August 2011 Archives

There are some 150,000 bridges in need of repair in the United States, according to the Department of Transportation. Last week's 5.8 magnitude earthquake sent engineers out to inspect many of them along the East Coast to ensure their safety, a prescient reminder that bridge and road solidity can't be taken for granted forever. "This is insanity. We can't rely on earthquakes to make us take a closer look at our bridges and roads, and we certainly shouldn't be in a situation where structural issues in 100-year-old bridges are going unnoticed," said Laborers' International Union of North America General President Terry O'Sullivan.

If an earthquake won't get peoples' attention, how about a Sept. 30 deadline? LIUNA and other transportation groups are sounding the alarm that without congressional action to reauthorize surface transportation funding, hundreds of thousands of job could be in jeopardy and the safety of the roads and bridges in question. "Without reauthorization, projects will have to be dramatically slowed, with a moratorium on new projects, because the state cannot carry federal-aid projects on its own," said Kentucky Transportation Secretary Mike Hancock. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials notes that Congress will only meet for 11 legislative days before the 18.4 cents-per-gallon gas tax expires, leaving the highway trust fund without any inflow.

Lawmakers aren't anywhere close to sealing the deal on a full reauthorization of the surface transportation system, so the best hope for those relying on transportation funding is some kind of extension. But Congress has a few other things on its plate, including deficit-reduction talks, negotiations over the Federal Aviation Administration legislation, and ongoing funding for the entire government (which also expires Sept. 30).

Your predictions are welcome. Can transportation break through the mayhem? Will the gas tax be subjected to scrutiny and ridicule by Republican fiscal hawks? Or will it skate through unnoticed as part of the continuing resolution? Will the job creation in transportation resonate enough to engage lawmakers in maintaining the highway trust fund? Short of another earthquake, is there any hope for retaining current surface transportation spending levels?

4 responses: Deron Lovaas, David Pickeral, Kurt J. Nagle, Robert L. Crandall

The White House last week announced the first ever fuel efficiency standards for trucks, buses, and other heavy-duty vehicles. If the rule is adopted, vehicles manufactured between 2014 and 2018 will be required to reduce their fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 10 to 20 percent, depending on their type. The administration projects that oil consumption will be reduced by about 530 million barrels, and greenhouse gas pollution will be reduced by approximately 270 million metric tons.

The beauty of the heavy truck proposal is that it was largely supported by the trucking industry. President Obama thanked some of those representatives at a private ceremony at the White House. The American Trucking Association gave it the thumbs up, saying it moves the industry in the right direction. Smaller trucking companies were a little more dubious because they felt the government was moving too fast.

The big truck standard came on the heels of a broader announcement from the White House to ramp up vehicle fuel-economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 for regular cars. Under that deal, the administration negotiated with the automakers, unions, environmental groups, and the state of California to settle on an acceptable standard. Some critics argue that the new fuel standard will compromise other parts of the vehicle and make cars more expensive. Obama included a possible escape clause for automakers: A 2018 review of the car standards that could let automakers argue for reducing the miles-per-gallon targets if the most fuel-efficient cars aren't selling.

Has Obama hit on a winning formula with the new fuel standards by making sure industry buys in before he announces them? Are the standards robust enough to achieve the twin goals of reducing oil dependency and creating jobs in high-tech green industries? Is industry really on board or is it just for show? What impact do the fuel standards have on transportation infrastructure? Will the heavy truck standard change how roads and bridges must be maintained?

3 responses: Douglas R Waggoner, Rob McCulloch, Allen Schaeffer

The congressional shouting match that preceded last week's resolution of the Federal Aviation Administration's partial shutdown made it painfully clear that labor issues are a monkey wrench that could destroy otherwise bipartisan legislation. Although the initial debate over a temporary extension of FAA funding began with a spat over rural airport subsidies, it quickly devolved into a fight over how rail and aviation workers can vote to unionize. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, repeatedly took the Senate floor to object to Democrats' attempts to extend the FAA's funding, saying the National Mediation Board overstepped its bounds by changing how non-voters are counted in union elections. (They used to count as "no" votes. Now they don't count at all.) Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., blamed Delta Airlines for hawking "anti-worker language" in a House FAA bill that reversed the NMB's decision.

This isn't the first time labor issues have stymied the FAA bill. Last year, the bill was stalled over a dispute involving FedEx and how its employees would unionize.

Labor issues extend beyond the FAA. For some unions, like the Laborers' International Union of North America, a new highway bill is priority number one because many of its workers are employed in transportation projects. LIUNA will spend all of August mobilizing its members to advocate for a robust highway bill. They're getting political about it, too. Part of their message to lawmakers is to kill House Republicans' highway reauthorization plan, saying it will kill 630,000 jobs. It's not all a confrontation, however. The AFL-CIO has teamed up with its arch nemesis, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to advocate for more infrastructure investment.

What are other examples of how labor impacts transportation and infrastructure? How effective are labor unions in influencing the transportation debate? Are there anti-union forces that also impact the conversation? What can be done to avoid controversial labor issues stalling otherwise bipartisan transportation legislation?

4 responses: Emil H. Frankel, Rob McCulloch, Laura Barrett, Gabriel Roth

The debt-ceiling crisis has knocked off the front pages another government situation that is equally as messed up and mirrors the broader stalemate in Washington. The Federal Aviation Administration has been in partial shutdown for more than a week after lawmakers failed to extend its funding. That leaves 4,000 federal employees on furlough and puts hundreds of airport construction and maintenance projects on hold. It's becoming a familiar refrain: lawmakers seem unable to compromise. The FAA conversation began with questions about whether it was appropriate to cut back rural airport subsidies on a stopgap funding measure, but it has blown up into a full-fledged public war about why the broader FAA reauthorization hasn't been completed after four years.

Here are the outstanding issues, according to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood:

1) Republicans and Democrats have polar opposite opinions about last year's National Mediation Board decision that counts non-voters as no's in rail and aviation union elections. Republicans say NMB overstepped its bounds. Democrats say NMB simply brought union elections into line with all other elections. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., who wants to reverse the NMB decision, thinks there is potential for a compromise. Supporters of the NMB rule wonder what he's smoking. President Obama has threatened to veto the FAA reauthorization bill if the NMB ruling is reversed.

2) Rural airport subsidies cost the U.S. taxpayer $200 million last year. Republicans and Democrats both want to scale back on the "Essential Air Services" program, although Mica has gone a bit further in proposed cuts than the Senate Democrats. Mica has conceded that his initial idea to phase out the program won't fly in the Senate (pun intended). But he also is insisting that lawmakers agree to cutbacks now, as part of a stopgap funding measure, rather than in a conference committee. It's not helping the friendliness factor inside the Capitol.

Is there a way out of this mess? How is the partial shutdown affecting airports and airlines across the country? Will the real impact on families and communities convince lawmakers to sit down and haggle? Can the NMB standoff be resolved? What is a fair compromise on Essential Air Services?

6 responses: Steve Van Beek, Robert L. Crandall, Joshua Schank, Greg Principato, Bob Poole, Gabriel Roth