Trump and Trucking

[kscarbel2]

Trucking with Trump: Beware Fog Ahead

Heavy Duty Trucking  /  November 9, 2016

While roughly half the electorate is still reveling in a historic presidential victory and the rest remains reviling it, the brass-tacks business of transitioning from the outgoing Obama to the incoming Trump Administration is already under way.

Once Donald Trump is sworn in on Jan. 21st as the 45th President of the United States, it will be the first time since 2011 that one party has occupied the White House and controlled both the House and Senate.

So, there will be lots of jockeying among key Republicans— both those previously for or against Trump-- and non-GOP Trump supporters for power in the roughly 10 weeks left until Inauguration Day.

But since President-elect Trump has never been in lockstep with Republican orthodoxy let alone with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI)-- who barely endorsed the President-elect-- there’s no way of telling now how their vision of governing jointly will ultimately turn out.

The handing over of the presidency began when President Obama on Nov. 9 pledged that he and his staff will “work as hard as we can to make sure that this is a successful transition for the President-elect.” Much earlier that day in his acceptance speech, Trump called “for America to bind the wounds of division.”

Right after describing the electoral support he had received as “a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs,” Trump pivoted to a brief rundown on specific policies he will pursue in which he noted infrastructure right off the bat.

“We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals,” Trump stated. “We're going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none, and we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.”

The only published specifics on how the next President will accomplish that appear on his campaign website, where a policy plan declares that Trump will rebuild infrastructure via a “deficit-neutral plan” of infrastructure tax credits. A key albeit nebulous part of that plan aims to “refocus government spending on American infrastructure and away from the Obama-Clinton globalization agenda.”

Trump also promises to “provide maximum flexibility to the states” for infrastructure projects. In addition, his plan echoes a core element of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in that Trump aims to “create thousands of new jobs in construction, steel manufacturing, and other sectors to build the transportation, water, telecommunications and energy infrastructure needed to enable new economic development in the U.S., all of which will generate new tax revenues.”

On the other hand, he sounds more like the business executive he has been for decades with his call for funding infrastructure by leveraging “new revenues” and working with financing authorities, public-private partnerships, and “other prudent funding opportunities.”

Trump also wants to employ incentive-based contracting to ensure projects run on time and on budget and to “link increased investments with positive reforms to infrastructure programs that reduce waste and cut costs.”

Trucking, if not every industry (and motorist) in the country, can’t argue with such a full-throated commitment to infrastructure. That the Trump plan’s heavy reliance on public funding, a.k.a. user fees and tolls, will be so warmly received by trucking advocates and other major industry lobbies is far less certain.  

Certainly, it is highly likely less regulation will be generated by Executive Branch agencies under Trump. Less certain is whether any rulemakings still in the pipeline, such as the GHG/MPG Phase 2 rules, will be delayed or simply abandoned outright. Given the reaction to Trump’s victory by Friends of the Earth, there is real concern among environmental advocates that little to no action on climate change will be taken by the Trump Administration.

“Technicalities aside about whether President-elect Trump can remove the U.S. from the Paris [climate change] agreement, it’s clear that for the next four years, the U.S. government is unlikely to be a partner in global climate action,” said Friends of the Earth U.S. Climate and Energy Director Benjamin Schreiber. “The U.S. will likely make international climate protection efforts more difficult and that is why the rest of the world can no longer wait for U.S. action. Friends of the Earth U.S. is calling on the world to use economic and diplomatic pressure to compel U.S. leaders to act.”

While some household GOP names— like former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General— among other candidates for Cabinet posts have been publicly bandied about, there has yet to be any mention of a possible nominee for Secretary of Transportation. One interesting potential pick being talked up, by the way, is Forrest Lucas, co-founder of Lucas Oil, for Secretary of the Interior.

Regardless of who joins the Trump cabinet, major lobbies, such as the American Trucking Associations, will keep pushing their respective agendas on Capitol Hill. So, for example, any new safety-related rules sought by the trucking industry, such as speed limiters on trucks or hair-testing for driver drug use, legislated into law as Congressional mandates will have to be enacted by the Trump Administration.

ATA and other trucking advocates could find common ground with President-elect Trump on some issues. ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said the lobby looks forward to working with Trump “on a host of issues, including long-term, sustainable infrastructure funding, tax reform, and fair and free trade.”

Working with Trump on the latter issue may take some doing as Trump did campaign heavily and harshly against free trade agreements, including the existing NAFTA accord with Canada and Mexico and the yet-to-be-ratified Trans Pacific Partnership. 

Speaking about international trade just last month, ATA’s Spear said that “any attempt to reopen or threaten this longstanding [NAFTA] agreement could have dire repercussions on our industry. And not adopting TPP will undoubtedly will push those potential Asian Rim partners towards a future agreement with China. America relies of free trade and trucking is key.”

Trump, of course, also got good news about the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The House remains solidly in GOP hands while the Republicans held onto their Senate majority.

The real question going forward is whether Trump and the GOP leaders on Capitol Hill leaders will see eye to eye and for long enough to pass major legislation, including all the nuances of how various measures will actually be funded.

For one big example, will trucking sign off on a highway bill that is largely funded by private sources? And let’s not forget free trade. That's an arena in which many Democrats lately have been sounding and acting more like Republicans long have and Donald Trump has not— at least not when he was in campaign mode.

[kscarbel2]

Trump and trucking: 'great' infrastructure, end to NAFTA

Fleet Owner  /  November 9, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump has promised to make America’s infrastructure great again, but exactly how he’ll put his vision into action—and what those policies will mean to trucking—has not been settled. While highway users can be hopeful about his campaign pledge, based on his extensive construction experience, to “build the greatest infrastructure on the planet earth,” his recent policy outline leans heavily on user fees (and which some suggest means privatization, which means tolling).

Still, the American Trucking Assns. anticipates having a seat at the transition table.

“During the campaign, he highlighted the need to create jobs, and recognized that improving our nation's infrastructure is critical to strengthening the economy. … We look forward to working with President-elect Trump on a host of issues, including long-term, sustainable infrastructure funding, tax reform and fair and free trade,” said ATA President and CEO Chris Spear, in a statement. “We have already begun meeting with the Trump transition team, and look forward to working closely with the new Administration on issues that will allow the trucking industry to continue to grow and move America forward.”

Free trade, however, might be a tough sell. In addition to his famous pledge to build a wall at the border with Mexico, Trump campaigned on a promise to undo the North American Free Trade Agreement. Not only do trucks carry the majority of overland trade with Mexico and Canada, truck makers have assembly plants south of the border.

Morningstar analyst Keith Schoonmaker points out that railroads Kansas City Southern and Union Pacific would both be hurt by substantial changes to the trade agreement. “It’s pretty uncertain what the long-term renegotiation of NAFTA would look like, but even just the sentiment of ‘there’s a candidate who just won who thinks NAFTA is a bad idea,’—that certainly wouldn’t be a positive,” he said in a Bloomberg Markets report on the “aftershocks” of the Trump victory.

