Top 10 Transportation Questions to ask During the Presidential Debates -
HNTB's Pete Rahn shares his list of transportation-focused queries for Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/9/prweb9947535.htm)
QuoteIn advance of this year's presidential debates, which begin next Wednesday, Oct. 3, in Denver, Pete Rahn, leader national transportation practice for HNTB Corporation, has issued the following statement:
QuoteWith this year's Republican and Democratic political conventions in the books, the nation's voters will turn their eyes and ears toward the presidential debates. A number of transportation-related organizations, including Building America's Future Education Fund and Airlines for America, have called for infrastructure questions to be incorporated into the discussion.
My #1 question isn't on the list:
Are you opposed to or in favor of the cross-border trucking program?
I would like to see a serious discussion on question two happen.
I am not real happy with this list: (a) it is full of the old standbys for which nobody ever has an answer that combines policy realism and political acceptability, (b) it is too easy for the candidates to duck, and (c) it is posed by a former MoDOT secretary who left as soon as the going got tough at MoDOT.
My number one question:
When are you going to get rid of customs and border patrol along the Canadian border to ease transportation between the US and Canada?
I want to know when there will be more than a stopgap funding measure passed, similar to the old SAFETEA acts that keep getting extended. There needs to be a guaranteed source of funding in place for at least five years so we have something to work with.
I suspect that the omission of cross-border issues (both trucking and border security) is deliberate, in order to keep the discussion pure and not sidetracked by homeland security issues.
Quote from: Steve on September 27, 2012, 11:32:30 PMI want to know when there will be more than a stopgap funding measure passed, similar to the old SAFETEA acts that keep getting extended. There needs to be a guaranteed source of funding in place for at least five years so we have something to work with.
Let me put it this way: I think there is a strong chance that there will never again be a comprehensive, multi-year transportation reauthorization bill. If matters develop in this direction, what coping mechanisms are available for agencies?
My question would be. When are we going to get serious about dealing with our transportation infrastructure issues? including rebuilding our passenger rail system? Will you propose realistic funding even it requires raising fuel or usage taxes?
My inclination would be to say that transportation funding will only get the required amount of attention when the current political fad of obsessing over deficits and tax rates subsides. You can't have a transportation bill in the kind of environment we have now, lest it become another pawn in a budget policy standoff.
Quote from: Brandon on September 27, 2012, 06:42:32 PM
My number one question:
When are you going to get rid of customs and border patrol along the Canadian border to ease transportation between the US and Canada?
That is an
excellent question.
I infer that you would like to get rid of those controls - I certainly would. In a perfect world, the U.S. and Canada would have a North American version of the Schengen agreement, and scrap all of the controls. Not sure either side is willing to go that far.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 27, 2012, 11:46:29 PM
I suspect that the omission of cross-border issues (both trucking and border security) is deliberate, in order to keep the discussion pure and not sidetracked by homeland security issues.
US, Canadian, and Mexican trucks are supposed to have free range in all three countries under NAFTA. To me, it's not a homeland security issue: it's about us not complying with NAFTA.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 27, 2012, 05:26:02 PM
I am not real happy with this list: (a) it is full of the old standbys for which nobody ever has an answer that combines policy realism and political acceptability, (b) it is too easy for the candidates to duck, and (c) it is posed by a former MoDOT secretary who left as soon as the going got tough at MoDOT.
I do not know the author from Adam, but I do consider the list to be a good starting point, not that I am ever going to get such a list in front of any presidential candidate or candidates, because I won't.
Quote from: kphoger on September 28, 2012, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 27, 2012, 11:46:29 PM
I suspect that the omission of cross-border issues (both trucking and border security) is deliberate, in order to keep the discussion pure and not sidetracked by homeland security issues.
US, Canadian, and Mexican trucks are supposed to have free range in all three countries under NAFTA. To me, it's not a homeland security issue: it's about us not complying with NAFTA.
There have been (excessive) concerned raised about Mexican trucks on U.S. (and presumably Canadian) highways. Because much of the concern is coming from the Teamsters Union (which represents many truck drivers in the United States), I regard the concerns as highly suspect.
If the Mexican trucks have the correct credentials (including apportioned registration plates and IFTA stickers), insurance that's valid in the U.S. and Canada -
and the trucks are in a state of good repair - let 'em in. And just like certain law enforcement agencies (usually state police or highway patrol) inspect trucks registered in the U.S., there is no reason why they cannot do the same with Mexican trucks.
