Over the last few weeks, I have spent a lot of time watching the debate over the debt ceiling. Congress has many very talented speakers that raise compelling points, but even as it appears the crisis will be averted, I will be left with many concerns about the polarity of our country. This willingness to play a deadly game of chicken with our nation's credit rating is a dramatic symptom of the current chasm in our political system.
Coming into the fourth quarter of the year, many large companies automatically begin terminating employees in order to ensure that year end stock prices reflect a positive year. This is not some casual assumption, it is in fact the fiduciary duty of each Chief Executive Officer of a publicly traded corporation to protect the share holder investment.
Consulting Engineering has become big business. Over a decade ago, I worked for what was then one of the largest engineering firms with little more than 10,000 employees. Today several of the largest engineering firms have 50,000 to 60,000 employees. With the large number of acquisitions, engineering firms with between 100 and 250 employees has been reduced precipitously. As firms get larger, decisions are more often made based upon numbers and not the talent of their employees. Examples would be deciding to cut a percentage of their staff instead of "trimming the fat". With smaller markets such as Vermont and New Hampshire some of the larger companies have simply elected to eliminate their offices in these smaller states. Some may be happy to see some of the larger firms exit the state, but these are also well paying jobs leaving that won't necessarily result in a compatible growth in the companies remaining.
Time will tell what impact the whole debt crisis will have over the economy. If nothing else, we have taught the world market that the United States defaulting on our obligations is not outside the realm of possibilities. Even if we now raise the ceiling, there will be some countries less willing to offer us credit. As a minimum, I would expect interest rates to rise even if we do not have our credit rating dropped from AAA to AA.
I was more concerned that the earlier votes were perfectly along party lines. I resented feeling like the American public had a gun to our head through this process. Over the weekend I happened to read "My Declaration of Independence" by former Senator James Jeffords from Vermont. On May 24, 2001, the Vermont Senator effectively switched parties from Republican to Independent. For organizational purposes he shifted his alignment to the Democratic party which at the time shifted the majority vote of the Senate over to the Democrats including many key committee chairmanships over to the Democrats. At the time, I had only appreciated the action as a defection of a long-standing political tradition. At the time this was one of the longest held seats by a single party in the country. Watching our political process, I can now better appreciate the personal reflection and inner strength needed to take such a dramatic step to follow ones ideals against the political establishment.
As Senator Jeffords described the separation from the major parties due to the extreme polarity and the need for more middle ground. In this case it had a lot to do with a battle between tax cuts promised by the Republican President and a personal commitment toward education funding. I now find more in common with the Senator than I ever had. I am finding it hard to identify with a single party and struggle to find any common ground with the more extreme elements within the political parties, finding more in common with the moderates of both groups. Somehow we need to reconstruct the middle ground within congress and within our country as a whole.
As the crisis appears to be finally coming to an end, it will be important that we all learn from this experience and continue to let our representatives know where we stand on these critical issues. By passing legislation solely by political advantage instead of meaningful dialogue, a willingness to listen at opposing views, and at times formulate meaningful compromises, we can avoid continually shifting between the control of opposing parties after each election. We still have a lot of work to resolve many of the challenges still facing this country, but solving these issues while maintaining the current polarity will not be possible.
This site is dedicated to the reconstruction and maintenance of New Hampshire's Infrastructure. This includes roads, bridges, water, wastewater, schools, energy, ports, airports, railroads, solid waste, hazardous waste, dams, trails and mass transit. Content includes news stories from across the state from newspapers, legislative updates, and a mix of original content.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Congress at Impasse Over F.A.A.
Related in Opinion
Editorial: This Is Called ‘Small’ Government (July 28, 2011)
For four years and counting, Congress has been unable to approve long-term authority for the agency’s budgets and capital spending plans. Twenty temporary spending measures, some of them lasting just a few weeks, have come and gone. Last week, Congress again failed to resolve the impasse that has held up an agreement, including battles over subsidies for flights to rural airports and — something dear to the hearts of out-of-town lawmakers — adding more flights at Reagan National Airport near Washington.
So last week, Congress scrapped attempts to approve the 21st temporary spending plan before the last one expired on Friday — thereby shutting down a large part of the F.A.A. The agency stresses that it has enough money to keep airports open and planes safely in the air. But it cannot work on long-term projects. It has furloughed 4,000 employees, stopped work on construction projects employing thousands more and halted research on next-generation air traffic control systems. The F.A.A. is not some esoteric financial concept like the debt ceiling — an issue that has some lawmakers proclaiming the end is nigh while others bluster that it does not really matter. The aviation agency holds the lives of hundreds of thousands of travelers in its hands every day, overseeing the nation’s airports and the air traffic controllers who make sure that tens of thousands of flights a day take off and land safely.
“It’s amazingly aberrant behavior on the part of our lawmakers that they haven’t been able to get a bill approved since 2007,” said Marion C. Blakey, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, who from 2002-7 was the F.A.A. administrator, the agency’s top official. The issue is not merely a question of whether the F.A.A. might have to delay some spending on little-used airports in the districts of powerful legislators. Their dependence on a stream of short-term F.A.A. allocations has led airports to have to bid out projects one small chunk at a time, raising costs and inconveniencing travelers.
“This is not a good way to do business,” Randy Babbitt, the current F.A.A. administrator, said in an interview. “It is a terribly inefficient use of the taxpayer dollar.” Without authorization from Congress, the F.A.A. cannot collect taxes on airline tickets that pay for much of its operations. The federal government is losing about $30 million a day from the loss of the ticket tax. For a Congress whose members routinely discuss the importance of adding jobs and constraining spending, an F.A.A. shutdown that lays off workers and makes projects more expensive would seem to go against common sense. Members of both parties and house of Congress blamed each other for the problem. “I was appalled that the House went through on its dangerous threats last week to hold the entire F.A.A. bill hostage to their politics,” Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, a West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, said on Monday.
Representative John L. Mica, a Florida Republican who is chairman of the House Transportation committee, shot back: “To put people back to work and restart F.A.A. programs, the Senate needs to adopt the F.A.A. extension passed by the House last Wednesday.” As they did in the two previous sessions of Congress, the House and the Senate each passed bills that would give the F.A.A. its long-term authorization. But they have been unable to reconcile their versions. One of the sticking points has been the Essential Air Service program, which pays subsidies to provide for regularly scheduled flights to rural airports that would otherwise be too unprofitable to operate. Each house wants to tighten the restrictions, but they differ on how to do it. Those services played a part in the failure of Congress to approve even a short-term spending plan last week. The 20 stopgap spending measures passed over the last four years included no extraneous changes in budgeted programs. This time, however, the House inserted language that would end subsidized service to small airports in Nevada and Montana, states represented by high-ranking Democratic senators, among others.
Another disagreement is over the number of long-distance flights that are allowed each day at Reagan Airport, which is the closest to Capitol Hill of the three major airports in the region.
Members of Congress from Western states want more direct flights from Reagan Airport to their home states. Members from Virginia, and some in Maryland, want to protect their constituents from the noise the additional flights would create. Those issues have been sticking points for years. A more recent disagreement is an ideological debate over how to administer union elections. Last year, the National Mediation Board, which settles labor disputes in the airline and railroad industries, adopted a rule saying that a vote by a company’s employees on whether to certify a union would be decided by a majority of those voting, rather than by a majority of employees eligible to vote. The change was supported by the two board members appointed by President Obama, and opposed by the lone Bush appointee. Republicans in Congress and many airline and railroad companies have criticized the change, saying it overturns decades of precedent. Democrats and labor leaders say it puts those industries on the same footing as unions in nearly every other industry in the country. The House F.A.A. bill contains a provision to repeal the rule. After failing last week to approve the most recent F.A.A. short-term reauthorization, many members went to the airport and flew home.
