Victor Davis Hanson, the military historian and farmer, finds lessons from Japan’s suffering in a Pajamas Media commentary, “The Fragility of Complex Societies”:

The Efficiency of Complexity Versus the Flexibility of De-centralization

Japan’s high density, central planning, mass transit, demographic uniformity, and a culture of mutual dependence allow millions to live humanely and successfully in quite crowded conditions (in areas of Tokyo at 6,000 persons and more per square kilometer). And compared to other Asian and African cities (Mumbai or Lagos) even Tokyo is relatively not so dense, though far more successful. Yet such urban societies are extremely vulnerable to the effects of earthquakes, tsunamis, “man-caused disasters” and other assorted catastrophes, analogous in nature perhaps to tightly knit bee colonies that have lost their queens.

I don’t know quite why many of our environmentalists and urban planners wish to emulate such patterns of settlement (OK, I do know), since for us in America it would be a matter of choice, rather than, as in a highly congested Japan, one of necessity. Putting us in apartments and high rises, reliant on buses and trains, and dependent on huge centralized power, water, and sewage grids are recipes not for ecological utopia, but for a level of dependence and vulnerability that could only lead to disaster. Again, I understand that in terms of efficiency of resource utilization, such densities make sense and I grant that culture sparks where people are, but in times of calamity these regimens prove enormously fragile and a fool’s bargain.

The Obama Administration promotes this kind of increased urban density and government planning under the rubric “livable communities” and “livable and sustainable communities.”

(Hat tip: Lou Dolinar, “An Update on Japan’s Bullet Trains.)

In a far-ranging interview with radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, a Republican, discusses his strategy for encouraging private-sector job creation during a time of budgetary cutbacks.

HH: Now I know that your critics, I’m not one of them, but I know that your critics would immediately say well, we want to cut 8,700 jobs from the state employment workforce, Governor Scott. How can you talk about jobs on the Hugh Hewitt Show, and say you know, I’ve got to cut 9,000 people’s livelihoods from the state budget?

RS: Well, what I’m focusing on is private sectors jobs. So those are the jobs that are going to be there, and there year in, year out. Just like right now, we’re dredging our port in Miami to get ready for the Panama Canal. That’s going to be over 33,000 permanent, private sector jobs that will be there year in and year out. It won’t cost taxpayers anything. As a matter of fact, we’ll get sales tax and property tax revenues out of that. That’s the type of jobs that I want. I don’t want more government. And you know what? The public agrees with me. They’re tired of the size of government. They know that government is way too big, and they can say that at the federal level, at the state level, and at the local level. Government is way too big, and they expect it to be cut.

Ray LaHood

Secretary Ray LaHood gave the keynote address Tuesday night at the National Bike Summit. Bicycle Retailer and Industry News has a good report on the evening’s activities at the Grand Hyatt, “Sec. LaHood Calls for Action.” Excerpt:

LaHood, 65, shared his long family history in cycling, which began when he was a young boy riding his Schwinn bike—calling it “the best-looking bike in the neighborhood”—around Peoria, Illinois. He reassured attendees that he continues to be a “full partner” and that cyclists can also continue to count on President Obama’s support.

“Most of you worked hard to get him elected and the president’s budget for 2012 shows that livable communities really is his vision,” he said.

That’s an unusually direct political appeal for a Cabinet secretary to make at an ostensibly non-political event.  

Secretary LaHood elucidated the President’s agenda further in his post at the FastLane blog, “My message to the 2011 National Bike Summit: ‘We have work to do’.”

Now, the transportation budget President Obama proposed to Congress is a big, bold vision for the next generation of American transportation. And walkable, bikeable, livable communities are a central part of that vision.  The President’s 2012 budget would boost funding for pedestrian and bike-friendly communities to $4.1 billion.  And the Administration would like to see these essential resources included in the next six-year transportation legislation.

We thought the Administration was focused on jobs, economic growth and competitiveness, but instead we find that it has made “livable communities” a priority. And how, exactly, is urban development in Sheboygan, Montpelier or Corvallis a federal responsibility?

