Connect with us

The Nation

State DOT officials call for greater emphasis on safety

Published

on

Roger Millar, at podium, secretary of the Washington DOT, said more data-driven processes are needed to provide information for targeted investments. Millar is shown, from left, George McAuley, PennDOT;  Julie Lorenz, Kansas DOT; and Mike Tooley, Montana DOT. (Courtesy: AASHTO JOURNAL)

PARK CITY, Utah — A greater emphasis needs to be placed on safety by state departments of transportation, according to a panel discussion held at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2019 spring meeting here.

Mike Tooley, director of the Montana Department of Transportation, moderated the panel discussion and noted that, “safety needs to be our most important job, because, if you can’t survive the trip, transportation becomes a quality of life and public health issue.”

According to a report in the Journal, AASHTO’s official publication, Tooley, recently named chairman of AASHTO’s Committee on Safety and a 28-year veteran of the Montana State Highway Patrol, said “we need to have more conversations and change the culture not only in our departments but with the people behind the wheel [of motor vehicles]. The person behind the wheel needs to adopt a culture of safety; we can’t engineer our way out of this. The whole goal is to move to zero fatalities because no other number is acceptable.”

Julie Lorenz, secretary of the Kansas Department of Transportation, echoed Tooley’s point, noting that “we do not have the same urgency for safety in the public sector as there is in the private sector.”

She stressed that state DOTs “have to push safety every single day; that will inform everything I do as long as I have this job.”

Shawn Wilson, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and recently appointed chair of AASHTO’s Agency Administration Managing Committee, said more than 700 people were killed in fatal crashes on his state’s roads in 2018, generating $8.6 billion a year in crash-related spending.

“The key thing is, who are the people involved in these crashes? Many, we are finding out, are tourists,” Wilson said. “We are also finding drugged driving is a big issue, with opioids and marijuana, as well as distracted driving. We’ve also seen an alarming uptick in pedestrian and bicycle fatalities – they’re up 20 percent – so we’re trying to be more progressive with the adoption of national standards to protect those users.”

He added, however, that funding is an issue. “We’re only spending $60 million to $70 million a year on safety. And I like to say we have a wheelbarrow full of needs for transportation but only a thimbleful of funds,” Wilson said “So we need to make better decisions with that funding so we can save more lives and reduce deaths on our system.”

Yet Jay Norris, director of safety at the Tennessee Department of Transportation, emphasized that overcoming such challenges is what state DOTs do best. “We’ve dealt with flooding, tornadoes, wildfires; we can deal with this,” he said. “Our people are our most important resource.”

To that end, Ed Hassinger, deputy director and chief engineer of the Missouri Department of Transportation, noted that a “realignment of values and mission statements” is one tactic his agency is employing to “deal” with the safety issue.

“Safety, service, and stability is now our mantra,” he said. “We are realigning the things we’re doing around safety. For example, we used to allocate our safety funds based on the number of crashes that occurred on particular roadways. Now we’re allocating them based on fatalities and rate our [transportation] projects on how well they can contribute to reduced fatalities. We’re putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to safety.”

George McAuley, deputy secretary of highway administration for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the new chair of the steering committee guiding the AASHTO Innovation Initiative, added that 94 percent of all motor vehicle crashes have a “human behavior component,” according to data collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And one way of reducing if not eliminating that as a safety issue is the broad deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles or CAVs.

“CAVs offer a huge opportunity to reduce [fatality] numbers,” he explained. “I don’t know how that future trends out, but the advantage is that human behavior factors go away as a factor if CAVs are deployed widely over the next decade. So by 2030 and 2040 we could witness a huge decline in [traffic] fatalities. It’s not that far out – in 10 years I think we’ll see quite a bit of [CAV] volume. So we need to make sure our infrastructure is aligned and ready for it.”

Roger Millar, secretary of the Washington Department of Transportation, noted that most state DOTs won’t have enough money to do everything they need to do when it comes to safety improvements. “Thus we’ll need more data-driven processes that will provide a basis for regional administrators and others to make targeted investments with the resources we have,” he said.

Millar emphasized that “this needs to become a real focus” for state DOTs for “as we encourage more people to walk and ride bicycles to be healthier, we don’t want them to be killed doing it. Roughly 40 percent of the trips people take go less than five miles. But they take the vast majority of those trips in cars because it is the only way to do it safely. So we need to change our design standards from ones highly-oriented around passenger vehicle mobility to personal mobility; ones not focusing on the mobility ‘containers’ we use to move around.”

