www.fleetowner.com

If you are looking for news from Washington that will brighten your day, please stop reading now!

Since the 1950s when legislation was enacted to build the Interstate Highway System, Congress has passed, and the President has signed into law, a renewal of the federal commitment to surface transportation infrastructure every few years. While initially dedicated to highways and funded by fuel taxes through the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), federal aid to transit was added to the mix about 30 years ago. This was and is justified by the need to reduce congestion on our roads, particularly in urban areas.

Of course, each renewal of these programs triggered vigorous debates about issues such as raising fuel taxes, equitable distribution of funding among the states and numerous other issues. But the need for a robust federal program to build and maintain a vast national road system was virtually universally recognized. We have had a consensus among those who govern us that interstate commerce, international trade and the right of Americans to have individual mobility over long distances all made such a program essential.

Furthermore, until the end of 2008, the consensus seemed to be strengthening. Two commissions created by Congress in the last surface transportation reauthorization bill focused on the need to find additional funding to expand our highway system and related facilities. While there was disagreement about where to find the money (i.e., higher fuel taxes, or a vehicle miles traveled tax or private investment or some mixture of the three), there was recognition that a projected doubling of freight over the next 20 years would overwhelm our existing system. There was also a consensus that, despite the advertising campaigns of the Class I freight railroads, trucks would have to continue to carry the vast majority of freight.

No more.

The last surface transportation reauthorization bill expired on Sept. 30, 2009. The Obama Administration announced in its earliest days that it opposed any fuel tax increase. Furthermore, the Administration not only hasn’t proposed an alternative source of funding, it hasn’t even sent Congress a request for specific legislation provisions. So the country is limping along with periodic short-term extensions of the old legislation. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee became so frustrated with the Administration that it passed a draft bill, but with no numbers in it!

Worse still, because of the recession and other factors, the HTF has virtually collapsed.  Over the last two years, Congress has transferred more than $70 billion to highway and transit programs from general revenues and deficit financing. The majority of this money was included, on a one-time only basis, in the so-called “stimulus” bill. Fuel taxes dedicated to the HTF can no longer support current highway and transit programs, much less any expansion. The whole concept of users paying into a trust fund that covers federal surface transportation programs is being undermined.

But the Administration and Congress have poured money into another aspect of surface transportation. Using deficit financing, over the last year and a half the federal government has appropriated more than $10 billion into our rail system, for both passenger and freight service (over 80 percent has gone to “high-speed” intercity passenger service). While most of these dollars have not yet been spent, the U.S. Department of Transportation has been vigorously making grant announcements.

Thus, even though Congress hasn’t passed new surface transportation legislation authorizing such a radical policy change, it is well under way.

If you believe that America needs a strong, growing freight transportation infrastructure system as a key element in a healthy economy, and that trucking must continue to play a vital role in that system, then it really is time to let your senators and house members know.  If they don’t hear from you, they aren’t likely to straighten this out. The consequences for us and for our children will be an America ever less able to compete.

Jim Burnley is a partner in the Washington office of Venable LLP, and is widely recognized as one of the nation's foremost authorities on transportation law and policy

Source: www.rutgers.edu

At a time when it is increasingly acknowledged that the federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal course, you would think the first thing a cabinet agency’s new strategic plan would do is attempt to figure out which of its historical functions are truly federal and should be continued. But that sort of prioritization is entirely absent from the U.S. DOT’s draft Strategic Plan, posted online for comment at https://dotstrategicplan.ideascale.com .

Instead we are given a vast array of poorly justified expansions of the federal role into every nook and cranny of how Americans and their goods should travel—as well as how and where we should live.

One prevailing theme is frustration that current law does not permit the DOT to exercise as much micromanagement as its leaders think they should be doing. For example, the plan laments the lack of federal authority to regulate the safety of mass transit, as well as the lack of federal control over which specific highway and bridge projects states spend their federal highway monies on (as opposed to the numerous programs into which the feds already divide up these funds). It even laments that “DOT’s Federal-aid roadway design standards are not enforceable on local streets,” so that unless the law is changed, the DOT can only “encourage” more states to adopt the “complete streets” model in which every street in America must be equipped with sidewalks and bike paths.