(continue reading…)

The National Bike Summit is under way in D.C., a downpour is expected this evening, Fred Armisen is producing a satirical TV show, “Portlandia,” the Blazers beat the Heat, and our thoughts thus turn to the old home town of Portland, Oregon.

The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. John Mica (R-FL), recently took his committee to Vancouver, Wash., just across the Columbia River from Portland, for a “listening session” on infrastructure policy and budgeting. He was in search of priority setting for legislation, but instead got pleading for local projects, especially the Columbia River Crossing. The Bike Portland blog had a good report on his meeting, “Mica presses for specifics at House Transportation Committee field hearing.” Business representatives did get to comment along with state and local transportation officials:

Rep. Shuster spoke of his work in the Northeast part of the country. “We faced bats, snails, fish, trees, you name it, we faced it… Everyone is concerned about the environment, but we’ve got to find the right balance.”

Joe Correy, a rep from Associated General Contractors said, “We need less regulations.” Cappel from Clark County Public Works said EPA regulations are, “One of the biggest challenges” he faces. Several panelists spoke to how environmental mitigation requirements result in skyrocketing project costs.

Reporter/Editor/Publisher Jonathan Maus closes his post commeting on  a noteworthy absence: “Oh, and in case you’re wondering, bicycling wasn’t mentioned at all. Not once.”

Well, that certainly won’t be the case today when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) addresses the National Bike Summit. We don’t know how many articles we’ve read about Rep. Blumenauer’s bicycle advocacy; they repeat themselves. On policy issues, we detect a tendency toward reductio ad absurdum and free-wheeling slagging of industry.

In an NRP story about the House leadership abandoning expensive biodegradable plates and cups because they fell apart, Blumenauer commented: “You wonder what’s next… Lead paint? Asbestos? I mean, there’s lots of things that are less expensive as long as you don’t care about health and other considerations.” That’s ridiculous.

Rep. Blumenauer makes an appearance in a new American Spectator article about Portland, more specifically how the city’s love affair with light rail is unsustainable from a ridership, tax and budget standpoint. The transit authority, Tri-Met, faces a $27 million deficit, Ethan Epstein reports in “Portland Going Nowhere“:

You know the adage, “When you’re in a hole, stop digging”? TriMet has revised it to: “When you’re in a hole, build more light rail.” Despite its financial distress, TriMet now plans to build another MAX line, its most expensive yet. Construction is slated to begin this summer on a segment connecting Portland and Milwaukie, a sleepy town of 20,000. The price tag: $1.5 billion. As the line would stretch only 7.3 miles, the cost per mile would be a little more than $200 million. The federal government has agreed to foot half the bill, and TriMet plans to fund most of the rest by floating $724 million in bonds.

Milwaukie’s not THAT sleepy, we assure you, and a light rail line serving the would be really, really cool. Maybe there’d be a stop at Reed College! Thanks, federal taxpayers!

The Washington Post reports on the Bike Summit, the annual fly-in of bicycle advocates to lobby Congress for more money and federal laws. From “Cycling advocates head to National Bike Summit“:

Bicycling advocates will arrive en masse in Washington on Tuesday for the annual National Bike Summit, three days of planning and lobbying that made news last year when Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood climbed onto a table to address the group.

No, that’s not right. While bike bloggers loved LaHood’s table speech, what made news was his bumptious policy pronouncement:

Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.

As we then argued in a Shopfloor post, “Embracing Bicycles at Expense of Freight, Jobs, Reality:

Treating bicycles and other non-motorized transportation as equal to motorized transportation would cause an economic catastrophe. If put into effect, the policy would more than undermine any effort the Obama Administration has made toward jobs. You can’t have jobs without the efficient movement of freight.

Reading this jaw-dropping policy announcement, we thought the Secretary had let his enthusiasm get the best of him. Alas, no, his comments were actually reinforced in what he described as a “major policy revision” posted at the Federal Highway Administration website, Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation.”

Secretary LaHood’s remarks showed misguided leadership, an agency askew. Instead of focusing limited federal dollars — they are limited, you know — on interstate commerce and infrastructure, the Secretary talks up “community livability,” i.e., urban planning, bike commuting as the answer to traffic congestion, and he seems to be more interested in his anti-texting campaign than freeways, roads and bridges.

