The San Antonio Express editorializes, “Swift action needed on NAFTA trucking deal,” emphasizing the economic costs of delays, that is, Mexico’s continued imposition of tariffs on U.S. manufactured goods and agricultural exports.

During its brief existence, the test program put to rest environmental and safety concerns about authorized Mexican trucks. Mexican truckers in the program actually had a better safety record than their American counterparts.

Mexico has agreed to drop half the tariffs when a test program is finalized. The remaining tariffs would be eliminated when trucks begin to roll.

Removing the tariffs will benefit U.S. exporters. Implementing the trucking provision will benefit U.S. consumers and holds the promise of making San Antonio a transportation hub for cross-border trade.

End this self destructive trade war. After 16 years, it’s time for the United States to live up to its NAFTA commitment.

Bill Graves, president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations, recently issued a statement lauding the agreement. (continue reading…)

Truckinfo.com covers a panel of economists attending the American Trucking Associations’ annual management conference in Phoenix. Among the speakers was Dave Huether, the NAM’s chief economist.

From “Economic Experts Look at Economy During ATA Session“:

[High] unemployment is contributing to another anemic number in this recovery, and that’s consumer spending on services. David Huether, chief economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, showed a chart comparing various figures from this recovery with the average of the past 10 recoveries. Consumer purchases of services, which account for 48 percent of the economy, were a fraction of the average.

On the other hand, the chart showed manufacturing is much higher than in past recoveries — in fact it’s growing twice as fast as the rest of the economy. This is largely thanks to exports, another higher-than-average figure in this recovery. U.S. exports have gorwn about 14 percent, about 3.5 times faster than average growth in the first-year recovery. And manufactured goods mean more truckloads, as trucks transport both raw materials and finished products. (continue reading…)

Netroots Nation is the now-annual gathering of the blogospheric and activist left, launched originally by Markos Moulitsas, the proprietor of the Daily Kos blog. For all the cursing at business that goes on there, the Daily Kos has turned into one heck of an enterprise.

Netroots Nation gets under way tomorrow in Las Vegas, the mecca of income redistribution (although probably not in the way the Netroots  prefer). The Obama Administration is sending one cabinet member, and the progressives are embracing him with delight. From the agenda:

Bikes, trains, stimulus, and the Obama Cabinet’s biggest surprise

Thursday, July 22nd 10:30 AM – 11:45 AM

Panel, Brasilia 1

Time: Thursday, July 22nd, 10:30am – 11:45am

Room: Brasilia 1

Despite early expectations or fears, one of the two Republicans in President Obama’s cabinet and head of an often-obscure agency has become one of the administration’s rock stars. Ray LaHood has elevated public transportation, biking and walking to prominence in American transportation policy just as the Recovery Act of 2009 pumped billions into new projects. How has a former Republican Congressman pushed some of Obama’s most progressive policy successes, and what’s needed to cement a new direction in federal policy that deeply affects where we live and how we get around?

The other speakers are advocates of smart growth, public transportation, government-subsidized housing, and promoting economic and social equity in older industrial cities.

In related news, The Journal of Commerce recently reported, “Truckers Fear Highway Bill Impasse May Last Years“:

The trucking industry is concerned the impasse in Washington over highway reauthorization may stretch into several years without a new spending bill to set planning for important road and infrastructure projects.

“There is speculation that there won’t be reauthorization in the entire first term of the Obama administration,” American Trucking Associations President and CEO Bill Graves told the Los Angeles Transportation Club.

With the Highway Trust Fund “insolvent,” and both Democrats and Republicans fearful of the political consequences of approving an increase in the fuel tax, the nation could be heading toward an infrastructure crisis now that freight volumes are once again growing, Graves said.

Trucks historically move about two-thirds of all freight in the United States, including manufactured goods and retail products.

Trucks traditionally haul about two-thirds of all freight in the United States, including manufactured and retail goods.

Trucking serves as a barometer of the U.S. economy, representing nearly 69 percent of tonnage carried by all modes of domestic freight transportation, including manufactured and retail goods. Trucks hauled 10.2 billion tons of freight in 2008. Motor carriers collected $660.3 billion, or 83.1 percent of total revenue earned by all transport modes.

That’s from the American Trucking Associations, a paragraph in its latest news release on monthly freight statistics.

We post the numbers in an effort to restore economic reality to the debate over Transportation Secretary LaHood’s recent declaration that it’s now federal policy that there shall be no distinction between motorized and non-motorized traffic. The Associated Press covers the controversy today, “Transportation’s bicycle policy hits potholes,” citing Shopfloor’s objections to the policy.

The Secretary’s defenders, those who want more federal tax dollars to be spent on local bike and walking paths, have reacted to our posts by recasting his arguments, saying he just wants to take bike paths into consideration in planning, that he wants people to have alternatives to driving their own cars, etc.

