December 2009 Archives

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?

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?

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?

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