Well, we have a highway bill proposal. The House of Representative’s Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is set to mark up a bill, said to be $260 billion over five years, today. But, like anything in Washington, the bill has little chance of passing. And once again, it will be because our lawmakers know not how to get American cruising down the highway, but rather only how to put up roadblocks.

In addition to differences that must be smoothed over with what the Senate will likely put forth, chief among those being that the current Senate proposal would provide $109 billion over two years, the House version will likely include a controversial oil pipeline project – the Canada to Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline - already rejected by President Barack Obama earlier this year. more

So the U.S. and Mexico have officially signed off on a cross-border trucking deal and the fun begins again. The long-awaited program – promised by the Obama Administration since the cancellation of the previous pilot program in 2009 – is officially a government program. We know this because of the criticism it is receiving, including a court challenge the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA) has filed.

Without getting into too many details (you can read all the coverage at www.fleetowner.com), the one disturbing trend that continues to appear regarding the program is the claim that Mexican trucks are not up to the standards of U.S. vehicles. While that may be true in Mexico, it definitely will not be true here. Yet, opponents of the program continue to pound us over the heads with this. more

UPDATE: Just hours after posting this blog criticizing the state of Connecticut for closing the state’s non-commercial rest areas along Interstates 84, 91, and 95, I received a call from Michael Riley, president of the Motor Transport Association of Connecticut, to say that a deal has just been reached today with the administration of Gov. Dannel Malloy to keep all seven of the rest areas open.

“The administration has made assurances to the transportation committee chairman that they will all remain open,” Riley told me. “The outrage that was expressed by this was phenomenal. People who hadn’t called their legislators in 50 years (were calling).”

So Connecticut has reversed course, despite a Malloy adminstration spokesman telling the Hartford Courant on Monday that the closings would not be reconsidered. The trucking industry has won this battle, but there is a still a war to be fought for safe truck parking in the U.S.

The state of Connecticut, in an effort to close a budget gap, will be closing all seven of its non-commercial rest areas in the state, and with those closures will come a significant decrease in the number of available parking spaces for truckers.

(UPDATE at 1:40 p.m.: A deal has been reached to keep the rest areas open.)

The first two areas, in Willington, CT, along Interstate 84 (the main highway crossing from New York to Massachusetts, will close on July 1. The remaining five – in Danbury and Southington along 84, Middletown and Wallingford along I-91 (which runs from the shoreline to Massachusetts), and North Stonington, on I-95 (the route from New York to Rhode Island toward Boston), will all close within a year, the state said.

more

A bill working its way through the Indiana legislature opens the door to the possibility that truck-only lanes could be created along Interstate 70, potentially creating more efficiency and safety along the highway. That same bill, though, might give the Indiana governor dictator-like authority that could cost the industry billions in the end.

According to the Indiana Business Journal, Senate Bill 473 would grant the governor the sole authority to move quickly when a public infrastructure project presents itself, and that includes public-private partnerships, new road construction, and tolling opportunities.

While this would open the door to creating truck-only lanes that could decrease delivery times, shorten routes, lessen congestion, and improve overall road safety by separating trucks and automobiles along I-70, it also gives the governor, currently Mitch Daniels, the power to identify an opportunity and act upon it. This includes public-private partnerships that essentially amount to selling a section of road –either new or existing - to a private enterprise that would then recoup its investment through tolls.

“This thing has been designed to be under the radar,” Aaron Smith, founder of Watchdog Indiana, told the Business Journal of the bill. “It is not right for a single individual—the governor—to have complete power over toll road decisions. The impact of toll roads on working families is so significant that all 150 of our elected General Assembly public servants should continue to decide the fate of toll road projects.”

According to state Republican Sen. Tom Wyss, truck-only lanes are just one possibility. The governor’s press secretary Jane Jankowski said “there are no specific projects in mind.” In fact, Wyss said the only real purpose of this bill is to speed the decision-making process, and public hearings and a legislative review would still be part of the process. But in the end, the governor would have the final say.

So for any good that truck-only lanes could create, with only one person making the ultimate decision and removing the legislative process, the end result could be more tolls and that means higher costs. And as we’ve all learned through the history of this nation, when one person has the ultimate power, the end result is usually nothing good.

Part of the deal that President Barack Obama struck with Mexican President Calderon last week to allow Mexican trucks to cross the border and operate inside the U.S. was the requirement that those trucks install electronic onboard recorders (EOBRs).

What we now know about that deal is that FMCSA will pay for the installation of the EOBRs. Talk about a political football. Given how many feel about Mexican truck drivers on U.S. roads, I wonder if this provision was put in by the Administration to show Mexico that we were doing everything we could to comply with the requirements of NAFTA, while at the same time creating an out for the public and Congress.

