates to secondary roads
and we don't see that as a good option.
Where the states are looking at it, a lot of time they're looking at it as a way to tax out-of-state travel rather than their own citizens, you know, whether it's replacement of tolls at the borders
or in some other way locating toll booths to get out-of-state money. Will the expected national state policy be more except wreck or less than the national state funding is?
I'm not sure which expected freight policy abby is speaking to. What we have is what is in the bill and the billa is admittedly focused on the national freight network, which is very highway centric in its approach. Again,
that is addressing highway trust fund dollars. If it was a larger national state policy in place, we would have to see. I would hope if you're going have a comprehensive national freight policy, it would be multimodal. That is,
quite frankly, the way goods move and the system, anyway.
When assessing benefits to parallel highway networks, are new benefits related to proposed actions excluded? Many require maintenance and upgrade viable. The cost benefit
or net benefit is only the incremental value of new highway release and some important projects won't compete very well.
Which is exactly why we need to be clear about what constitutes benefits and what constitutes costs over what period of time. Do you that, what kind of discount factors you use.
I mean we are pushing forward with a lot of different areas regarding benefit costs. We used a lot of that in tiger and, again, to reiterate what Darren said earlier,
we need to make sure they understand what they can cost as benefits and costs and what time Horizon we're talking about.
We addressed the question of how MAP-21 compares to the freight act and the freight focus act. We'll move on and in developing the benefit cost methodology for individual local or regional projects,
how will it be related to the national freight system? Will the overall efficiency of moving freight on a multimodal system from national gateways to destinations be considered?
Efficiency measurement including time, energy, fuel and resources.
Yes. [ Laughter ] That is a lot to consider in one question. There are a lot of different things to look at as we work through this. Conceptually Darren doesn't like the idea.
I happen to think that as long as we're improving the system performance of the highways so that the trucks are moving more efficiently on the freeway, that is end game. How we would get to that
and what we would consider eligible cost and benefits to do that is something we have to work our way through.
We have someone responding regarding a question regarding the commerce committee bills. The coalition of Americana -- Mark's gateway provided the following update this morning.
The approved s-1950 has the following elements of the freight act. The national freight transportation policy, national freight infrastructure investment greats and the freight planning and development. -- grants
and the freight planning and development.
All right, we don't have any questions typed in. We have time. If the operator could give instructions how to ask questions over the phone if someone wants to ask this way.
I would like to remind everyone to ask a question, press tar and the number one on your telephone keypad. We'll pause to compile the Q&A roster.
While we're waiting for that, we have another question typed in.
How do we rectify users need to pay their fare share with modal revenue diversion?
You know, again, the objective is to improve the highway system.
All of the trust fund dollars that are potentially allocated toward alternative modes are directly tied to improving the performance of the highway system. So if the end game is a system that is more responsive and performs better,
and a system that removes goods more efficiently and we can gain those system benefits bow putting money in the alternative mode at a cost that is less than what it would take to put it on the hoe system, then ultimately,
you get what you want plus you have the Delta to spend on the highway system in some other way. Money that you would not have otherwise. Again, it's limited to a small percentage of the overall amounts.
The objective is clearly tied to system performance and doesn't get wrapped around the axle on where on the system the money is spent. It has a broader and more comprehensive objective of system performance.
Yeah, I think from our perspective, the assumption is that mode is more fundable, that -- than, you know, reality because we, frankly, don't see a lot of competition between truck and rail and truck and maritime, frankly.
There is the competition between modes and we don't really see the opportunity for shifting freight 42-from-trucks to those other modes to the extent needed to have some measurable congestion relief.
We don't see that as know e -- an effective approach.
All right, do we have any questions on the phone?
At this time, to ask a question, press story and number one on your telephone -- press star and number one on your telephone keypad. There are no questions at this time. I turn the call over to the presenters.
Thank you. Doesn't look like we have any additional questions.
So, actually, we have a few people that typed in questions. Why does a freight policy have a bottom line of approving efficiency of the highway system as opposed to improving efficiency of freight of the primary objective?
The freight policy in this bill is tied to the highway system. Because this is a -- this is a surface transportation bill and it allocates highway trust fund.
What you will see in here is going to be targeted toward the highway system. In a more broad-ranging policy that deals with multimodes. You probably see something different. I would look at the freight focus act
and the policy in there and you will probably see what it is you're looking for.
Another thing I wanted to mention, back to the question about freight mobility, the talking freight seminar in September 246 year office that topic. If you want to look at the presentations according to that,
can you go to the forward-looking statements website to get to -- the freight website to get to that. With that, I think we will close out for today. I want to thank everybody for attending and thank all three presenters.
The recorded version of today's webinar will be available online within the next point of view weeks and the talking freight website.
I will send out an e-mail once it's available. As a reminder, if you're an AICT member and would like to receive 1.5 certification credits today, make sure you're signed in with your first and last name or with a group,
have someone type your first and last name into the chatbox. For everyone, download the evaluation form and e-mail it to me after you have completed it. The next same are is -- some are is held on January 18th.
The webinar is not available for registration. I would send the notice out once it is and if you're not a member on the list serve, I encourage you to join it.
That is a prime after mechanism for sharing information about talking freight as well as other freight topics. So with that, thank you, everybody, and enjoy the rest of the day and we'll see you in the new year.
This concludes today's conference call, you may disconnect.