Also, the Trump administration could roll back some Obama-era regulations. A morning-after note to clients from the Stifel transportation equipment team suggest the second round of greenhouse gas limits for trucks could be such a target, given the long lead time to implementation.

As to Trump’s cabinet, the post of Transportation Secretary is conspicuously absent from the Politico’s post-election speculation. Broadly, the report suggests the transition team has a short list that features “industry titans and conservative activists who could comprise one of the more eclectic and controversial presidential cabinets in modern history.”

Of course, every president submits budgets and plans, then Congress does what it wants. Trump the candidate was often at odds with the Republican leadership in Congress, so the first infrastructure project of the Trump administration is likely to be the repair of the political bridge to Capitol Hill.

But Trump still should face less partisan resistance than President Obama, now that Republicans have held on to majorities in both the House and Senate. A key ally, after surviving challenges in the both the primary and general elections, will be Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. But as recently as the Republican National Convention in July, Shuster told Business Insider that Trump had not provided him with any specific plan. Still, Shuster noted that Republicans historically have been the “infrastructure presidents.”

“Infrastructure is a Republican issue, but over the years we’ve lost,” Shuster said. “We’ve got to get back to figuring out how to build out and rebuild our national transportation. It’s essential to having a strong economy.”

Another trucking ally in Congress, Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) appears on the road to a narrow victory in his hotly contested contest. Denham has led the legislative effort to give interstate carriers relief from California’s minimum wage and rest break laws.

A range of state and local transportation and infrastructure measures were on ballots, as well. These included:

• a “lockbox” amendment in Illinois, which passed easily, to require all transportation taxes and fees be spent exclusively on transportation projects

• similarly, New Jersey voters approved a constitutional amendment dedicating gas tax proceeds to transportation projects

• gas tax proposals struggled in several locations in Oregon and Nevada

• a transportation sales tax in Venture County (CA) failed to meet the two-thirds majority it needed, while voters in Stanislaus Country approved the tax.

AASHTO has posted a more complete list of the transportation votes.

[kscarbel2]

Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer May Be Trump Ally on Infrastructure

Transport Topics  /  November 9, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump may end up turning to an unexpected ally — incoming Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer — to pursue several major elements of his agenda, including infrastructure.

At times, Trump’s agenda lines up more closely with that of the New York Democrat than his own party’s leaders. When Trump delivered his acceptance speech early Nov. 9, the only policy proposal he mentioned was his desire to rebuild “our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals.” Such a plan is at odds with the fiscal restraint enforced by congressional Republicans, but echoes Schumer’s own statements.

Trump has also talked frequently about cracking down on China for manipulating its currency, something that Schumer has spent years trying to persuade presidents to pursue.
Later that morning Trump called Schumer, who congratulated his fellow New Yorker on his improbable victory.

"It is time for the country to come together and heal the bitter wounds from the campaign," Schumer said in a statement.

Trump, 70, a Manhattan real-estate developer, had long been a patron of Schumer’s political operation, donating thousands to his previous campaigns and to Senate Democrats in years past, before he embarked on his presidential bid.

Schumer, meanwhile, has spoken repeatedly in recent days about needing to make Washington work in a bipartisan way regardless of who won the presidency.

"There is a yearning among people in both parties to get things done," Schumer, 65, said in an interview before the election. "I think the party that’s seen as obstructionist is going to pay a price in 2018." That’s when Democrats will be defending 25 Senate seats to just eight for the GOP.

Of course, there will be plenty of areas where Trump and Schumer will have a much harder time finding common ground, including broader tax relief, energy policy and the president-elect’s goal of repealing Obamacare.
But Schumer has championed the idea of infrastructure spending tied to a corporate tax overhaul and has said he wants to rethink U.S. trade policies — in particular getting much tougher with China.

Schumer previously authored bills with South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham to crack down on China currency manipulation. Lewis Alexander, a former Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury official, said Nov. 9 that he expects Trump to follow through with his campaign pledge to declare China a currency manipulator on his first day in office.

Trump has said he wants to spend more than $500 billion on an infrastructure package, with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California among those on the left lauding the idea Nov. 9. “We can work together to quickly pass a robust infrastructure jobs bill," she said in a statement.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, by contrast, doesn’t have an ambitious infrastructure stimulus on his to-do list.

During a Sept. 19 appearance before the Economic Club of New York, Ryan said such a massive construction program isn’t a panacea for “organic economic growth.”

"We’re not Keynesians, so we’re not a big believer in these multipliers," Ryan said. "There’s no substitute for organic economic growth, free enterprise, private sector growth," he said about infrastructure.

Trump explicitly mentioned jobs in calling for infrastructure spending during his victory speech early Nov. 9.
“We will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it,” he said.

That statement sounded a lot like Schumer’s speech Nov. 8 celebrating his own re-election, where he pledged to work to "create millions of good-paying infrastructure jobs."

As an outsider, Trump may also have little hesitation about working across the aisle. During the campaign, he frequently praised onetime Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont for opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Sanders also has long backed an infrastructure stimulus to create jobs.

[kscarbel2]

[Kowtowing] ATA Congratulates President-Elect Trump

Heavy Duty Trucking  /  November 9, 2016

Trucking's biggest lobby, the American Trucking Associations, has congratulated President-elect Donald Trump on his victory in the 2016 presidential election.

In a statement, ATA president and CEO Chris Spear expressed a desire to work with his administration to improve the economy and the nation’s infrastructure.

“During the campaign, he highlighted the need to create jobs, and recognized that improving our nation's infrastructure is critical to strengthening the economy,” said Spear. “As the industry that moves nearly 70% of our nation's freight and is a key economic driver, we look forward to working with President-elect Trump on a host of issues, including long-term, sustainable infrastructure funding, tax reform, and fair and free trade.”

As the President-elect assembles his Administration in the coming months to prepare for taking office on Jan. 20, 2017, ATA noted that it has already begun to work with Trump.

“We have already begun meeting with the Trump transition team and look forward to working closely with the new Administration on issues that will allow the trucking industry to continue to grow and move America forward,” said Spear.

[kscarbel2]

Will trucking find the going easier under Trump?

Sean Kilcarr, Fleet Owner  /  November 9, 2016

You’d be forgiven for thinking that the unprecedented and history-making U.S. presidential victory by Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton – along with the retention of Congressional control of both the Senate and House of Representatives by the Republican Party – should make things easier on trucking from a regulatory perspective.

Maybe.

Then again, maybe not.

Recall that when George W. Bush won the U.S. presidential race back in 2000, many in trucking thought then-impending and still-contentious exhaust emission control rules for heavy trucks developed under President Bill Clinton’s administration might get delayed, if not changed to a dramatic degree.

