Skip to content U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration

Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty (HEP)
Planning · Environment · Real Estate

HEP Events Guidance Publications Glossary Awards Contacts

Talking Freight

Tolling and Pricing

March 19, 2008 Talking Freight Transcript

Jennifer Symoun:
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 Tolling and Pricing. Please be advised that today's seminar is being recorded.

Today we'll have two presenters: Keith Bucklew of the Indiana Department of Transportation and Matthew Fowler of the Georgia Department of Transportation.

Keith Bucklew joined the Indiana DOT as Director of Freight Mobility in November 2006 and is leading the effort in the development of Indiana's Multimodal Freight & Mobility Plan and the I-70 dedicated truck lanes project. Prior to coming to INDOT, he held various senior management positions in operations and safety with several major trucking firms to include Schneider National, Celadon and the LinkAmerica Companies. Also, he previously served as the Director of Logistics for Thomson Consumer Electronics. He is a graduate of Indiana University and holds an MBA from the University of Wisconsin. He recently culminated 30 years service as a Colonel in the Army and Army Reserve.

Matthew Fowler is the Assistant Planning Administrator in the Georgia Department of Transportation's Office of Planning. As Assistant Planning Administrator, Matthew manages 14 transportation planners and engineers and is responsible for transportation planning activities in 99 counties and 9 Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the southern portion of Georgia. Studies of a statewide nature also fall under Matthew's work unit. Matthew is a graduate from Georgia State University's School of Policy Studies with a B.S. in Urban Policy Studies.

I'd now like to go over a few logistical details prior to starting the seminar. 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 smaller text box underneath the chat area on the lower right side of your screen. Please make sure you are typing in the thin text box and not the large white area. Please also make sure you send your question to “Everyone” and indicate which presenter your question is for. Presenters will be unable to answer your questions during their presentations, but I will start off the question and answer session with the questions typed into the chat box. Once we get through all of the questions that have been typed in, the Operator will give you instructions on how to ask a question over the phone. If you think of a question after the seminar, you can send it to the presenters directly, or I encourage you to use the Freight Planning LISTSERV. The LISTSERV is an email list and is a great forum for the distribution of information and a place where you can post questions to find out what other subscribers have learned in the area of Freight Planning. If you have not already joined the LISTSERV, the web address at which you can register is provided on the slide on your screen.

Finally, I would like to remind you that this session is being recorded. A file containing the audio and the visual portion of this seminar will be posted to the Talking Freight Web site within the next week. We encourage you to direct others in your office that may have not been able to attend this seminar to access the recorded seminar.

The PowerPoint presentations used during the seminar are available for download from the file download box in the lower right corner of your screen. The presentations will also be available online within the next week. I will notify all attendees of the availability of the PowerPoints, the recording, and a transcript of this seminar.

We're now going to go ahead and get started. Today's topic, for those of you who just joined us, is Tolling and Pricing. Our first presentation will be given by Matthew Fowler of the Georgia Department of Transportation. As a reminder, if you have questions during the presentation please type them into the chat box and they will be answered in the last 30 minutes of the seminar.

Matthew Fowler:
Thank you, Jennifer. I am Matthew Fowler with the Georgia Department of Transportation's Office of Planning, to present on some of the findings from our recently completed truck only lane for the state of Georgia. We begin with Freight is Growing, incredibly in Georgia. We project a 260% increase in tons moved between 2004, the base year of study and 2035, the horizon year of the study. Interesting fact is truck traffic is growing twice as fast as car traffic in the state. Of the freight moved in 2004, 86% was moved trucks.

Knowing all this, the Georgia DOT boards of directors instructed us to study the value of truck only lanes. One of our primary questions was to determine if truck only lanes reduced peak area congestion, should we build them, how much would they cost and what are the benefits. The ground rules, one is they follow existing freeway alignments, no new location. We assumed the roads would be free, non-tolled, and the use would be voluntary, to determine the demand for the routes.

The study area on the left, you see the state of Georgia and all freeways, interstate and non-interstate highlighted in blue. We studied all roadways around Savannah. The map on the left, the darker gray area is metro Atlanta, the northern portion of the state.

Some basic data collection inputs that went into the study include traffic volumes for all vehicles, truck traffic volumes, congestion levels with the existing and future years, destination and origin surveys, establishment surveys, identified freight bottleneck locations and major freight generators.