We legally agreed to allow them north of the border when we agreed to NAFTA, and it's time we live up to that agreement.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 01:52:45 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 27, 2012, 05:26:02 PM
I am not real happy with this list: (a) it is full of the old standbys for which nobody ever has an answer that combines policy realism and political acceptability, (b) it is too easy for the candidates to duck, and (c) it is posed by a former MoDOT secretary who left as soon as the going got tough at MoDOT.
I do not know the author from Adam, but I do consider the list to be a good starting point, not that I am ever going to get such a list in front of any presidential candidate or candidates, because I won't.
The odds of that are about as likely as the odds of the candidates being asked the question I'd like to hear asked, which is as follows:
This year the airwaves have been filled with negative ads from both your campaigns telling us why we shouldn't vote for your opponent. Please explain,
without making any reference whatsoever to your opponent or to your opponent's political party, why we should vote
for you.
(I know how I will vote in the presidential election, but I'd still like to hear the question asked.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 28, 2012, 02:21:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 01:52:45 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 27, 2012, 05:26:02 PM
I am not real happy with this list: (a) it is full of the old standbys for which nobody ever has an answer that combines policy realism and political acceptability, (b) it is too easy for the candidates to duck, and (c) it is posed by a former MoDOT secretary who left as soon as the going got tough at MoDOT.
I do not know the author from Adam, but I do consider the list to be a good starting point, not that I am ever going to get such a list in front of any presidential candidate or candidates, because I won't.
The odds of that are about as likely as the odds of the candidates being asked the question I'd like to hear asked, which is as follows:
This year the airwaves have been filled with negative ads from both your campaigns telling us why we shouldn't vote for your opponent. Please explain, without making any reference whatsoever to your opponent or to your opponent's political party, why we should vote for you.
(I know how I will vote in the presidential election, but I'd still like to hear the question asked.)
I also know how I am going to vote. But your question is a very good one - maybe the best I have seen.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 28, 2012, 02:21:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 01:52:45 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 27, 2012, 05:26:02 PM
I am not real happy with this list: (a) it is full of the old standbys for which nobody ever has an answer that combines policy realism and political acceptability, (b) it is too easy for the candidates to duck, and (c) it is posed by a former MoDOT secretary who left as soon as the going got tough at MoDOT.
I do not know the author from Adam, but I do consider the list to be a good starting point, not that I am ever going to get such a list in front of any presidential candidate or candidates, because I won't.
The odds of that are about as likely as the odds of the candidates being asked the question I'd like to hear asked, which is as follows:
This year the airwaves have been filled with negative ads from both your campaigns telling us why we shouldn't vote for your opponent. Please explain, without making any reference whatsoever to your opponent or to your opponent's political party, why we should vote for you.
(I know how I will vote in the presidential election, but I'd still like to hear the question asked.)
Wouldn't everybody love that? But fat chance of it actually happening. I've lived too many years in Illinois take take a positive view of campaign ads.....
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 02:05:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 28, 2012, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 27, 2012, 11:46:29 PM
I suspect that the omission of cross-border issues (both trucking and border security) is deliberate, in order to keep the discussion pure and not sidetracked by homeland security issues.
US, Canadian, and Mexican trucks are supposed to have free range in all three countries under NAFTA. To me, it's not a homeland security issue: it's about us not complying with NAFTA.
There have been (excessive) concerned raised about Mexican trucks on U.S. (and presumably Canadian) highways. Because much of the concern is coming from the Teamsters Union (which represents many truck drivers in the United States), I regard the concerns as highly suspect.
If the Mexican trucks have the correct credentials (including apportioned registration plates and IFTA stickers), insurance that's valid in the U.S. and Canada - and the trucks are in a state of good repair - let 'em in. And just like certain law enforcement agencies (usually state police or highway patrol) inspect trucks registered in the U.S., there is no reason why they cannot do the same with Mexican trucks.
We legally agreed to allow them north of the border when we agreed to NAFTA, and it's time we live up to that agreement.
Few of the concerns expressed by the Teamsters Union (related to regulation enforcement etc.) would not also apply to Canadian trucks, so it's all just smoke.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 28, 2012, 02:21:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 01:52:45 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 27, 2012, 05:26:02 PM
I am not real happy with this list: (a) it is full of the old standbys for which nobody ever has an answer that combines policy realism and political acceptability, (b) it is too easy for the candidates to duck, and (c) it is posed by a former MoDOT secretary who left as soon as the going got tough at MoDOT.