Instead, they went into effect right on schedule in 2002 and wrapped up in 2010.

Efforts to improve trucking productivity by raising truck weight limits – again, another contentious move – also went nowhere. And continued to go nowhere during President Obama’s two terms.

Based on those experiences, then, those in the industry hoping to change or delay any of the regulations currently aimed at the industry, such as the upcoming electronic logging device (ELD) mandate, may be disappointed.

[As an aside, the recent court loss by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. against the imposition of the ELD mandate pretty much seals the deal where that rule is concerned.]

That isn’t to say that a more truck-friendly regulatory approach isn’t possible. But it’s important to remember that the “regulatory approach” is really defined by what an incoming presidential administration puts at the top of its priority list – and let’s face it; trucking is rarely at the top of either political party’s priority list.

I recently talked about this with David Kelly, a longtime automotive industry expert who served as acting administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under President George W. Bush and now president of consulting firm Storm King Strategies.

“In a perfect world, it would take nine months to get a rulemaking done from beginning to end,” he explained. “The reality is that it takes one to two years and if the rule is controversial in any way, it’ll take a lot longer than two years.”

Another critical factor is how a proposed rule or change to a current rule fits into the policy priorities of a Presidential administration – and that “priority fit” is often what can turn a nine to 12 month rulemaking process into a two to four year effort, Kelly explained.

For instance, public transit became a much bigger focus during President Obama’s two terms compared to previous administrations – leading to major policy efforts by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in that arena

Priorities, too, are often dictated by where the money is, he added. For example, in transportation as a whole, rulemakings by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will get more “process attention” from the White House simply because they represent the largest portions of transportation spending.

What spin will President-elect Trump and the Republican Party put on transportation issues? That remains to be seen, though the Republican Party platform issued back in July doesn’t bode well for passenger rail.

And it’s a long way to the inauguration next January. So no doubt a lot more transportation policy and priority twists are ahead for us.

[kscarbel2]

Trump plans to spend $1 trillion on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure

Yahoo Finance  /  October 27, 2016

Road and bridge builders might turn out to be the biggest winners of this year’s presidential election. Both candidates called for big new investments in infrastructure.

Trump’s plan involves spending $1 trillion to rebuild the nation’s economic backbone.

Hillary Clinton’s plan called for $275 billion in direct government spending over five years, plus another $225 billion in private investment.

Trump’s new plan, drafted by economic advisors Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross, would finance up to $1 trillion in spending over a decade.

Trump’s plan would rely heavily on private funding, with the government encouraging investment through a tax credit that would raise the return to investors and lower the cost of borrowing to states and municipalities that would oversee the projects.

Tax credits would cost the government some money, but taxes collected from the workers and companies participating in such projects would offset the costs, according to Navarro and Ross.

“If there’s ever a great time to do it, it’s got to be now,” said Ross, a billionaire private-equity investor. “With interest rates so low, this has got to be the best time from a break-even point of view, from a societal point of view.”

The tax credit in Trump’s plan would apply only to projects with a dedicated source of revenue that attract private investment. Examples of such project include toll roads, airports or utilities financed at least in part by fees paid by users.

The Trump campaign claims it doesn’t favor toll roads.

“It’s a state-by-state decision,” says Navarro.

And roads tend to be easier for states to finance through traditional means than complex or multi-state projects.  

User fees on such projects guarantee cash flow back to investors that doesn’t normally exist on “free” resources such as parks or interstate highways.

Wider adoption of facilities covered by user fees would amount, to some extent, to the privatization of America’s infrastructure.

Private sector funding

That’s controversial, since many citizens aren’t happy with the idea of for-profit entities funding roads, airports, tunnels, and mass-transit systems meant to help the general public get around. But the traditional way of paying for infrastructure, through tax revenue, has left thousands of needed repairs unfunded. The American Society of Civil Engineers, for instance, says the nation’s infrastructure needs $3.6 trillion worth of work by 2020. The federal government only spends about $100 billion a year on infrastructure, with states and cities spending another $320 billion or so. That suggests a $2 trillion gap during the next four years.

Fans of private funding for infrastructure argue that projects would be selected with less political interference (and fewer “bridges to nowhere”), along with a stronger focus on projects likely to return the best bang for the buck. Private-sector interests might also be able to control costs better, since there’d be more profit if they do. Governments would still have an oversight role, in setting maximum tolls or user fees, for instance, and making sure private owners or investor groups didn’t skimp on maintenance.

The Trump plan would provide funding for riskier and costlier projects that government might have difficulty funding on its own these days, especially with many state budgets hamstrung by the soaring cost of pensions and retiree healthcare. These would be big, complex projects such as a new tunnel beneath the Hudson River from New York to New Jersey, high-speed rail in California or the Federal Aviation Administration’s next-generation air-traffic-control system. More routine projects, such as ongoing funding for existing highway or utility systems, don’t need radical new sources of money.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

I was rather amused when the infrastructure stocks took off yesterday, and took the opportunity to dump another loser stock. Trump wants his (infrastructure) cake, but doesn't want to pay for it- Note the codewords for "toll road" in his statements. Indiana already tried that, the privatized toll road went bankrupt. Truth is, "world class" highways cost money, and if the users ain't gonna accept higher fuel taxes or other fees, we're going to be stuck with the same crumbling 1:1 scale futurama we built in the 50s and 60s, then never properly funded for it's maintainence.

[41180]

I hope they go back to epa 98 emissions egs 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Not gonna happen, new trucks are designed for the new engines.

[Marcel67]

Not really. The new trucks could still be equipped with engines without the aftertreatment systems and make them Tier 3.

 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Tier 3, 4 etc. is a certification for off road engines, and the emissions systems on them aren't configured to fit on trucks. 

[kscarbel2]

From 2004 to 2010, U.S. truck engines were nothing less than advanced science experiments, all thanks to the EPA. The under-hood temperatures of Mack brand trucks was so hot that plastic reservoirs were melting.

Given the price point of US market trucks, and the technology at hand, it was a walk out into the darkness, at immense cost to the US market truck operator. Truth be told, the EPA's ignorant demands, pushing too far too quickly, are worthy of congressional investigation. The government should provide compensation payments to buyers of 2004-2009 model year trucks.

And you also had the EPA, who is not in the business of designing and manufacturing truck engines, advocating unacceptably higher levels of EGR.

We did successfully use EGR in Europe thru Euro 5.

The US trucks, to meet that lower price point, had cheaper components that couldn't hold up.

[kscarbel2]

Trucking contributed $6.3 million to campaigns this cycle, mostly to Republicans

Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  November 11, 2016

As an update to the figures published by CCJ last much regarding trucking contributions to the 2016 election cycle, trucking industry political contributors gave $6.32 million to political campaigns this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Trucking donations heavily favored Republicans, who received 82 percent of the industry’s contributions — $4.89 million. Democrats received $1.03 million from the trucking industry.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) was the industry’s top recipient, scoring more than $169,000. President-elect Donald Trump was second, drawing $161,703. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton ranked third, receiving $114,256.

