Transportation

Yesterday, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters announced new safety rules for school buses. Beginning in 2011, buses weighing 5 tons or less (smaller buses that generally seat 16-20 students) will be required to have a shoulder/torso seat belt in addition to the lap belt that is currently required. Larger buses will be required to increase the seat back heights, all in hopes of better protecting students in case of violent crashes.

As we wrote yesterday, child safety experts recommend extra safety measures for vehicles transporting smaller children, including weight- and height- specific restraints and safety monitors. This move by Secretary Peters works to address these concerns. Many young children ride on smaller buses, though they ride on larger buses too, which will not be covered by the new rule.

That is the question of my blog this week.  Watching Rudy Giuliani speak at the Republican Nation Convention last Wednesday and listening to thousands of people chant, "Drill, baby, drill," I realized how confused our country is on this, well, confusing issue.  Somehow we arrived at a place where Republicans and Democrats are more divided than ever, and over issues like offshore drilling, which had once been off limits by both parties.  I believe people are misinformed, because if the facts were understood, the choice would be clear, no matter what your party affiliation.

The major misconception I've observed is that offshore drilling will lower high gas prices. The fact is that if these projects were to start today, it would take years before new refineries would affect the market...if ever.  Not to mention the amount of oil that could be produced is tiny in comparison with the amount that is produced worldwide.  And let's face it-these refineries really can't start producing today, because realistically it would take years to build a new refinery and.... large amounts of money. 

(By SASHA ABELSON, Guest Blogger to the Climate Program)

 
When I first moved to LA I told people I hoped to find a job close to home which did not involve an hour commute to and from the office. The response to this statement was generally one of uncontrollable laughter.   I, however, did not think it was funny.

I was born and raised in New York City and the idea of walking to work was not a foreign concept to me.  In fact, in all of my years as a New Yorker, I was able to get to each place of employment on foot.  I always enjoyed my walk to work, and I appreciated the fact that it was indeed possible to walk to work. 

I am now a resident of LA and my current commute takes me approximately 10 minutes - on my bike.  I will always remember that I am one of the lucky ones! A colleague of mine just explained to me how she spent 3 hours last night traveling the 19.1 miles to her home. 

I just came across the Transportation for America campaign. It's a coalition of some great organizations who recognize the strategic importance of building out a 21st century transportation network for the United States.

In a nutshell, T4A is advocating the following:

• Build a world-class rail and transit network that puts us ahead of the rest of the developed world, not behind.

• Help communities meet the soaring demand for homes in neighborhoods that require less driving and have access to high-quality transportation options;

• Restore, and then keep our existing highways and public transportation networks in tip-top shape.

This is important.

My colleagues in the Smart Globalization program here at New America recently hosted former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle and CEO Leo Hindery to talk about how our health care crisis is creating a massive competitive disadvantage. Our transportation infrastructure is doing the same thing.

One of the prime uses of the California initiative process is budget theft: a special interest, unhappy with its cut of state spending, passes a ballot measure to increase or fence off its budget. But sometimes the loot doesn’t stay stolen.

Just ask the road lobby. Alarmed by reports that Republican legislators want to grab dollars from transportation accounts to paper over the state’s budget deficit, it has launched a radio ad campaign to defend its booty.

The loot at issue is the portion of the state’s sales tax revenue derived from the sale of gasoline.
Until this decade, the state, for tax purposes, treated gasoline like any other purchased good. California levied the normal state sales tax on sales at the gas pump and put the money into the general fund, along with the revenue from sales of surfboards, Steely Dan records, and other goods. This money helped pay for schools, health care, and prisons. (The sales tax should not be confused with the separate 18-cents-a-gallon state excise tax on motor fuels, a levy on road users exclusively dedicated to fund road maintenance and improvement.)

With the rising price of oil, a consensus has been building that the world is becoming less "flat" than it was in Tom Friedman's bestseller The World is Flat. With higher energy prices global supply chains will fail, countries in East Asia will re-think their export orientation and try to stimulate domestic demand, and countries such as the United States may gain a competitive edge in their domestic market. Oil makes up nearly half of total freight costs and over the past three years every one dollar rise in oil caused a 1% increase in transport costs.

Snapshot asks, will higher energy costs make U.S. manufacturing more competitive?

Business Week - Can the U.S. Bring Jobs Back from China?
Morgan Stanley - High Transport Costs to ‘Un-Flatten' the World
Wall Street Journal - China's Export Machine Threatened by Rising Costs
CIBC - Will Soaring Transport Costs Reverse Globalization?