Infrastructure development is rapidly becoming one of the hottest issues on the political scene within the trucking industry.

Equally controversial is the issue of how to fund the necessary infrastructure developments. Recent studies have shown that traffic congestion is becoming more and more problematic for commercial transportation and daily commuters alike. One solution is to invest in the infrastructure of the transportation system and plan for the future. Most would agree that infrastructure improvements on the transportation grid are needed, but the debate comes with the questions of where and how much.

The Pennsylvania Legislature passed a bill in July 2007 that would add tolls to Interstate 80. The purpose of the tolls is to fund the continued maintenance and infrastructure development of the interstate. This is a significant test case, because if this is allowed to occur, other states could follow suit and convert other interstates to toll roads. Congress, however, has taken action to prevent it. U.S. Rep. John Peterson and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson introduced legislation in September to prevent the tolling of interstates.

“The American public should never be charged to use interstate highways that were built with their own tax revenues. As it stands, toll roads create an unnecessary fiscal burden on citizens and the idea is one that I fundamentally oppose. This legislation will provide an important safeguard against this practice by ensuring that drivers are never tolled for using roads that were built with federal funds,” said U.S. Rep. Charles Gonzalez, a co-sponsor of the House bill.

“This bill will protect drivers from paying tolls on roads that were already paid for by taxpayers,” said Hutchison.

Peterson said, “The recent news that the state is re-engaging potential bidders for the turnpike is a crystal clear indicator that we are making inroads in overturning Pennsylvania’s reckless, short-term fix to toll Interstate 80, which passed without consideration of the negative, long-term economic consequences. The court of public opinion – which was virtually shut out before Act 44 was passed – is increasingly on the side of keeping freeways free.”

Closely related to the question of how to fund infrastructure improvements is the question of where to begin. The Federal Highway Administration announced on Sept. 10 that it has identified six interstate routes as “Corridors of the Future,” including parts of I-95, I-70, I-15, I-5, I-10 and I-69.

According to the FHWA press release, “Today’s announcement follows a yearlong competition to select a handful of interstate corridors from among the 38 applications received from public and private-sector entities to join the department’s ’Corridors of the Future‘ program, aimed at developing innovative national and regional approaches to reduce congestion and improve the efficiency of freight delivery. The selected corridors carry 22.7 percent of the nation’s daily interstate travel.”

The routes will receive the following funding amounts to implement their development plans: $21.8 million for I-95 from Florida to the Canadian border; $5 million for I-70 in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio; $15 million for I-15 in Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California; $15 million for I-5 in California, Oregon and Washington; $8.6 million for I-10 from California to Florida; and $800,000 for I-69 from Texas to Michigan.

What does this mean for truck drivers? It means more construction delays, but sometimes that is acceptable if the infrastructure is truly being improved. The real question is whether this program will address congestion in a meaningful manner that will not ultimately cost the trucking industry more money through user fees, increased fuel taxes or tolls. With the movement in Congress to stop the tolling of interstates, and a lack of commitment to increasing the fuel tax, there are legitimate questions about how future infrastructure improvements – including the “Corridors of the Future” – will be funded in the next budgeting cycle.

Read the story as originally published in the November Issue of Challenge Magazine.

Michael Howe will make a guest appearance on the Martha Zoller Radio program Thursday at 10:00am EST.

The topic of conversation.....none other than the Mexican Trucking Program and the latest announcement that US Taxpayers will be funding satellite tracking equipment for Mexican trucks.  You can read the World Net Daily article written by Howe here.

This will be Mike's 4th appearance on the Martha Zoller Show!  Listen online!

Taxpayers foot bill for Mexican truckers
Safety equipment tab starts out at $367,000
By Michael Howe
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has announced that U.S. taxpayers will be footing the startup costs of a program to install satellite tracking technology on vehicles taking part in the Mexican Truck Demonstration Program.
 

The announcement confirmed the U.S. government would "initially spend approximately $367,000 to outfit all trucks from the United States and Mexico that take part in the program."
 

According to the administration, "the decision to require the installation of satellite tracking technology on trucks in the program was made after members of Congress expressed a desire to know whether participants are complying with federal safety and trade laws."
 

A key opponent of the program, and author of the language in the transportation appropriations bill to halt funding of the program, continued to express disappointment Barry Piatt, spokesman for Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., told WND, "It's an indication that they are going forward with the program, despite strong and pretty clear opposition from both chambers of Congress."
 

Congressman Duncan Hunter's office told WND he agrees. "The tracking technology, while a step in the right direction, does very little to ensure compliance with safety and security standards. The focus must remain on implementing reliable and enforceable standards that ensure Mexican truckers with access to U.S. roadways do not threaten the safety of vehicle motorists or America's security," explained Joe Kasper, spokesman for Hunter, R-Calif.
 

According to the FMCSA, the technology will help continue to ensure that trucks operating as part of the program are complying with the agency's rigorous safety standards and U.S. trade laws.
 