For the record, I am in favor of opening the border and allowing Mexican trucks to haul into the U.S., just as American trucks should be allowed to haul into Mexico. As I’ve written before, though, those Mexican trucks should meet all U.S. rules and regulations, from safety to emissions to highway laws. There are many people, though, who disagree with this premise.

(Trucking leader says Mexican trucks can not meet EPA standards)

While I believe the specifics of the border trucking program should be debated. This revelation seems a lot like a poison pill designed to torpedo the program before it can be resurrected. According to reports, the reason the U.S. wants to pay for the EOBRs is so that the government “owns” the data the devices collect. Until someone can provide a valid reason as to why the government needs to own this data, I question why this is important. more

The U.S. House yesterday passed a seven-month extension of the multi-year surface transportation bill (SAFETEA-LU), aka the highway bill, to keep funding highway, safety and transit programs through Sept. 30, 2011.

The multi-year surface transportation bill expired in September 2009 and has since been extended several times to keep funds flowing and projects moving forward. A long-term authorization, however, has been elusive due to a variety of factors, including party politics.

The extension the House passed, by a vote of 421-4, needs to be approved by the Senate before the current extension expires tomorrow. According to U.S. Rep. Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (T&I), if an extension is not agreed to, nearly $800 million in highway reimbursements to states could be in danger next week.

But Rahall comments on the passage of this short-term bill identifies some of the problems that lie ahead to get a long-term authorization approved.

“Extending these programs is critical to keeping our economy on the road to recovery, and I strongly support this bill – as did my colleagues on both sides of the aisle – when we passed it out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee two weeks ago under unanimous consent,” he said. “What I cannot support, however, are Republican attempts to gut investments that grow our economy, such as those in the Republican spending bill that passed two weeks ago. What I cannot support is dangerous and draconian cuts to investments in America’s future just as our economy is turning the corner. What I cannot support is cutting the job-creating muscle of our budget when we should be focusing on trimming the fat.”

House T&I Chairman John Mica (R-FL), along with other members of the committee, has been barnstorming the country in recent weeks to gain feedback from industry stakeholders and the public on how a future authorization bill should look. How much of that input will go into the final bill, though, will probably depend as much on party politics as funding possibilities.

If a long-term bill is not completed by September, and Mica has said it is a priority to get one passed by then, we could be looking at two more years of extensions as we enter a presidential election cycle. Very few member of Congress - Republicans or Democrats, Representatives or Senators - are going to want to wade into a massive funding bill that is sure to be criticized by nearly everyone that has a stake in transportation just before an important election.

For everyone’s sake, let’s hope this is the last extension for quite some time.

While most truck drivers in the U.S. worry about what the guy next to them is doing when he should be watching the road, there are a group of drivers who risk their lives every day, worried about a whole lot more than just the driver on his cell phone. They are the men and women who ferry supplies to our troops in war-torn countries such as Afghanistan.

Many people forget that even with all our military might, most of it would not be if not for fuel and other necessary supplies like replacement parts and food. And how does this stuff arrive at camps? Just like bread arrives in your local store: via truck.

And it’s not just the military’s men and women who put their lives on the line to deliver the goods, it’s also the average citizen. There is a wonderful article I saw today by Kathy Gannon of the Associated Press. Gannon writes about the haulers who transport 100 truckloads of fuel a day to the front lines to keep the U.S. army operational in Afghanistan.

(You can read the whole story here)

more

In a recent interview, Rep. John Mica, R-FL, the new chair of the House’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he intends to focus on getting an FAA reauthorization bill passed first before tackling the long-term surface transportation bill.

Mica told The Journal of Commerce that his priority is passing an FAA bill, which has gone through 17 extensions since its expiration in 2007.

There still is some good news on the highway bill, though, which expired in 2009 and has since received seven Congressional extensions. Even though it will come second, Mica told the Journal he intends to hold “listening sessions” to gather input on the form the new highway bill should take, giving some stakeholders a chance influence the final bill. more

The debate over Mexican trucks on U.S. highways is sure to intensify over the coming months following the “concept document” the U.S. DOT unveiled yesterday. What is also likely to continue is the flawed argument by opponents of the program that allowing these trucks on U.S. roadways increases the risks to Americans.

“We continue to have serious reservations about DOT’s ability to guarantee the safety of Mexican trucks,” Teamsters general president Jim Hoffa said. “Mexican trucks simply don’t meet the same standards as U.S. trucks – they don’t even have to have anti-lock brakes. Medical and physical standards for Mexican trucking firms are lower than for U.S. companies. And how can Mexico enforce highway safety laws when it can’t even control drug cartels?”

(The Dept. of Transportation has posted the proposal on its website. You can find it here.)

Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA), echoed those same thoughts. more