Another recurrent theme is performance measures—but they are selectively and inconsistently applied. For example, something as basic as a minimum benefit/cost ratio threshold (perhaps 1.5) would weed out numerous low-priority projects that sound nice but aren’t worth the money. The only instance in which such a standard is discussed is with regard to possible airport expansion. It is not mentioned with respect to with DOT’s newly favored sectors: transit, streetcars, high-speed rail, the “marine highway,” etc.

The phrase “data-driven” appears several times, but only in limited contexts such as multimodal safety problems—not to evaluate favored modes or favored themes. The notion of a level playing field among transportation modes is mentioned several times—but the only aspects where analysis is suggested are on fuel-use, safety, and environmental benefits. What about a level-playing field comparison of goods-movement modes on cost, delivery time, and reliability?

A major focus of the previous Administration’s DOT, under both Democrat Norm Mineta and Republican Mary Peters, was congestion reduction. This applied to both surface and air transportation, and included active promotion of market pricing in both areas (with no success in aviation, alas). Unfortunately, while the draft strategic plan gives lip service to reducing congestion, its approach to doing this in urban areas is to expand transit, promote ride-sharing and flextime, and support the demand-management form of road pricing. (Tellingly, that reference to pricing is buried in the “State of Good Repair” chapter, which is mainly about asset management.)

And that provides a clue to one of the major omissions from the Plan: capacity expansion. While it expresses limited support for expanding airport capacity, in highways its only concession is the possibility of “targeted investments” in “our national freight highway corridors to address bottlenecks.”

But as far as motorists are concerned, there is not a word about adding capacity to cope with projected growth and reduce congestion. In fact, the plan even suggests that more cities do as San Francisco did after its last earthquake and tear down urban freeways that may no longer be needed. And in its redefinition of “functionally obsolete” bridges, it refers to not having “adequate lane widths, shoulder widths, or vertical clearances,” but makes no mention of not having enough lanes. It also uncritically accepts the “We can’t build our way out of congestion” mantra, despite extensive evidence to the contrary (especially with priced capacity).

Entire chapters are devoted to the Secretary’s two favorite topics: Livability and Environmental Sustainability. Both are notable for broad assertions presented without acknowledging considerable data and analysis calling them into question. For example: “A comprehensive strategy that promotes livability and reduced the demand for auto travel will significantly lower the long-run cost of transportation (and other infrastructure) for both household budgets and taxpayers.” (p. 30) That’s an astounding claim, accompanied by zero evidence. Transit and smart-growth advocacy groups typically argue that substituting transit for driving saves an individual money—but they ignore the large taxpayer cost of the highly subsidized transit alternative.

Another example is a tricky little game played with transportation data. The National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) did indeed find that 11.6% of all individual trips are made by walking or bicycling. Page 51 contrasts that figure with the less than 2% of annual Federal Aid Highway funds spent on walking and biking. First, this ignores the other NHTS finding that in terms of person-miles traveled, biking and walking together come to just 0.9% of the total (but still get 2% of the funding). Second, federal highway funds are supposed to fund important federal highways , like the Interstates. There is also the factoid that 40% of all metro-area trips are two miles or less in length and therefore “could be taken on foot or bicycle”—if you ignore how people value their time, the vagaries of weather, the stuff they have to carry, etc.

Yet another assertion, presented with no attempt at substantiation, is that “Creating livable communities is just as important to residents of rural areas as it is to residents of urban and suburban areas.”

Finally, in the chapter on sustainability, this allegedly data-driven, performance-based plan simply asserts that “to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy efficiency, and reduce dependence on oil,” the nation must begin “development of a national network of high-speed rail corridors.” A similarly vague justification is given for DOT to “strategically expand the marine highway system.” These mode choices are never presented as having emerged from a data-driven, mode-neutral benefit/cost analysis; they are simply assumed to be wise choices on which to expand billions of federal tax dollars. In particular, nowhere in the entire document is there any mention of using a cost/ton standard (such as no more than $50/ton) to sort out cost-effective greenhouse gas reduction measures from highly wasteful ones.

This draft plan is presumably a preview of what the Administration will set forth in its proposal for reauthorizing the federal surface transportation program. That amply demonstrates the need for a fundamentally different alternative to emerge from Congress.

Bob Poole is a Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow and Director of Transportation Policy for the Reason Foundation, the free market think tank. A recognized transportation policy expert, Mr. Poole has advised the previous four Presidential administrations on transportation and policy issues. This column first appeared in the May 2010 issue of the Reason Foundation’s Surface Transportation Innovations e-newsletter.

