DOT Wants to Turn America’s Highway Rights-of-Way Into “Corridors of Commerce.” FOPT Says Transportation Comes First.
- 10 minutes ago
- 6 min read
The U.S. Department of Transportation is asking the public for input on a new initiative called America’s Great Corridors of Commerce (AGCC), and this is one federal docket that deserves considerably more attention from truck drivers, carriers and the American public.
Under Docket DOT-OST-2026-3269,
DOT is considering a program that would use existing highway and railroad rights-of-way for much more than transportation. The proposal envisions placing electrical transmission infrastructure, water pipelines, fiber-optic networks, broadband and other utilities within transportation corridors. DOT argues that using land already dedicated to highways and railroads could reduce construction costs, speed permitting and create new revenue for transportation agencies.
On the surface, some of that makes sense. America needs a stronger electrical grid. We need broadband, manufacturing, infrastructure investment and economic development. Using existing corridors instead of acquiring entirely new stretches of private property could provide legitimate efficiencies.
But when you dig deeper into the proposal, much bigger questions appear.
This Is About More Than Running Fiber Beside a Highway
DOT envisions a public-private partnership model in which a private Corridor Manager could design, build, finance, operate and maintain infrastructure within highway or railroad rights-of-way. Those arrangements could typically last 30 to 50 years, with private companies leasing space to utilities and sharing revenue with ROW owners.
DOT also wants these corridors to encourage data centers, manufacturing facilities and distribution hubs to locate nearby while supporting electrical infrastructure, telecommunications, Intelligent Transportation Systems and even autonomous-vehicle capabilities.
This is therefore not simply a proposal to bury some fiber-optic cable along an Interstate.
It is potentially a new model for commercially developing publicly controlled transportation corridors for decades.
DOT intends to designate as many as five AGCC corridors per year, with selected corridors receiving specialized federal assistance with planning, permitting and financing. The Department also says longer, multi-state corridors with regional significance would receive priority.
That potential scale is exactly why FOPT believes the transportation industry needs to pay attention now instead of after the contracts have already been signed.
Before We Monetize the ROW, What About the Problems We Already Have?
Our biggest concern is straightforward: transportation rights-of-way exist for transportation.
A strip of land beside an Interstate is not necessarily “unused” simply because there is no pavement on it today. Twenty years from now, that same property may be needed for another lane, interchange reconstruction, emergency access, maintenance facilities, inspection areas, rest areas or truck parking.
Once private infrastructure is installed under a contract potentially lasting half a century, reclaiming that space may become considerably more complicated and expensive.
That brings us directly to Jason’s Law.
Congress enacted Jason’s Law in 2012 because America already had a serious shortage of safe commercial truck parking. Fourteen years later, drivers are still searching for safe places to park while operating under federal Hours of Service regulations that legally dictate when they must stop driving.
That contradiction cannot be ignored while government looks for new commercial uses for highway property.
If we have highway ROW available for electrical transmission, broadband, pipelines and private commercial development, then we should first be asking whether some of that property is necessary to finally address the truck-parking problem the Federal Government has been studying for more than a decade.
Government cannot tell a driver when he or she must stop and then fail to provide enough safe places to stop.
We Have Seen Long-Term Privatization Before
There is another reason FOPT is approaching this cautiously.
America has already experimented with extremely long private concessions involving transportation infrastructure. Public-private partnerships can bring capital and expertise to infrastructure projects, but private money is not free money. Investors expect returns, lenders expect repayment and concessionaires expect revenue.
When a government receives money upfront in exchange for decades of contractual rights involving a public asset, the important question is not merely how large today's payment is. The real question is what the public is giving up over the entire life of the agreement.
That becomes particularly important when an agreement lasts 30, 50, 75 or even 99 years.
FOPT is also calling for complete transparency concerning the ultimate ownership of companies receiving long-term rights within strategically important American transportation corridors. Foreign investment itself is not inherently bad, and international investment has contributed significantly to the American economy. But there is an important difference between foreign capital investing in America and foreign-controlled interests obtaining multigenerational contractual rights involving strategic American infrastructure.
If a company receives a 50-year concession today and is sold ten years from now, the government and the public should know who ultimately controls it.
Who Pays When We Need the Land Back?
This may be one of the most important questions in the entire docket.
Imagine utility infrastructure is installed alongside an Interstate under a 50-year agreement. Twenty years later, freight volume requires another travel lane, additional truck parking or complete reconstruction of an interchange.