As noted in prior CCJ coverage, Trump’s trucking-sourced donations lagged well behind Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s 2012 draw of $1 million from the industry and 2008 nominee John McCain’s $375,000.

The total $6.32 million from trucking contributors in 2016 is $1.5 million less than mid-term election donations ($7.87 million) from the industry in 2014 and $3.5 million less than the 2012 presidential election cycle’s $9.98 million. However, it’s a tad more than the $5.9 million given in the 2008 election cycle.

Below is a list of some of the industry’s top campaign contribution recipients, as well as some of the industry’s top political contributors:

Recipients:

Sen. Ted Cruz: $169,674

Donald Trump: $161,703

Hillary Clinton: $114,256

Rep. Jeff Denham: $111,850

Rep. Bill Shuster: $113,750

Sen. Bernie Sanders: $75,886

Rep. Sam Graves: $71,952

Sen. John Thune: $68,750

Sen. Ron Johnson: $64,873

Sen. Marco Rubio: $63,465

Jeb Bush: $61,470

John Kasich: $60,150

Ben Carson: $56,985

Paul Ryan: $51,265

Contributors:

American Trucking Associations (ATA): $621,450

Prime Inc: $270,768

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA): $256,750

Werner Enterprises: $212,389

CenTra Inc: $186,935

Penske: $185,015

Crete Carrier Corp: $184,570

National Tank Truck Carriers: $175,500

Oshkosh Corp: $169,125

Anderson Trucking Services: $152,150

Old Dominion: $150,132

Schneider National: $116,348

Ruan Companies: $102,850

Paccar Inc: $86,013

Swift Transportation: $81,734

 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Cheapskates! 6 million in a 4 billion dollar election cycle? Fat chance they'll get longer doubles and higher weight limits when they were outspent by most other industries.

[kscarbel2]

ELDs, Trucking, and Trump

Sean Kilcarr, Fleet Owner  /  November 15, 2016

Will the incoming Trump administration delay the still-contentious electronic logging device (ELD) mandate? That question popped up more than few times here at the TU-Automotive Connected Fleets USA being held this week in Atlanta during conversations among the participants and during panel discussions – including one moderated by yours truly.

The short answer to that question in the minds of most experts is “No.” Indeed, Fred Fakkema, vice president of compliance for Zonar Systems, noted that many of leading industry trade groups – notably the American Trucking Associations (ATA) – remains very much in favor of the ELD mandate.

As a result, political pressure won’t be unanimous from the industry to delay or repeal it – though don’t tell that to groups such as the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) that continue to fight the mandate despite losing a recent court battle over the measure.

“We think the Trump administration is going to have a lot more things to worry about in its first 100 days than worry about ELDs,” added Chris Koszarsky, director of engineering for Garmin.

However, the “longer answer” to that question is whether a delay will be needed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) so it can properly prepare itself and various safety enforcement entities to handle the flow of ELD data; including during roadside inspections.

“Think about the roll out of Obamacare; that didn’t go very well,” Fakkema added.

In particular, he pointed out that the “transfer mechanism” for ELD data, via Bluetooth or USB device, still hasn’t been completely finalized according to the 120 pages of guidelines for that process issued by the agency.

“FMCSA still hasn’t completed the development of the web services needed for ELD data,” Fakkema pointed out.

The lack of “E-logs” data transfer protocols for roadside inspections is also holding up the self-certification process for many ELD vendors, he said.

“One reason there are only 10 self-certified companies on the FMCSA’s list – and why none of the ‘big names’ are on it yet – is that there are gaps in the 400 page requirement for testing them, especially in terms of how data is to be transferred at the roadside,” he said. “So we still have a lot of things going on [with the ELD rule] that need to be worked out.”

Thus in many respects it remains a waiting and watching game to determine whether the technical details buried within the ELD rule create the need for a delay or not.

[kscarbel2]

Trump, trucking, and the outlook for 2017

Sean Kilcarr, Fleet Owner  /  December 6, 2016

Lots of change may be on the menu for trucking in 2017 as economic trends and federal policy efforts could make further alterations to the U.S. freight market – everything from canceling regulations to the adoption of new strategies for meeting customer demands.

“When you move 70% of the nation’s domestic freight there are few issues out there that we are not a part of either directly or indirectly,” Chris Spear, president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations (ATA) trade group, explained in a recent phone interview with me. “Tax reform, trade, and infrastructure: we have a role to play in all of those issues.”

For starters, he noted that the 10-year $1 trillion infrastructure proposal put on the table by President-elect Trump could be a big positive for the industry in a number of ways.

“Infrastructure is our industry’s lifeblood: We need good infrastructure and getting such a package passed is key right out of the gate,” Spear said. “At least as proposed, that package will likely be tied to tax reform.”

Trade is another really pivotal issue in Spear’s view, as over 76% of NAFTA surface trade is carried by trucks. “Again, we have to help shape whatever trade proposals will look like,” he noted.

When it comes to regulation, though, you can boil Spear’s view down to two words: “it depends.”

“We’re not afraid of regulations – we’re a very heavily regulated industry. But what we want are good, clear regulations that we can comply with without undue burden and a measurable return,” he explained.

“Look at the Phase 2 greenhouse gas [GHG] rules: they will define future efficiency for our industry and offer a measurable return for our investments. This is a win-win for us and the environment,” Spear said.

“But where regulations don’t work, we’ll oppose them. For example, the speed limiter rule we will oppose [because] it’s completely flawed approach.”

In the end, he stressed, it “all really comes down to good give and take between industry and the regulators.”

Sandeep Kar, global vice president for mobility at Frost & Sullivan, added that few industries will face the impact — whether net positive or negative — of a Trump presidency as strongly as trucking, which is a leading indicator of economic activity and typically feels the effects of economic swings and fluctuations well before many other industries or sectors.

“While the effect of Trump administration’s legislative actions will be experienced primarily by the U.S. commercial vehicle industry, global market participants and markets will have much to note and consider,” he noted in a recent report.

“Most presidential transitions include reasonable certainties regarding upcoming policy priorities and changes that enable nations, markets, and industries to prepare for their impact,” Kar said. “Over the past several decades, proposed policy changes generally have had narrow boundaries. This time it is different, and it is going to be more different for trucking than ever before.”

He added that Trump’s publicly stated stand on lowering corporate taxes will definitely have cascading effects on all aspects of U.S. and global industries.

