This blog post by Diane Katz, originally appeared in "The Foundry" on June 3rd.

It’s been two decades since Congress seized from states the authority to regulate the size of the biggest trucks traveling the highways. But what started as a temporary “freeze” on state rule-making predictably turned into a permanent federal usurpation of state regulation.

The now-petrified standards have been rendered largely obsolete by advances in engineering, thus inhibiting productivity improvements for hauling freight. It’s time, therefore, for Washington to get out of the way.

The freeze on truck “configurations” came with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which consolidated federal power over the nation’s highway network (read: micromanagement). Proponents argued for standardizing the differing state rules governing “longer combination vehicles” (LCVs), which consist of a truck tractor and two or more trailers or semitrailers with a gross weight over 80,000 pounds and an overall length of one or both cargo units exceeding 28.5 feet. Railroads, too, had an interest in limiting trucking volume.

Rather than harmonize the standards, however, Congress simply prohibited states from changing the routes or weight and length limits on LCVs that were in effect on June 1, 1991. And there they have remained ever since, despite major advances in transportation technology and safety.

A patchwork of state standards can prove challenging for interstate trucking. But at least states have shown relative flexibility compared to the regulatory immobility of the feds. If LCV regulations are deemed necessary, state regulators are in a far better position to determine feasible standards based on local conditions and to be held accountable for screwing up.

That’s not to say that state LCV standards are necessarily rational. Truck size has long been a contentious issue, with truckers, railroads, environmentalists, and safety activists all competing for regulatory favor. According to researchers at Iowa State University’s Center for Transportation Research and Education:

Prior size and weight regulation promulgated by states was based on political considerations and is a result of compromise among a number of constituent parties.… These compromises were not necessarily based on safety concerns of the roadway environment, engineering concerns of the roadway infrastructure, and economic concerns of an efficient motor freight industry.

There is a better way. The manifold variations in LCV configuration call for “performance-based” standards. That is, standards set according to vehicle design and handling properties. For example, vehicles with better brake performance and/or suspensions could safely handle heavier loads. The adoption of performance-based standards would introduce a modicum of rationality into trucking regulation and help to mitigate variations among states’ standards.

More sensible standards promise economic benefit. Fewer trucks are needed if size limitations are eased, for example. Indeed, some advocates estimate a productivity increase of 30 percent or more from more sensible regulation.

Whatever benefits claimed for federal regulation of LCVs have been entirely negated by Washington’s failure to deliver in the past 20 years. The Obama Administration has recently embraced regulatory reform as a means of economic growth. Ending the federal freeze on state regulation of LCVs offers an opportunity to deliver on that goal.

This blog post by National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Debbie Hersman, originally appeared in  "NTSB Safety Compass" on April 6th.

Last week, I had the opportunity to get a glimpse into what life is like for the professional truck drivers who drive the heavy trucks on our nation’s highways to deliver the goods — and who contribute to our economy and to our quality of life.

I learned a lot from my five teachers — Stephanie Klang, Jill Garcia, Clarence Jenkins, Angela Jordan, and Jo Carty — who safely drove me from Washington, DC, to Louisville, KY, so I could attend the Mid America Trucking Show and attend Women in Trucking’s (WIT) Salute to Women Behind the Wheel. As I told the professional women drivers at that event, I have a CDL (commercial driver’s license), but I think my biggest contribution to safety is not to drive a commercial vehicle. I leave that up to the professional drivers.

I was impressed by every driver’s commitment to safety and by their ability to handle big rigs in good weather and bad . We had all types of weather on our 632 miles, including snow, sleet, and fog! After last week’s trip, I feel safer driving on the road next to big rigs. I was also pleased with the discussions we had about the issues that the NTSB addresses in its investigations and recommendations, such as hours of service, fatigue, and government oversight.

For example, when I talked with Stephanie about the challenges of complying with hours of service, she said the rules are there to protect you. Even when they’re not in your favor, you have to respect them.

As for respect, I gained a lot more respect for these professional drivers behind the wheel and I want them to know that I will keep an eye out for them whenever I’m out on the interstate.

Here’s a link to the talk I gave at Women in Trucking’s Salute to Women Behind the Wheel on April 2.