He also noted that “this can be a very polarizing conversation, so we need to bring data and safety perspective to it. We need to recognize effective designs can provide optimal safety performance. And we’re really interested in ‘mobility on demand’ or ‘mobility as a service’ as they’ll help us bring more tools to the transportation game.”

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Christian standard

    June 4, 2019 at 12:26 am

    As they say all of this non sense, they continue to raise the speed limits on highways exceeding 80 mph. Hmmmm, common sense much?

    What a waste of our tax dollars for these yahoo talking heads. Fricking mouth breathers!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Nation

U.S. economy could shrug off oil prices if disruption is brief

Published

on

A gallon of regular in the U.S. stood at $2.59 on Tuesday, up 3 cents from the previous day, according to the AAA auto club. Analysts warned that pump prices could rise as much as 25 cents in the coming weeks, but it all depends on how quickly Saudi Arabia returns to normal production. (©2019 FOTOSEARCH)

DALLAS  — The price of gasoline crept higher after a weekend attack devastated Saudi Arabian oil output, but if the disruption to global supplies is short-lived, the impact on the U.S. economy will probably be modest.

Prices spiked Monday by more than 14%, their biggest single-day jump in years, but retreated Tuesday, reversing some of the increase. U.S. oil fell nearly 5% to $59.96 a barrel, while Brent, the international benchmark, dropped 5.3% to $65.34.

A gallon of regular in the U.S. stood at $2.59 on Tuesday, up 3 cents from the previous day, according to the AAA auto club. Analysts warned that pump prices could rise as much as 25 cents in the coming weeks, but it all depends on how quickly Saudi Arabia returns to normal production.

Tuesday’s reversal in prices came as Saudi Arabia’s energy minister reported that 50% of the production cut by the attack had been restored. Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said full production would resume by the end of the month.

Even before Tuesday’s reversal in prices, economists downplayed the prospect that the price spike could send the economy reeling. After all, Monday’s surge only put prices back where they had been in May.

The attack knocked about 5% of the world crude supply offline. Oil prices have been trending mostly lower since spring because of concern about weak demand due to slowing economic growth.

Analysts say oil prices did not fully account for the risk posed by tension in the Middle East, but they will now. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen claimed credit for the strike on Saudi oil facilities, but the Trump administration blamed Iran itself. The attack exposed the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure.

Higher oil prices mean more costly gasoline, and that will sap consumers’ ability to spend on clothes, travel and restaurant meals. It will hit people who drive for a living.

Brian Alectine, a New York-based driver for the ride-hailing apps Lyft and Juno, said a 5- or 10-cent bump in the price of gasoline wouldn’t be too bad, but an increase of 25 cents a gallon would make it hard to earn a profit after expenses, including the monthly rent on the car he drives for work.

“The more you drive, the more gas you use,” Alectine said. “It will have a big impact.”

AAA said the nationwide average price of gasoline could rise 25 cents this month. Patrick DeHaan, an analyst for price-tracking app GasBuddy, predicted an increase of 10 to 20 cents a gallon. He saw reports of price spikes and people rushing to top off their tanks.

“I’m not sure where this panic is coming from,” DeHaan said. “There will be an increase, but prices will still remain over a dollar cheaper than they were earlier this decade.”

Any drag on the economy from lower consumer spending would be at least partially offset by increased investment in oil and gas production, according to several leading economists.

Gregory Daco, chief economist at Oxford Economics, estimated that the net effect could be a decline of about one-tenth of a percentage point in U.S. economic growth, which was 2.0% in the second quarter.

“An oil price shock will weigh on consumer spending and will add a further strain on the global economy, but we’re not talking about a major price shock at this level,” he said, while acknowledging that the situation could escalate if tension increases between the U.S. and Iran — a major producer whose output has been greatly squeezed by Trump administration sanctions.

U.S. crude poked above $100 a barrel in stretches between 2011 and mid-2014, yet the economy did not fall into recession. Brent peaked above $140 a barrel in July 2008, which some economists believe was an overlooked contributor to the Great Recession, which is more often linked to a financial crisis and, in the U.S., a housing-market bubble. Brent more than doubled in a few months after Iraq invaded Kuwait, another large oil producer, in 1990.

The United States was far more dependent on imported oil in 1990. Saudi Arabia remains the world’s biggest oil exporter, but the United States recently eclipsed both Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s largest producer.

That makes the impact of higher oil prices on the U.S. economy much more mixed. Even as consumers and certain industries pay more for fuel, higher oil prices will be good for the U.S. energy industry and states where oil is produced, including Texas, New Mexico and North Dakota.