Here we have traffic volumes for all vehicles for the year 2004 on the left and 2035 on the right. Anything highlighted in red indicates freeways where we experienced 120,000 vehicles per day in the year 2004. Forecasted on the right is year 2035, anything in red, locations where we have in excess of 120,000 vehicles a day. You see the volumes are extending much further outside of metro Atlanta within the next 30 years, not surprisingly.

This next slide speaks just to truck volumes. The slide on the left, again, is the base year, 2004. Anything highlighted in red, the locations where we have truck volumes in excess of 30,000 trucks per day. As you see, we have one location in the state as of 2004 carrying 30,000 trucks per day and that is between metro Atlanta, traveling South down I75 to Macon, which is in middle Georgia. On the right, the location in the year 2035 where we forecast truck volumes in excess of 30,000 per day. You see the truck traffic extending to most of the state of Georgia's interstates.

The next slide speaks to the origin and destination surveys we completed. The Atlanta MPO, which is the Atlanta Regional Commission, was also conducting a freight plan for the Atlanta region while we were doing our truck lane study for the entire state. We partnered to share data back and forth, set up the survey, in conjunction and we collected approximately 5600 surveys at the locations you see on the map, and set up at weigh stations, truck stops, intermodal facilities and the major ports.

The next slide here is information as of April 2007 when we first presented this to the Georgia DOT board of directors. On the map any location highlighted in orange shows where we anticipate having in excess of 30,000 trucks per day by the year 2035. Any locations highlighted in yellow, where we expect to have levels of service of E or F by the year 2035. The green locations you see identify major through travel movement; so along I75, 85 to the North, 20 and 95.

The red dots identify major truck generators. The yellow dots identify freight bottlenecks. Once we have this data we identified our candidate corridors on this map anything highlighted in red are freeways that made it past the initial cut to further study for truck only lanes, freeways, highlighted in blue, did not meet the initial criteria and were ruled out for further exploration of truck only lanes.

We took our highest performing corridors, the red ones you see on your screen there, and further studied those, grouped into logical systems, which primarily focus on metro Atlanta. System one you see on the left side of your screen comes down I75 from North of metro Atlanta to I285, our loop highway around the city, continues down 75 to the South with a stub going out I20 to the west to an industrial area. System two is very similar to system one, but we follow a different interstate alignment on the South side of the city, interstate 675.

System three is everything in system one, plus the rest of I285, our loop highway around the city, and I85 North. System four is, again, I75 North and south of town, our loop highway on the North and East side of the city, and I85 North.

For each of those systems we went through, studied the traffic flow and speeds, traffic volumes, and the benefits and costs for constructing two truck only lanes in each direction on each of those routes.

This slide here, you see for each of the systems, each of the four systems, one through four, in red we list general purpose lane travel speeds in the year 2035, and the afternoon peak period if truck only lanes are not built, with all of those systems the speeds are right around 20 mph, general purpose lane speeds.

If we build truck only lanes, speeds in the general purpose lanes would increase on average about 10miles purpose hour, from 20 to 30, in the afternoon peak period. In the green bar, shows the truck speeds traveling in the truck only lanes, and trucks in those lanes would travel at about 45miles per hour. Our daily traffic volumes for each of the systems, the green bar lists the average total general purpose lane volumes if truck only lanes are not built, around 150 to 170,000.

The blue bar indicates general purpose lane volumes if truck only lanes are built. The yellow bar equals truck only lane volumes. So blue plus yellow equals our build scenario. You see for each of the systems the corridor would carry an additional 40 to 50,000 vehicles per day if truck only lanes were built.

Here we have broken out just the general purpose lane traffic volumes, for the year 2035. Green indicates general purpose lane traffic volumes if truck only lanes are not built. Blue equals general purpose lane traffic volumes if truck only lanes are built, and on average, general purpose lane volumes will decrease by approximately 5%.

Our trucks shift to the truck only lanes, approximately 40 to 50,000 do; however, the freed-up capacity in the general purpose lanes would quickly be consumed by latent demand, general purpose lane congestion, one of the main purposes of the study.

On the left, the benefits in blue, and project costs in red, for each of the four systems you see that project benefits do exceed the costs. However, in the graph on the right, we see that trucks during peak periods represent about 6% of the traffic on metro Atlanta interstates, and the benefits associated with constructing the truck only lanes would primarily accrue to the trucks, which again, about 6% in the peak period travel times.