Source: www.ens-newswire.com

According to a national transportation research group, poor road conditions cost Michigan motorists over $2 billion annually. These costs harm Michigan families and damage the competitiveness of Michigan businesses. Instead of directing funds to this important need, federal policies are diverting taxpayer dollars to wasteful purposes and Michigan citizens and businesses are paying more in gas taxes than is returning to our state.

Taxpayer dollars are not being used wisely. Past Transportation Appropriations bills have included numerous wasteful projects, such as the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. The $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package was supposed to include significant infrastructure spending, but money was wasted on searching for fossils in Argentina , puppet shows, and creating a $5 million energy system for a privately-owned mall that is mostly empty. Our roads are crumbling, yet Congress is wasting our money.

Michigan is not receiving its fair share of gas tax transportation dollars. Since 1957, Michigan has only received 84 cents back for every dollar in gas tax revenue collected. This has improved over the years, but Michigan still only receives back 94 cents on the dollar.

The common sense path is for taxpayer dollars to be spent wisely on priorities such as road and highway repair and construction. Additionally, I support federal legislation that would turn back all gas tax revenue collected in each state to that state. Not only will this ensure that Michigan is no longer a donor state, but transportation funds will no longer be diverted into wasteful federal earmarks.

Tim Walberg has worked in higher education, was previously elected to the Michigan House of Representatives, and served in the U.S. Congress from 2007-2008.  He is running as a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Michigan's 7th District.

Source: US News

Last Wednesday, I spoke on behalf of American Trucking Associations (ATA) at a press conference sponsored by the Derivatives Reform Alliance. This organization is advocating for tougher regulation of commodity derivatives trading, which includes crude oil and refined products like diesel fuel.

If that sounds like some arcane financial manipulation practice, you’re right. But it affects anyone who uses diesel fuel, since the effect of this practice is to encourage excessive speculation in the trading and pricing of energy-based commodities.

Transportation companies already are under pressure from tight margins, excess supply and slack demand for services. Throw in volatile diesel fuel prices and it’s no wonder many companies are struggling to stay afloat. To deliver virtually all of the country’s consumer goods, the trucking industry consumes 34 billion gallons of diesel fuel annually. Fuel is generally considered the second highest expense incurred by trucking companies. Every one-cent increase in the price of diesel fuel costs the trucking industry an additional $340 million a year.

One year ago, the price of oil was $42 a barrel. Today that price is up over 70 percent, despite the fact that global demand is down, crude oil inventories are well above average, and the dollar has declined by only 8 percent relative to the Euro. What’s driving the higher prices? Excessive speculation is the only other variable left unaccounted for.

While there is no good metric that will quantify how much of the volatility and increased price of crude oil can be attributed to the influence of excessive speculation, it’s clear that this is part of the problem. To address this market disconnect, we believe that the federal government should take steps to increase the transparency of the derivatives markets. Reasonable aggregate position limits should be set. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has proposed position limits for energy trades on certain commodities exchanges; however, this step by itself is insufficient to curb the problem of excessive speculation. There are still loopholes which allow destructive practices and leave the buyers of diesel fuel – and ultimately consumers – on the hook for the cost.

It is time for Congress to strengthen the Commission’s authority and eliminate trading loopholes. We encourage mandated transparency and stated aggregate position limits for all markets (including over-the-counter and foreign exchanges) that trade energy commodity derivatives. If we do not enforce position limits, the practice of excessive speculation will continue beyond the control of government regulators.

Importantly, the CFTC or Congress also must clarify and define the difference between a commercial participant and a legitimate hedger. A commercial participant — such as a trucking company — must take physical possession of a petroleum product. The trucking industry typically hedges diesel fuel by purchasing heating oil and crude oil derivatives. Recognizing these hedging surrogates is important in determining the status of various commercial participants. Those who purchase petroleum derivative contracts as a hedge against inflation — but who never take possession of the products — are more akin to pure speculators and should not be considered commercial participants. This destructive practice cries out for more legislative or regulatory oversight.

Transparency that distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial participants has no potential downside. Trading markets are improved and the price of oil remains unaffected. Tougher regulation would likely reduce speculative bubbles, restore investor confidence and strengthen the link between commodity prices and market fundamentals. We call on Congress to do the right thing and protect the commodities markets from destructive, excessive speculation through derivatives practices that add no value.