“Lower corporate taxes would likely result in businesses considering either establishing or reshoring US operations,” Kar explained. “While on the surface this would appear to be great news for the U.S. trucking industry, it may not be as great for either U.S. or global truck manufacturers and suppliers. Lower corporate taxes will most likely drive service-based businesses to the U.S., which would be of less benefit to freight movement than a move of manufacturing operations.”

Another concern: Labor costs could spike as lower corporate taxes could drive inflation, resulting in wage hikes which would render the incentive of lower taxes much less effective.

Moreover, Kar thinks the U.S. and many other economies are still “unstable,” with many nations skating dangerously close to “recessionary boundaries.”

Thus economic and trade policy changes could induce short-term recessionary spasms before a clearer and stable picture emerges, he said.

Where trade is concerned, modifications or rejections of trade treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could adversely impact U.S. truck OEMs and their suppliers as many manufacture and/or source materials from Mexico.

However, there may be a “silver lining” from that as well, Kar emphasized.

“Several Asian OEMs in recent years have secured strong positions in light- and medium-duty truck markets [and] new trade policies could hurt them, forcing more U.S. localization and higher taxation for market access — both of which will favor U.S.-based OEMs,” he explained.

Another positive: expedited infrastructure refurbishment and/or enhancement projects and public-private partnerships focused on improving U.S. highways and freight movement infrastructure could have a net positive impact on freight and vehicle efficiencies, route congestion, and sales of off-highway vehicles if the administration implements many such projects immediately.

“[But] this could prove difficult because funding [needs] could trigger higher taxes – and Trump has stated his opposition to increase the deficit to pay for his infrastructure plans,” Kar noted.

Roei Ganzarski, a former Boeing executive and now CEO of BoldIQ, which provides optimization software for asset scheduling, added another economic twist to trucking’s outlook where the economy is concerned: the rise of “demand-driven” freight transportation service.

“Consumers or customers want to get what they want, at the time and place they want it, and only want to ask for it [delivery service] when they are ready to ask and not before,” he explained to me recently. “Thus the transportation operator must be ‘demand-driven’ in order to serve such on-demand needs in an efficient manner that enables scale, growth, and profitability.”

That “on-demand economy” is also shortening planning cycles and significantly shortening decision making time frames. “This means the need for intelligent, data driven, and real-time decision making is critical,” especially in trucking, Ganzarski said.

He added that this “demand-driven” view assumes that trucking companies and other freight service providers have finite resources to do their work.

“This must be viewed differently from the so-called ‘sharing economy’ where an operation will use someone else’s resources because they are so inefficient, they have spare time or capacity on their resources,” Ganzarski pointed out.

That will lead to more consolidation and even elimination of some transport companies that cannot adapt fast enough to the change, he said.

I’ll tell you one thing: all of that adds up to what will no doubt be a very busy 2017 for motor carriers, on a whole range of fronts. Better load up on the coffee!

[kscarbel2]

Outlook: Trucking regulations and the new administration

Sean Kilcarr, Fleet Owner  /  January 5, 2017

As Donald Trump prepares to take the oath of office this month, many motor carriers are rightfully wondering how much change his administration will bring to the trucking industry.

On the one hand, Trump’s unvarnished dislike of current trade agreements—the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is all but dead, and he’s publicly called into question sections of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—could potentially harm motor carriers. Much of the domestic freight hauled by trucks comes from trade activity.

On the other, a “regulatory rollback” of sorts may be in store for several proposed rules (e.g., the speed limiter mandate)  though ones already in place (e.g., electronic logging device  requirement) may be left alone.

David Kelly, a longtime automotive industry expert who served as acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under President George W. Bush and is now president of consulting firm Storm King Strategies, says whatever eventually happens regarding which rules stay and which ones go all boils down to the priorities set by the incoming administration.

“Once a new administration comes in, everything that is pending is pulled; they stop working on them,” he explains. “Anytime you have a change in administration, even one with holdovers from a previous administration, you are going to have a change in priorities.”

Kelly says advice given to him by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta bluntly illustrates that maxim.  “He used to tell me, ‘At the end of the day, we are all staff,’ even the transportation secretary,” Kelly emphasizes. “Everyone has a higher pecking order; the only one who doesn’t is the president.”

However, he adds that even presidential priorities must follow the rules of the regulatory game. And that means a rulemaking can’t become truly “final” until Congress has a chance to review it within 60 days, Kelly says.

“When a new president comes in, all pending rulemakings that have not been finalized will be withdrawn pending an internal review,” Kelly explains. “So the date really isn’t Jan. 20—Inauguration Day—when any outstanding rule needs to be finalized. It was actually back on Nov. 20, 2016, when it needed to get published and sent to Congress before the 60-day review; otherwise, it becomes subject to a review by the new administration.”

Avery Vise, president of consulting firm TransComply, anticipates that the long-awaited drug and alcohol clearinghouse posted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) back in early December should be safe. But others may be at risk, such as the following:

◗ Driver training: “On paper, it looks like everybody agrees because there was a negotiated rulemaking.” However, the American Trucking Assns. (ATA) and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA) are on opposite ends of the sprectrum when it comes to training. ATA is behind the published rule that includes performance-based training while OOIDA backs a minimum number of training hours and not based on the number of hours.

◗ Safety fitness determinations: “It’s not so much a partisan issue, as the whole proposal is greatly flawed. It’s not even clear that if Hillary Clinton had won the election that the rule would have proceeded.”

◗ Obstructive sleep apnea: “There are going to be some significant costs to carriers and potentially capacity-draining ramifications. I think we’re certainly going to go slow, and it may be shelved.”

◗ Speed limiters: “It’s somewhat more political than you would’ve expected. Now that it’s been proposed, the rule has become a lot more controversial than it might’ve been a decade ago [when ATA first petitioned for it]. In part, a lot of states have adopted higher speed limits, and putting speed limiters in will create a greater differential. That’s exacerbated by the fact that the proposal doesn’t even pick a speed and was very unclear. It’s particularly controversial in the Western states that have higher speed limits—and they’re very strongly in the Republican column.”

◗ Minimum insurance levels: “This is a proposal that really has died, even within the Obama administration. The trial lawyers are very close to the Democratic Party, and this is something that the community wanted. Higher minimums ultimately would lead to higher settlements and higher contingency fees. I put that as a virtual zero chance of happening.”

The twist for trucking in all of this is that almost any list of priorities selected by Trump will impact the industry in some fashion, notes Chris Spear, ATA president and CEO.

“When you move 70% of the nation’s domestic freight, there are few issues out there that we are not a part of either directly or indirectly,” he says. “Tax reform, trade, and infrastructure—we have a role to play in all of those issues.”

For starters, he noted that the 10- year, $1-trillion infrastructure proposal put on the table by Trump late last year could be a big positive for the industry in a number of ways.

“Infrastructure is our industry’s lifeblood. We need good infrastructure, and getting such a package passed is key right out of the gate,” Spear notes. “At least as proposed, that package will likely be tied to tax reform.”