But we were taking the Secretary at his word — and disagreeing with him. Here’s what Secretary LaHood wrote on his DOT blog, FastLane, in a March 15 post, “My view from atop the table at the National Bike Summit.”

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.

His emphasis. The “atop the table” is a reference to his mounting a table in a Congressional meeting room to give remarks to bicycle activists at the “Bike Summit.” BikePortland.org reported “he was mobbed like a rockstar.”

“Sea change…. The end of favoring motorized transportation …”

In a subsequent, April 5, interview on Green, Inc., the Secretary expressed surprise that people had taken issue with his comments, saying, “My response is that this is what Americans want.” Yet there was not one word about freight in the interview. In speaking for the American public, the Secretary did not mention freight.

Thankfully, the objections seem to have registered. In an April 6 FastLane post, “Survey shows Americans want more mobility options–biking, walking, and transit should be in the mix,” Secretary LaHood added to the record.

People are always going to drive cars. And we are always going to rely on the hardworking trucking community to haul our nation’s freight. We’ve made a huge investment in our interstate highway system, and that’s not going away. We are going to continue maintaining that investment.

But we do have many modes of transportation in this country, many different ways of getting around. Why not make room at the table for bicycling and walking?

That’s not what the original policy pronouncement said, and bicycle advocates have been bellying up to the table for a long time. (One example, an April 14, 2009, Boston Globe article, “$80m in US funds for bike projects unspent in Mass.“)  And citing a public opinion survey by an advocacy group that wants to shift more taxpayer dollars to public transportation, Transportation for America, doesn’t persuade us that, in a policy vacuum, Americans would choose to spend more federal tax dollars on local bike lanes and community walking paths.

Still, if in his comments the Secretary has now framed the argument as, “The Administration believes it’s a good use of federal dollars to make infrastructure for non-motorized transportation a higher priority in planning and appropriations,” that’s a good debate to have.

In that debate, here’s something to remember.

Trucking serves as a barometer of the U.S. economy, representing nearly 69 percent of tonnage carried by all modes of domestic freight transportation, including manufactured and retail goods. Trucks hauled 10.2 billion tons of freight in 2008. Motor carriers collected $660.3 billion, or 83.1 percent of total revenue earned by all transport modes.

Thank you Bill Graves, president of the American Trucking Associations, for contributing to the National Journal’s “Experts: Transportation” blog discussion of motorized versus non-motorized traffic. As noted below, the National Journal sought responses to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s recent pronouncement of “the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”

Graves’ post:

I’m in full agreement with the National Association of Manufacturers, who said on their Shopfloor blog last week that “treating bicycles and other non-motorized transportation as equal to motorized transportation would cause an economic catastrophe.” Such a policy will negate any effort the Administration has made to create jobs and will hinder the movement of our nation’s goods. As we work to emerge from these difficult economic times, we need policies that promote the safe, efficient movement of goods. The Administration’s major policy revision will be particularly detrimental if it diverts Highway Trust Fund dollars from critical expansion and repair projects that will help use meet national goals.

The National Highway System connects all parts of our transportation system, facilitating the movement of virtually all goods throughout the country. America relies on trucks to move 70 percent of our nation’s freight tonnage and the trucking industry is forecast to move an even greater share of freight in the future. Highways will continue to play a vital role in our nation’s supply chain. However, America’s aging infrastructure is in desperate need of repair and expansion. Congestion costs, caused by inefficiencies in the system, are rapidly approaching $100 billion annually. The federal government must focus on funding projects that alleviate freight bottlenecks. Failing to address growing congestion problems will cause costs to rise, translating into higher consumer prices and slower job growth, weakening the United States’ ability to compete in the global economy.

I understand that Secretary LaHood and the Administration are adamant about creating livable communities that promote the use of non-motorized transportation. However, these communities will not be livable without an efficient highway system and trucks to deliver the food, medicine, clothing and other necessities that make walking and bicycling possible.

Thanks for the mention, Governor. Agreed completely.

We add one other point: The Executive Branch, including Secretary LaHood, does not make policy. In the American system, the policymaking branch of the federal government is Congress.

An alliance between Big Labor and environmental groups has been working on multiple fronts to drive small, independent truckers out of the port business with the goal of unionizing larger operators. The latest maneuver is to pressure Congress to change the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), which preempts state and local jurisdictions from regulating interstate trucking and commerce.

It’s a cynical effort that threatens to destroy jobs, raise freight costs and retard the recovery.