The FMCSA intends to use the information gathered from the equipment to ensure trucks comply with hours-of-service laws and rules that govern the trips into and out of the country. The GPS-based technology also will allow real-time tracking of truck location, documenting every international-border and state-line crossing. The equipment does not provide cargo information.
 

"The satellite-based technology will be used to track trucks by vehicle number and company only – no driver information will be collected," the administration statement said.
 

This, Hunter believes, does not go far enough. Kasper told WND, "Tracking technology, especially when driver data is not being collected, comes nowhere close to achieving this goal. Congressman Hunter continues to support an easily assessable database that includes driver history and background information, as well as stronger inspection requirements and enforcement standards."
 

At an Oct. 18, 2007, meeting of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters told members that the satellite tracking system would help ensure safety, and that the DOT was working to compromise with Congress to continue the Mexican Truck Demonstration program despite language in the funding bill that would kill it.

Reacting to methods of compromise, Piatt told WND, "The fact that the administration is ignoring the view of Congress makes it less likely, not more likely, that it will look for a compromise on this. Congress has stated clearly that it believes going forward with such a program, without the information needed to assure safety on American roads, is not safe."
 

He also questioned whether or not there are truly efforts to compromise. "Those rumors have been around, mostly fed by the administration, for some time. As the author of the Senate language, I can tell you their thumbing their nose at Congress – so to speak – is not helping their cause on this issue in Congress."
 

For some, the fact that the FMCSA will spend just under $400,000 of American taxpayer money to equip all trucks, Mexican or U.S., with satellite tracking equipment raises questions. Kasper said, "I am not familiar with the funding aspect. But one would assume that there would be a shared funding responsibility (between the two countries)."
 

FMCSA spokeswoman Melissa Delaney was contacted regarding the funding but did not respond to inquiries.

View the Story as published in World Net Daily

 

Alan Keyes, Republican Presidential hopeful, was the featured guest on Monday's (Oct 29) show.  There is one thing for certain, he is definately passionate about what he believes.

To be honest though, it was a very difficult interview because Mr. Keyes rarely took a breath, so it was challenging for Geoff or I to ask him questions.  Like many politicians he had a knack for repeating himself and dominating the conversation.  He seemed to think it was the Alan Keyes Show.

On the issues, he directly attacked Romney, Guliani, and Thompson.  He also attacked - though not by name - the second tier candidates.  His primary issues of concern were related to abortion and gay marriage - he called for a constitutional amendment on each.

With regard to Iraq, he did make one comment that I really liked.  "You don't spread Democracy through the barrel of a gun."  However, though he seemed opposed to the Iraq War he was in favor of having troops over there fighting the War on Terrorism.  Everything else should be handled diplomatically.

On Illegal Immigration, he is a proponent of the border fence, establishing a national border guard, creating a citizen auxiliary, and for enforcing the laws that are already on the books.  Enforcing the current laws is also how he would deal with the current illegal population.

Overall, I enjoyed his enthusiasm, but I was disappointed that we were unable to engage him in a real conversation.   He overused the term "sovereignty" - connecting it to abortion, gay marriage, the border, Iraq, the UN, separation of church and state, and more.


In the Cruising Through The News segment:

Tom Tancredo announced he will not run for re-election to his House seat in Colorado.  This will end up being a very hotly contested open seat that could have major implications for control of the House.  Tom has done a wonderful job of elevating the illegal immigration issue - I wish he would stay in the House and continue the fight.  

We also touched on Secretary of State Rice and her efforts to consult with former President's about their dimplomatic work in the Middle East.  I say "Good for Her!"  There is nothing wrong with a first hand historical lesson.

Other items included the Iraq War Protests and vandalism at the Mexican Consulate in New York (let's hope we aren't letting this immigration issue get out of hand - maybe Congress and the Administration should actually do something about the issue before the populace gets carried away).

President Bush has requested $46 Billion in additional funding for the Iraq War.  I believe the Democrats will use this opportunity to call for an end to the war itself, but will not have what it takes to end the war.  Either you want to stop the war or you don’t.  Congress can end the war at anytime by stopping the funding, but the Democrats would rather continue to blame the President in this political season instead of making the tough stand.

The claim that you can support the troops but not the war is nice, but….if you had the choice to end the war and bring them home, or leave them there and continue funding the war…..that is exactly the choice Congress has.  Stop the politics and commit fully to winning the war.

Geoff and I also wonder if the media is biased on these issues……hmmm, no doubt in my mind.

We also discussed a very interesting story about US veterans who were POW’s in previous wars and their thoughts on torture.  This was a very difficult discussion, but overall I believe the US should take the lead in the proper treatment of POW’s – YET, at the same time we MUST do what it takes to protect America and the lives of American’s around the globe.

The craziest story we discussed was related to a turtle fence.  The state of Michigan wants $318,000 in federal money to build a fence to keep turtles off of a highway and being killed during their migration.  WHY ARE WE NOT WILLING TO BUILD THE FENCE ON THE BORDER, BUT WE WANT TO BUILD ONE TO SAVE A TURTLE?  PRIORITIES PEOPLE, PRIORITIES!