Spear says trade is another pivotal issue, as over 76% of NAFTA surface trade is carried by trucks. “Again, we have to help shape whatever trade proposals will look like,” he stresses.

It depends

When it comes to regulation, though, Spear says “it depends.”

“We’re not afraid of regulations; we’re a very heavily regulated industry. But what we want are good, clear regulations that we can comply with without undue burden and a measurable return,” he points out. “Look at the Phase 2 greenhouse gas rules. They will define future efficiency for our industry and offer a measurable return for our investments. This is a win-win for us and the environment.

“But where regulations don’t work, we’ll oppose them. For example, we will oppose the speed limiter rule [because] it’s a completely flawed approach.”

In the end, he stresses, it “all really comes down to good give-and-take between industry and the regulators.”

Todd Spencer, executive vice president of OOIDA, believes there’s been far more take than give in recent years where regulatory oversight of trucking is concerned. And he’s hopeful the changeover in administration might encourage a fresh look at highway safety as a whole.

“The regulatory regime has been on steroids for the past few years. Is there a cumulative effect? There sure is,” he explains. “The kind of mind-set in the regulatory/legislative community right now is that more is better. But although there’s been more regulation and more compliance than there’s ever been, crash numbers keep going up, not down. So what the very people making all of these rules should be asking is, ‘What the hell is going on?’”

This trend can be illustrated by data found in the Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2014 report issued by FMCSA in April of last year. From 1979 to 2009, total fatal crashes involving just large trucks and buses dropped from 6,007 to 3,193,  a decline of 46%, or some 2,814 fatal crashes. But from 2009 to 2014—not quite a decade—fatal crashes increased from 3,193 to 3,649, an increase of 12%, or 456 crashes.

According to preliminary data released by NHTSA last July, fatalities in crashes involving large trucks also increased by 4% during 2015, with 9 out of 10 regions within the United States reporting increases in traffic deaths for that year.

“The [safety] system as it currently exists is missing everything; we’ve never had more regulations or compliance with regulations, yet crashes keep going up,” Spencer says. “At some point, you have to say time out. We have to ask what things are important. Enforcement and safety are not the same things; there’s no connection between more enforcement and fewer crashes.”

Deceleration

Sandeep Kar, global vice president of mobility for global consulting firm Frost & Sullivan, also believes that a Republican-controlled Congress coupled with Trump’s presidency could mean a deceleration or “de-prioritization” of several regulations focused on trucking.

Though hours-of-service regulations have long been unpopular among truckers,  especially owner-operators,  most industry observers expect them to be left unchanged since the regulatory focus of Trump’s administration in its first several months will likely be on issues concerning trade and immigration.

“The ELD mandate, which is scheduled for introduction this year, will usher in a wave of digitization in trucking and also looks to remain unaffected as this mandate had strong Republican backing,” Kar adds. “Repealing it at this late stage seems unlikely.”

Looking at it from a broader perspective, he stresses that few industries will face the impact—whether net positive or negative—of a Trump presidency as strongly as trucking, which he says is a “leading indicator of economic activity” and typically feels the effects of economic swings and fluctuations well before many other industries or sectors.

“While the effect of the Trump administration’s legislative actions will be experienced primarily by the U.S. commercial vehicle industry, global market participants and markets will have much to note and consider,” Kar explains.

“Most presidential transitions include reasonable certainties regarding upcoming policy priorities and changes that enable nations, markets, and industries to prepare for their impact,” he says. “Over the past several decades, proposed policy changes generally have had narrow boundaries. This time it is different, and it is going to be more different for trucking than ever before.”

---

“Trump’s publicly stated stance on lowering corporate taxes will definitely have cascading effects on all aspects of U.S. and global industries.”

- Sandeep Kar, global vice president of mobility, Frost & Sullivan

---

“Lower corporate taxes would likely result in businesses considering either establishing or reshoring U.S. operations,” Kar emphasizes. “While on the surface this would appear to be great news for the U.S. trucking industry, it may not be as great for either U.S. or global truck manufacturers and suppliers. Lower corporate taxes will most likely drive service-based businesses to the U.S., which would be of less benefit to freight movement than a move of manufacturing operations.”

Trade trends

Another concern is that labor costs could spike as lower corporate taxes could drive inflation, resulting in wage hikes that would render the incentive of lower taxes much less effective.

Moreover, Kar thinks the U.S. and many other economies are still unstable, with many nations skating dangerously close to recessionary boundaries. Thus, economic and trade policy changes could induce short-term recessionary spasms before a clearer and stable picture emerges, he says.

Where trade is concerned, modifications or rejections of trade treaties, such as NAFTA or TPP, could adversely impact U.S. truck OEMs and their suppliers, he believes, as many manufacture and/or source materials from Mexico. But there may be a silver lining from that as well, Kar explains.

“Several Asian OEMs in recent years have secured strong positions in light- and medium-duty truck markets, [and] new trade policies could hurt them, forcing more U.S. localization and higher taxation for market access—both of which will favor U.S.-based OEMs,” he notes.

There is another positive, however.  Expedited infrastructure refurbishment and/or enhancement projects and public-private partnerships focused on improving U.S. highways and freight movement infrastructure could have a net positive impact on freight and vehicle efficiencies, route congestion, and sales of off-highway vehicles if the administration implements many such projects immediately.

“[But] this could prove difficult because funding [needs] could trigger higher taxes, and Trump has stated his opposition to increase the deficit to pay for his infrastructure plans,” Kar stresses.

He points out that the U.S. leads other markets in developing and commercializing technologies, but he warns that any political policies that stifle innovation in digitization, Big Data analytics, information technologies, or mobile and wireless services could hold back the move into a new era for trucking.

“Global freight mobility market fundamentals are slowly but surely being energized, new logistics models are being created, and freight efficiencies are being enhanced by commercial trucking’s digital transformation,” he explains.

“All of that will disrupt commercial vehicle industry business models, result in the collapse of arcane and inefficient processes and technologies, and transform an industry that forms the backbone of U.S. and global economic activity,” Kar says.

[kscarbel2]

DOT Secretary nominee Elaine Chao to testify before Senate, cites infrastructure as key DOT concern

Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  January 5, 2017

Elaine Chao, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to run the U.S. Department of Transportation, will appear before a Senate committee next week as part of the nomination and confirmation process for Trump’s incoming administration.

The Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation will hold a nomination hearing Jan. 11 to question Chao prior to voting on her confirmation.

Trump named Chao as his pick for Secretary of Transportation in late November. She was Secretary of Labor during the entirety of President George W. Bush’s presidency, 2001-2009.

In a questionnaire given to Chao by the Senate ahead of her hearing, Chao says the top priorities for her DOT will be infrastructure repairs and expansions, bridging the disparities between urban and rural transportation and “good stewardship on behalf of the American people.”

