fastlane
The long road ahead
SOME WILL SAY I NEED TO GET A LIFE, BUT I JUST SPENT AN
evening with the long-awaited 1,656-page transportation funding
bill, “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,” or
“MAP– 21.” The legislation, as everyone knows by now, was signed
into law on July 6, after the previous law was kept alive by no fewer
than 11 short-term extensions. It ensures funding, at the current level,
of transportation and other projects until Dec. 31, 2014.
While any bill that keeps current projects moving for the next two
years and preserves 3 million jobs has much to commend it, there
were some disappointments as well. For example, in my opinion,
there were several things on which Congress should have taken a firm
stand but did not do so.
Take the long-debated driver hours-of-service
rule, for example. Though the discussion has
dragged on for years, Congress failed to act decisively and either adopt or reject the rule’s latest
iteration. Instead, it chose to prolong the matter
even further by directing the secretary of transportation to complete by March 31, 2013, a “field
study on the efficacy of the restart rules published
on Dec. 27, 2011.” This report will be due back to
Congress on Sept. 30, 2013, when, regardless of the
conclusions, it is sure to spark another long and
protracted discussion.
It was much the same story with the proposal to overhaul the current truck size and weight limits. At one time, Congress was expected
to authorize the states to allow larger trucks on their portions of the
interstate highway system, but no such provision made it into
MAP– 21. Instead, Congress mandated yet another study of the
impact of larger trucks on safety and infrastructure, with a report due
to Congress in two years.
The proposed XL pipeline fared no better. Although many initially
thought the new law would contain provisions authorizing the project, that didn’t happen. Faced with President Obama’s threat to veto
the bill if it included any such language, Congress backed off and
omitted any mention of the matter.
While all of these would seem to represent missed opportunities,
I believe the measure’s most glaring omission was its failure to provide for any significant increases in funding. Most conspicuous was
the fact that once again, Congress failed to deal with the tax on
gasoline and diesel fuel. These taxes have not been increased since
1993; and while none of us wants higher taxes, at some point, the
bullet must be bitten.
All this notwithstanding, the bill also had its
good points. The legislation adds language to the
current National Transportation Policy, outlining
goals to invest in infrastructure and operational
improvements that will strengthen the freight
network.
Another provision resolves the debate over
electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) for
motor carriers. The law instructs the secretary of
transportation to complete in one year the development of regulations that
will require EOBRs for interstate carriers, after which the
carriers will have two years to
install the units in all tractors
operated by drivers subject to
the hours-of-service rule.
One of the most important
provisions requires brokers
and forwarders to post a surety bond of $75,000, up from
the current $10,000. This
should help weed out the
underfunded firms that are at the root of many of
the industry’s problems, i.e., those that fail to pay
carriers or that engage in clandestine rebroker-ing. There are also provisions controlling certification and operations—all in all, positive
changes for the brokerage industry.
The bill deals positively with dozens of other
transportation issues as well. Still, without proper funding, one has to wonder how effective our
new map will be. Maybe we should try again
when it’s not an election year. ;
Clifford F. Lynch is principal of C.F. Lynch & Associates, a provider
of logistics management advisory services, and author of Logistics
Outsourcing – A Management Guide and co-author of The Role of
Transportation in the Supply Chain. He can be reached at
cliff@cflynch.com.