We also commented on the news that the University of Northern Colorado claims its enrollment has dropped because District Attorney Ken Buck (Weld County) held a forum about the negative impacts illegal immigration.  So, now even the sharing of information about illegal immigration is bad.  Come on UNC – don’t blame the messenger, instead focus on the core issue!  Heck, maybe tuition is too high; maybe crime is the issue; maybe – just maybe, the press about the UNC back up punter that stabbed the starting punter for the football team had something to do with it.

Several other items were discussed, including water, S-CHIP, state of Colorado budget, mosquitoes, silly comments at CU, and more…..

The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held an oversight hearing October 18, 2007, on the US Department of transportation.

The intent of the hearing was to provide general oversight on current regulatory and programmatic activities at the U.S. Department of Transportation.  One issue discussed was the Mexican Truck Demonstration Program.

Opponents of the Mexican Truck program often cite safety concerns as a reason to delay the program.  In his opening statement, Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) expressed concern about the safety of highways, even without the Mexican truck program.  “Highway and truck fatalities have either risen or remained stubbornly high in recent years, and efforts by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), in particular, appear to not be achieving the safety improvements that we expect and that the driving public deserves.”

The FMCSA oversees the implementation of the Mexican Truck Demonstration Program.

Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), in his introductory comments, encouraged Secretary Peters to take a stronger lead in transportation issues.  Lott said, “You as Secretary, and our transportation department, need to be more proactive.  Get out ahead of us and challenge us more.”

Referring to the Mexican Trucking Program, Lott said, “With cross border trucking, I supported you on that and we haven’t pulled that off yet.”

The question and answer period of the hearing also saw the Mexican Truck Demonstration Program discussed, with most of the questions coming from Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR).

Pryor asked Secretary Peters about the status of the proposal to track Mexican trucks with satellite.  Peters said, “We are moving forward with the GPS devices.  At one time we thought there was only one provider that could provide those devices and thought we might be able to move to a more immediate contract to do that.”

The initial DOT plan did not go ahead as planned however.  “What we have found is that there are several vendors that are interested in providing those devices, so appropriately we are holding an open competition and by the end of this calendar year we should be able to have a program in place to put a GPS device on every Mexican truck that is participating in the demonstration program,” explained Peters.

Those concerned about the program see the satellite tracking as of little benefit.  Todd Spencer, Executive Vice President of OOIDA, said,  “I don’t see how this ensures anything from a safety or security standpoint. We’d like FMCSA to explain in more detail exactly how this system will actually keep track of the hours of service of a trucker.”  OOIDA also points out that the FMCSA’s own press release states, “no driver information will be collected or tracked.”

Pryor also inquired about drug testing and physical examinations for Mexican truck drivers.  Peters indicated she is satisfied with how that process is working.  “American labs are conducting those tests.  I also asked the office of drug control policy to validate that we have the proper procedures in place as well as the independent panels to validate those procedures,” said Peters.

Calvin Scovell, III, Inspector General of the US Department of Transportation, was less confident about the safety of the Mexican Truck Demonstration Program and shared his concerns with the Committee in his opening statements.

“Recent fatal highway incidents highlight the need for the Department to focus on ensuring the safety of the Nation’s surface transportation infrastructure,” said Scovell.

He continued, “Additionally, the recent decision to permit some Mexican carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the border underscores the need for the Department to provide vigilant oversight to ensure the safety of the Nation’s highways.”
 

On September 6, 2007, Scovell’s office issued an audit report, and it was that same day the FMCSA responded to Congress regarding the report and also initiated a 1-year demonstration project to permit up to 100 Mexican carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones.

It was that same day that Rep. DeFazio, (D-OR), said, “This is a sad day for America. Mexican trucks pose a serious threat to the safety of our highways and the security of our country. This Administration is hell-bent on opening up our borders but has failed to require that Mexican drivers and trucks meet the same safety and security standards as US drivers and trucks. That’s simply unacceptable. The Administration is essentially adopting a faith-based paper system without adequate protections for public safety.”

Explaining the audit report to the Committee, Scovell said, “Our report called on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to address the need for coordinated, site-specific plans for checking trucks and drivers participating in the demonstration project each time they cross the border into the United States.”
 
“Assuming that future funding for the demonstration project is approved and the project continues, FMCSA will need to coordinate with the states and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to carry out the plans for these checks. These checks must ensure that all Mexican drivers participating in the demonstration project are properly licensed and all trucks display a decal denoting a recent safety inspection.”

The future of the program is in doubt however.  Congress must meet in Conference Committee to discuss the Transportation Funding bill (S 1789 / HR 3074).  Both versions of the bill contain identical amendments to prohibit the use of funds for the demonstration program.  As of this writing the House has yet to name its conferees.

Senator Dorgan (D-ND), sponsor of the Senate Amendment, said, “”Because my amendment is identical to language already included in the House-passed version of this bill, I expect this provision will not be altered in the House-Senate conference committee and that we have, effectively, stopped this pilot program.”

View The Story as Published on PolitiTruck.com