System three yields the greatest benefits, not surprisingly it's the largest, has the largest cost, complete, comprehensive network on the highways around Atlanta. Would cost about $13 $15 billion in current year, $22 billion in future dollars phased over the next 20 years. It's interesting to note $13 billion represents about 14 years worth of Georgia's national highway system, interstate maintenance, and surface transportation program funding.

Some of our findings related to traffic flow and speeds, truck only lanes increase peak period speeds by 10 mph, and substantial improvement are consumed by motorists attracted from the arterials.

Trucks are not our largest customers in these corridors. On a daily basis trucks average 10 to 15% of traffic volume in the interstate. During the peak period travel times trucks average approximately 6% of the total traffic volume, meaning Atlanta closely mirrors national trends, cars dominate travel in peak travel periods, and truck only lanes result in only minimal reduction in general purpose lanes.

Benefits and costs, benefits do exceed costs, however the primary benefit is to the 6% of trucks traveling during peak periods, when congestion exist necessary Atlanta. Other motorists do to recognize significant and direct benefits.

study conclusions, to not pursue standalone truck only lanes. This is because the truck only lanes would provide direct benefits for trucks, which comprise approximately 6% of metro Atlanta's peak period traffic on the interstate system. Vehicles in the general purpose lanes would not realize direct and significant benefits. Truck only lanes do not significantly reduce congestion and it's important to note that truck only lanes are not the only strategies to address truck traffic.

Our next step, presently Georgia DOT, is managing a managed lane system plan, to explore all managed lane options, HOV, HOT, TOLs, truck only tolls, express toll lanes, combination thereof, in order to serve all of our traveling customers. Findings from the truck only lanes will feed into the managed lanes system plan. And we anticipate realizing greater benefits from customers, with the managed lane system plan and we are working with the metro Atlanta transportation planning partners in developing the plan.

The final slide lists our website, www.gatrucklanestudy.com. At this website you will find all of our completed reports to date. The final report is about a month off and will be posted on odd that site once completed. I will turn is it back to you, Jennifer.

J. Symoun:
Thank you. I went ahead and put the URL in the chat area for everybody to see. Thank you to those who posted questions. We will address those at the end of the seminar. We will move to the next presentation given by Keith Bucklew of the Indiana Department of Transportation.

Keith Bucklew:
Thank you, Jennifer. During the presentation I will discuss the essence of the I-70 project; the purpose of the project, and will describe our vision for the I-70, where we are in the process and where we are going.

Most, if not all of you, already know about the corridors of the future program. I will only highlight a few key points. The focus is to reduce congestion, also enhance mobility and improve safety. I-70 is one of six projects in the corridors of the future program. We have been authorized funding to initiate the feasibility study.

This slide lists our expectations for this project. Having expedited review, approvals, is important to reduce time and maintain momentum throughout the life of the project. The focus on efficient environmental review is timeliness, obviously we can't afford to let it drag out, but for a project of this size we know it will require a lot of effort.

Funding is both a major objective and a major concern. So we must be innovative with financing. In year 2,020dollars the estimated cost of the I-70 dedicated truck lane project is $32 billion. The I-70 begins at the western edge, at I-435 in Kansas City, Missouri, extends to the East at the border of Ohio and West Virginia. The corridor is 800 miles in length.

Tactically, the dedicated truck lanes focus on these three goals, reduce congestion, enhance mobility and improve safety. Strategically this is a multimodal corridor that will allow the Midwest to better blink to the global network and national and global markets.

This slide, and the one that will follow highlight the purpose of the I-70. Congestion relief affords everyone more time to do important things. We will incorporate intelligent technologies, proper use of IT complements or acts as a multiplier to how many people today just would view this project as another interstate project. It's not an interstate on steroids, it's a new we see this as a next generation commerce corridor.

This project supports the economy as a vital link in the global supply chain. Information management, another key multiplier to enhance efficient operations, and for information to be effective it has to be timely, accurate and relevant, for operators to make decisions.

The key facet in safety is separation. We all know what happens when 80,000 pound becomes and autos make contact. These objectives are listed as secondary, but are highly important. We expect economic development to occur, but the caveat with that, is it would be in selected areas.