So last week, Congress scrapped attempts to approve the 21st temporary spending plan before the last one expired on Friday — thereby shutting down a large part of the F.A.A. The agency stresses that it has enough money to keep airports open and planes safely in the air. But it cannot work on long-term projects. It has furloughed 4,000 employees, stopped work on construction projects employing thousands more and halted research on next-generation air traffic control systems. The F.A.A. is not some esoteric financial concept like the debt ceiling — an issue that has some lawmakers proclaiming the end is nigh while others bluster that it does not really matter. The aviation agency holds the lives of hundreds of thousands of travelers in its hands every day, overseeing the nation’s airports and the air traffic controllers who make sure that tens of thousands of flights a day take off and land safely.
“It’s amazingly aberrant behavior on the part of our lawmakers that they haven’t been able to get a bill approved since 2007,” said Marion C. Blakey, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, who from 2002-7 was the F.A.A. administrator, the agency’s top official. The issue is not merely a question of whether the F.A.A. might have to delay some spending on little-used airports in the districts of powerful legislators. Their dependence on a stream of short-term F.A.A. allocations has led airports to have to bid out projects one small chunk at a time, raising costs and inconveniencing travelers.
“This is not a good way to do business,” Randy Babbitt, the current F.A.A. administrator, said in an interview. “It is a terribly inefficient use of the taxpayer dollar.” Without authorization from Congress, the F.A.A. cannot collect taxes on airline tickets that pay for much of its operations. The federal government is losing about $30 million a day from the loss of the ticket tax. For a Congress whose members routinely discuss the importance of adding jobs and constraining spending, an F.A.A. shutdown that lays off workers and makes projects more expensive would seem to go against common sense. Members of both parties and house of Congress blamed each other for the problem. “I was appalled that the House went through on its dangerous threats last week to hold the entire F.A.A. bill hostage to their politics,” Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, a West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, said on Monday.
Representative John L. Mica, a Florida Republican who is chairman of the House Transportation committee, shot back: “To put people back to work and restart F.A.A. programs, the Senate needs to adopt the F.A.A. extension passed by the House last Wednesday.” As they did in the two previous sessions of Congress, the House and the Senate each passed bills that would give the F.A.A. its long-term authorization. But they have been unable to reconcile their versions. One of the sticking points has been the Essential Air Service program, which pays subsidies to provide for regularly scheduled flights to rural airports that would otherwise be too unprofitable to operate. Each house wants to tighten the restrictions, but they differ on how to do it. Those services played a part in the failure of Congress to approve even a short-term spending plan last week. The 20 stopgap spending measures passed over the last four years included no extraneous changes in budgeted programs. This time, however, the House inserted language that would end subsidized service to small airports in Nevada and Montana, states represented by high-ranking Democratic senators, among others.
Another disagreement is over the number of long-distance flights that are allowed each day at Reagan Airport, which is the closest to Capitol Hill of the three major airports in the region.
Members of Congress from Western states want more direct flights from Reagan Airport to their home states. Members from Virginia, and some in Maryland, want to protect their constituents from the noise the additional flights would create. Those issues have been sticking points for years. A more recent disagreement is an ideological debate over how to administer union elections. Last year, the National Mediation Board, which settles labor disputes in the airline and railroad industries, adopted a rule saying that a vote by a company’s employees on whether to certify a union would be decided by a majority of those voting, rather than by a majority of employees eligible to vote. The change was supported by the two board members appointed by President Obama, and opposed by the lone Bush appointee. Republicans in Congress and many airline and railroad companies have criticized the change, saying it overturns decades of precedent. Democrats and labor leaders say it puts those industries on the same footing as unions in nearly every other industry in the country. The House F.A.A. bill contains a provision to repeal the rule. After failing last week to approve the most recent F.A.A. short-term reauthorization, many members went to the airport and flew home.
A version of this article appeared in print on July 28, 2011, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Congress Remains Stalled Over F.A.A. Financing.
Water Conservation Efforts Needed UNH/Durham Water System
Due to the limited amount of rain over the last month and the low flows in the Lamprey and Oyster rivers, the UNH/Durham Water System is at the point where we need to declare a Stage 1 Water Conservation Alert and begin implementing commensurate water conservation measures. Stage 1 is an alert that voluntary conservation measures should be taken and that further actions may begin soon. Members of the university community can help by reporting leaky faucets and toilets, doing full loads of laundry, taking shorter showers, shutting water off while brushing teeth and other measures to use water only for essential needs. Thank you for your assistance with helping to assure adequate water supplies during this period.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Senator Shaheen Supports NH-ASCE
I intentionally avoid getting into the politics of infrastructure, but it is important to give thanks where it is due. For the unveiling of the 2011 ASCE-NH Report Card update, there were representatives of Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte, and Representative Bass. We are very appreciative of their support and having a continued relationship.
With the frustration of the recent events in congress, I sent out e-mails to our New Hampshire congressional delegation. Unfortunately I live outside Representative Giunta's district so that even though he is on the critical House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am not able to communicate with him.
Yesterday at 4:36pm I sent an e-mail to Maggie Leuzarder, an aide to Senator Shaheen who attended the Report Card unveiling. Within the hour I received an e-mail from Washington staffer Andrew Zabel and Dover staffer Sarah Holmes allowing us to set up a conference call for today. In these trying times it is impressive to have such a responsive Senator.
With the generosity of their time, we were able to cover the status of the Surface Transportation Bill, the Infrastructure Bank, the Aviation Reauthorization, the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act, the National Dam Safety Act, and the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act.
I left the discussion on raising the debt ceiling alone as I have been following it closely and although I do support responsibly reducing the deficit, but what is playing out in front us today on either side has more to do with politics and political leveraging than any positive steps to balance entitlements and the deficit.
The Surface Transportation Bill is likely stuck until the debt ceiling is resolved. The House and Senate have laid out in general terms. Bills of 6 years and $230 billion in the house (about a 35% decrease from the previous bill) and 2 years and $109 billion in the Senate. Little movement has occurred with the debt ceiling debate.
The Aviation Reauthorization Bill (HR 2553/S 223) failed to pass the Senate last Friday. This means that over 2000 FAA employees are now out of work and the Aviation fund is losing about $200 million per week in lost revenue based upon taxes on airline tickets that now have no mechanism to be collected. This will also continue to have a dramatic effect on the aviation consulting and construction industries. From here the Senate has appointed their members of the conference committee, but the house has to date failed to appoint their representatives. My understanding is that this bill is being held up from its 21st short term reauthorization because language was attached that added airports to the essential air services subsidies and language that would make it more difficult for airport employees to unionize. Since this funding is already included in the current budget, this bill could be extended without regard to the debt service, but it is unlikely to move forward during the debt service debate.
The Infrastructure Bank is still in infancy, but I am very concerned that the expectation of private funding to make up the 35% reduction in the Surface Transportation Act and the basis for the infrastructure will benefit larger states more than states with smaller GDPs like Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. This is based on typical public-private partnerships are a minimum of $100 million dollars. There is a provision for rural projects to have a $25 million dollar threshold, but it will be important to watch this bill as it unfolds to make sure that it is fair to all states.
