May 2010 Archives

Updated at 11:37 a.m. on May 26.

Earlier this month the Department of Transportation released its draft strategic plan for the next five years, posting it on the department's website and asking for public comments. Titled "Transportation for a New Generation," it lays out an ambitious and "transformative" set of goals to enable the country's transportation system to meet the social, environmental and economic challenges of the 21st century, according to the executive summary.

The draft plan is organized around five strategic goals, with a chapter for each elaborating on detailed strategies, as well as challenges, for meeting them. The goals are:

• Improve public health and safety by reducing transportation-related fatalities and injuries.

• Ensure the U.S. proactively maintains its critical transportation infrastructure in a state of good repair.

• Promote transportation policies and investments that foster economic competitiveness and bring lasting and equitable benefits to the nation and its citizens.

• Foster livable communities through place-based policies and investment that increase transportation choices and access to transportation services.

• Advance environmentally sustainable policies and investments that reduce carbon and other harmful emissions from transportation sources.

What is your opinion of the department's draft strategic plan? Do you agree with its priorities? What do you think of the strategies it proposes to advance those goals? If you were to write a strategic plan for DOT, how would it differ?

19 responses: Lisa Caruso, Tom Till, Emil H. Frankel, Keith Laughlin, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Lisa Caruso, Jacqueline Gillan, Richard Mudge, Bill Graves, Robert L. Darbelnet, Deron Lovaas, James Corless, Greg Cohen, Steve Van Beek, Jim Burnley, Bob Poole, Mortimer L. Downey, Ken Orski, Ray LaHood

Earlier this month United Airlines and Continental Airlines announced a merger agreement which, if approved by the Justice Department, would create a single carrier called United Airlines that would serve more than 144 million passengers a year flying to 370 destinations in 59 countries. United and Continental are also members of Star Alliance, the world's largest global airline network, an arrangement that allows them to coordinate international routes, ticketing, frequent flyer programs and other services with the alliance's 25 other members.

Advocates of consolidation say it strengthens the airlines' financial position in the face of competition from low-cost airlines, volatile fuel prices and excess carrying capacity. The two airlines promised in a joint press release that the deal would mean "more and better scheduled service and destinations for customers."

But critics such as House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., warn of just the opposite. In a May 5 letter to the Justice Department, Oberstar predicted, "If allowed to proceed, this merger will move the country far down the path of an airline system dominated by three mega-carriers," referring to the 2008 purchase of Northwest Airlines by Delta, the proposed merger of United and Continental, and the possibility that American Airlines would respond by merging with another airline, such as US Airways. "There will be strong incentives to refrain from competition. There will be less service and fares will rise," Oberstar wrote.

What do you think of the proposed merger? Will it benefit the two airlines? What about customers and the airline industry as a whole? Should the Justice Department approve it?

13 responses: Lisa Caruso, Robert L. Crandall, Lisa Caruso, Lisa Caruso, Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., Lisa Caruso, Lisa Caruso, Lisa Caruso, Lisa Caruso, Kevin Mitchell, Lisa Caruso, Carol J. Carmody, Robert L. Crandall

On April 29, the Transportation Department's controversial rule setting harsh penalties for U.S. airlines that delay domestic flights on the ground for more than three hours took effect. The rule requires airlines to let passengers off a plane grounded on the tarmac after three hours except for reasons of safety or security, or if air traffic controllers determine that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations. Airlines must also provide passengers adequate food and drinking water within two hours of delaying a flight, maintain working lavatories, and provide medical attention if necessary.

Passengers' rights advocates have cheered the rule, which they first started pushing for in 1999 and redoubled their efforts to secure after incidents in 2006 and 2007 left outraged travelers stranded on grounded flights for up to 10 hours without food, water or working toilets. But the airline industry has warned that it will inconvenience flyers as carriers pre-emptively cancel more flights than they otherwise would have rather than risk being fined up to $27,500 for every passenger who cannot exit a flight stuck on the tarmac for more than three hours.

What do you think of the rule limiting tarmac delays to three hours? Is it good for airline passengers, or will it have unintended consequences that could make flying more difficult? Are there better ways to ensure that air travelers aren't subject to lengthy tarmac delays?

12 responses: Lisa Caruso, Andy Steinberg, Gabriel Roth, Robert L. Crandall, Lisa Caruso, Greg Principato, Lisa Caruso, Bob Poole, Gabriel Roth, Robert L. Crandall, Kevin Mitchell, Paul Rinaldi

On April 26, the organization representing state transportation officials released the first in a series of reports calling for increasing the nation's capacity in transit, rail and particularly highways. Two days later, a leading consumer watchdog group unveiled a report urging federal and state governments to strongly emphasize preserving the current interstate highway and bridge system rather than expanding it.

"Unlocking Gridlock," released by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, focuses on relieving urban congestion. While AASHTO advocates maintaining and improving the performance of the current transportation system, shifting car trips to other modes and shifting freight from trucks to rail, it says that adding new highways "will be a principal part of what is needed" to relieve congestion and foster economic growth.

When it comes to highways, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group reaches a different conclusion in its report "Road Work Ahead: Holding Government Accountable for Fixing America's Crumbling Roads and Bridges." U.S. PIRG believes "we must adopt strong 'fix it first' rules that give priority to maintenance of our existing roads and bridges, set national goals for the condition of our transportation system, and hold state governments accountable for achieving results."

How would you set priorities for highway spending? What criteria would you use? How can federal policy better encourage states to keep existing roads and bridges in good repair? How can it give them better tools to address their urban mobility and congestion problems?

15 responses: Ken Orski, Emil H. Frankel, Geoff Anderson, Jan Mueller, Laura Barrett, Deron Lovaas, Phineas Baxandall, Gabriel Roth, Keith Laughlin, James Corless, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Bill Graves, Bob Poole, John Horsley, Phineas Baxandall