Source: www.examiner.com

A few weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued a regulatory proposal that would revise the hours-of-service (HOS) requirements for commercial truck drivers. Why you ask?

In October 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) signed an HOS litigation settlement agreement with the Teamsters Union and Public Citizen. As part of the settlement, DOT agreed to have the FMCSA publish a new proposed rule that must be finalized by July 2011.

You may ask, “Why the need?” Consider this: The number of truck-involved traffic fatalities declined 20 percent in 2009, dropping from 4,245 in 2008 to 3,380 in 2009. Also, the number of large-truck occupants injured in crashes dropped 26 percent. This marks the lowest number recorded by DOT in history. The current reduction also marks the fourth straight annual decline and a 33 percent drop since the new hours-of-service rules first went into effect in 2004.

Yet, FMCSA’s opening sentence in their proposal summary states the reason for the proposed change is to “promote safety and to protect driver health.” Why would FMCSA make such a claim?

According to American Trucking Associations (ATA), it appears that FMCSA is treating every crash in which fatigue is listed as an associated factor as a fatigue-caused crash. This is troubling and contradictory with DOT’s own report to Congress on the 2006 Large Truck Crash Causation Study, in which it stated that, for associated factors, “No judgment is made as to whether any factor is related to the particular crash, just whether it was present.”

Why is this troubling?

As stated in ATA’s letter to FMCSA, in its data inconsistency, “FMCSA has nearly doubled in its analysis of the number of truck-involved crashes that are likely caused by fatigue.” Therefore, the benefit estimations cited by the Administration are grossly inflated.

For many years our industry has worked under a rule that has been accepted, tested and proven to work. During these years, we have also seen a steady improvement of truck safety on our highways. And yet, we are once again facing significant, untested rule changes by FMCSA.

One has to ask why?

Source: www.allstarpics.net

This fall, when President Obama supported the decision by Maine and Vermont to extend higher truck weight allowances on their highways, it was a vote for increasing the productivity of trucking on these states’ highways. Bill Graves, president of ATA, added context to the importance of this decision: “Existing restrictions on truck weight limits constrain the trucking industry's efforts to reduce crashes, help our customers to remain competitive in global markets and lower our carbon footprint."

Not long after, the Association of American Railroads’ (AAR) President and CEO, Mr. Edward R. Hamberger, attacked the decision accusing the President of “train robbery.”

It would be like a day without sunshine if the AAR didn’t publicly attack one of their industry’s largest customers: the trucking industry.  Every time any discussion turns to ways the trucking industry can gain productivity, improve safety, reduce congestion or lower carbon emissions in the movement of freight, the AAR goes on the attack. Hearing these same arguments time and again becomes tiresome.

Mr. Hamberger went on to say “heavy trucks cause infrastructure damage that taxpayers will ultimately have to pay for.  This [extension of the program] will rob the railroad industry of revenue needed for reinvestment and add congestion to the nation's highways."

Mr. Hamberger, let me remind you once again: The trucking industry pays 40 percent of all revenues that comprise the Highway Trust Fund and pays 30 percent of State Highway Fund receipts.  The trucking industry generates these revenue levels while accounting for less than 15 percent of total vehicle miles traveled.  In addition, the trucking industry directly serves 100 percent of the communities in America, whereas the railroad industry serves about 20 percent of America’s communities. That’s an inconvenient truth. Many railroad supporters also cite benefits to the environment and less highway congestion if rail capacity were expanded. Here are the facts: If the rail industry could double intermodal capacity overnight, that additional capacity would equate to removing about 1.5 percent of truck traffic from the nation’s highways.

Not allowing more productive truck configurations to use federal interstates, and instead forcing them to use secondary state roads, does not support efforts to improve safety. In fact, when trucks are forced to use secondary highways, the potential for wear and tear can be greater, since these roads are often not built to the same robust standards as our nation’s interstate highways.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Way Transport Program also confirms the environmental and economic benefits that higher truck weight limits and longer combination vehicles would bring. Importantly, these higher weight standards would not exceed the per-axle weight limits defined by the DOT’s bridge weight formulas. Added benefits would include improved safety, reduced congestion and lower carbon emissions from fewer, more productive trucks on the highways.