The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act (HB 1802/S939), I have written about previously. These were introduced in May. I have asked Senator Shaheen to consider co-sponsoring the Senate Bill.
The National Dam Safety Reauthorization (expires on September 30, 2011) and the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act has not yet been introduced. Senator Akaka along with Senator Whitehouse will be introducing both bills at the same time, but would like both the house and senate to introduce the bills concurrently.prior to the August recess. Again I have asked Senator Shaheen to consider co-sponsoring these bills.
I thank Senator Shaheen and her staff for their responsiveness and their continued support of Infrastructure in New Hampshire. It is important to find your voice and start building relationships with your congressional delegation. The events to occur in the 112th Congress will impact all engineers, likely to an extent unprecedented in our careers and even lifetimes.
With the frustration of the recent events in congress, I sent out e-mails to our New Hampshire congressional delegation. Unfortunately I live outside Representative Giunta's district so that even though he is on the critical House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am not able to communicate with him.
Yesterday at 4:36pm I sent an e-mail to Maggie Leuzarder, an aide to Senator Shaheen who attended the Report Card unveiling. Within the hour I received an e-mail from Washington staffer Andrew Zabel and Dover staffer Sarah Holmes allowing us to set up a conference call for today. In these trying times it is impressive to have such a responsive Senator.
With the generosity of their time, we were able to cover the status of the Surface Transportation Bill, the Infrastructure Bank, the Aviation Reauthorization, the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act, the National Dam Safety Act, and the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act.
I left the discussion on raising the debt ceiling alone as I have been following it closely and although I do support responsibly reducing the deficit, but what is playing out in front us today on either side has more to do with politics and political leveraging than any positive steps to balance entitlements and the deficit.
The Surface Transportation Bill is likely stuck until the debt ceiling is resolved. The House and Senate have laid out in general terms. Bills of 6 years and $230 billion in the house (about a 35% decrease from the previous bill) and 2 years and $109 billion in the Senate. Little movement has occurred with the debt ceiling debate.
The Aviation Reauthorization Bill (HR 2553/S 223) failed to pass the Senate last Friday. This means that over 2000 FAA employees are now out of work and the Aviation fund is losing about $200 million per week in lost revenue based upon taxes on airline tickets that now have no mechanism to be collected. This will also continue to have a dramatic effect on the aviation consulting and construction industries. From here the Senate has appointed their members of the conference committee, but the house has to date failed to appoint their representatives. My understanding is that this bill is being held up from its 21st short term reauthorization because language was attached that added airports to the essential air services subsidies and language that would make it more difficult for airport employees to unionize. Since this funding is already included in the current budget, this bill could be extended without regard to the debt service, but it is unlikely to move forward during the debt service debate.
The Infrastructure Bank is still in infancy, but I am very concerned that the expectation of private funding to make up the 35% reduction in the Surface Transportation Act and the basis for the infrastructure will benefit larger states more than states with smaller GDPs like Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. This is based on typical public-private partnerships are a minimum of $100 million dollars. There is a provision for rural projects to have a $25 million dollar threshold, but it will be important to watch this bill as it unfolds to make sure that it is fair to all states.
The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act (HB 1802/S939), I have written about previously. These were introduced in May. I have asked Senator Shaheen to consider co-sponsoring the Senate Bill.
The National Dam Safety Reauthorization (expires on September 30, 2011) and the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act has not yet been introduced. Senator Akaka along with Senator Whitehouse will be introducing both bills at the same time, but would like both the house and senate to introduce the bills concurrently.prior to the August recess. Again I have asked Senator Shaheen to consider co-sponsoring these bills.
I thank Senator Shaheen and her staff for their responsiveness and their continued support of Infrastructure in New Hampshire. It is important to find your voice and start building relationships with your congressional delegation. The events to occur in the 112th Congress will impact all engineers, likely to an extent unprecedented in our careers and even lifetimes.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Memorial Bridge Closed Permanently To Vehicle Traffic US 1 Over Piscataqua River In Portsmouth, NH-Kittery, ME
New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) Commissioner George Campbell today announced that the Memorial Bridge, carrying US Route 1 over the Piscataqua River between Portsmouth, New Hampshire and Kittery, Maine, is permanently closed to motor vehicle traffic effective immediately. The bridge will not reopen until a new replacement bridge is in place. The Memorial Bridge has already been closed to traffic since 9:00 am today (July 27) as part of a second day of scheduled mechanical inspections.
"The decision to close the Memorial Bridge to motor vehicle traffic is being made to ensure the public's safety. As commissioner, safety has to be my primary concern, and this decision has been made based upon input from our top bridge engineers and in consultation with the Maine Department of Transportation," Commissioner Campbell said in announcing the decision to close the bridge.
"The most recent inspections of the Memorial Bridge have revealed accelerated deterioration, which has convinced me it can no longer accommodate vehicular traffic. Deterioration of the truss joints is particularly problematic, but the entire bridge has reached a point of deterioration that makes its permanent closure unavoidable. We had hoped to keep it open for several more months, but it has become clear that the 88-year old bridge has reached the end of its serviceable life for motor vehicles."
Alternative routes for vehicles crossing between New Hampshire and Maine include the Sarah Mildred Long Bridge (Route 1 Bypass) and the I-95 high level bridge.
Planning and progress continue towards the full replacement of the Memorial Bridge. The $90 million "design-build" project is expected to get underway in the spring of 2012, with a final completion date of June 2014.
"Governor Lynch and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation made the replacement of the Memorial Bridge a priority, we are moving forward with putting a new bridge in place as soon as possible," Commissioner Campbell said. "Working together with the Governor's offices of both states, our Congressional delegations and our transportation counterparts in Maine, we were able to secure the necessary funding to replace the Memorial Bridge and ensure three bridges will continue to link our two states."
The Memorial Bridge will remain open to pedestrian and bicycle traffic for the time being, and lift operations will continue for commercial river traffic. Interim repairs of the bridge will continue to allow the limited operations. Ongoing review and evaluations will include consideration of the removal of the lift span in advance of the start of the bridge replacement project.
"The decision to close the Memorial Bridge to motor vehicle traffic is being made to ensure the public's safety. As commissioner, safety has to be my primary concern, and this decision has been made based upon input from our top bridge engineers and in consultation with the Maine Department of Transportation," Commissioner Campbell said in announcing the decision to close the bridge.
"The most recent inspections of the Memorial Bridge have revealed accelerated deterioration, which has convinced me it can no longer accommodate vehicular traffic. Deterioration of the truss joints is particularly problematic, but the entire bridge has reached a point of deterioration that makes its permanent closure unavoidable. We had hoped to keep it open for several more months, but it has become clear that the 88-year old bridge has reached the end of its serviceable life for motor vehicles."
Alternative routes for vehicles crossing between New Hampshire and Maine include the Sarah Mildred Long Bridge (Route 1 Bypass) and the I-95 high level bridge.
Planning and progress continue towards the full replacement of the Memorial Bridge. The $90 million "design-build" project is expected to get underway in the spring of 2012, with a final completion date of June 2014.
"Governor Lynch and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation made the replacement of the Memorial Bridge a priority, we are moving forward with putting a new bridge in place as soon as possible," Commissioner Campbell said. "Working together with the Governor's offices of both states, our Congressional delegations and our transportation counterparts in Maine, we were able to secure the necessary funding to replace the Memorial Bridge and ensure three bridges will continue to link our two states."
