Introduction
The demand for regulation reforms on U.S transportation arose from the year 1998 to 2008 (Edrich 2009). This is due to the rapid growth in public transportation. The demand for public transportation is still growing and to assist ridership in this industry the federal government established the Federal Transit Administration within the Department of Transportation (DOT) (Nadeau 1938). The state also signed in the safe, accountable, flexible, efficient, transportation, equity act: a legacy for users act to regulate and address transportation issues.
Some of the transportation issues include the trends in ridership from past to present years and the future possible means of transportation (Edrich 2009). Secondly, the bodies address the challenges facing transportation and look into possible response to this challenges. Lastly, the bodies look into the various agencies and their capability to meet transportation needs.
SAFETEA-LU legislation act
The SAFETEA-LU program grant by the federal state represents one of the largest transportation investments in the U.S (Wise 2009). The program was developed to regulate highway funding and look into highway safety and public transportation. The SAFETEA builds on investing in transportation channels such as roads and maintaining the infrastructure.
Road Alligator Removal and Control Act (RARCA) and for State-aid for RARCA is responsible for the transportation system in U.S today; it seeks to improve transportation safety by ensuring the transportation networks are well maintained. The program also embarks on reducing congestion by expanding transportation routes and building more infrastructures (Federal highway commission 2005). It also works to improve freight movement and ensure cargo flows smoothly between interstates. It strengthens the network connectivity and protects the environment against pollution.
The road alligator removal and control act (RARCA) can be incorporated and implemented by the SAFETEA-LU program because it is a strong unit in charge of highway safety rules and safety improvement program (Wise 2009). If the road alligators pose a highway risk then this program is in charge of addressing the various ways to deal with the challenge.
The main agenda revolving the RARCA highway provisions is to reduce highway fatalities and increase safety on the highway (Edrich 2009). The program is responsible for highway budgeting and funds allocation. The program currently has doubled its efforts to fund for infrastructure rehabilitation and maintenance to increase safety. This includes strategic planning and development of all transport systems that account for transit (Edrich 2009). The road alligators could be dealt with under this program where the program could regulate the truck’s size, weight, height, and dry mass.
RARCA also has the mandate under the Department of Transportation to ban roadside parking for road alligators and provide specific areas that the trucks are allowed to pack (Federal highway commission 2005). This will reduce the risk posed by the huge truck tires lying on the road that could cause highway fatalities. Because it also focuses on individual safety the program also establishes work zones, pedestrian crossing and speed limits on the highway.
The road alligators could establish road licenses for this alligators and increase tax revenues for such trucks on the road (Wise 2009). This way the use of such trucks could be discouraged off the road because the cost of operation will have been increased. Highway planning is part of the RARCA roles this means that the unit could plan to also increase and expand the different lanes for heavy trucks such as the alligator trucks (Wise 2009). This way the trucks will pose less danger to the public and increase safety measures.
The SAFETEA-LU also involves private developers to the highway construction projects; the program is in charge of attracting the private sector to take up the proposed projects. Congestion is one of the greatest challenges facing road transportation (Wise 2009). The unit is responsible for de-congesting the various transportation modes. It ensures effective traffic control, comes up with better communication channels and keeps transportation emergency responder on their toes.
Through the act it is able to improve infrastructure, speed up construction of safe highways to use and improve networking between the different transportation modes (Edrich 2009). It is able to do this through effective planning, budgeting and monitoring funds released for the different projects.
Recovery of lost and damaged goods between interstates
Federal law mandates SAFETEA-LU to provide protection for the millions of consumers who hire interstate movers to transport goods on their behavior (Federal highway commission). The state consumer protection act was placed to protect the consumers from potential risks. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety (FMCS) under the Department of Transportation, issues regulations and oversees consumer protection in terms of damage and loss.
In the case where the boss pays German shipping company and the shipping equipment malfunctions and the goods get lost in Europe. The company has the right to sue the German shippers for loss of goods. The company could look for legal representation and it could take two approaches. The first approach involves arbitration where the company negotiates out of court for compensation on loss of goods (Flemming 2010). The broker is not liable under the FMCS act because the broker is not considered the carrier (Wise 2009). The broker here only facilitates the communication and coordination process but does not own up to the liability. If the German company refuses to take responsibility then the company can file the case in court asking for compensation. In this case the company may not ask for full compensation because the loss of goods was not intentional but an accident (Wise 2009). Here the company could claim for loss of value property and establish a limit amount they can accept from the German shippers.
The second case where the navigator of the ship loses direction and the ship ends up in France and all the cargo is lost. The company again should sue the German shippers, and claim for compensation for loss of goods. In this case the navigator is negligent, therefore the company should claim for actual loss of property (Flemming 2010).
In both cases the German shipping company is liable to, because they are paid to handle the goods in the course of interstate transportation. This is regardless of whether the German company actually does the shipping or it is an outsourced service (Edrich 2009). Under the federal law the German shippers are entitled to compensate the company for the loss of goods if they can prove negligence. In both cases there is a degree of negligence, the first shows poor maintenance of shipping equipments and as a result the cargo is lost in Europe; in the second the navigator is negligent by loosing directions and losing the goods in France.
