Transportation: Toyota Recalling 437,000 Hybrid Cars
• "Toyota said" today "that it would recall 437,000 of its 2010 Priuses and other hybrid models worldwide because of a glitch in the braking system," the New York Times reports.
• "The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is scheduled on Wednesday to begin looking into regulatory oversight of Toyota and problems at the carmaker that have led to the recall of more than 8 million vehicles worldwide," The Hill reports.
• "Government regulators were warned about acceleration problems with several Toyota models as early as 2008, according to documents obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, but did not act on complaints, in at least one case citing a lack of resources," Politico reports.
• "Japan Airlines Corp. chose" today "to keep its ties with AMR Corp.'s American Airlines rather than strike a new alliance with Delta Air Lines Inc., dealing a blow to Delta's trans-Pacific growth ambitions just as competition over Japan's skies heats up," the Wall Street Journal (subscription) reports.
The ban on texting by commercial drivers that the Transportation Department announced on Jan. 26 was only the latest in a series of developments that have catapulted distracted driving to the top of the nation's -- and Secretary Ray LaHood's -- transportation safety agenda.
Last fall, LaHood convened a two-day summit on distracted driving and launched the educational Web site distraction.gov. President Obama later signed an executive order banning federal employees from texting when operating government-owned vehicles or equipment. AAA is urging all states to ban texting while driving (19 plus the District of Columbia have already done so, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures), while leading bills in Congress would either offer states grant money to enact bans or threaten them with losing 25 percent of their highway trust fund dollars if they don't.
Yet a recent study by the Highway Loss Data Institute, the data affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, suggests that distracted-driving laws have no effect on reducing car crashes. In California, New York, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C., which all ban drivers from using cell phones, the patterns of insurance claims for crashes were no different from crash trends in places without similar laws.
What is the best approach to curb distracted driving? Is this a matter best left to the states, or should the federal government step in -- and if so, to what extent? Is the "carrot" approach appropriate, or is it necessary to wield a big stick? And should bans extend to hands-free devices, since some studies have shown that they can be just as distracting as texting or talking on a handheld cell phone?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
3 responses: Laura O'Neill, Robert L. Darbelnet, Adrian Lund
Last week President Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood awarded the $8 billion in grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to create 13 new high-speed rail corridor projects in 31 states and the District of Columbia and a number of improvement and planning initiatives to lay the groundwork for future high-speed intercity rail service. The grants, LaHood wrote on his blog Jan. 28, "make rail a viable transportation alternative in many regions."
What do you think? Did the administration spend the $8 billion wisely? And how should it spend future federal dollars to make the most of its investment in high-speed rail?
Click map to expand:
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
17 responses: Parris N. Glendening, Ed Hamberger, Ken Orski, Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., Gabriel Roth, John Horsley, Greg Cohen, Robert L. Darbelnet, Rich Sarles, William Millar, Ken Orski, Petra Todorovich, Bob Poole, Jack Kinstlinger, Gabriel Roth, Peter Gertler, Phineas Baxandall
Editor's Note: Steve Winkelman, director of transportation and adaptation programs at the Center for Clean Air Policy and a contributor to this blog, is providing this week's question.
Performance measurement is fundamental to ensure that transportation policy and funding achieves desired policy outcomes. This week we will discuss the transition to performance-based transportation policy:
• How to develop effective and practical performance measures?• What data, resources and institutional changes will be needed?
I think we can all agree that we want to get our money's worth from federal transportation investments and that trying to optimize investments across multiple policy goals is challenging. Accountability for outcomes is seen as critical, but it's a frightening prospect to some (who believe they cannot or should not meet the national goals).
I see three important reasons for measuring performance: 1) to establish baselines, 2) to measure progress toward policy goals, and 3) to inform funding allocation.
When used to inform funding allocations, performance measures must be flexible enough to allow goals to be met in a variety of ways tailored to the unique characteristics of the community or region, yet rigorous enough that they truly measure the desired outcomes and cannot be circumvented either deliberately or unknowingly.