Motor carrier productivity is a key facet for a win/win solution with carriers. To get carrier support they have to have the productivity gains from a project like this. Large production vehicles will have increased weight limits, and longer trailer combinations. The societal impacts must be minimal, and we do this by limiting truck access and developing a real plan for truck parking and staging yards and connectivity to the other transportation modes.

We improve security, both tactically and strategically. Multimodal integration is a key enhancement that boosts the I-70 as a next generation facility. We need for all modes of transportation to complement each other. I will speak more to this point in a later slide.

This 800 mile segment is characterized by the fact that over 35% is considered urban. It's in these urban areas we have our greatest need and the best opportunity for congestion relief, enhanced mobility and safety.

Later on, not in this presentation, but as the project goes on we will talk philosophically about where you begin on a project like this. You look at the interstate system, physically they began building in the rural areas, connected in the urban areas. In this situation, we look to do just the opposite. Start with the urban areas where there's the greatest need, although it poses some problems because it's the greatest cost.

Several connecting major road ways, as you might expect on an 800mile corridor, there's a couple of these, I-65 and I-75, and I-75 was mentioned by Matt in the previous presentation. Both of these were identified by the reason foundation as candidates themselves for truck only lanes. I-65 runs from Chicago, through Indianapolis, Louisville, goes through Detroit, major Ohio metro areas, Toledo, Dayton, where Matthew mentioned, Atlanta, very lengthy corridors of themselves, also high volume truck routes.

I will come back to the importance of multimodal integration and connectivity. There are several major air cargo facilities along this corridor. The one I am personally most familiar with is the Indianapolis International Airport, the seventh busiest air cargo center in the U.S., driven primarily by FedEx. In the Ohio area, Columbus Rickenbacker and Dayton International also move a significant amount of air cargo. Two large air cargo facilities in Kansas City, as well as Lambert Field in St. Louis.

There are intermodal facilities that require connectivity and many of you know about the Columbus intermodal facility that Norfolk southern has at Rickenbacker, others at St. Louis and Kansas City. The point about connectivity to these is that with all of them there's about a five to 10mile gap, there are issues there. Dedicated truck lanes cannot end at the bottom of the ramp. The exit ramp cannot be the terminal

Then water transportation, on our inland water way system is essential for the movement of bulk commodities, agricultural products, specifically grain and fertilizer. I want to point out the port of St. Louis is the third largest inland water port in the U.S. Through that there's a significant movement of petroleum, chemicals, and grain. Again, connectivity is extremely important.

This is federal highways truck flow projections for the year 2035. Many of you have seen this before. It clearly shows the growing problems in the urban areas. This brings us to the philosophical juncture, greatest need in the urban areas, but also the most costly.

It's the urban areas highlighted here, where the business case can be made for truck only lanes. This projection is only 22 years away, so in infrastructure lingo that means tomorrow.

The need for improved safety on the I-70 corridor and safety is one of the major objectives. It's not indifferent to many of the other major corridors in the country. Studies by the National Safety Council show crashes involving commercial motor vehicles are primarily caused by passenger autos. Separation of trucks and cars can save lives and reduce injuries.

Here's another depiction of congestion in the year 2030 along the I-70 corridor. When I think of this, if it were a weather map, then the red portions would be major storm activity. The good thing about storm system that they go away by themselves, and congestion does not. Separation of trucks and cars as a solution enhances both safety and mobility. Of course, when we are talking first about the lanes of travel, having the trucks and cars separated, we are also talking about their access to the facility, with segregated ramp and interchanges.

This is a modified photo provided by the Missouri DOT along a rural stretch of I-70.

We will plan to incorporate the best of the existing technologies, and I don't mean existing just today, those that will exist in the future. Currently there's a lot of technology available, traveler information, weigh in motion, we're one of, Indiana is one of five states testing weigh in motion. Possibly vehicle infrastructure integration. No doubt, electronic tolling, and wireless vehicle and operator inspections. But the focus on technology, because in 2008 we have to be looking forward at new technologies which are not available today, but in 20 or 25 years they will be.

Some information that I came across recently that I will just share with you while I am on this slide, which denotes we must incorporate technology to boost capacity, reduce congestion and enhance safety. I learned this from the railroad folks, this information is from the rail study for the AAR, folks at Cambridge Systematics, others, put this together, but you look at a, on a single rail line, single track rail line with no IT enhancements, you can support about an average of 16 trains a day. We're talking about multiple train types, automotive, bulk, intermodal, general products, altogether, average 16 a day on a single rail line.