In the case where the goods were destroyed by a bomb planted on the train at BSNF, the company should contact the federal motor carrier safety to guide them on procedural rights. The role of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety is to investigate the activities of the carriers and establish if the carriers should be liable for the loss of goods (Wise 2009). FMCS determines whether the bomb was not found by default or design and establishes whether the case is as a result of negligence. In such a scenario the company should report immediately without further delay to start investigations. Delays often derail chances of been compensated or finding any prove on the case. If the FMCS finds that the bomb was detonated out of ignorance then the company is entitled to full reimbursement. If the bomb was detonated out of acts of terrorism then the company has to go through arbitration to settle on a liability claim. In this case the company will not have the goods actual compensation, and may incur loss.
In all case scenarios for the shipper to claim for compensation, the shipper must have proved that the goods were delivered safely and in good condition to the carrier (Flemming 2010). In case of any damage this must be stated and the damage quantified on the bill of lading. A bill of lading is a legal document with a detailed list of shipment goods given by the carrier to the shipper of the goods (Flemming 2010). These acts as a receipt and prove that the goods were delivered. The company has an ocean bill of lading and a railroad bill of lading to act as prove that the goods were given to the carrier by the shipper. The ocean bill of lading is evidence of the carrier having received the goods and carried them (Flemming 2010). The ocean billing contains name of shipping company, flag of nationality, shipper’s name, description of goods and freight measurements. The carrier endorses their signature on the billing accepting full responsibility for the goods carried (Flemming 2010). This is why the company has the right to sue the German shipping company in accordance to the federal state, as a breach of contract. The bill of lading for both the ocean and railroad protects consumers against liability because the carrier signs for full responsibility of the goods including liability (Flemming 2010). This document is binding in the eyes of law and can be used to claim for compensation of damaged and lost goods by the carrier.
Challenge posed by state transportation
The Department of Transportation is dedicated towards improving transportation for transit, air and highways (Federal highway commission 2005). However Department of Transportation assisted by programs like SAFETEA-LU comes up with regulations that affect business enterprises.
In the transport industry the congestion relief administered by SAFETEA-LU is a challenge to high occupancy tolls. The program established a new regulation that controls the high occupancy vehicle HOV lanes occupancy requirement (Wise 2009). This locks out vehicles with high occupancy rates and if such vehicles are to use this lanes a fee is charged every time. This was put to discourage high occupancy toll vehicles to keep off these lanes and reduce congestion.
This poses a great challenge for the transportation companies that deal with High occupancy toll vehicles.
SAFETEA-LU to also control congestion came up with the road pricing; this includes interstate, whose main purpose is financing the highway and maintaining it. This includes track and trailer 12% of retail sale price, truck tire of $0.094 per every 10 pounds plus additional minor tax additions and fee charges (Federal highway commission 2005). This increases the cost of conducting business and reduces the net sales of the transport company. Most trucks and trailers used hold a lot of weight in terms of dry mass. This legislation makes transportation an expensive affair, because the costs are transferred to the shippers. The company has to pay tax for each truck on the road and this increases the cost of operations. SAFETEA-LU placed this policy to collect revenue to finance the maintenance of the highway and also reduce congestion (Edrich 2009). This policy may seem beneficial in the long run to other road users but because if traffic is reduced the drivers save a lot of time and money on the highway.
The real time system management project designed by SAFETEA-LU is meant to reduce the traffic on highways and also create safety on the highway. The policy comes with certain limitations especially for high occupancy vehicles. Some of these policies touch on age of the driver and the special driving license. The rule has a limit to people who drive the trailers and tracks and this sometimes forces the industry to keep changing drivers.
The company has to cover the costs imposed on the special licenses and this increases the company’s expenditure. The special licenses awarded also have a special charge on it and this in the long run doubles up the operation costs.
The industry is affected by the system procedures laid down by the Department of Transportation (Wise 2009). The departments and transportation agencies sometimes impose extra charges especially for large trucks and trailers. These extra charges amount to large miscellaneous expenses for the industry. The transport industry is affected by the policies placed by the Department of Transportation because it directly affects the operations (Flemmings 2010).
Conclusion
To improve the road transport system the department of transportation has put in place several measures to ensure that the transport system works efficiently. Department of Transportation in the US works along programs like SAFETEA-LU and FMCS to improve and broaden the infrastructure. These programs help the Department of Transportation run efficiently and manage funds from the federal state.
The shippers are protected under the federal law against loss and damage of goods; this helps the consumers from incurring losses during transportation. The FMCS program allows the consumers to be compensated by the carrier in case of any damage of goods or loss. The FMCS body also protects the public from fraudulent carriers who could want to take advantage of the consumers. The policies placed by the DOT are essential for road safety and reduce congestion; however businesses do sometimes face challenges due to the placed policies.
References
Edrich, M. (2009). Regulation of third party surface transportation. Journal of transport law. 34(2). P.3-12
Federal highway administration. (2005). A summary of highway provisions in SAFETEA-LU. United states Department of Transportation. 13(2).P.23-31
Flemming, S. A. (2010). public transportation: Better Data Needed to Assess lengths of new starts. New York, DIANE publishing.
Nadeau, C. E. (1938). Carriers: Federal regulation of motor transportation brokers. Berkley, MACH.
Wise, D. (2009). Public transportation: transit agencies to address increased. New York, DIANE publishing