The Memorial Bridge will remain open to pedestrian and bicycle traffic for the time being, and lift operations will continue for commercial river traffic. Interim repairs of the bridge will continue to allow the limited operations. Ongoing review and evaluations will include consideration of the removal of the lift span in advance of the start of the bridge replacement project.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Transportation Committee Leaders Roll Out Reauthorization Proposal
From Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Website
July 7, 2011
Washington, DC – Transportation Committee leaders today rolled out a new six-year transportation reauthorization proposal that streamlines and reforms federal programs, expedites the project approval process, maximizes leveraging of limited resources, provides flexibility for states, and ensures long-term funding stability for job-creating transportation programs.Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-FL) and Committee leaders presented a framework for a six-year reauthorization of federal highway, transit and highway safety programs. The multi-modal initiative also incorporates significant policy reforms for rail and maritime transportation.
“Given U.S. House rules and budget constraints, this proposal maximizes the value of our available infrastructure funding through better leveraging, streamlining the project approval process, attracting private sector investment, and cutting the federal bureaucracy,” Mica said. “Most importantly, this six-year proposal provides the stability states need to plan major transportation improvements and create long-term jobs.
“While some continue to advocate the same old tax-and-spend approach, I prefer a new direction,” Mica continued. “More short-term extensions or a two-year bill are recipes for bankrupting the Highway Trust Fund. These options will cut the legs from under our states and hamper their ability to move forward with many needed, large-scale projects.
“This long-term plan is the only fiscally responsible proposal and will ensure the continued solvency of the Highway Trust Fund,” Mica said.
Mica and Rep. Duncan today also invited Democrat Committee leaders who are asking for higher spending levels to appear with them before the Ways and Means Committee to discuss revenue issues.
“This is an important first step in implementing a six-year highway plan that will dramatically improve the efficiency and safety of the Nation’s transportation system and stimulate the economy by creating thousands of long-term jobs,” said Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chairman John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN). “The plan we are laying out today takes away the red tape and streamlines a process that has become entangled with bureaucracy. I am looking forward to advancing a bill through the full Congress.
“This proposal for a new direction in the transportation reauthorization bill is an important step in the right direction for our nation,” said Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA). “This is a bold vision for a reauthorization that focuses on multiple modes, including rail and hazardous materials transportation as well as our highway system. We can do this with America’s rail system at the same time we improve our highways.”
“I applaud the Committee for recognizing the critical role the maritime industry plays in our nation’s economy, global commerce and job creation. It is therefore appropriate to include a maritime title in this multi-year legislation for the first time,” said Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ). “It is our shared goal to improve coordination between agencies and streamline the bureaucratic process to increase efficiency of our marine transportation system.”
“While the U.S. economy is fueled by maritime commerce and millions of Americans depend on jobs created by imports, exports, and the commercial shipping industry, government red tape has stifled the flow of commerce and our ability to effectively build and maintain our maritime infrastructure,’ said Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH). “Today’s proposal cuts through the bureaucratic red tape, streamlines project delivery, eliminates double taxation on shippers, enhances our ports and waterways, and strengthens our economic foundation to help us to compete globally. These reforms are critical as we work to grow our economy and create jobs.”
“As a freshman I came to Washington to help create jobs, spend responsibly and empower states; this bill would accomplish those goals,” said Highways and Transit Subcommittee Vice-Chair Richard Hanna (R-NY). “One of the most important aspects of this proposal is that it provides predictability for states and public transit agencies to plan for multi-year projects. The Stimulus forced states to focus on short-term projects like pavement resurfacing and guard rail replacements. The long-term certainty provided by a long-term bill empowers states to take on major projects including bridge replacements, highway interchange improvements and investment in our nation’s transit systems. These types of projects will provide jobs for years to come and have the potential to have a real impact on the unemployment rate in the construction industry.”
The proposal authorizes approximately $230 billion over six years from the Highway Trust Fund for highway, transit, and highway safety programs. These funding levels match current revenue being deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and comply with House rules that do not permit authorization of more funds than those collected.
Congress will not support a gas tax increase, and this proposal does not raise taxes. Without an increase in revenue, other current options, such as a two-year bill, the Administrations’ proposal, or extending expired law at the current funding levels, all lead to the Highway Trust Fund going broke by 2013.
The fiscally responsible Committee proposal better leverages our limited resources, reduces the federal bureaucracy, and expedites projects to ensure greater value per dollar.
Highlights of the proposal include:
Streamlining & Reform
- Streamlines the project delivery process by cutting bureaucratic red-tape, delegating more decision making authority to states, allowing federal agencies to review transportation projects concurrently, and setting hard deadlines for federal agencies to approve projects.
- Reforms the surface transportation programs by consolidating or eliminating approximately 70 programs that are duplicative or do not serve a federal purpose.
- No longer requires states to spend highway funding on non-highway activities, but permits them to fund those activities if they so choose.
- Provides states the flexibility to fund their highest project priorities, but holds them accountable for those decisions through performance measures.
- Provides additional funding for the TIFIA loan program to meet demand for low interest loans for transportation projects.
- Allows states to toll new lanes on the Interstate System, while ensuring that existing Interstate lanes remain toll-free.
- Encourages states to create and capitalize State Infrastructure Banks to provide loans for transportation projects at the state level.
- Distributes nearly all federal highway funding to state DOTs through formula programs designed to preserve existing highways, build new highway capacity, and address congestion, freight mobility, and highway safety.
- Focuses the federal highway program on the Interstate Highway System and the National Highway System – the highways that facilitate interstate travel and interstate commerce.
- Removes current barriers that prevent the private sector from offering public transportation services.
- Provides more of a focus on transit programs that benefit suburban and rural areas and will improve transit options for the elderly and disabled.
- Prioritizes safety funding by holding highway and motor carrier safety programs harmless from any spending cuts in the bill.
- Ensures that federal regulators keep unsafe trucks and buses off the road while allowing companies that operate in a safe and responsible manner to continue to do so.
- Improves access to the underperforming Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program.
- Expedites project review process and streamlines project delivery.
- Ensures that Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund revenues are invested as intended in maintaining the nation’s harbors, not tied up in a federal budgetary shell game.
- Expedites Corps of Engineers permit processing to reduce project backlog.
- Encourages short-sea shipping by eliminating double taxation on vessels transporting freight between domestic ports.
- Achieves greater safety through regulatory certainty and uniformity.
- Reduces regulatory burdens that do not enhance safety.
Senate Inaction Shutters FAA
From Transportation and Infrastructure Committee website
July 22, 2011
Washington, DC – Today the Senate failed to approve a House-passed Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) extension. The Senate chose instead to shutter the agency to protect three airports with passenger ticket subsidies ranging from $1,358 to $3,720 per passenger.“It is unbelievable that after the House passed the 21st FAA extension, the Senate departed Washington and left the FAA and many of its employees behind,” said Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-FL). “In light of the nation’s pending financial disaster and soaring deficits, they couldn’t find a way to cut even a few million dollars by accepting this minor request to reduce outlandish subsidies.”
The extension approved by the House on Wednesday, H.R. 2553, maintains current funding levels for the FAA through September 16, 2011. The bill also includes modest Essential Air Service (EAS) Program reforms to limit subsidies for service at a small number of airports. The Senate already approved elimination of these same subsides when it passed its FAA bill in February. The widely agreed to reforms would make modest cuts to EAS Program costs – a program whose funding has increased by 300% over the last ten years, from $50 million to $200 million in FY 2010.