The stock market has highlighted which sectors will be helped or hurt by higher oil prices. On Monday, shares of oil producers surged, naturally, while stocks in airline, cruise and retail companies generally fell. Delivery giants UPS and FedEx dipped. They consume lots of fuel, and their business will suffer if higher energy prices cause consumers to reduce their online shopping.

For airlines, fuel is their second biggest cost behind only labor. Airlines were surprisingly adept at adapting to the last big run-up in fuel prices, but it takes them time to raise fares high enough to cover the extra cost.

American Airlines burned more than 4.4 billion gallons of fuel last year at a cost of nearly $10 billion, including taxes. On Monday, its shares fell 7.3%, more sharply than other carriers. Unlike most others, American doesn’t buy derivative investments as a hedge against fuel spikes, and its relatively heavy debt load leaves it vulnerable if the economy slows for any reason, including a jump in energy prices.

American estimates that over a full year, each penny increase in the price of fuel costs it $45 million. The price went up about 15 cents a gallon over the weekend.

If the fuel price increase persists for even a few weeks, analysts said, it could cause airlines to rethink their aggressive growth plans for 2020.

Ryan Sweet, an economist at Moody’s Analytics, said U.S. consumers are in good shape to handle a temporary increase in gasoline prices — with some savings, a tight job market and accelerating wage growth. Consumer psychology, however, can be difficult to predict.

“I don’t think this increase in oil prices … would be enough to single-handedly tip us into a recession,” he said. “The one cause for concern is that the consumer is carrying the economy. If the consumer starts to pack it in, the recession odds increase quite significantly.”

 

 

 

Continue Reading

The Nation

EPA set to end California’s ability to regulate fuel economy

Published

on

California's authority to set its own, tougher emissions standards goes back to a waiver issued by Congress during passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. The state has long pushed automakers to adopt more fuel-efficient passenger vehicles that emit less pollution. A dozen states and the District of Columbia also follow California's fuel economy standards. (©2019 FOTOSEARCH)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is poised to revoke California’s authority to set auto mileage standards, asserting that only the federal government has the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy.

Conservative and free-market groups have been asked to attend a formal announcement of the rollback set for Wednesday afternoon at Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington.

Gloria Bergquist, spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said Tuesday that her group was among those invited to the event featuring EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.

The move comes after the Justice Department recently opened an antitrust investigation into a deal between California and four automakers for tougher pollution and related mileage requirements than those sought by President Donald Trump. Trump also has sought to relax Obama-era federal mileage standards nationwide, weakening a key effort by his Democratic predecessor to slow climate change.

Top California officials and environmental groups pledged legal action to stop the rollback.

The White House declined to comment Tuesday, referring questions to EPA. EPA’s press office did not respond to a phone message and email seeking comment.

But EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told the National Automobile Dealers Association on Tuesday that the Trump administration would move “in the very near future” to take steps toward establishing one nationwide set of fuel-economy standards.

“We embrace federalism and the role of the states, but federalism does not mean that one state can dictate standards for the nation,” he said, adding that higher fuel economy standards would hurt consumers by increasing the average sticker price of new cars and requiring automakers to produce more electric vehicles.

Word of the pending announcement came as Trump traveled to California on Tuesday for an overnight trip that includes GOP fundraising events near San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego.

California’s authority to set its own, tougher emissions standards goes back to a waiver issued by Congress during passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. The state has long pushed automakers to adopt more fuel-efficient passenger vehicles that emit less pollution. A dozen states and the District of Columbia also follow California’s fuel economy standards.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Tuesday that the Trump administration’s action will hurt both U.S. automakers and American families. He said California would fight the administration in federal court.

“You have no basis and no authority to pull this waiver,” Becerra, a Democrat, said in a statement, referring to Trump. “We’re ready to fight for a future that you seem unable to comprehend.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the White House “has abdicated its responsibility to the rest of the world on cutting emissions and fighting global warming.”

“California won’t ever wait for permission from Washington to protect the health and safety of children and families,” said Newsom, a Democrat.

The deal struck in July between California and four of the world’s largest automakers — Ford, Honda, BMW and Volkswagen — bypassed the Trump administration’s plan to freeze emissions and fuel economy standards adopted under Obama at 2021 levels.

The four automakers agreed with California to reduce emissions by 3.7% per year starting with the 2022 model year, through 2026. That compares with 4.7% yearly reductions through 2025 under the Obama standards. Emissions standards are closely linked with fuel economy requirements because vehicles pollute less if they burn fewer gallons of fuel.

The U.S. transportation sector is the nation’s biggest single source of planet-warming greenhouse gasses.

Wheeler said Tuesday: “California will be able to keep in place and enforce programs to address smog and other forms of air pollution caused by motor vehicles.” But fuel economy has been one of the key regulatory tools the state has used to reduce harmful emissions.

