| Sound Policy at
$295 Billion
It’s baffling
to us that the industry’s leading publication would tacitly
endorse a $284-billion highway/transit reauthorization investment
measure that could actually provide no growth for the federal
transportation construction market over the next four years. ENR’s
rhetorical references to a "charade" and the war
in Iraq in your editorial, "Transportation Bill Warning
Signs Should Be Heeded," are also out of bounds in the
current debate. (ENR 5/9 p. 48).
Since 2004, ENR has extensively
covered the industry impacts of skyrocketing prices for steel
and highway construction materials. If this trend continues
for just one more year, a $284-billion TEA-21 reauthorization
bill would lead to declines in purchasing power for all states,
meaning the bill would not allow progress in alleviating congestion
or addressing the nation’s crumbling infrastructure.
ENR’s charge that "self-interest"
motivated the construction industry to support a "doomed"
bipartisan House $375 billion highway/transit bill is nonsense. The
proposal from Reps. Young (R-Alaska) and Oberstar (D-Minn.)
was based directly on the Bush administration’s U.S.
Dept. of Transportation report that said this was the investment
level necessary to maintain and begin improving America’s
transportation network. To us, linking transportation
investment with the nation’s documented needs represents
sound public policy.
The Senate on May 17, by an overwhelming
89-11 vote, successfully boosted the bill’s investment
levels to $295 billion while remaining true to the user fee
principle and without adding to the deficit. A final bill
approved by Congress at this level, which will help address
the nation’s growing transportation needs and grow the
construction market, is something ENR should heartily endorse.
Toward the Inevitable
Let’s not blame
"the industry" for the latest failure to convert
to the metric system, as your recent editorial suggests (ENR
3/14 p. 56). There was a noble, yet feeble and isolated attempt
made by the government and then its initiative was abruptly
reversed.
From my experience, when the first
sets of plans came out in metric units, there was no warning
or explanation why we were being singled out as the guinea
pigs. There were no other industries included, and certainly
the traveling public was not made aware of efforts to replace
miles per hour with kilometers per hour. There were definitely
some ridiculous features in the program.
Being the world’s largest
consumer obviously carries clout over our trading partners
throughout the rest of the world. They seem content in supplying
us with customized products made to our units. It must be
costing us somehow for production in dual units. If and when
another world economic leader reigns, such as the European
Union or China, we may have no choice but to pay or play.
But it is better to lead than follow. There must be a logical
phased-in approach possible.
Despite a selfish reluctance to
fully convert, postponing the inevitable is irresponsible.
It may seem unrealistic to expect our legislators to take
the lead and utilize our industry guidance to develop a unified
and coherent plan. Because they have jurisdiction in setting
standards for weights and measures, this is clearly an opportunity
for a hero to emerge and leave a legacy for our children.
|