“The Senate agreed to all these cuts earlier this year,” Mica continued, in reference to sections 420 and 421 of the Senate’s multi-year FAA Reauthorization bill (S. 223). “No wonder taxpayers are fed up and angry. This doublespeak by the Senate Democrat leadership makes no sense. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Reid has chosen to furlough thousands of FAA employees over modest reforms he couldn’t beat back on the Senate Floor five months ago,” Mica added.
The House extension (H.R. 2553), which the Senate failed to even bring up today, would have eliminated passenger ticket subsidies at just a few airports, including three airports that are subsidized in excess of $1,000 per ticket. At Ely, Nevada, for example, every single airline ticket is underwritten $3,720 by federal taxpayers. The other two airports with service subsidized at a rate higher than $1,000 per ticket are Alamogordo/Holloman AFB, New Mexico ($1,563) and Glendive, Montana ($1,358). This provision would save $4.1 million on an annual basis. Senate section 421 would eliminate subsidies at these same three airports, and even additional airports not impacted by the House FAA extension.
H.R. 2553 would also have limited EAS eligibility to communities that are located 90 or more miles from a large or medium hub airport. This modest reform, likewise included in section 420 of the Senate’s multi-year FAA reauthorization bill, could eliminate 10 EAS communities, resulting in $12.5 million in annual savings.
“It is astounding that the Senate is willing to throw the FAA into chaos in order to protect huge subsidies for a handful of passengers unwilling to drive 90 miles or less to a hub airport,” said Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri (R-WI). “The Essential Air Service program should not be subsidizing non-essential flights. This is Exhibit A when it comes to wasteful spending, and if the Senate backs away from its own easy reforms like this, how is it ever going to handle the hard cuts?”
FAA indicates 4,000 agency employees across the country will be furloughed, and no new airport construction projects will be funded.
N.H. is ranked among most toxic states-Portsmouth Herald
By Joey Cresta
jcresta@seacoastonline.com
July 24, 2011 2:00 AM
NEWINGTON — Three power plants along the Piscataqua River are all contributors to New Hampshire's ignominious status as one of the 20 worst states in the nation for emissions from power plants, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. However, their role pales in comparison to that of Public Service of New Hampshire's coal-fired Merrimack Station in Bow. Fortunately, officials said, the plant is undergoing upgrades that will drastically reduce emissions within the next two years.
The Granite State is 19th on the "Toxic 20" list of states with the most toxic air pollution from power plants, according to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council released this week. Topping the list were Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
At a glance
N.H.'s top power plant polluters in terms of total pounds of toxic emissions in 2009:
PSNH Merrimack Station, Bow: 2,254,216 pounds
PSNH Schiller Station, Portsmouth: 223,866 pounds
PSNH Newington Station: 29,604 pounds
NAEA Newington Power: 11,271 pounds
Indeck Alexandria, Alexandria: 720 pounds
The report analyzed publicly available data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory. Facilities that release significant quantities of toxic chemicals must report them to TRI annually.
"These self-reported data reveal that power plants are largely responsible for contaminating our air with toxic chemicals," according to a news release that accompanied the release of the report.
The analysis found the electric sector is the largest source of industrial (stack) emissions of toxic air pollution in the United States. In 2009, coal- and oil-fired power plants accounted for nearly 50 percent of all reported toxic pollution from industrial sources, the study found.
Exposure to toxic pollution from power plants, including hydrochloric acid, mercury and other metals, is known or believed to contribute to or exacerbate a wide variety of health conditions including cancer and birth defects, the report said.
In New Hampshire, where electric-sector mercury regulations are less stringent than what the EPA proposes, the electric sector contributes 96 percent of all the state's toxic air pollution, the report said.
The state's electric sector emitted more than 2.5 million pounds of harmful chemicals in 2009, according to the report. The state ranks 38th among all states for mercury air pollution from power plants with 175 pounds emitted in 2009.
As a comparison, Maine is the third-lowest state for toxic emissions from the electric sector, with just six pounds of harmful chemicals released in 2009, the study revealed.
New Hampshire's top power plant polluter is by far PSNH's Merrimack Station, which emitted 2,254,216 pounds in 2009. PSNH's Newington Station and Schiller Station, straddling the Portsmouth/Newington border, along with North American Energy Alliance's Newington Power station, rounded out the list of top four power plant polluters.
With its vast swaths of wilderness and largely rural feel, it might be hard to imagine New Hampshire near the top of any "most toxic" list. Bob Scott, director of the Air Services Division of the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, said the good news is that an ongoing project will vastly cut the Merrimack Station's emissions.
The so-called "scrubber" project is visible to anyone driving down Interstate 93 in Bow, Scott said. The Merrimack Station is the largest coal-fired plant in the state and its emissions will be reduced by at least 80 percent once the project is complete, he said.
"Very soon that scrubber will be online," Scott said, explaining it was designed to eliminate sulfur dioxide but PSNH had it optimized to reduce mercury emissions as well. "They've made pretty good progress. Law requires them to be operational by July 2013."
PSNH spokesman Martin Murray said the $430 million Merrimack Station upgrades are on schedule to be finished a year before the deadline. Murray said the "very significant initiative" was state-mandated and stems from the Clean Power Act initiated when Jeanne Shaheen was governor.
Other attempts to reduce emissions can be seen on the Seacoast. At Schiller Station, PSNH replaced one of the three coal boilers there with one that now burns wood chips. Another boiler burns coal and a small amount of cocoa bean shells, Murray said.
The NRDC report "reflects the shared concern that we find new sources of clean energy. We're working hard to do that," Murray said. "We're also working, though, to clean up existing energy producers. Our latest initiative at Merrimack Station will result in one of the cleanest coal-fired plants in the country and we do not expect we'll be on that list if it's recreated in a couple of years from now."
Despite the optimism, others are attacking PSNH for its practices at the Merrimack Station. On Thursday, the Conservation Law Foundation, a group working toward a "coal-free New England," filed a federal Clean Air Act citizen suit in New Hampshire federal district court against PSNH. The suit makes claims against PSNH's "repeated failures to obtain required air permits" for the plant in Bow, along with numerous permit violations and illegal emissions.
"While PSNH would like people to think that they are undertaking this renovation in good faith, the reality is that they are propping up this old plant to protect their own assets at the great expense of ratepayers, public health and the environment," said Melissa Hoffer, vice president and director of the CLF's Healthy Communities and Environmental Justice program. "PSNH has embarked on a massive and costly effort to keep Merrimack Station online for decades to come and New Hampshire ratepayers will be forced to throw more and more of their good money after bad if this project moves forward."
Murray said Thursday that PSNH had not had time to review the complaint, but provided a June 9 letter from PSNH lawyer Barry Needleman to Hoffer about the notice of intent to sue.
"The claims in CLF's (Notice of Intent) are premised on a faulty and incomplete recitation of the factual record," the letter states. "It is PSNH's position that the alleged claims identified in the NOI have no merit and that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for CLF to pursue such claims in good faith."
As those parties prepare to battle in court, the NHDES's Scott said air pollution in New Hampshire will continue to dwindle.
"We weren't waiting for a report like this to say, 'oh gee, we should do something,'" he said. "As the science gets better, the standards are becoming more stringent. The trend is certainly that things are getting better."
