Transportation: Toyota Dishonest In Gas Pedal Investigation, Government Says
• "Toyota Motor Corp. released misleading information about an investigation into problems with stuck gas pedals that led to a massive Toyota recall, the government said Wednesday, stressing the issue is still under review by federal safety regulators," AP reports. "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it was still investigating the case and meeting with Toyota to hear about the company's plan to redesign the vehicles and fix 'this very dangerous problem.'"
• Toyota "posted a surprise quarterly profit on Thursday and became the latest Japanese auto maker to offer an improved outlook for the rest of the year, as cost-cutting and government car-buying incentives look to lift its prospects after nine months of losses," the Wall Street Journal (subscription) reports. "But the recovery at the world's No. 1 auto maker by sales volume appears to be trailing those of rivals Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co., and the company still expects to report more than $2 billion in losses this fiscal year."
Last week, both the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee held hearings on the increasingly deadly problem of distracted driving, which Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calls a "serious and ongoing threat to safety." LaHood told the House panel that nearly 6,000 people died on the roads and more than half a million were injured last year in crashes involving distracted driving. And on Oct. 21, a Northwest Airlines flight bound for Minneapolis overshot its destination because the pilots were paying more attention to working out crew schedules on their laptops than they were to flying the plane. LaHood has pledged to address the issue of cockpit distractions, which he also denounced last week.
Have Americans, multitasking behind the wheel or even in the cockpit, become complacent about transportation safety? And what can lawmakers and the transportation community do to promote greater safety awareness, both on the part of average Americans and among the transportation professionals who are responsible for ensuring the safety of millions of passengers?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
22 responses: Robert L. Darbelnet, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Steve Cassano, Gabriel Roth, Robin Chase, James Corless, Lisa Caruso, Jack Schenendorf, Lisa Caruso, Pete Ruane, Lisa Caruso, Lisa Caruso, Lisa Caruso, Robert L. Crandall, Steve Van Beek, Bill Graves, Greg Cohen, Dennis Christiansen, Lisa Caruso, Gabriel Roth, Jacqueline Gillan, Carol J. Carmody
Some transportation infrastructure, such as highways, airports and ports, is mainly owned and operated by governments, while other elements, such as rail lines and pipelines, are mainly owned and run by the private sector. What lessons can the public sector learn from privately held infrastructure about how best to manage, maintain and finance its network of holdings? Are there any lessons that government can impart to the private sector?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
8 responses: Robin Chase, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Gabriel Roth, Parris N. Glendening, Gabriel Roth, Robin Chase, Jack Kinstlinger, Jeff Rosen
Supporters of public-private partnerships, from conservative former Transportation Secretary Mary Peters to Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, insist that the next surface transportation bill make it significantly easier for the private sector to invest in infrastructure projects. At the other end of the spectrum, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., wants to create an Office of Public Benefit and tough new requirements for tolling and public-private partnerships involving federal roads to make sure that the public interest is protected in deals with private investors.
How can policymakers strike the best balance between ensuring that the public gets a fair deal and making investment in infrastructure projects attractive to private capital? And how much funding for transportation projects is it realistic to expect from the private sector?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
18 responses: Jon Martz, D.J. Gribbin, Gabriel Roth, Patrick D. Jones, Lisa Caruso, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Ed Hamberger, Patrick D. Jones, Patrick D. Jones, Geoffrey S. Yarema, Gabriel Roth, Bill Graves, Lisa Mullings, Steve Sandherr, Phineas Baxandall, Bob Poole, Greg Cohen, Mary Peters
In an interview last week with NationalJournal.com, former Transportation Secretary Mary Peters suggested that rather than increasing the fuels tax to pay for a larger surface transportation program, policymakers should keep gas tax revenues constant, allow states and localities greater freedom to pursue private financing for infrastructure projects, and shrink the program to focus on core national priorities. Transportation experts are nearly unanimous in agreeing that federal surface transportation policy should make national (and regional) needs its top priority -- but many also support a substantially more expensive program of roughly $500 billion over six years (compared to the $286 billion provided in the last six-year authorization).
Has the time come to limit the scope and spending of the federal program, or does the next surface transportation bill require more money and a wider, if still nationally focused, approach?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
14 responses: Deron Lovaas, Mortimer L. Downey, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Bill Graves, Gabriel Roth, James Corless, David A. Raymond, Parris N. Glendening, Jack Kinstlinger, Steve Van Beek, John Horsley, Bob Poole, Steve Heminger, Ken Orski
The Obama administration and leading congressional Democrats appear to be making the creation of "livable communities" -- where residents have better access to affordable housing, public transportation and employment options -- a central transportation policy goal.
In June, the administration launched a Partnership for Sustainable Communities and six "livability principles" for coordinating policy across the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., whose panel has jurisdiction over mass transit programs, in August introduced his own Livable Communities Act, while House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., made livability one of the key objectives of the surface transportation reauthorization bill he unveiled in June.