The Examiner calls it “LaHood’s war against cars.” We call it wrong priorities.

The American Trucking Associations rounds up the critical reaction from business,  transportation, law enforcement and other groups to the Federal Motor Carrier Administration’s proposed rules of service for over-the-road trucking.

From “Variety of Groups Pan FMCSA’s Proposed Hours-of-Service Rule,” a selection:

Several of the proposed changes will create more difficulty for roadside inspectors and law enforcement officers to verify compliance . . . we believe the prudent course of action at this point would be to retain the current rules . . .” – Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Executive Director Stephen A. Keppler.

“The proposed rule is not supported by existing safety and health data. . . . Advocacy recommends that FMCSA consider retaining its current regulations while conducting additional research to determine whether changing the current rules will meet the agency’s stated objective of improving safety, enhancing driver health and providing flexibility. . . The proposed rule would reduce flexibility and could actually impede safety and driver health.” –  U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy.

“. . . the reality that the current hours-of-service rules have been functioning well and safely since they were made effective in 2004 seems to argue that it is ill-considered and inappropriate to propose such complex changes to the current hours-of-service rules.” – Gregg Dal Ponte, administrator, Motor Carrier Transportation Division, Oregon DOT. (continue reading…)

President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon announced a tentative agreements Thursday under which the United States would finally implement the cross-border trucking program required by U.S. signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The announcement is excellent news for U.S. farmers and manufacturerers whose products have suffered from retaliatory tarifs from Mexico.

As the National Association of Manufacturers’ Aric Newhouse said in a statement: “The United States is a global leader in ensuring enforcement of trade laws, and we need to lead by example – by coming into compliance with our NAFTA obligations on Mexican trucks. The NAM has led the effort in urging the Administration to reach an agreement to end these costly tariffs.”

Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News, “Deal would lift U.S. roadblock on Mexican trucks,” quotes two Texas business leaders talking about the positive, practical implications of the agreement.

“More than 15 years ago NAFTA was signed declaring free trade and removing obstructions to the flow of goods between Mexico and the United States,” Jeff Moseley, president and CEO of the Greater Houston Partnership, said in a statement. “With the compromise announced today, the full potential of NAFTA can come to fruition and Houston can hopefully grow its annual trade with Mexico currently at $16.2 billion.” …”We are pleased,” said Free Trade Alliance San Antonio president and CEO Kyle Burns. “It is unfortunate that it took billions of dollars in retaliatory tariffs to force the U.S. government into living up to its international obligations.

“We are hopeful that this latest program will lead to the successful conclusion of this issue, which should have been fully implemented in 2000. Mexico is showing good faith in our efforts. It is now up to the United States to follow through on our latest commitments and stop hiding behind safety concerns that are unfounded, as the initial pilot program proved.”

• Wall Street Journal, “US, Mexico Agree to Settle Truck Feud“
• Yakima Herald, “Mexico tariffs may end“
• San Diego Union Tribune, “US, Mexico reach truck deal“

Mexican President Felipe Calderon is in town this week for a brief visit. Mexico is building toward its Presidential elections in July 2012, and the U.S.-Mexico relationship is always an issue in the election there as well as here. We don’t expect the lingering inability of the Obama Administration to resolve the NAFTA cross-border trucking dispute to be top of President Calderon’s list, but it will be up for discussion.

To recap, briefly: In the North American Free Trade Agreement, the United States signed on to allow cross-border trucking. As long as they meet U.S. safety and driver standards, Mexican and Canadian trucks under NAFTA should be able to cross the U.S. border, drop cargo and return home with cargo. They can’t engage in domestic deliveries. U.S. trucks are supposed to have the same rights. However, while this is in place between U.S. and Canada, implementation has been blocked for years between the U.S. and Mexico. Mexico won a NAFTA dispute settlement years ago, but declined to impose the retaliatory tariffs allowed by that process.