With centralized traffic control systems, the same single rail line, capacity almost doubles to 30 trains per day. Similarly, with a double track rail line with no IT enhancements, an average rail can move about 28 multiple train types per day. With IT, in the form of centralized traffic control systems added, capacity almost triples, 75 trains a day.

When we look at our project, you look at, together, when talking about additional/dedicated truck lanes and the IT solutions coming together to complement each other, you have a multiplier effect.

This is what will help our project to make this as a next generation commerce corridor.

This is a concept, a sketch of urban typical section of what the route may look like. The middle drawing is the one I want to focus on, highlighted by two truck lanes in both directions of travel, separation shown by the barrier or retaining walls. In the rural section, although it just shows grass medians, we envision as a minimum we would incorporate some sort of barrier or separation system, it could even be possible one of the cable arresting systems that exist today, or something else in the future.

This drawing gives us an idea of how an interchange may look.

The key here is segregated interchanges. Once again that enhances safety and mobility. I want to point out for large production vehicles to reap their full benefit, we have to go beyond something that's this simplistic. It will involve the states working with the local communities to permit the movement of longer combination vehicle and heavier weights beyond the bottom of the rams. Longer and heavier trucks need the flexibility to move the short distances, the one to maybe 10 or so miles needed for connectivity to facilities, terminals and intermodal yards.

I am nearing the end of my presentation, so where are we? First, we are formalizing the coalition with the development agreement. We are working the draft development agreement now, we are on track to finish that in about four weeks. Then next we will execute an MOU among the coalition states to delineate how the states will accomplish the objectives of the corridors of the future program. We expect to have the MOU finished by the end of June. Concurrently with the development agreement and MOU we will be formalizing the project as well as identifying stakeholders. Then also concurrently with all those activities we are preparing the feasibility study RFP. We plan to post the RFP in June and hopefully select a consultant by July. Our expectation is that the feasibility study should take approximately 18 months.

We know there's going to be some muddy water in this project. Throughout the four states there are different political climate and different financing viewpoints. The feasibility study will be our guide as we navigate through the many issues we are going to face. The cost of the project mandates innovative financing solutions. How we choose to implement, particularly in the urban areas, will greatly affect environmental and political issues. The standardization of size and weights, for this to be a true corridor, they have to be standardized for carriers to operate efficiently. Then regardless of how we proceed we will have to acquire some real estate, no way around it.

Internally and over time, maintaining a cohesive group will be important. Standardization is important, a carrier of any type of freight transport should be able to operate Illinois, just as in Ohio. Truck parking, a national problem, not unique to us as everyone knows. Once again, the states must have a way, everybody needs to come up with some come to grips with this, not just in this corridor, motivating communities to accept truck stops. You need to permit the expansion of existing facility and new facilities. Whether this activity is a public or private issue, that will generally boil down to who is better able to provide the needed services to the carriers.

My web page is provided here on this final slide for those who want to read more, or more in depth.

J. Symoun:
Thank you Keith. And to those who posted questions. I will bring back up the introductory slide with the contact information and we will get started with the Question and Answer session.

I will start with the questions typed in. Once we get through those if we have time I will hope the phone lines for questions. Keith, we will start with the questions for you since you just finished your presentation.

The first question, can you please clarify your comment on that you are one of five states that are testing Weigh-in-Motion or Virtual Weigh-in-motion?

K. Bucklew:
There are five states using technologies that I am aware of. There may be more at this point. This was information as of 2007. We are using existing technologies to use weigh in motion for commercial trucks.

J. Symoun:
Can you discuss the pros and cons of going through versus bypassing urban areas?

K. Bucklew:
Wow, that's a loaded question. Could be a lengthy one. Obviously, when you are going through urban areas acquisition of additional real estate is extremely expensive and politically charged issue with what you have to displace if you are going to add extra width for truck lanes. Obviously when you bypass you still have some problems there, but in acquiring new rails for bypass situations it's just not as costly or as politically charged, although a green fields type project has a tendency to bring about the not in my backyard opposition and we would be wise to expect that.

J. Symoun:
Is tolling on the I-70 going to be used as a way to generate the large amount of money needed to build the project?