“This means effective enforcement of safety measures; getting the most benefit from the Department’s expenditures, including strengthening its planning and acquisition practices; and preparing for the future by considering new technologies in our infrastructure,” Chao wrote.

The hearing will be held at 10:15 a.m. Eastern time in Room 253 of the Senate’s Russell Building.

[kscarbel2]

Trump illustrates need for $1 trillion infrastructure package with advice from a ‘friend in trucking’

Overdrive  /  March 1, 2017

In an address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, President Donald Trump asked legislators to produce and pass a $1 trillion spending package meant to “launch a national rebuilding” of the country’s infrastructure, Trump said, including funds for rebuilding U.S. highways.

“[President Eisenhower] initiated the last truly great national infrastructure program, the building of the Interstate highway system. The time has come for a new program of national rebuilding,” Trump said. “Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways, gleaming across our very, very beautiful land.”

Trump’s call for infrastructure investment came a day after he mentioned in a speech to the National Governors Association recently consulting with “a friend who is in the trucking business.”

“He said, my trucks are destroyed going from New York to Los Angeles. They’re destroyed,” Trump said Monday. “He always prided himself on buying the best equipment. He said, the roads are so bad that, by the time we make the journey from New York to Los Angeles or back, he said the equipment is just beat to hell. I said, when has it been like that before? He said, it’s never — he’s been in the business for 40 years — he said it’s never been like that.”

Tuesday’s address was Trump’s first to Congress since his inauguration as president. In most years, the speech would be referred to as the annual State of the Union address. However, presidential tradition dictates the speech only be dubbed the State of the Union if the president has been in office for a full year.

Trump in his address lamented U.S. spending abroad, “all while our infrastructure at home crumbled,” he said. “America has spent $6 trillion in the Middle East. With this $6 trillion, we could have rebuilt our country twice, and maybe even three times,” he said, referring to money spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and subsequent reconstruction efforts in those countries.

However, unlike wartime spending in the Middle East, Trump’s infrastructure funding premise relies on enticing private investors to help reach the $1 trillion target. Trump said the investment would be split between “both public and private capital.”

Privately funded infrastructure projects could mean more tolls on U.S. roadways, especially near urban centers, where traffic volume makes it easier for private companies to recoup their investment and earn profits.

Talk of big spending on infrastructure was revived by Trump this week after mentioning it little in the first six weeks of his presidency. Trump promised during his campaign a $1 trillion investment into the country’s transportation infrastructure if elected.

In a speech to the National Governors Association on Monday, Trump circled the issue, telling the country’s governors “it’s not like we have a choice” on infrastructure spending. “It’s not like, oh gee, let’s hold it off. Our highways, our bridges are unsafe,” he said.

[kscarbel2]

Trump: Infrastructure Plan Will Ride on Public Funds, Too

Heavy Duty Trucking  /  March 1, 2017

In his address to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 28, President Trump called for a $1-trillion infusion of public and private investment to repair and expand the nation’s infrastructure. He devoted just about one minute of his hour-long speech to promoting that initiative, but it was the first time the president indicated that public— not just private— financing would be needed to fund his infrastructure proposal.

Invoking President Dwight Eisenhower, who championed the building of the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s, Trump said “the time has come for a new program of national rebuilding. America has spent approximately $6 trillion in the Middle East -- all the while our infrastructure at home is crumbling.  With this $6 trillion, we could have rebuilt our country twice, and maybe even three times if we had people who had the ability to negotiate.”  

Trump said he will be “asking Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1-trillion investment in infrastructure of the United States -- financed through both public and private capital -- creating millions of new jobs.”

What remains to be heard is exactly how the administration expects to pay for the lavish infrastructure outlay promised by the president. Before moving onto other issues, Trump noted further only that his infrastructure proposal will be “guided by two core principles:  buy American and hire American.”

Despite the lack of details given, the American Trucking Associations was pleased for the attention paid to infrastructure in this major policy speech by the new president. “ATA was pleased to hear President Trump again sound the call to address our nation’s need to improve our transportation infrastructure,” said ATA President and CEO Chris Spear in a statement to HDT.

“Trucks move 70% of our nation’s goods – more than half of our GDP – on a system of highways and bridges that is now on life support,” he continued. Spear added that the trucking lobby is “eager to work with the administration and Congress on solutions to funding this bold and long overdue goal.”

The Intelligent Transportation Society of America also appreciated the mention of infrastructure by the president. “ITS America looks forward to working with the White House, Congress and others to find intelligent technological solutions to repair and rebuild our extensive transportation system,” the group’s President and CEO Regina Hopper said in a statement issued right after the speech.

“Transportation drives our economy and makes America competitive around the world,” she said. “It connects communities, increases job opportunities, and it is essential to addressing equity, poverty, unemployment and access to education and health care.”

Hopper added that “safer highways and roads are urgently needed. In 2016, more than 40,000 people died in accidents on our nation’s highways and roads. Intelligent transportation solutions will go a long way to saving lives and preventing injuries.”

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, also released a statement soon after the address. “President Trump made infrastructure a priority before the election, and his address tonight reaffirmed his commitment to building a 21stcentury infrastructure,” Shuster contended. 

“Renewing the American spirit starts with creating jobs and economic opportunity,” he continued. “Our infrastructure is what ties all of these things together.  The Committee looks forward to working with the president and the secretary of transportation to improve our infrastructure and strengthen our economy.”

The president along with Republican and Democratic leaders as well as stakeholders large and small may all be on the same page when it comes to the crying need to fix and grow the nation’s infrastructure, but the devil in passing any such plan will be in the details. And as there are still none to pore over let alone influence, where Trump’s proposal may ultimately end up remains anyone’s guess. 

[kscarbel2]

Transportation Secretary Chao Calls for Private Infrastructure Funding

Bloomberg  /  March 2, 2017

U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said her office was exploring new ways to finance President Donald Trump’s proposed $1 trillion infrastructure upgrade, including through public-private partnerships.

Speaking at an American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials event in Washington Wednesday, Chao offered no specifics about the type of projects that would be prioritized by the administration, or how they would be funded.

But she said the department was exploring ways to unleash private investment, and said barriers that hinder public-private infrastructure partnerships need to be removed.

"Business as usual is just not an option anymore," Chao said. "Everyone can agree that our country can no longer take decades to build a new bridge or a new road, a new highway or airport."

Chao’s second speech since taking taking office on Jan. 31 echoed infrastructure themes of Trump’s congressional address Tuesday night. He reiterated a campaign trail pledge for significant infrastructure investments, saying "the time has come for a new program of national rebuilding."

Trump said he would to ask Congress to approve a plan for $1 trillion in infrastructure spending financed by public and private capital.