Given this increasing focus on promoting livability, what can transportation and urban planners and others in the transportation sector do to promote greater interconnection of affordable housing and transportation options? What role, if any, is appropriate for the federal government to play?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
17 responses: Jon Martz, Jeff Rosen, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Lisa Caruso, Ed Hamberger, Lisa Caruso, Deron Lovaas, Ken Orski, Gabriel Roth, James Corless, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Lisa Caruso, Steve Heminger, Rich Sarles, Greg Cohen, Nancy LeaMond, Parris N. Glendening
President Obama, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar have all rejected the idea of raising the gas tax during a recession. Last week during debate on a bill to extend the surface transportation law through the end of the year, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia tried to use a parliamentary procedure to put the House on record with "a public rejection of increasing the gas tax" (the gambit failed and the chamber voted 335-85 for the three-month extension of SAFETEA-LU, which expires October 1).
Last week also saw the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Trucking Associations and the AAA together endorse raising the gas tax to increase investment in a larger but significantly reformed surface transportation program. They urged Congress to reject the 18-month extension proposed by the Obama administration and the Senate and instead to move quickly on reauthorization.
Transportation groups from across the political spectrum agree on the need for a new, reformed law soon and they are willing to support higher fuels taxes to get it. Yet there is significant resistance at the White House and in Congress to doing just that. How can transportation advocates battle these political headwinds to speed up and ease passage of the kind of surface transportation program they want? If raising the gas tax now is a non-starter, what other options are available to pay for the bill, and can they supply the necessary funds?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
14 responses: Jack Kinstlinger, Deron Lovaas, Gabriel Roth, Steve Van Beek, Jim Burnley, Lisa Mullings, John Horsley, Bill Graves, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Ken Orski, Mortimer L. Downey, Robert L. Darbelnet, Jon Martz
Last week the Center for Public Integrity reported that almost 1,800 "special interest groups" have already hired 2,100 lobbyists and spent an estimated $45 million to lobby Congress on transportation in the first half of this year. The center, which tracks money in politics, says its investigation of transportation lobbying shows that "Congress's funding of transportation has become a broken process influenced by special interests." According to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, the number of earmarks exploded from just 10 in 1982 to more than 6,300 in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU law.
Along with organizations like the Brookings Institution and the Bipartisan Policy Center and a host of respected experts, the commission has called for the next surface transportation bill to focus on meeting national priorities and to use performance-based, outcome-driven criteria rather than parochial interests and political influence to determine how and where to spend federal dollars. With so much lobbying already under way, will it be possible to write the kind of transformational bill that transportation policy experts recommend? Can Congress and K Street control their appetite for earmarks, and at what point do earmarks go from simply greasing the political skids to undermining good policy?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
10 responses: John M. Krieger, Bill Graves, Steve Van Beek, Jon Martz, Gabriel Roth, Jack Kinstlinger, Greg Cohen, Jack Schenendorf, Emil H. Frankel, Robert Puentes
Last week the country marked the eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and, in the only thwarted attempt, a field in western Pennsylvania. The attacks exposed glaring vulnerabilities in our transportation security system and made addressing security threats to all modes of transportation a top priority for government and the private sector alike. Eight years later, where do we stand on that effort? Where has transportation security been enhanced and where do gaps still exist? What do we need to do next?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
13 responses: Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Rep. John L. Mica, R-Fla., Steve Van Beek, Ed Hamberger, James P. Hoffa, Mortimer L. Downey, Bill Graves, Lisa Caruso, Ron Kuhlmann, James C. May, Bob Poole, Michael P. Jackson, Norman Mineta
Many organizations have called for the next surface transportation bill to create a national freight program with a dedicated source of funding (among them are the Freight Stakeholders Coalition, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). What should that policy look like and what should its revenue source be? What role can the private sector and other levels of government play in improving the movement of goods across the country and across all modes of transportation? Where do air cargo and freight rail fit into the equation?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
16 responses: Lisa Caruso, Lisa Caruso, Ed Hamberger, Matt Rose, Steve Van Beek, Bob Poole, James Corless, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Jack Kinstlinger, Michael Sussman, Mortimer L. Downey, Geraldine Knatz, Jack Basso, Leslie Blakey, Kurt J. Nagle, Bill Graves
Legislation to reauthorize Federal Aviation Administration programs now moving through Congress would provide considerable funding to pay for the FAA's part in upgrading management of the national air space to the satellite-based NextGen system. However, the costs to aircraft operators of adopting the necessary technology are significant, and NextGen cannot provide the full benefits it promises of a safer, more efficient and environmentally friendly system if only some operators are properly equipped.
The FAA's current NextGen implementation plan calls for giving air space priority to the "best-equipped, best-served" operators as an incentive to spur early adoption of NextGen avionics. Is this the best approach? Or should the airlines and other aviation system users get funding assistance from the government, or greater freedom to raise their own revenues, to fund the cost they will need to bear?
-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com
6 responses: Marion C. Blakey, Greg Cohen, Lisa Caruso, Anthony E. Shorris, Ron Kuhlmann, Craig L. Fuller