Environmentalists condemned the Trump administration’s expected announcement.

“Everyone wins when we adopt strong clean car standards as our public policy,” said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund. “Strong clean car standards give us healthier air to breathe, help protect us from the urgent threat of climate change and save Americans hundreds of dollars a year in gas expenses.”

 

 

 

Continue Reading

The Nation

Study finds hair test 14.2 times more likely to spot drugs than urinalysis

Published

on

After the Department of Health and Human Services failed to develop guidelines for hair testing as mandated in the 2015 FAST Act, in October 2018 President Donald Trump signed a bill that required HHS to report progress on hair testing within 30 days of passage and laid out a schedule, including benchmarks, for completion of hair testing guidelines. In neither case did the HHS respond, but now guidelines have been sent to the Office of Management and Budget. (©2019 FOTOSEARCH)

WASHINGTON — A University of Central Arkansas (UCA) study has concluded that a recent survey of 151,662 truck drivers’ paired urine and hair drug screenings, in which 12,824 failed the hair test, “can be generalized across the national driver population.”

Based on this study, 310,250 truck drivers would fail a hair test for illicit drug and opioid use.

That number is based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figure that there are 3.3 million employed truck drivers and the Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association estimate that there are 350,000 owner-operators.

Broken down by segment, the Labor Department says there are 915,320 light truck or delivery services drivers, 1,800,320 heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers and 604,100 industrial truck and tractor operators.

The Trucking Alliance, an industry-based safety coalition of freight transportation, logistics and supporting businesses that adopt specific operating standards, recently conducted a survey of 15 trucking companies that utilize a pre-employment hair test when hiring commercial truck drivers, along with the federally required urine test.

To compare the results, the companies submitted paired drug and urine test results of 151,662 truck driver applicants.

The test results indicated a major discrepancy between the number of drivers who failed a urinalysis drug screen and those who failed a hair test.

While 949 (0.6%) applicants failed the urine test, 12,824 (8.5%) either failed or refused to submit to a hair test.

The U.S. Department of Transportation classifies refusals to submit to a drug or alcohol screening as a failure.

This yielded a hair test failure rate 14.2 times greater than with the urine test.

Cocaine was the most prevalent drug, followed by opioids, including heroin.

Marijuana was the third-most widely detected drug.

All of these drugs are prohibited by federal law and automatically disqualify persons with a commercial driver license from operating a commercial truck.

Proponents of hair testing have been pushing for several years to have the Department of Transportation recognize hair testing as a viable tool in screening out substance abusers who might seek a job driving a big rig.

The FAST Act highway bill of 2015 had required the Department of Health and Human Services to issue scientific and technical guidelines for hair testing by December 2016, but that deadline was missed.

Then in October 2018, President Donald Trump signed a bill that required HHS to report progress on hair testing within 30 days of passage and laid out a schedule, including benchmarks, for completion of hair testing guidelines.

The guidelines would be applicable to all federal agencies, not just the DOT.

Sources told The Trucker that a draft of guidelines has been written and sent to the Office of Management and Budget (in essence, the White House) for review.

Feedback from OMB said the guidelines were too broad and unenforceable, the source said.

As for its study, the Trucking Alliance asked the UCA College of Business to analyze the survey and determine if the test results could be applied, with accuracy, to the national U.S. truck driver population.

The UCA study, titled, “An Examination of the Geographical Correlation Between Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers,” concluded:

  • The Trucking Alliance sample is large enough to draw inferences to the national driver population, with a 99% confidence level and a margin of error of less than 1%.
  • The Trucking Alliance sample is representative of the national truck driver population.
  • The Trucking Alliance urine vs. hair test results can be generalized across the national driver population.

“We now have clear evidence that hundreds of thousands of drug-impaired truck drivers are skirting the current drug test system and creating a dangerous public safety risk,” said Lane Kidd, managing director of the Trucking Alliance.

The Trucking Alliance says it supports reforms that can improve the safety and security of commercial drivers, reduce large-truck accidents, and eventually eliminate all large-truck crash fatalities.

Member companies collectively employ 82,000 professional drivers, logistics and management personnel, and contract with thousands of independent owner-operators to serve their respective supply chain networks. These companies operate approximately 70,000 large tractors, and more than 220,000 semitrailers and intermodal containers.

Members of the Trucking Alliance include Cargo Transporters, Dupré Logistics, J.B. Hunt Transport, KLLM Transport Services, Knight-Swift Transportation, Maverick USA, May Trucking Company and US Xpress.

UCA is located in Conway, Arkansas.

Continue Reading

Trending