Performance measures can be defined as absolute levels, relative levels, trends and/or on a per capita basis. Measure definition will depend in part upon how national goals are defined. While we all have different priority weightings of national policy goals, I expect that they are likely to include the economy, accessibility/mobility, safety/reliability and energy/environment.
I invite you all to share your thoughts on the merits of specific formulations for measuring various policy outcomes.
-- Steve Winkelman
19 responses: Steve Winkelman, Lisa Caruso, Steve Van Beek, Scott Belcher, James Corless, Gabriel Roth, Jack Kinstlinger, Steve Winkelman, Lisa Caruso, Michael A. Replogle, Gabriel Roth, Janet F. Kavinoky, Emil H. Frankel, Gabriel Roth, Steve Winkelman, Gabriel Roth, James Corless, Keith Laughlin, Rob Atkinson
Last week Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood proposed new livability-based funding guidelines for major transit projects and rescinded Bush administration requirements that based funding decisions on how much a project shortened commute times compared to its cost. The criteria determine which projects get funded under the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts and Small Starts programs.
"We're going to free our flagship transit capital program from long-standing requirements that have allowed us only to green-light projects that meet very narrow cost and performance criteria," LaHood told the Transportation Research Board annual meeting on Jan. 13. "Instead, as we evaluate major transit projects going forward, we'll consider all the factors that help communities reduce their carbon footprint, spur economic activity and relieve congestion. To put it simply, we will take livability into account."
What do you think of the new criteria that Secretary LaHood proposed? How would they improve the New Starts and Small Starts programs and how might they hurt them? What other changes would you propose making to the criteria for determining which transit projects receive federal funding?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
20 responses: Jon Martz, Jon Martz, Rich Sarles, Emil H. Frankel, Deron Lovaas, Steve Van Beek, Lisa Caruso, Bob Poole, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Steve Heminger, Mortimer L. Downey, Parris N. Glendening, Greg Cohen, Gabriel Roth, Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., Ken Orski, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., Anthony E. Shorris, James Corless, William Millar
The failed Christmas Day attempt by a 23-year-old Nigerian to blow up a Northwest flight from Amsterdam to the United States again made the issues of aviation security and counterterrorism front-page news. As this country's enemies demonstrate their continued willingness to use aircraft as weapons of mass destruction, what are the most effective strategies to improve aviation security and thwart would-be terrorists?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
What were the three most important transportation developments of 2009? And what should be the top three transportation policy priorities of 2010, either for government at any level or for the private sector?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
17 responses: Randell H. Iwasaki, Bill Graves, Parris N. Glendening, James Corless, Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., Jack Kinstlinger, Scott Belcher, Emil H. Frankel, Geraldine Knatz, James Corless, Steve Van Beek, Greg Principato, Deron Lovaas, John M. Krieger, John Horsley, Gabriel Roth, Michael A. Replogle
After a spate of high-profile accidents on the Washington-area Metro system, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently proposed legislation to make oversight of transit rail safety the responsibility of the federal government rather than the states. Under current law the Federal Transit Administration is prohibited from directly regulating the nation's public transit systems. Instead, they are regulated through the FTA's State Safety Oversight program, which calls for the states to set their own safety standards and implement rail safety oversight and audit programs to measure compliance. However, the legal authorities, budgets and staff levels of the various state oversight agencies vary widely across the country.
The administration's proposed Public Transportation Safety Program Act of 2009 would authorize the Department of Transportation to set minimum safety standards for all rail systems nationwide, as well as give the department the option of creating a safety program for public bus systems. The bill would allow states to receive federal assistance to state and train state oversight personnel to enforce the new rules, and require that state safety agencies be financially independent from the transit systems they oversee.
Has the time come for the federal government to take over safety regulation of local rail transit systems, or does the existing state-based system simply need to be improved and better funded? What is the appropriate federal role in ensuring rail transit safety?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
6 responses: Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Rich Sarles, Parris N. Glendening, Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., William Millar, Rep. John L. Mica, R-Fla.