Chao also urged officials to streamline permitting, environmental reviews and other hangups that can slow projects. The Transportation department plans to "revisit" a number of proposed and final rules as part of the president’s bid to cut red tape, she said.

[kscarbel2]

"Business as usual is just not an option anymore," Chao said. "Everyone can agree that our country can no longer take decades to build a new bridge or a new road, a new highway or airport."

So in another words, Washington wants to persuade the American people to give up on a properly functioning government which is capable of using our tax dollars to build a bridge in an efficient and timely manner.

Chao wants us to accept that our government is broken and irreparable, thus we must go for "Plan B", that being public-private partnerships.

Evidently, after channeling our money to overseas "foreign aid" (e.g. $38 billion to Israel), financial support for undocumented (aka. illegal) immigrants living in the US, and a wide range of pork barrel projects, there's not enough of our tax money left to build any bridges and roads.

[kscarbel2]

Trump plan for private highway funding limited in its ability to fix U.S.’ ailing infrastructure

James Jaillet, Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  March 8, 2017

President Trump’s broad-level plan for bolstering U.S. infrastructure funding with investments from the private sector could buoy the country’s ability to repair overly worn highways and help stabilize the Highway Trust Fund. It also likely means more tolls for carriers, especially near urban areas, as companies seek a return on their investment.

Trump’s most recent call for ramping up infrastructure funding came last week, in his first address to Congress. He reaffirmed his campaign pledge for a $1 trillion infrastructure act, saying last week it should be funded by “both public and private capital.”

There’s been no shortage of talk in Washington — and nationwide — in recent years about the need to revive the country’s exhausted Highway Trust Fund. The U.S. spends about $15 billion more from the HTF than it takes in each year, says Joung Lee, policy director for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

“We’re going to need an additional $110 billion in the next 10-year window just to stand still,” Lee says. “But obviously our infrastructure needs are such that current funding levels are nowhere near enough.”

The Highway Trust Fund has used gas and diesel taxes to fund U.S. road projects since the 1950s. However, Congress hasn’t raised the gas tax since 1993, and inflation has caused current fuel tax rates to lag far behind the country’s spending needs. Greater fuel efficiency of modern vehicles also contributed to the HTF’s waning revenue stream.

Some groups, like the American Trucking Associations, contend simply raising per-gallon tax rates on diesel and gasoline would help solve the problem, but lawmakers in Washington have been reluctant to take what they believe would be an unpopular step.

How much can private money fill the highway funding void? Not as much as Trump and other advocates for privatization might hope. “I don’t have a percentage, but I would say just as an estimate it would be much less than 10 percent,” says Greg Cohen, head of the Highway Users Alliance. “Private investment can handle some big new projects, but much more of course needs to be done to get the current system up to a state of good repair and to protect our commerce corridors across the country.”

Cohen says Congress might use likely looming bills on tax reform to direct more public money to highways. “Advocates for that should not give up and assume it’s all tolls and public-private partnerships,” he says.

Trump pledged during his 2016 campaign to take the approach he asked Congress for last week: Incentivizing private companies to invest in U.S. infrastructure with cheap financing and tax breaks.

Private financiers would also be incentivized by the opportunity to turn a profit off their investment, particularly on high-traffic roadways heading in and out of cities. “Tolls are the only way to provide the revenue stream to interest the private sector in the way President Trump has broadly laid out,” says Stephanie Kane, spokesperson for the Alliance for Toll Free Interstates.

“The good thing about using private sector funding is that they take on the risks. But if the money is not coming from the government, it’s going to need to come from somewhere,” she said.

ATFI will push for funding alternatives that won’t prompt an uptick in tolled roads, Kane says. The group is adamant about retaining the federal ban on tolling existing Interstate lanes. “There’s no one silver bullet option for transportation funding, but tolls are the worst of those options,” Kane says. A “blend of funding” mechanisms is needed to solve the country’s infrastructure problem, she adds.

Other groups see private investments in U.S. highways as a means of shoring up the country’s dire need for action on the issue, even if it means more tolls. AASHTO’s Lee, for instance, says options for private funding should be part of the discussion, even if they’re limited in their ability to stabilize the Highway Trust Fund.

Public-private partnerships “are certainly an option and we certainly don’t want to preclude them as a tool for funding and financing approaches,” he says. “But P3s can only address a small spectrum. They would not be applicable beyond certain projects.”

Such projects, Lee says, include “signature projects” — those that are large, expensive and risky endeavors, and mostly in and around metro areas. “We still need a robust public funding backstop, whether at the federal level or the state level,” Lee says.

Though the U.S. has traditionally leaned on public dollars for its highway system, that’s not the case in other countries, including European countries with robust highways and trucking industries. These systems could provide a case study for how the U.S. handles greater privatization of its infrastructure, says Pat Jones, director and CEO of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association.

“Our desire to spend on infrastructure far exceeds the available money,” Jones says. “I think the Trump team is wise to put all options on the table, including private investment.”

Countries like France, Italy and Spain, among other European nations, have relied heavily on tolls to support highways, Jones says. “Operating and maintaining top-level super highways in those countries is as commonplace to them as having a tax-supported interstate system is to us,” he says.

Still, private investment alone isn’t enough in the U.S., Jones says. “We’re going to need significant federal investment that would come from taxes or borrowing or some other form.”

Jones also says toll-supported projects fit where traffic volume is significant and can generate enough revenue to repay investors. Rural stretches of highways, which constitute most of the country’s roads, aren’t.

[kscarbel2]

Trump cuts $2.4 billion from DOT funding in budget plan

Matt Cole, Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  March 16, 2017

President Donald Trump unveiled an outline for his “America First” proposed budget for 2018, which cuts the Department of Transportation’s funding by $2.4 billion, or 13 percent.

Trump’s budget “blueprint,” which details only discretionary funding proposals, requests $16.2 billion for the DOT’s discretionary budget. The cuts mostly affect air and mass transit transportation, but also include the elimination of funding for DOT’s TIGER grants. The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program awarded states funds for resurfacing and other infrastructure improvements.

The budget states the elimination of these grants will save $499 million when compared to the 2017 budget. It says the program, implemented in 2009, essentially duplicates a larger federal grant program.

Trump’s budget says DOT’s Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects grant program, known as FASTLANE grants and authorized by the FAST Act highway bill in 2015, “supports larger highway and multimodal freight projects with demonstrable national or regional benefits.”

Kansas and seven other Midwestern states were awarded a $25 million TIGER grant in 2015 to develop a Truck Parking Information and Management System.

Other significant changes in the budget include a $54 billion increase in defense spending in 2018, which is met with a $54 billion reduction in non-defense spending, according to a message from Trump in the budget.

The full budget is set to be released later this spring. Trump says it will include “specific mandatory and tax proposals, as well as a full fiscal path.”

[TeamsterGrrrl]

So much for Trump's trillion dollar infrastructure program... Trump Lied!