The National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce on March 11 sent a joint letter to Capitol Hill outlining our objections. Excerpt:

[The] International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Change to Win organization and others are currently pressing Congress to consider granting local governments the ability to regulate the harbor drayage industry to address environmental and port security matters, and thereby eliminate the federal preemption of state and local regulation of foreign and interstate commerce. While we strongly support efforts to improve air quality and port security in and around America’s ports, it is entirely unnecessary to undermine federal preemption of state regulation of interstate commerce in the process. These restrictions are specifically designed to eliminate competition from small independent businesses in favor of companies that the Teamsters believe could be more easily organized. If enacted, these changes could unfairly sideline independent operators who provide valuable support for the nation’s supply chain and create a fragmented, local patchwork regulatory structure for foreign and interstate commerce which runs contrary to the intent of the interstate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Last week, Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) also challenged the unions’ move. In a Dear Colleague letter, Miller wrote, “Compliance with air quality standards should be determined on a truck by truck basis without regard to the employee or ownership status of the driver of that truck.” He added:

We believe that protecting our environment by reducing truck emissions is an important mission that we must undertake, and it is easy to see that our nation’s ports play a vital role in that effort. Industry stakeholders, including many small businesses, have shown that they are taking a proactive approach to meeting environmental goals as they have made significant investments in clean equipment. It is important that we do not get distracted by unnecessary provisions and mandates that are not related to environmental goals and could have long term, negative consequences on interstate commerce.

The American Trucking Associations has been a leader on this issue. From ATA’s Truckline.com, “Opposition is Widespread to Union-backed Change to Federal Transportation Law.”

The ATA this month also thanked the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for adopting a new clean-air policy that did not attempt to eliminate small, owner-operated trucking lines from serving the port. See ATA release, “NY/NJ Clean Trucks Plan Launches Without Owner-Operator Ban.”

The National Association of Manufacturers joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Trucking Associations and AAA in calling for increased support for surface transportation infrastructure — and immediate action to extend the highway bill. The NAM supports quick enactment of  a short-term extension as promoted by House Transportation Chairman Jim Oberstar, allowing for a full-length, seven year surface transportation authorization in 2010.

The day started with an open letter to Congress and the White House, published as an ad in Washington, D.C. newspapers arguing for greater investment in transportation:

• To reduce traffic congestion thereby enhancing productivity and energy usage;
• To improve road safety and reduce health care costs associated with preventable vehicle crashes;
• To lay the competitive foundation making long-term growth and prosperity possible; and
• To put millions of Americans back to work by helping to sustain an economic recovery.

And what we support, as stated in the ad.

Our organizations believe Congress must address revenue shortfalls in order to finance our nation’s
transportation system at robust levels and we are willing to support revenue approaches, including
increases in federal gasoline and diesel taxes, in order to provide the necessary funding to meet
critical transportation needs. However, because these public policy decisions directly affect our
members, any request that users pay more must be accompanied by legislation that achieves program
reforms, increases accountability, focuses on national objectives, and makes a commitment that
spending will benefit those who make the investment. We must move away from the status quo to
reach these objectives.

Jay Timmons, the NAM’s executive vice president, also participated in telephone news conference at noon today on the topics. Here’s his opening statement.

From The Los Angeles Times, “Port of L.A. is urged to stop lobbying over clean-trucks program,” with the sub-headline: “The port wants permission to regulate truckers as part of its effort to reduce air pollution. Trade groups object, saying that would make it easier for unions to organize the drivers.”

The port has already tried to rig the regulatory rules and now wants to rewrite federal law under the guise of clean-air activism to force independent truckers into large companies or concessions, which are either already unionized or could be pressured into unionizing. As we’ve noted before, it’s an alliance of environmentalists and labor out to ruin small businesses.

The article reports on the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and other trade groups writing the port to register their objections: “We strongly oppose the efforts of the port to support changing long-standing federal law . . . to include a provision within the Clean Truck Plan that has nothing to do with reducing truck emissions.”

The ATA has so far won arguments in court to block the Port’s “concession plans,” i.e. rules for the doing business with the port, which included a ban on independent truckers. The Port of Los Angeles’ plan illegally sought to regulate interstate commerce, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in April.

The Journal of Commerce also covers the story with the additional angle of the Port of Long Beach distancing itself from other other ports’ federal lobbying. From “Port of Long Beach Won’t Join Trucking Regulatory Bid.”

From Congress Daily:

Two groups representing key parochial interests for House Energy and Commerce Democratic leaders Thursday issued strong objections to a Senate global warming bill that fell to a filibuster this month, as well as House proposals offered by the party’s more liberal members.

Representatives from the National Mining Association and the United Auto Workers told the Energy and Commerce Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee that they cannot support Senate legislation by Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va.

And now that we look at it, the committee hearing yesterday had a really good selection of witnesses from across the spectrum of energy and climate policy. Including…