At a glance
N.H.'s top power plant polluters in terms of total pounds of toxic emissions in 2009:
PSNH Merrimack Station, Bow: 2,254,216 pounds
PSNH Schiller Station, Portsmouth: 223,866 pounds
PSNH Newington Station: 29,604 pounds
NAEA Newington Power: 11,271 pounds
Indeck Alexandria, Alexandria: 720 pounds
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Visit to a National Engineering Achievement-The Mount Washington Cog Railroad
Early on Friday morning my wife and I headed north to go visit a recognized ASCE and ASME National Engineering Achievement, The Mount Washington Cog Railroad. Helping our decision was the expectation
that temperatures were going to exceed 100 degrees in the greater Concord area. The rides begin at 8:30am with the first ride of the day guaranteed to be a nostalgic steam engine run with most of the runs being the newer biodiesel locomotives. The single older steam engine still in service requires about one ton of coal and about 1000 gallons of water to reach the summit. The new biodiesel engines require about 18 gallons of bio-diesel to make the round trip.
The base camp is at the elevation of 2700 feet above sea level. The summit of Mount Washington is approximately 6280 feet above sea level. The rail line is approximately three and one third miles long. The average grade of the rail line is approximately 25%, although the stretch along what is called "Jacob's Ladder" is about a 37.4% grade.
The locomotive is propelled up the mountain on what a car dealer might call a "rack and pinion" system. The train runs on two outside rails with a center rack system.
Above is the underside of an old locomotive showing the center gear or cog. Below is a picture of the track with the two outside rails and the inside "rack" that receives the cog. The cog railroad has been in existence since the year 1869 taking three years to build. The first locomotives had wood fired boilers for the first forty years switching to coal in about 1910. The bio-diesel locomotives began in September of 2008. The railroad was invented and built by Sylvester Marsh of Littleton, NH.He passed away in December 1884 in Concord, NH. The railroad has generally run continuously since 1869 with the exception of a few years during World War I and World War II. There is also descriptions of major devastation to the track during the hurricane of 1938, but it was not clear how long it took to repair the track after that event.
Above, left is one of the newer bio-diesel engines. To the right is the remaining steam engine with its coal car. Note the slant of the older locomotive such that it is level when climbing and descending the mountain.
Inside the passenger car the cabin reminded me of an older boat with the fine wood work. Sitting down in the seats, my first impression was that it would be an uncomfortable ride. For anyone who has ever sat in a chair designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, this was a similar experience. The chairs are beautiful to look at, but very uncomfortable. What I did not initially understand is that the entire train is designed to be at an angle between 25 and 30 degrees. When you are on flat ground they are very uncomfortable, but as you begin the ascent, their design is better understood, and appreciated.
Above, left is a photo of the inside of the passengers cabin with passengers loading at the front of the train. On the right is the brakemen manning the brakes on the way down. It is important to note that the locomotives actually push the passenger car up to the top of the mountain. On the way back down the locomotive and passenger car are only "connected" by gravity. At any time the brakeman can slow the car down and safely navigate down the mountain independent of the locomotive. The train does not turn around at the top of the mountain, which at first concerned the passengers who were contemplating going back down the mountain facing backwards, but with true Yankee ingenuity, the base of the seat (bench) stays at the exaggerated angle, but the back rest flips over so the same bench can now seat individuals in the opposite direction. Looking at the picture above on the left, the blue hardware can be seen in the left foreground. The front portion is fixed while the back portion connected to the back rest flips over.
Above, left traveling up the mountain note the trestle that the track is founded upon. It was determined that constructing a continuous trestle was more efficient than the earthwork required to found it on soil. On the right is the segment known as "Jacob's Ladder". In addition to its impressive grade is also the height of the trestle which is higher than other segments along the track. Note that in these pictures when the locomotive is visible, the train is descending the mountain (yellow cab in right photo).
Because there is often more than one train on the mountain it was necessary to construct sections of double track to allow for them to pass on the mountain. A series of switches have been constructed to move the trains to the proper sets of rails. Above on the left is a photo of the switches and the rail supports. These rails are solar powered and have very specific protocols are far as what positions they are left, likely due to an accident to be discussed later. On the right the brakeman loom out of the heavy fog as they verify proper alignment of the cog and outer rails after a switch.
As mentioned earlier, we left Concord in the morning to avoid 100 degree temperatures. What we found on the top of the mountain was truly a different world. The temperature on the summit was about 20 degrees cooler than the base making us comfortable in spring jackets. Outside the observatory, thick fog and high winds made the surroundings very surreal. It also made exploring a very questionable activity as when the sun was blocked out, visibility was only about twenty feet. When the sun burned through short periods of visibility extended to about two hundred feet only to disappear again. The photo on the left was taken during a brief period of visibility. After taking the photo, in the time it took to grab my hat back from a gust of wind, the railing shown in the picture disappeared back into the fog.
The picture to the left is the first locomotive originally called "Hero", but better known as "Peppersass". Named for the resemblance between its boiler and a bottle of pepper sauce, the name stuck. This was a wood fired locomotive that began service in 1866 and operated for twelve years until its retirement in 1878. After its retirement it traveled around for a number years including to the Chicago World's Fair in in 1893. As the 60th anniversary of the Mount Washington Cog Railroad approached, it was decided to restore Peppersass for a final trip up the mountain. The restoration was completed and test runs were successful leading up to the official ceremonies on July 20,1929
Peppersass was the last locomotive to head up the mountain. It made convincing progress through the trip, but turned around about a half mile from the top to avoid delaying the other six trains coming back down. Unfortunately on the return trip the cog broke a tooth and slid out of the center rack. The result was the locomotive careening back down the track with no means of slowing down. Of the five on board of the locomotive, the first to jump was unhurt and the next three escaped with only broken bones, but the last to deboard did so at an alarming speed near the base of Jacob's Ladder and was killed when he struck the adjacent rocks. Peppersass was later recovered and is now on display.
A second major accident occurred on September 17, 1967, when a mishap with a switch, likely leading up to the strict protocols mentioned previously, resulted in a derailment that resulted in eight deaths and seventy-two injuries. Even with these two occurrences, with millions of passengers transported in the life of the railroad it still has an impressive safety record.
The other part of the history of the Cog Railroad that I enjoyed was the discussion about slide boards or as they were affectionately known "the devil's shingle". These were small transports made of wood and steel arranged to fit onto the center rail that allowed rail workers to slide down the tracks in a sitting position. They were about three feet long and about one foot wide with just enough room for a worker and a small compartment for their tools. The speed could be controlled using friction brakes on either side. The normal descent time was about fifteen minutes, but there were some recorded times of less than three minutes. As guests started trying the slide boards and after a worker was killed in an accident, the practice was officially banned in 1906 by the railroad. Shortly after the design of the center rail was altered eliminating a flange that was critical to speed control effectively eliminating even the unofficial uses.
Thanks to http://www.cog-railway.com/ and "The Mount Washington Cog Railway" by Bruce Heald for contributing facts to supplement the experience. Photos by poster.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
U.S. infrastructure bank could lure private capital
WASHINGTON, July 20 | Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:01pm EDT
"While many states and local governments are focusing on these matters, top-down leadership is also needed that includes a vision for the country and common P3 principles," said J. Perry Offutt, managing director at Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC.
Many investors are pension or infrastructure funds that put money into projects around the world. The bank's support, he said, would reassure investors there is political will to complete a project. President Barack Obama has pledged to create a national infrastructure bank since first running for the highest office three years ago. Obama renewed his push with the budget he proposed in February by requesting that Congress put $5 billion a year for six years into establishing a bank.
The 30 largest infrastructure equity funds raised $180 billion over the last five years for projects, Polly Trottenberg, assistant secretary for transportation policy in the Obama Administration, told Wednesday's hearing. She called the infrastructure bank "one of the most promising ideas for leveraging more private-sector dollars.