I do not know the author from Adam, but I do consider the list to be a good starting point, not that I am ever going to get such a list in front of any presidential candidate or candidates, because I won't.
The odds of that are about as likely as the odds of the candidates being asked the question I'd like to hear asked, which is as follows:
This year the airwaves have been filled with negative ads from both your campaigns telling us why we shouldn't vote for your opponent. Please explain, without making any reference whatsoever to your opponent or to your opponent's political party, why we should vote for you.
(I know how I will vote in the presidential election, but I'd still like to hear the question asked.)
You'll hear a bunch of platitudes and party lines and nothing substantive or accurate.
Quote from: kphoger on September 28, 2012, 04:34:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 02:05:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 28, 2012, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 27, 2012, 11:46:29 PM
I suspect that the omission of cross-border issues (both trucking and border security) is deliberate, in order to keep the discussion pure and not sidetracked by homeland security issues.
US, Canadian, and Mexican trucks are supposed to have free range in all three countries under NAFTA. To me, it's not a homeland security issue: it's about us not complying with NAFTA.
There have been (excessive) concerned raised about Mexican trucks on U.S. (and presumably Canadian) highways. Because much of the concern is coming from the Teamsters Union (which represents many truck drivers in the United States), I regard the concerns as highly suspect.
If the Mexican trucks have the correct credentials (including apportioned registration plates and IFTA stickers), insurance that's valid in the U.S. and Canada - and the trucks are in a state of good repair - let 'em in. And just like certain law enforcement agencies (usually state police or highway patrol) inspect trucks registered in the U.S., there is no reason why they cannot do the same with Mexican trucks.
We legally agreed to allow them north of the border when we agreed to NAFTA, and it's time we live up to that agreement.
Few of the concerns expressed by the Teamsters Union (related to regulation enforcement etc.) would not also apply to Canadian trucks, so it's all just smoke.
At least here in the East, I see Canadian trucks
frequently on I-95, I-66, I-270, I-83 and U.S. 301 (301 is a principal arterial across Maryland with reasonably heavy truck traffic).
Mostly from Quebec and Ontario (I think Quebec is ahead of Ontario in terms of total truck volumes on I-95, it's probably reversed on, say I-75), with lesser numbers of Canadian trucks from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (and I've even seen a few with a plate from Prince Edward Island or Labrador). I've never seen a Canadian truck in the eastern U.S. from any province west of Ontario.
Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2012, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 28, 2012, 02:21:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 01:52:45 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 27, 2012, 05:26:02 PM
I am not real happy with this list: (a) it is full of the old standbys for which nobody ever has an answer that combines policy realism and political acceptability, (b) it is too easy for the candidates to duck, and (c) it is posed by a former MoDOT secretary who left as soon as the going got tough at MoDOT.
I do not know the author from Adam, but I do consider the list to be a good starting point, not that I am ever going to get such a list in front of any presidential candidate or candidates, because I won't.
The odds of that are about as likely as the odds of the candidates being asked the question I'd like to hear asked, which is as follows:
This year the airwaves have been filled with negative ads from both your campaigns telling us why we shouldn't vote for your opponent. Please explain, without making any reference whatsoever to your opponent or to your opponent's political party, why we should vote for you.
(I know how I will vote in the presidential election, but I'd still like to hear the question asked.)
You'll hear a bunch of platitudes and party lines and nothing substantive or accurate.
That's more than you'd get for any of the strictly transportation-oriented questions. Never mind that they'd never be asked in a live debate -- if asked, they will hardly be answered at all, in the candidates' frantic rush to change the subject to something more likely to move lots of votes.
If I were advising either of the candidates, I'd tell them to respond to the transportation questions in a live debate with a one-syllable response ("yes", "no", whatever -- doesn't really matter which syllable, so long as they don't waste more than a fraction of a second per question), then use the rest of their precious time to address the questions they really
need (or want) to answer, which will have nothing to do with transportation. Cosmic issues like, for example, why taxes are too high, or why Mitt Romney's taxes aren't high enough.
</rant>
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 06:54:48 PM
Mostly from Quebec and Ontario (I think Quebec is ahead of Ontario in terms of total truck volumes on I-95, it's probably reversed on, say I-75), with lesser numbers of Canadian trucks from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (and I've even seen a few with a plate from Prince Edward Island or Labrador). I've never seen a Canadian truck in the eastern U.S. from any province west of Ontario.