K. Bucklew:
The short answer is maybe. The feasibility study will bring that out, but obviously a project of this magnitude, I think one can reasonably determine that it probably will not be able to be accomplished with the existing funding mechanisms we have today.

J. Symoun:
Moving to questions fore Matthew now. The question was, I believe referring to one of your charts. Are these passenger car equivalents or actual vehicles?

M. Fowler:
Most of the data is passenger car equivalents, you see the classification counts.

J. Symoun:
I will move on, the next question for you is did you consider the potential safety benefits of separating truck and passenger car traffic?

M. Fowler:
We did consider that. We didn't find a good concrete way to go through, weigh all of that information. However, we did consider it. We also looked at the safety rates, found that on average trucks represent about 14% of the traffic on the interstate systems statewide, involved in 16% of all accidents, but involved in 38% of fatal accidents. While trucks are not disproportionately involved in any more accidents than we would thing, they are disproportionately involved in fatal accidents. We equated that into the study in the benefit section.

J. Symoun:
Okay, another question I will direct to both of you. For other corridors considering tolling, how should a technical formula be developed that addresses truck diversions due to price sensitivity.

M. Fowler:
In our study, we did not look at tolling, the effects of tolling, diversion, I am not sure offhand. We will be considering that in our managed lane system program, though.

K. Bucklew:
I can't answer a lot differently. We expect diversion to be a factor in this. Once again, our feasibility study will bring this out.

J. Symoun:
Matthew, I think this is for you, but Keith jump in as well. Did you consider the environmental benefits in your study?

M. Fowler
We did, at a very high level. This was a high-level scan primarily, identifying sensitive populations along there, known historical and environmental resources.

It was listed for one of the objectives of the I-70, obviously talking longer combination vehicles inherently you will have less impact environmentally on, considering fuel burn versus tons of freight moved.

J. Symoun:
I don't see other questions typed in, Keith or Matthew, are there questions typed directly to you I might have missed?

Presenters:
I don't have any, Jennifer.

J. Symoun:
Okay. We will open the phone lines to see if anybody has questions on the phone. If it anybody wants to type in a question, please feel free to go ahead and do so. Angie? Can you give directions?

Operator:
If you would like to ask a question press star 1 on your touchtone phone and records your first and last name. To withdraw your question press star 2. To ask a question press star 1. One moment for the first question.

It looks at this time as though there are no questions on the audio portion.

J. Symoun:
In the meantime another question came in, in the chat. Matthew, why was tolling not considered for the Georgia lanes project?

M. Fowler:
We were trying to determine just pure demand before moving forward with determining any implementation strategies.

J. Symoun:
Did you look at the use of Prepass locations and port of entry locations?

M. Fowler:
As far as access to the system, no, we did not.

J. Symoun:
Well, don't see anything else typed in right now. If anybody does think of anything feel free to type it in, but I will start closing out. Again, if you think of questions, you can email the presenters or send them to the Freight Planning LISTSERV. We will end a little early today it looks like. Thank you to both presenters.

One more question just came in. Did you disaggregate the total truck data to disaggregated to single and combination unit truck data during cost-benefit analysis?

M. Fowler:
No, we did not.

J. Symoun:
How many actual truck data points did you have in the Atlanta region?

M. Fowler:
I am not sure exactly what they mean by truck data points. We had a lot of different information used for the study, including specialty counts we did, part of Georgia DOT's annual coverage count program, and part of our automatic traffic recording devices as well. Then we also used the Atlanta MPOs model and the statewide model which had trucks in there as well. I hope that answers somewhere.

J. Symoun:
If clarification is needed, please type that in. Did you determine the commodity by truck type in the surveys?

M. Fowler:
We did ask the truckers what they were carrying, however we had some success in getting answers, some of the truckers weren't sure what they were carrying.

J. Symoun:
Thank you. That's all I see for now. I will continue with the close out. The recorded version of this event will be available within the next week on the Talking Freight website.

The next seminar will be held on April 16 and will be about the Commission Work and the National Freight Policy Framework. If you haven't done so already, I encourage you to visit the Talking Freight Web Site and sign up for this seminar. The address is up on the slide on your screen. I also encourage you to join the Freight Planning LISTSERV if you have not already done so.

Enjoy the rest of your day!

Updated: 03/29/2011
HEP Home Planning Environment Real Estate
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000