A day does not go by in Washington without legislation intended to fix one problem ultimately affecting a host of other issues. It’s the principle of unintended consequences, and a fact of life in our complex world where everything has become so interconnected. Nowhere is this more evident than the transportation industry, which touches our economy, our environment and our infrastructure in virtually innumerable ways. It’s like the lyric from the popular children’s song that says “The knee bone’s connected to the thigh bone ...” Trucking, it seems, is connected to everything.

One example of how one issue can have a ripple effect on many others is truck productivity. The crux of the issue is truck size and weight, a debate that’s been raging for years in Washington and throughout the transportation sector. Recent forecasts estimate that freight volumes will increase nearly 28 percent by 2018, a growth curve that — absent any change in current size and weight restrictions — will require several million more trucks on America’s highways to meet demand. “More jobs, now that’s great!” you might think … until you consider the interconnected, unintended consequences: more traffic congestion and lost productivity. Increased fuel consumption and higher carbon emissions. The effect of more trucks putting more miles on a highway infrastructure already strained to the breaking point. The knee bone’s connected to the thigh bone ...

Many in the industry think the solution is clear: improve truck productivity. And there is a precedent — our counterparts in Europe, Canada and Australia have already done that and are reaping significant benefits. There’s plenty of research to support it. A 2008 American Transportation Research Institute study found that aligning our truck size and weight with the higher international standards would lead to great gains in productivity, as well as reductions in carbon emissions and a better shot at competing effectively in the global marketplace. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) has produced a list of recommendations — including raising the allowable weight of six-axle vehicles to 97,000 pounds and permitting 33-foot trailer combinations in certain states, and expanding the use of triple trailers where it is safe and practical to do so. We hope Congress will seriously consider them. With the projected rise in freight volumes, maximizing the efficiency of our transportation infrastructure has never been more important.

One state that may prove to be a good test bed is Maine. The Fiscal Year 2010 Transportation Appropriations bill recently signed into law by President Obama includes a provision to create a one-year pilot project to study the effects of eliminating the 80,000-pound vehicle weight limit on Maine’s federal highways. Allowing heavier trucks for a year will give researchers a chance to assess the impact on the much-debated areas of safety, commerce and road wear and tear.

It will be interesting to see how this experiment will educate the debate and, ultimately, the policy decisions which result. If the experience of our international colleagues is any guide, the consequences of more productive trucks will bring measurable benefits — for highway safety, the economy, our environment, congestion, business efficiency, energy policy and many other issues. The knee bone is connected to the thigh bone ...

Eight years later after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, our approach to port security still seems to be guided by a strategy of Ready! Shoot! Aim!

Too many people still believe we can secure our nation’s borders – in particular, prevent an attack with a weapon of mass destruction – if we inspect 100% of all ocean containers that enter the U.S.

We’re asking the wrong question. 100% inspection is a flawed premise. It ignores common-sense logic, is short on risk analysis, would be a logistics and economic nightmare, and in the end, does not solve the problem.

In fact, not only will a strategy of 100% screening not improve our security, it will make us more vulnerable, because the money could have been spent on programs with a far better return on investment.

The modern-day terrorist is a thinking enemy who is patient, uses extensive surveillance and carefully selects the means and methods of attack.  This enemy is not concerned about port container inspection. Why?  Because many of the weapons they would choose to accomplish their mission -- chemical, biological, radiological or enhanced conventional explosives – are already here!

According to an EPA document which was removed from the Internet shortly after 9/11, there are at least 123 chemical facilities in the U.S. that could put a million people at risk if attacked, and more than 700 other industrial plants that could put at least 100,000 people at risk.

A study in the late 1990s conducted by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency revealed that the equipment required to build a sophisticated biological weapon could be purchased off the Internet for less than $50,000, and would fit inside a standard two-car garage.

Why bring radiological material into the U.S. to attack us? It's already here. The material required to build a "dirty bomb" is readily available at medical facilities, research institutes, universities and major construction sites. Trucks containing large quantities of cesium-137 drive between hospitals in Southern California every day with no security protection.

As for enhanced conventional weapons, future terrorists will have no more problem building them inside the U.S. than did Ramzi Yousef, who built the bomb that exploded under the World Trade Center in 1993.