I've seen Alberta and Manitoba; maybe even Saskatawan once or twice, all on I-90 and I-81.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 06:54:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 28, 2012, 04:34:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 02:05:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 28, 2012, 01:49:50 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 27, 2012, 11:46:29 PM
I suspect that the omission of cross-border issues (both trucking and border security) is deliberate, in order to keep the discussion pure and not sidetracked by homeland security issues.
US, Canadian, and Mexican trucks are supposed to have free range in all three countries under NAFTA. To me, it's not a homeland security issue: it's about us not complying with NAFTA.
There have been (excessive) concerned raised about Mexican trucks on U.S. (and presumably Canadian) highways. Because much of the concern is coming from the Teamsters Union (which represents many truck drivers in the United States), I regard the concerns as highly suspect.
If the Mexican trucks have the correct credentials (including apportioned registration plates and IFTA stickers), insurance that's valid in the U.S. and Canada - and the trucks are in a state of good repair - let 'em in. And just like certain law enforcement agencies (usually state police or highway patrol) inspect trucks registered in the U.S., there is no reason why they cannot do the same with Mexican trucks.
We legally agreed to allow them north of the border when we agreed to NAFTA, and it's time we live up to that agreement.
Few of the concerns expressed by the Teamsters Union (related to regulation enforcement etc.) would not also apply to Canadian trucks, so it's all just smoke.
At least here in the East, I see Canadian trucks frequently on I-95, I-66, I-270, I-83 and U.S. 301 (301 is a principal arterial across Maryland with reasonably heavy truck traffic).
Mostly from Quebec and Ontario (I think Quebec is ahead of Ontario in terms of total truck volumes on I-95, it's probably reversed on, say I-75), with lesser numbers of Canadian trucks from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (and I've even seen a few with a plate from Prince Edward Island or Labrador). I've never seen a Canadian truck in the eastern U.S. from any province west of Ontario.
You sort of hit on my point. We have no problem with Canadian trucks, yet Canada's regulation is largely less substantive than either the U.S. or México. So, when people raise the issue of lax regulation on Mexican trucks and drivers, they're just spreading misinformation. The pilot program for cross-border trucking a few years ago had a near-perfect safety record, but....as Einstein put it:
Quote"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
Quote from: pctech on September 28, 2012, 08:40:38 AM
including rebuilding our passenger rail system?
We'll do that after we rebuild our cart and buggy system.
Fixed rail is the past. Self driving cars = future.
Quote from: pctech on September 28, 2012, 08:40:38 AM
My question would be. When are we going to get serious about dealing with our transportation infrastructure issues? including rebuilding our passenger rail system? Will you propose realistic funding even it requires raising fuel or usage taxes?
Why? The freight railroads gave up passenger traffic a while ago as being highly unprofitable. Even the airlines make more money. Why should we make our rail system into Europe's? Europe has a crappy freight rail system and pushes freight onto its highways. We save fuel and energy by using our rail system smartly for freight that can go from a major terminal to a major terminal. Who wants to do that for passenger traffic? Automobiles are far superior for short distances than rail unless you're talking about commuters to a city center. Airplanes have proven far superior for long distance with the time savings. Who wants to spend two days to get to LA from Chicago when you can fly there in four hours?
Cross-country passenger rail, even the high-speed kind, is a pipe dream in the US outside the Northeast Corridor. It is simply just not dense enough to be feasible. We (US and Canada) are not Europe, and do not have Europe's density.
The European train system is vastly overrated by many Americans anyway. Yes you can go to most cities by train, but only 7% of passenger transport in Europe is carried by trains.
Quote from: kphoger on September 29, 2012, 12:26:40 PM
You sort of hit on my point. We have no problem with Canadian trucks, yet Canada's regulation is largely less substantive than either the U.S. or México. So, when people raise the issue of lax regulation on Mexican trucks and drivers, they're just spreading misinformation. The pilot program for cross-border trucking a few years ago had a near-perfect safety record, but....as Einstein put it:
Quote"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
No disagreement.
I don't know how strict they are in Canada regarding enforcement of commercial vehicle laws (and that includes weight enforcement, and I know Canadian provinces permit higher gross and gross combination weights that is allowed in most of the U.S.). Depending on combination length and spacing of axles, Ontario allows GCW as high as 60,800 kg (134,000 pounds).