When you wipe away all the rhetoric, there is one fact that railroad industry cannot deny: The vast majority of shipments that move by rail start and end with a truck.  Let’s work together to create a national transportation policy that recognizes that all modes of transportation are required to support America’s economy and global competitiveness.

David L. (Dave) Miller is a respected industry expert and an authoritative voice for effective, common-sense government and business policies that enable the freight transportation industry to fulfill its critical role in the nation's economy.

As founder, VP and COO  of Gnosis Management Group, Dave provides consulting and issues management services to public and private companies and advocacy organizations, drawing on nearly 35 years of experience in policy development and strategy and as a senior operating executive in the trucking industry. He recently retired after a 27-year career with Con-way Inc, a national trucking and global logistics company, where he served as senior vice president, global policy and economic sustainability.

source: www.pennlive.com

As those of us in the transportation industry are all too aware, America’s infrastructure of roads and bridges is crumbling, and cash-strapped states are digging deep to find funds to take on the problem. It won’t be cheap and it won’t be easy — a recent Transportation Funding Study found that more than $3 billion annually in highway and transit needs is currently unfunded in my state of Pennsylvania alone. With the number of trucks on U.S. roads widely projected to increase by 50 percent in the next 20 years, that’s a serious problem, indeed.

I recently had the opportunity to testify on this issue representing the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Transportation Committee. In that testimony, I stressed the importance of developing and implementing fair and sustainable funding sources to repair and maintain our national infrastructure.

This is more critical than ever — there is an unmistakable connection between economic health and an effective transportation system. As American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) President Larry L. "Butch" Brown has said, "The simple fact is: no transportation, no economy. They are inseparable. “

That’s a point that can hardly be questioned given that more than 40 million tons of goods travel over roughly 12 billion ton-miles of U.S. roads on the average day.

Those roads are already in trouble, serving much more traffic than they were designed to hold, with repairs typically few and far between and construction of new capacity equally rare. A recent report prepared for AASHTO found that traffic at the 10 most extreme U.S. interchange bottlenecks is already responsible for more than a million hours of truck delays a year, which costs industry $19 billion while unnecessarily increasing fuel consumption and carbon emissions. The lack of effective and sustainable funding mechanisms will only make those problems worse.

As a major user of roads and highways, Con-way Freight is willing to pay our fair share, as I testified before the Transportation Committee. First, we would support increased fuel, highway or license taxes for highway infrastructure improvement provided that the funds be used solely for that purpose and not redirected to other areas. We currently pay in excess of $3.6 million in highway-related taxes, fees and tolls in Pennsylvania alone every year, so this is no small statement.

We would also favor the use of tolls to cover the costs of new highways, but not tolling of existing highways. Finally, we would encourage states to explore public-private partnerships to fund additional capacity, as long as no one franchisee is given a monopoly and free alternatives remain.

As I told the committee, Con-way Freight commends Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell for his efforts to address the transportation issues facing his state. We’re nearing a national crisis point (if we’re not already there) and simply must create and support long-term strategies to ensure sustainable funding for our transportation infrastructure. We look forward to helping leaders — in Pennsylvania and across the nation we serve — to craft reasonable highway funding solutions that are fair to the transportation industry and all American citizens.

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.transportation1.org

Truth #1: Truckers and railroaders do not get along.  I sometimes like to pose provocative questions to groups of truckers or railroaders (but not both together) to watch the impassioned discussion that ensues.

Truth #2: Demand for transportation was rising steadily before the recent recession.  Although much of the increase is attributed to rising GDP, growth in VMT must also be attributed to shifts in transportation use.  Increasingly, GDP is made up of services that require fewer VMTs.  Freight (and car) VMTs per capita have steadily increased indicating greater consumption of freight services.

Truth #3: The funds (user fees) collected by all forms of government in the U.S. are not enough to fund road infrastructure.  The recent TRB Special Report 285 and the report by the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission highlight the loss of purchasing power of the all user taxes for road construction and maintenance.