Who moves the private infrastructure?
More importantly, who pays?
The public should not collect lease revenue today only to discover decades later that taxpayers must spend substantially more money relocating private infrastructure before they can improve their own highway.
Transportation needs must remain legally superior to commercial utility use of transportation ROW throughout the entire life of any AGCC agreement.
Otherwise, America could end up effectively buying back unrestricted use of property the public already owned.
AGCC Could Also Create More Trucks
There is another contradiction that deserves attention.
DOT wants AGCC corridors to attract manufacturing facilities and distribution hubs.
We support bringing manufacturing back to America. We support American jobs and domestic industrial development.
But factories require raw materials. Distribution centers exist to move freight. Construction requires equipment and materials. Finished products have to leave the plant.
That means trucks.
DOT cannot count the jobs, investment and economic development created by these facilities without also counting the additional truck traffic, pavement wear, interchange demand and parking requirements they create.
FOPT is therefore recommending that every proposed highway AGCC undergo a Freight and Commercial Motor Vehicle Impact Assessment before approval.
If the project creates additional freight demand, the infrastructure required to accommodate that freight is part of the project's cost—not somebody else's problem to solve later.
Accountability Cannot Stop at the Cab Door
This issue also illustrates a frustration professional drivers and carriers have experienced for years.
When government identifies a safety problem involving trucking, the answer frequently involves another requirement placed on drivers or carriers: Hours of Service, ELDs, qualification standards, monitoring, enforcement or another compliance requirement.
Drivers and carriers absolutely have responsibilities.
But government does too.
Congress recognized the truck-parking problem through Jason’s Law in 2012. Fourteen years later, the shortage remains.
A driver can receive a citation for violating Hours of Service. A carrier can face enforcement action for violating federal safety regulations.
Government should hold itself to the same standard of accountability when infrastructure failures remain unresolved year after year.
Accountability cannot stop at the cab door.
What FOPT Is Asking DOT to Do
FOPT is not asking DOT to kill America's Great Corridors of Commerce. We are asking DOT to put the priorities in the correct order.
Our formal response recommends requiring transportation-first review of highway ROW before commercial development; completing truck-parking assessments under the principles established by Jason’s Law; evaluating additional freight generated by AGCC development; protecting future highway expansion; establishing who pays when private infrastructure must be relocated; conducting full lifecycle financial comparisons between privatization and public alternatives; dedicating a substantial portion of highway-generated revenue back to transportation; requiring beneficial-ownership and change-of-control disclosure; conducting appropriate national-security reviews; calculating construction and Hours-of-Service impacts on freight; including professional drivers, owner-operators and small carriers in planning; and requiring transparency throughout agreements that could remain in effect for generations.
We also believe transportation must remain the superior use of transportation ROW throughout every AGCC agreement.
A private company may be permitted to use public transportation property.
That permission should never become a contractual obstacle preventing Americans from using their own property for transportation.
Fix What We Own. Protect What We Own.
America needs electrical infrastructure, broadband, manufacturing, freight capacity and investment. Those goals do not require us to ignore the infrastructure responsibilities we already have.
The American public has already paid for our highways. Professional drivers and motor carriers continue paying through fuel taxes, IFTA, IRP, HVUT, tolls, permits and the other costs associated with operating on the transportation system.
Before government commits portions of those assets to private commercial arrangements potentially lasting 30 to 50 years, it should first make damn sure we aren't going to need them for transportation.
Finish the work Congress started with Jason’s Law. Address truck parking. Repair and expand the infrastructure. Protect future ROW. Establish ownership transparency and national-security safeguards. Make transportation revenue benefit transportation.
Then determine what capacity is actually left.
DOT calls this America’s Great Corridors of Commerce. If these corridors truly belong to America, the American public should remain their first beneficiary.
The question shouldn't simply be:
“How much commercial value can we extract from America's transportation rights-of-way?”
It should be:
“Have we fulfilled our responsibility to the American people with these assets before we commit them to somebody else for the next 30 to 50 years?”
Until that answer is yes, our position is simple:
Fix what we own. Protect what we own. Stop selling tomorrow to pay for today.
FOPT's complete response to Docket DOT-OST-2026-3269 is attached below.
Micheal “Cupcake” Cobb
CEO/Founder
Federation of Professional Truckers (FOPT)
The docket's comment period ends September 12, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. EDT.
Comments