"Rigorous benefit-cost analysis would focus funding on those projects that produce the greatest long-term public benefits at the lowest cost to the taxpayer," Trottenberg said. "This is achieved, in part, by encouraging private sector participation in projects in order for them to be competitive."
The bank would provide grants, loans and loan guarantees for passenger and freight transportation in urban, suburban and rural areas, Trottenberg said. It would also coordinate and consolidate other federal financing programs. Senator John Kerry told the hearing: "Given the infrastructure demands of the country -- a $2.2 trillion deficit -- even with the infrastructure bank we aren't even close to do doing what we need to do in America."
Kerry introduced legislation to establish a bank that would finance projects of $100 million or more. While Obama envisions putting a newly founded bank under the U.S. Transportation Department, Kerry's bill would make it a separate agency. "That, I think, gives greater comfort to the investor," he said.
The blueprint guiding long-term national transportation spending expired more than two years ago and Congress has relied on extension bills. Of late, the Republican-controlled House and Democrat-controlled Senate have unveiled possible components of a new authorization, floating funding ideas such as relying on state infrastructure banks. The largest source of transportation revenue in the country, the gasoline tax, is chronically short and Obama will not raise it while the economy is shaky.
On Thursday, the Senate's Environment and Public Works hearing will meet in hopes of coming closer to a draft bill that will authorize funding for two years, expand a financing program called TIFIA and consolidate highway programs. (From ASCE Smartbrief-Reporting by Lisa Lambert; Editing by Dan Grebler)
WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - Establishing a U.S. infrastructure bank is key to attracting private capital for public works, a diverse group of witnesses told a Senate panel on Wednesday as lawmakers worried about finding enough funds to cover current transportation costs.
"The bank would provide a project with a base of capital that could then attract ... outside private investment," said Robert Dove, managing director of the Carlyle Group, a private global investment firm. For many years, state and local governments have discussed using private-public partnerships known as "P3s" to finance transportation. In a common P3 structure, a private company leases and maintains a road for decades. It collects tolls and receives tax credits for the road's depreciation."While many states and local governments are focusing on these matters, top-down leadership is also needed that includes a vision for the country and common P3 principles," said J. Perry Offutt, managing director at Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC.
Many investors are pension or infrastructure funds that put money into projects around the world. The bank's support, he said, would reassure investors there is political will to complete a project. President Barack Obama has pledged to create a national infrastructure bank since first running for the highest office three years ago. Obama renewed his push with the budget he proposed in February by requesting that Congress put $5 billion a year for six years into establishing a bank.
The 30 largest infrastructure equity funds raised $180 billion over the last five years for projects, Polly Trottenberg, assistant secretary for transportation policy in the Obama Administration, told Wednesday's hearing. She called the infrastructure bank "one of the most promising ideas for leveraging more private-sector dollars.
"Rigorous benefit-cost analysis would focus funding on those projects that produce the greatest long-term public benefits at the lowest cost to the taxpayer," Trottenberg said. "This is achieved, in part, by encouraging private sector participation in projects in order for them to be competitive."
The bank would provide grants, loans and loan guarantees for passenger and freight transportation in urban, suburban and rural areas, Trottenberg said. It would also coordinate and consolidate other federal financing programs. Senator John Kerry told the hearing: "Given the infrastructure demands of the country -- a $2.2 trillion deficit -- even with the infrastructure bank we aren't even close to do doing what we need to do in America."
Kerry introduced legislation to establish a bank that would finance projects of $100 million or more. While Obama envisions putting a newly founded bank under the U.S. Transportation Department, Kerry's bill would make it a separate agency. "That, I think, gives greater comfort to the investor," he said.
The blueprint guiding long-term national transportation spending expired more than two years ago and Congress has relied on extension bills. Of late, the Republican-controlled House and Democrat-controlled Senate have unveiled possible components of a new authorization, floating funding ideas such as relying on state infrastructure banks. The largest source of transportation revenue in the country, the gasoline tax, is chronically short and Obama will not raise it while the economy is shaky.
On Thursday, the Senate's Environment and Public Works hearing will meet in hopes of coming closer to a draft bill that will authorize funding for two years, expand a financing program called TIFIA and consolidate highway programs. (From ASCE Smartbrief-Reporting by Lisa Lambert; Editing by Dan Grebler)
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Why so much discussion about the debt ceiling?
So much has been written about the debate in Washington and what is needed to repair our struggling economy. If someone wanted to get into a macroeconomic discussion, I would recommend reviewing the Global Competitiveness Reports provided by the World Economic Forum.
Global Competitiveness Reports are published each year based upon twelve pillars of Competitiveness. These include institutions (more of a measure about how much we trust the government, congress, etc.), infrastructure, macroeconomic environment (interest payments, debt, fiscal deficits), health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labor market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication, and technological innovation. I would recommend anyone interested to get a copy of the 2010-2011 Global competitiveness Report to better understand the terms and how they are used.
A recession is defined by two consecutive quarters where the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate is negative. Using this definition the recession started in the fourth quarter of 2007 and ended in the third quarter of 2009. Although by this definition we are not technically in a recession, the impacts of the recession are still very evident. Using the Global Competitiveness Report criteria as a guideline and comparing the 2007-2008 report with the 2010-2011 report provides some insight as to what has changed and what needs to be addressed to get us back. The reports rate each country by their rank in the world. Below is the change of the United States world ranking overall and in the twelve pillars between the 2007 and 2010 reports.
Changes between 2007 and 2010:
Overall Competitiveness dropped from 1st to 4th.
1. Trust in institutions dropped from 25th to 40th
2. Infrastructure dropped from 7th to 15th
3. Macroeconomics dropped from 66th to 87th
4. Health and Primary Education dropped from 34th to 42nd
5. Higher Education and Training dropped from 5th to 9th.
6. Goods Market Efficiency dropped from 8th to 26th
7. Labor Market efficiency dropped from 1st to 4th
8. Financial Market Development dropped from 9th to 31st
9. Technological Readiness dropped from 11th to 17th
10. Market Size remained 1st
11. Business Sophistication dropped from 4th to 8th
12. Technical Innovation remained 1st
It is troubling that in only three years our trust in politicians has plummeted 15 positions, but it is unlikely that will be corrected anytime soon. Infrastructure and health and primary education are very concerning, but the recent reduction in investment in these sectors has caused the decline. The leading indicators seem to be the Macroeconomics and the Financial Market Development. The other factors not specifically mentioned are most likely lagging indicators and are more of a result of the poor economy.
At the federal level, we need to reduce the national debt. There should be careful thought before getting our country further in debt, but reductions must be balanced with investment in other areas such as infrastructure, schools, and healthcare. The United States is still the greatest marketplace in the world and continues to dominate the world in technical innovation. Although our Country is facing some tough times, there are still some very positive indicators if the macroeconomics and financial markets can be corrected.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Seven Simple Tenets to get the Economy Back on its Feet
1. Identify what is most important and invest in it. That’s right! Actually spend money as long as it is for what is important. During college I went through some very lean years. I ate more meals of ramen noodles than I care to remember. It would have been very easy to cure my financial situation. All I needed to do was to drop out of college and get a job. All of my other expenditures were very modest compared to the dramatic costs of college, but that was what was important to me and what I believed would lead to better days to come. As a State and a Country we need to go through this same evaluation. What is important and what are we willing to invest in? Things on my list include infrastructure investment, reduction in the national debt, and education, but let’s open up the discussion.