Truth #4: The root cause of our road funding problems is not abuse of the Highway Trust Fund.  Even evil “Mass Transit” may provide capacity by removing cars from highways at a cost cheaper than construction of new lanes.  How many lanes of highway would have to be constructed to replace the Washington Metro?  What would the city look like without it?

Truth #5: Some trucks do not pay the full cost for their highway use.  The book “Road Work” by Small, Winston, and Evans (1989) pointed out that very heavy trucks do not pay the true marginal cost of their highway use.  The primary culprit according to the authors is a user-charge based on fuel use rather than axle weight and miles traveled.  Transportation Research Board Special Report 246 showed much the same thing by comparing several modes of transportation.

Truth #6: Lower cost is not equal to higher efficiency.  For economists, efficiency means getting higher value outputs from a given value of inputs.  While the lower total costs associated with heavier, six-axle trucks are difficult to argue with (with the possible exception of bridge costs), lowering the price of an already underpriced good could be a bad thing for all concerned.  Economists know that price controls, cause shortages because suppliers will refuse to supply at the lower price.  We are facing just such a situation with road infrastructure today.  States are refusing to provide (or maintain) road infrastructure because the revenue received for its use is less the cost to provide it.  In such a situation, lowering the cost still further by permitting slightly more efficient trucks could have the undesired (by some) effect of stimulating increased road use, therefore exacerbating problems with infrastructure financing.

In my opinion, loosening Federal weight restrictions will not occur until usage-based road financing is changed to some scheme that is both accurate and fair.  Such a scheme should be based on the cost of road use.  While many truckers have asked for increased fuel taxes to cover the cost of maintaining roads, few have advocated an approach like Oregon’s experimental VMT tax or Germany’s VMT tax.  Should my colleague’s Mercedes Benz diesel pay the same fuel tax as an eighteen wheeler?  Should a straight truck pay the same tax as a rocky mountain double?

Yes, railroads protest too much, but permitting heavier trucks is no panacea for the highway system either.  Economic sustainability comes from having prices reflect true costs, not from cheaper prices.  Any change that accomplished the later without the former will only make the situation worse.

It is now time for me to step out of the room.

Pete Swan is assistant professor of Logistics and Operations Management at the Penn State Harrisburg School of Business Administration. He is a regular contributor of research, commentaries and papers on freight transportation industry issues and has been a member of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) since 2002. He is currently chair of the TRB’s Freight Systems Group in addition to his academic responsibilities for Penn State.

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: nationalgeographic.com

A recent article about the truck versus rail debate got me thinking about the old adage, “It all depends on whose ox is being gored.” Though the origin of this unique phrase appears to be largely unknown (my research traces it back to President Abraham Lincoln and before), it’s not too difficult to glean its meaning. It’s a perfect metaphor for negotiations over regulatory and legislative transportation policy issues. Basically, the good intentions of a policy decision for one constituency may end up causing unintended negative consequences for another. In other words, you fixed your problem but the other guy’s ox got gored in the process.

The point here is that lawmakers and regulatory agencies, as they debate and settle on policy decisions, should remember the ripple effect. What other impacts occur as a result of a new law or policy going into effect? For example, if regulators were to institute policies which legislate moving freight from truck to rail, what would be the benefits?  Some benefits would seem obvious: fewer trucks on the road would help reduce highway congestion, conserve fuel and lower carbon emissions. Yet that same decision also would create a number of other, not so positive, impacts. Deliveries could be slowed and shipping costs could go up — particularly for communities that don’t have rail service. Truck drivers displaced by freight moving to rail would lose their jobs. Truck manufacturers would build fewer trucks — putting more people out of work. Tax revenues and user fees paid by trucks — monies that maintain, repair and upgrade our highways — would go down.

Washington has a full plate of important national issues that need attention — topics such as health care, banking reform, education funding, carbon emissions, job creation and our crumbling transportation infrastructure, just to name a few. Decisions made with respect to narrow interests on one issue should not preclude or prevent action on another, or worse, create new problems in other areas. We need to stop the “hey, that’s my ox!” mentality. The greater good suffers when the solution to one problem shifts the burden to someone else, or disadvantages another constituency in the process. Such is often the case with broad brush policy decisions that are not thoroughly thought out.