Until two years ago, that is, when Congress ended a pilot program for cross-border trucking and President Obama signed off on it. As a result of this, Mexico imposed retaliatory tariffs on billions of dollars worth of U.S. manufactured and agricultural exports. It has been nearly two years since this happened, and the Obama Administration has only very recently (January 2011) issued a “Concept Document” that lays out a foundation for discussions on re-establishing cross-border trucking. Little more has happened since that document was released, however, other than some “technical discussions.”

The Mexican government has indicated it is discussing the issue in good faith and that their U.S. counterparts are working hard. This is good news. However, the tariffs remain in place, harming American manufacturers who cannot ship their products to one of their largest markets without a massive markup that prices them out of the market. Many of these exporters are small & medium manufacturers – more than 90 percent of U.S. exporters to Mexico are SMMs. And waiting in the wings is a rotation of products on the retaliation list. We haven’t seen that list, but last time it was rotated, it put the bulls-eye on some major U.S. agricultural products, including pork and apples. Our bet is the next time it rotates, it’s going to focus squarely on manufactured goods instead. There’s not a lot of time left before we see this happen. We urge Secretary LaHood and his interagency team to buckle down and finish up their discussions. Tens of thousands of American jobs are at stake.

A story in today’s Washington Post, “China tamps down Middle East-inspired protests before they can gain momentum,” reports on various shows of force against pro-democracy demonstrators.

Which reminds us of this story in the new online newspaper, The Daily, by Reason’s Shikha Dalmia, “Long live the American dream,” rebutting the oft-cited reasons for pessimism about the United States and its economy.

America does not have India’s infrastructure deficit or China’s civil society deficit
India’s gap with America extends not just to intangible capital but tangible capital as well. Basic facilities in India — roads, water, sewage — remain primitive. For example, a 2010 McKinsey Global Institute report found that India treats 30 percent of raw sewage, whereas the international norm is 100 percent. It needs to spend twice the slated expenditures over the next 10 years to deliver basic services.

China, meanwhile, has a major civil society problem. Its one-child policy has decimated the natural safety net that old people rely on in traditional societies. And China offers no public safety net to the vast majority born in villages. Worse, many Chinese have invested their nest eggs is various asset bubbles that will wipe out their only means of subsistence if they burst.

America does not have grinding poverty

Despite all the recent hoopla about China becoming the world’s second-biggest economy and India hoping to follow suit, the reality is that the per-capita GDP — even measured by purchasing power parity — in both is pathetic. America’s is about $47,000, China’s $7,500 and India’s $3,290.

Worse, both still harbor medieval levels of poverty, with 300 million people in each living on less than $1.25 a day. India’s IT boom gets big press, but it — along with all the tertiary industries it has spawned — employs 2.3 million people, or 0.2 percent of the population.

Thank you and congratulations to the fine and watchful people at Con-Way Freight for their role in preventing a terrorist bomb plot. Truckinginfo.com, the excellent website for Heavy Duty Trucking magazine, details the events in a story, “Con-Way Freight Helps Foil Terrorist Bomb Plot“:

Observant workers, diligent screening, and established security protocols in place and Con-Way Freight’s Lubbock Texas service center combined to foil a terrorist bomb plot.

On Thursday, the FBI arrested Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, a 20-year-old Saudi student studying in Texas, and charged him with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. It’s alleged that Aldawsari was attempting to construct improvised explosives and compiling a list of possible targets, including West Coast reservoirs and dams, nuclear power plants and the home of former President George W. Bush.

The investigation leading to the arrest began on Feb.1 when workers at Con-Way’s Lubbock service center received a package for shipment that was deemed suspicious. Based on training and experience, Con-way’s local management flagged the shipment and notified the company’s corporate security department.

The company issued a news release that outlined its role, “Con-way Freight Flags Suspicious Shipment, Leads to FBI Arrest.” Excerpt:

Con-way and other members of the transportation community have been working closely for several years with the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and other authorities to develop escalation plans and communication practices to enhance homeland security. The success of this collaborative process is evident in the results of this case.

C. Randal “Randy” Mullet, vice president of government relations and public affairs, is Con-Way’s lead advocate on homeland security issues and an NAM board member. We’re proud to have the company as a member.