In other words, a 100% success rate for "scan before sail" or similar inspection programs will simply not reduce the likelihood of chemical, biological, radiological or enhanced conventional attacks.

What about nukes?  The best strategy for preventing a nuclear device from entering the U.S. has little to do with examining containers by X-ray machines and radiological scanners -- despite the idea's appeal to some elected officials. The formula for success is what I call "70-20-10":

• 70% of money appropriated in the name of "securing America against nuclear terrorism" should be spent "upstream": thwarting efforts to obtain weapons-grade nuclear material. This includes increased funding for programs such as Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, and ensuring that our intelligence community places as its highest priority locating and interdicting “stray” nuclear devices
• 20% of funding should be allocated to the pursuit and recovery of material and devices should weapons-grade materials fall into terrorists' hands. This should be a multinational effort led by the U.S.
• 10% should be spent on response and mitigation capabilities should a nuclear detonation occur.

Source: www.whitehouse.gov

Congressional leaders who are calling for 100% inspection are asking the wrong question: “How do we prevent terrorists from smuggling weapons of mass destruction through one of our ports?”  It’s the same question Congress posed over 60 years ago to Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, the “father of the atomic bomb.” When asked in 1947 how the country could prevent the Soviets from sneaking a nuclear weapon into the U.S. through our seaports.  Dr. Oppenheimer responded, “Buy lots of screwdrivers. You will need to open every crate that enters America.”

Sixty years later, Congress still wants to "look" inside every container. Don't they understand, Dr. Oppenheimer was joking!

Colonel Randall J. Larsen, USAF (Ret) is the Executive Director of the Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism and the author of, OUR OWN WORST ENEMY: Asking the Questions About Security for You, Your Family and America (Grand Central, 2007). He formerly served as the Chairman, Department of Military Strategy and Operations at the National War College, where in 1999, he created the nation’s first graduate course in homeland security.

I was talking to a Con-way Freight driver the other day and we got on the subject of distracted drivers. It really lit him up. “It’s getting worse,” he told me, shaking his head in despair. “If it’s not someone distracted on a cell phone, it’s somebody else trying to read or send a text message. They take their eyes off the road and the next thing you know, they’re drifting into me!

It’s time that we ratchet up the volume on this problem and get people to pay attention. Kudos to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, whose Welcome to the Fast Lane blog last week saluted organizations taking steps to combat distracted driving and the threat this presents to the safety of America’s highways.

Con-way has nearly 18,000 employees who are literally working on the road every day. It’s like their office. They treat driving with all the attention and professionalism you would expect of someone who pilots a large commercial truck for a living, and has dozens of businesses reliant on that driver for the safe delivery of their goods. We share Secretary LaHood’s concern over this issue. Congress has held hearings on it and I recently testified before a House committee on this very subject, on behalf of the American Trucking Associations (ATA).

Con-way and ATA believe that while driver distraction can take many forms, the most problematic is the use of hand-held electronic devices and the act of reading, writing or sending text messages while a vehicle is in motion. According to a Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study, text messaging makes the risk of a crash or near-crash 23 times higher (see www.vtti.vt.edu) than normal. That threat to safety is unacceptable. Both Con-way and ATA support the ALERT Drivers Act of 2009 (H.R. 3535), the proposed legislation that would ban texting while operating a vehicle. Con-way already prohibits its drivers from using any PDA device while operating company trucks.

With some other forms of in-cab technology, the issue of distraction becomes more complicated. In-cab communications and driver monitoring systems, used widely in particular by long-haul truckload carriers, are a prime example. While under some circumstances these devices could cause driver distraction — and many companies including Con-way Truckload have addressed this issue through specific policies and usage training — they also enhance drivers’ ability to do their jobs safely, effectively and efficiently. We join ATA in the belief that detailed analysis and public comment should take place if any restrictions on this type of technology are considered.

New policies and, as necessary, legislation, will help battle the problem of distracted driving with the motoring public. But it won’t make a difference or resolve the threat to highway safety unless the change in laws is matched by a shift in public perception, attitude and especially, behavior. If automobile drivers don’t see these distractions as a threat to safety, behaviors simply won’t change. And that’s unacceptable.

Come on, America. Put down your PDAs while driving. You will be safer, as will the hundreds of thousands of professional truck drivers who are sharing the road with you and providing the critical services that keep our supply chains and economy humming.

Here’s a great idea for a bumper sticker: Gotta text? Pull over!