Transportation Re-Authorization? Moving on From Uncertainty

Guest post by Rico Fleshman, Corporate and Strategic Relationships Manager: Transportation, Logistics and Supply Chain for American Public University

In past blog posts, I have addressed Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century or MAP-21 and the discussions on the re-authorization of the nation’s transportation bill in 2014 that were  fraught with uncertainty.

The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was finally extended with funding directed to existing programs until May 2015. Instead of passing a long-term transportation bill, which has not been done since 2005, lawmakers pushed through another stop-gap measure that only puts off the inevitable decisions that need to be made.

On a positive note, both parties seem to have an interest in moving past that uncertainty into serious discussions that could see a bill this Congress. Both the GOP and Democratic leaders claim the transportation bill as a priority and have their own unique set of motivators to see a bill.

“A variety of factors are weighing against the possibility that a transportation bill gets done this year, the biggest factor being the $100 billion price tag,” says Jason Pavluchuk, of Pavluchuk & Associates,-a  lobbying firm for the transportation industry. “However, with Senator Barbara Boxer retiring and Senate Public Works chairman Jim Inhofe facing term limits as chairman, there’s an extra sense of motivation to get a deal done this Congress. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman Congressman Bill Schuster is doing everything he can to rally the troops to find a solution so that they, too, can get a bill done.”

There are a myriad of issues impacting bill creation that affect and require input from agencies running the scope of transportation including DOT, the FCC, and the FAA. While funding remains the single largest issue, regulations and direction from everything dealing with drones, to railcar safety, to cell phone regulation on airplanes will need to see rules implemented early in the year. 

There are also nagging considerations for continuing subsidies for Amtrak, which saw congressional authorization expire in 2013 amidst a debate over the rail giant’s ability to sustain its own operations and infrastructure anywhere but in the Northeast Corridor.

The funding conversation is not going to be an easy one and the pledge by lawmakers to “keep every option on the table” usually refers to their willingness to increase the fuel tax. While transit and highways programs (infrastructure) receive the bulk of funding from the gas tax, the issue is not as simple as continuing to fund the Highway Trust Fund. Discussions also have to revolve around fixing it.

The HTF’s inability to generate as much revenue as it spends is a continuous drain on the system. Calls for increasing and indexing the current 18.4 percent gas tax rate may not be very popular, however, in the face of an election year in 2016. The additional options of comprehensive tax overhaul or corporate tax reform to help pay for the transportation bill are just as hot.

These sentiments were echoed in the President’s State of the Union address where Obama called several times for Congress to pass a bipartisan plan. Chairman Schuster, who has been reticent to discuss raising the fuel tax as an option for the bill does agree that a bill needs to be completed through “fiscally responsible legislation.”

The industry must hold out hope that, despite these challenges, lawmakers can come together in a bipartisan way to begin the dialogue and move past our current state of uncertainty.

About the Author

Rico Fleshman is the Corporate and Strategic Relationships Manager for Transportation, Logistics and Supply Chain for American Public University. He has worked with numerous transportation associations and has extensive knowledge of federal and state transportation policy, funding, metropolitan planning processes and regulatory compliance of transportation programs. For information on the online Transportation, Logistics and Supply Chain programs at APU, visit StudyatAPU.com.

Refurbished Electronics – Giving Technology a Second Life

For most people in the U.S., the end of the life cycle for a piece of electronics happens once a person decides that it is time to upgrade to newer, better technology.  In most cases, this happens due to a perceived need to upgrade rather than the actual failure of the device, opening up the potential for electronics to serve a purpose beyond one user.

Refurbishing and repairing electronics has been taking more of a presence in the minds of consumers. As electronics have become more disposable the perception has become that they are more of a consumable rather than a durable. There are two potential directions for these old electronics:  being refurbished and resold in the domestic or international secondary market or being recycled.

In recent years, more companies are actively refurbishing electronics. These companies actively seek new customers to address growing demand in the secondary market.  Companies like Gazelle and uSell now offer a little money to encourage consumers to part with old electronics. 

Local companies have also  penetrated the secondary market. Recently, I have worked with Wireless Repair World in Pembroke Pines, Fla., a local business repairs phones and purchases used phones. Old phones are refurbished for the secondary market. They offer a better price than online companies and seem to be positioned for success in this realm, as long as they can establish good customer relations with the local community. 

There is also a market to reuse parts from some older cellphones.  M any consumers purchase a new phone prior to the end of life of their old phone. Apple has been buying back old phones from consumers in order to retrieve the useful parts. Samsung has been recycling and recovering parts from consumers since 2007.  Their STAR program allows for consumers to send electronics to Samsung for recycling.  In some cases, the materials recovered can be used in other applications.  As more parts are recovered, this allows for a value chain for refurbished goods.  Samsung and others sell refurbished goods at a lower price.

When a phone is either too old or it would cost more to recover the useful parts than the cost of the parts, there is always the final recycling solution.  According to an article on Motherboard by Ben Richmond, “In 100,000 cell phones, there is an estimated 2.4 kilograms of gold, 900 kilograms of copper, and 25 kilograms of silver. Depending on the market prices, that could be around $250,000 worth of scrap metal.”

This means that even old electronic technology can still have value in scrap.  The challenge is that each metal requires different processing in order to get it out of these phones and can amount to extensive labor costs.  However, the VTT Technical Research Center of Finland has developed a method to use fungus to recover these precious metals.   In the future, it will be very likely that instead of using chemicals, we will be using fungus as one of many means to help us recycle these devices.