The final fiscal 2010 transportation spending bill includes language allowing Maine and Vermont to conduct one-year pilot programs granting heavier six-axle trucks access to interstate highways within their borders. Maximum weight was set at 100,000 pounds in Maine and 120,000 pounds in Vermont. Current law bans trucks with a gross weight exceeding 80,000 pounds from federal interstate highways.
The American Trucking Association cheered this move as a step forward for road safety and for greener, more efficient transportation. They say these larger trucks will no longer have to drive on secondary roads that go through small towns, and that consolidating freight loads on fewer trucks saves money for shippers and produces lower greenhouse gas emissions than carrying the same load on several smaller trucks. Major trucking companies back legislation to let states allow six-axle trucks that weigh 97,000 pounds to 103,000 pounds travel on interstates within their borders.
Safety groups counter that heavier trucks will hasten the deterioration of interstate roads and bridges in Maine and Vermont while threatening the safety of other highway drivers because of the time it takes them to stop and the extra weight they are hauling. Environmentalists say bigger trucks are less fuel-efficient than smaller ones and the measure could increase trucks' road usage. Both support the existing limits, as do independent truckers, who generally cannot afford such big rigs, and freight railroads, which compete with the large trucking companies for business.
Should heavier trucks be permitted on interstate highways at all? If so, how much should they be allowed to weigh, and should other conditions be placed on them? What would be the impact on safety, fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, the physical infrastructure, the trucking industry and the entire freight system?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
14 responses: Jacqueline Gillan, Bill Graves, Jim Burnley, Ed Hamberger, Jacqueline Gillan, James Corless, Bill Graves, Lisa Caruso, Bob Poole, James P. Hoffa, Rod Nofziger, Rob McCulloch, Bill Graves, Jacqueline Gillan
With unemployment still in double digits nationally, Congress and the White House are putting together a "jobs bill" -- effectively a second stimulus package -- to get more people back to work. The $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed in February, contained $48 billion for highway, transit and rail projects, including $1.5 billion for competitive TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grants and $8 billion for high-speed rail projects.
After nine months of implementing the ARRA, what lessons have we learned that could be applied to the upcoming jobs bill? What has worked that should be continued or expanded? What hasn't worked that should be fixed or scrapped altogether? And to what extent should the legislation try to accomplish larger transportation policy goals than simply generating jobs?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
29 responses: Randell H. Iwasaki, Joung Lee, Deron Lovaas, Ed Hamberger, Jon Martz, Marion C. Blakey, Geraldine Knatz, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Emil H. Frankel, Parris N. Glendening, James Corless, Steve Van Beek, Ken Orski, Anthony E. Shorris, Steve Van Beek, Kurt J. Nagle, Lisa Caruso, Scott Belcher, Michael A. Replogle, Richard Mudge, Steve Heminger, John Horsley, David A. Raymond, James C. May, Greg Principato, Bill Graves, John M. Krieger, Leslie Blakey, Steve Sandherr
Following a Nov. 12 meeting with representatives of the airlines, airports, general aviation, manufacturers, unions and travelers to discuss the state of the aviation industry, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt announced the formation of federal advisory committee to, as LaHood wrote on his blog, "examine the industry, its competitiveness, and its ability to address evolving transportation needs, challenges and opportunities of the global economy."
The committee will be made up of stakeholders from across the industry and will spend the next year devising a blueprint to restore the ailing industry to economic health and competitiveness. In concluding the invitation-only meeting, LaHood asked participants to send him their suggestions on the makeup of the advisory committee and the five issues the panel should address to chart a way forward for aviation. What do you think are the five most important issues that should be on the group's agenda?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
16 responses: Lisa Caruso, Parris N. Glendening, Lisa Caruso, James C. May, Paul Rinaldi, Anthony E. Shorris, Paul Yarossi, Ken Mead, Marion C. Blakey, Bob Poole, Carol J. Carmody, Greg Principato, Ron Kuhlmann, Robert L. Crandall, Steve Van Beek, Rep. John L. Mica, R-Fla.
