Missouri seems intent on moving forward with truck-only lanes on Interstate 70. As I’ve previously written, the idea of a truck-only lane is a positive step in the right direction.

It separates trucks from cars and at the same time would presumably improve safety. As we know, many accidents involving trucks have more to do with automobile drivers who are just not skilled or knowledgeable when it comes to driving in and around trucks. This would eliminate that problem. Plus, truck-only lanes could speed commerce, which of course, could lead to lower consumer prices.

According to Missouri Dept. of Transportation project manager Bob Brendel, the idea has received favorable reviews. “We have talked to very few people who don’t like the idea,” he told the Joplin Globe. According to Brendel, about 10,000 trucks a day use I-70. That figure is expected to jump to 20,000 by 2030, according to the Globe.

A few months ago, Missouri, along with Illinois, Ohio and Indiana, entered into an agreement to use $5 million in federal funds to study the idea. The study says the cost of a truck-only lane would be as much as $4 billion. The question now is what next? Finding funding in these difficult times is not easy. And as much as the public likes any idea, views change once it impacts tax rates.

The solution, though, is simple.

Truck-only lanes could provide a massive safety enhancement for this country’s infrastructure. As the Obama administration considers delaying the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, or more commonly called the highway reauthorization bill, so they can “get it right,” then we should get it right. Put the money necessary to fund this project in Missouri into the next highway bill so the taxpayers in the state don’t have to fund the project themselves. Then, if the project proves successful, the government will have a true blueprint for safety to use when it’s time for the next highway bill, perhaps in 12 years.

The next chapter in the FedEx Express and UPS battle has gone to the U.S. Senate. The Senate is set to take up its version of the FAA Reauthorization bill – a version which does not include the controversial language to reclassify FedEx Express employees under the National Labor Relations Act.

The House version, H.R. 915, does include that language and has created quite a stir from both FedEx Express and UPS. The two package-delivery giants are battling over the insertion of the paragraph. FedEx Express’ argument is that it is an airline and is rightly classified under the Railway Labor Act. UPS and its supporters have countered with the argument that when FedEx Express packages are delivered to the door, that job is being performed by a driver executing the same duties as a UPS driver, who is classified under the National Labor Relations Act.

The real argument is over unions. Under the Railway Labor Act, a union must recruit the entire organization of a company at once as opposed to the Labor Relations Act which allows unionization on a facility-by-facility basis.

FedEx immediately attacked the language in the House version of the bill. A web site, brownbailout.com, was set up to disseminate “the truth” as seen through the eyes of FedEx. FedEx has claimed that the language is nothing more than a government handout to UPS that will make FedEx Express non-competitive due to rising costs.

UPS has responded as well. According to Business First of Louisville, a Washington, D.C., public relations firm representing UPS is helping the company’s employees write letters to Congress. UPS is compensating the employees for time spent writing the letters, which are based on a template supplied by the company, Malcolm Berkley, the public relations manager, told Business First.

So where do we stand today? While the Senate version doesn’t include the language, when the two bills are merged, you can bet this will become a hotly contested issue. Whether it ends up in the final bill sent to the president remains to be seen, but it probably should, in my opinion.

The other day, a headline came across my email: “N.D. keeps stimulus funds in reserve.” The story, in the Bismarck Tribune, says that due to the uncertain times, North Dakota transportation officials have decided to hold back about $78 million of the state’s $170 million in stimulus funds in case federal funding comes in short in 2010.

Good idea? Maybe. But wasn’t the $787 billion stimulus bill supposed to help get America back on its feet? The article goes on to say that some states, such as Maine, had spent 100% of its stimulus dollars to date while others, like Nevada, has used only 35%. How is America going to get out of the economic doldrums if states don’t spend the money the way it was intended to be spent?

From the article: “Because our economy is in fairly good shape, we didn’t want to have a huge bubble of projects this year and then go back down to who knows how much next year,” said Scott Zainhofsky, a planning and programming engineer for the Dept. of Transportation.

I have an idea. If North Dakota is in good enough shape that the state doesn’t need this money right away to “stimulate” the economy, then perhaps the unused portion can go back to the federal government so it can be used in an area that really needs it.