2. Make sure that people are paid a reasonable wage for their work. A good example is the construction industry. Transportation contracts are being let on average about 20% lower than they were being bid a few short years ago. This has been going on for more than three years now. I have even seen some jobs bid for installed prices that are lower than the cost of the materials themselves. This is not sustainable. Although in the short term getting these bargain prices for our infrastructure may seem to be advantageous, in the end we will loose good contractors, good people will be needlessly laid off, and money earned, but not paid will never be spent within the local economy. These practices will ultimately contract our economy and prolong the recession.
3. We need to stop beating each other up. Witch hunts seem to be getting very popular. It is the Democrats or the Republicans or "government is too big" or Wall Street is to blame. We need to each take our portion of the blame and then focus on how we can work together to make things better. It won’t be easy, but working together it won’t be as bad as we think.
4. We need to demand more from our Leadership. Here is a pledge I want my next candidate to take, “I will agree to take no pledge that will prevent me from considering all options to solve the problems faced by the people of New Hampshire” or “I will agree to make the tough decisions even if it means that I must go from door to door and town hall to town hall to reach the consensus that we need to move forward.” Candidates, I really don’t care what the other party did, let’s hear what you are going to do to fix it.
5. We need to understand that laying off hundreds of State employees arbitrarily does not improve the unemployment rate. Certainly, take on the inefficiencies and challenge our state leaders to make their programs more efficient, but cutting employees by quota or by percentage is too easy. Do the work! Stop the rhetoric. It is too easy to tell everybody they have big government to blame for all of their problems. We are losing a lot of hard working people needlessly and many of the ones we are losing are often the youngest with the least tenure (often the most cost-effect staff). Also having people work for months and sometimes years under the threat of termination is not a strategy for bringing out their best.
6. We need to find out where we lost our integrity. After years of collective bargaining with the unions, it is suddenly acceptable to back out of the deals that were made. I guess because the state of the country is now the union’s fault. I do not disagree that some of the agreements made over the years do defy logic, but two sides made those agreements. To change the agreements through legislation is not right and defies who we are and what we are about. I have been watching a stream of talented individuals taking voluntary retirement years early to avoid steep cuts in their retirement benefits. The State is losing some of its greatest institutional knowledge and talent by these attacks on the retirement system. I couldn’t believe the proposal that called for forfeiting all historic contract terms if a new contract agreement could not be reached by a certain deadline. Talk about unfair labor practices. Why not just suggest holding a gun to their head? We are better than that.
7. We need to listen as much as we talk. I was amazed at how low our country had sunk during the healthcare debates. Everybody was so busy yelling their opinion that there was no chance for understanding. We have become so bi-polar. We need to spend more time understanding all sides of the discussions. I was in Washington a week or two after the healthcare bill had passed and was amazed at the number of bomb threats that encumbered the City. We need to take a step back and rediscover our common ground.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Merrimack River Greenway Trail-Already Bringing the Community Together
Today several dozen Concord area community members gathered together along a section of the proposed Merrimack River Greenway Trail corridor for the clean up of a future section of the trail corridor. This is a necessary first step to moving this project forward.
The trail corridor will still need a lot of work before it is fully usable, but the potential for this resource is undeniable. As the work for the day concluded, a number of us stood in the trees overlooking the river, old friends and new, discussing the potential for the corridor. Ideas of fund raising, runs along the corridor and connections to the river flooding through people's minds. I can hardly wait to see what will come next.
Noticing a request for volunteers over the weekend, I sent an e-mail to the MRGT address and waited for a response. Over the years I have volunteered for a variety of different positions. Most often never knowing fully what I was getting myself into until the first meeting.
The group that gathered was a diverse crowd ranging from my college age son to some active retirees. As I scanned the crowd for familiar faces, I started to see our community coming together. I remembered one of the organizers from attending some Bike and Pedestrian conferences together years ago, then I noticed a handful of other folks that I had worked for or with over the years. Later in the afternoon I ran into my older son's middle school cross country coach and even one of the kids from the team. My older son has completed graduate school so again these were friends from many years ago.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
More Northern Pass Answers are Needed
I will begin by saying that I have not formulated an opinion on the Northern Pass project. Although following the stories from a distance, I am very concerned with the direction of the discussion. There has been a lot of passion developed debating the loss of trees, tower heights, view sheds, and property rights.
We will need leadership from our State leaders to help make the best decision for the state. I am not speaking about a regulatory role. To clarify the issues, we need a true assessment of the energy needs of our state, identification of contingencies for risks to our energy reliability, and the establishment of long-term goals for our energy future.
My first concern is the premise that New Hampshire currently has all of the energy that we need. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is responsible for ensuring the reliability of the North American bulk power system. The Northeast Power Coordination Council, Inc. (NPCC) is a regional entity operating under a delegation agreement with NERC to promote and improve the reliability in the region including all of the New England states, New York , Ontario , Quebec , and the Maritime providences. ISO-NE is a regional transmission organization serving New England to meet the electricity demands of the region’s people and economy.
I would strongly urge each reader to review the NPCC Overview, Summer 2011 at
http://www.npcc.org/documents/aboutus/General.aspx and the 2010 long-term reliability assessment, specifically the NPCC section pages 168 to 256 at http://www.nerc.com/files/2010%20LTRA.pdf
My expertise is not in energy transmission, but I would like to have an independent professional suitably qualified in the energy market clarify the reliability of our current network as part of this discussion. One of the key assumptions of the NERC Reliability report for NPCC is that “With the economic downturn still being observed in the near-term load projections, together with the continued expansion of energy efficiency programs, the projected growth rates over the ten-year study period are reduced or little changed from those seen in 2009.”
I have previously included a news story from the Concord Monitor that describes an agreement from Green Mountain Power (GMP) and the Seabrook Nuclear Plant. GMP is a major energy supplier in Vermont . Within the NERC report is a comment that states “ISO-NE has observed actions taken in the state of Vermont with respect to the relicensing efforts for Vermont Yankee. Vermont Yankee has not formally notified ISO-NE of its potential retirement, ISO-NE is adding the retirement of Vermont Yankee to its assumptions when updating assessments of this area.” I would like to better understand how the viability or retirement of Vermont Yankee will affect New Hampshire and how traffic through the distribution system if demand in Vermont increases effects the overall system .
I have also previously included a news story from the Concord Monitor that describes a potential issue with the storage of spent fuel rods at the regional nuclear plants. These statements should not be taken as an attack on nuclear energy. Everything that I have read is that Seabrook is a major employer and a well run organization, but I think we need to assess the ability of our existing system before deciding whether alternatives are needed.
I would like a clarification of what impact the Northern Pass project would have on our energy prices. Reviewing the site for the US Energy Information Administration it appears that New Hampshire ranks 3rd in the highest average energy costs in the country trailing only New York and Hawaii . See http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/figure7_4.html High energy costs effect the competitiveness of our businesses.
It is also my understanding that some of the renewable energy projects proposed for northern New Hampshire had been impacted by a lack of transmission capacity. I would like a clear understanding of what additional capacity would be available in the proposed lines and what the process would be for other energy providers to secure capacity within the transmission lines.
Let’s open up the discussion for our statewide energy policy to determine what is needed to maintain the reliability and capacity, what contingencies need to be accommodated, clarification that our existing power plants are appropriate, and have an open debate on what our energy diversity and make up should be in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)