T. Boone Pickens is at it again. The entrepreneur, who is a proponent of wind power and alternative fuels, has thrown his support behind the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act, introduced into the U.S. Senate by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

The bill is designed to promote natural gas through the extension of tax credits for vehicle purchases, including trucks, and infrastructure improvements by 10 years. The bill provides credits for 80% of the price difference between a natural-gas only vehicle and a non-natural gas equivalent and 50% credit for a vehicle that can run on natural gas or gasoline.

According to Bloomberg News, the credits could amount to as much as $12,500 for passenger cars and light trucks, and $64,000 for trucks.

Pickens told Bloomberg Television he thinks the bill will pass right after Congress’ August recess.

“We saw last summer how the wild fluctuations in oil prices helped to wreck our economy,” said Menendez. “By making it easier and cheaper to own a vehicle that runs on natural gas, we can help families save money on energy, create new manufacturing jobs and clean our air.”

While natural gas is not the end-all solution for trucking, one obstacle that exists – for the industry as well as for the automotive industry – is the price. There is little infrastructure in place in the U.S. to support natural gas vehicles and as a result, sales are low and that means higher purchase prices.

Most major truck OEMs now offer natural gas tractors, and natural gas fueling stations have begun to open near the California ports, where the fuel is most commonly used. That’s a positive.

Another positive, according to reports, is that the legislation would provide tax credits up to 100% of the cost, or $100,000, to build refueling stations. Now that’s an incentive. And the more refueling stations available, the more companies that will take advantage of natural gas and drive the purchase price down.

That’s good for everyone.

In an effort to catch overweight trucks skipping past weigh stations, Wisconsin will be adding “virtual scales” on I-43.

“We wouldn’t be issuing tickets just based on that information,” Sgt. Gary Bauer of the State Patrol told the Janesville Gazette. “A weigh-in-motion scale isn’t as accurate. But we could stop trucks and weigh them on portable scales or the scales at La Prairie Township.”

It will be the third “weigh-in-motion” scale the state has employed. According to the state, the scale is designed to catch overweight trucks that otherwise might jump off the highway to avoid scales.

According to the state, when a truck drives over the scale, it will weigh it, record the id number and send that information to a computer database which police can use to determine whether to pull over the truck at a weigh station for a more accurate reading.

My question is why? Why spend this money on this technology? If the state is going to pull over trucks that are overweight, that means staffing the weigh stations regularly. If Wisconsin is going to do that, why not just have all trucks pull into the station? If the argument is to identify and find trucks taking alternative routes, that will require resources as well. Do the ends justify the means?

Besides, if a truck drives over the virtual scale and is not found not to be in violation of weight limits, will that truck be allowed to skip the weigh station? Just wondering.

The U.S. House has passed on to the Senate a cap-and-trade bill to “improve” the environment. Unfortunately, while the bill may ultimately reduce carbon dioxide and other harmful chemicals in the atmosphere, it will only increase costs of goods, including electricity and fuel prices, and cut into the pockets of already struggling Americans and American businesses.

The bill, HR 2454, is the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The House passed it, narrowly, last week and now it’s the Senate’s turn. I support the goal of the bill – reducing greenhouse gas emissions – as that’s in everyone’s best interest.

Cap and trade, though, is not the way to go. In essence, cap and trade rewards businesses that meet greenhouse gas reduction guidelines while “punishing” those that don’t. The punishment, though, doesn’t work. Company X, which can’t meet the guidelines, can buy “credits” from Company Y, which is below the guideline.

This is good for Company Y, which can recoup some of its investment for meeting the goal by selling the credits or improve its bottom line. Company X, though, must pay to be in compliance with the law. Who’s paying for that? Certainly not Company X, because those fees will be passed along to the consumer. In essence, it’s a business tax and business taxes are never ultimately paid by the businesses.

Top trucking organizations have their own issues with cap and trade. While most would agree we need to improve the environment, cap and trade is not the way to go. If the government wants to set limits, then do that. But don’t turn around and give businesses a chance to postpone those commitments.

Set reasonable goals and enforce them.

With the ability to purchase credits that will not actually harm their business in any way since that cost will be passed along to consumers, business leaders have little incentive to hit target goals quickly. If the government wants to get businesses in line, then hit them where they’ll feel it. Make them hit the goals or truly pay a penalty, one that ultimately could mean the demise of the business. Anytime you give an out, someone will take it.