ROBINSON CRUSOE’s Roadway Ruminations

ROBINSON CRUSOE’s Roadway Ruminations

Daniel Defoe, the author of “Robinson Crusoe” was a keen observer of the importance of a well established and maintained highway system ,complaining that England, “ groans under the repairs of the highways.” In an essay entitled: “On Projects” written in 1692 ( about 25 years before the publication of his most famous work, Robinson Crusoe,) Defoe expounded on the importance of a highway system noting there are a “thousand conveniences of a safe, pleasant and well maintained highway system.”

I couldn’t help but be reminded of Pres. Obama’s 2009 $800 billion stimulus package promising a full throat-ed funding of “shovel ready jobs ” and the Nation’s obsession with our deteriorating infrastructure system. Defoe’s essay could have been written yesterday.

Defoe understood that there was little glamor in maintaining roadways but in his essay reminded the readers that the Romans setting “ aside their barbarity of customs as heathens,” believed that roadway maintenance was so important they employed “whole armies” to conduct such efforts. The American Civil Engineer Society could not have written anything so precise.

But Defoe’s keen observations relied forthrightly on the power of government ( in this case Parliament) not only to support and foster a strategic roadway system , but be the driving force to bringsuch endeavors to fruition. Or as Defoe wrote: “ To fix it.” He wrote about the power of government to seize property ( eminent domain as we know it) and “allowing satisfaction to be made to the property owner.” And such compensation could be appealed by the owner if unsatisfied with the amount.

Defoe wrote of establishing Commissions throughout England consisting of persons who would sit and evaluate roadways and determine necessity for expansions etc. The Commission would prepare a list of roadways to be upgraded, expanded and new roadways; establish cost estimates, determine how to fund the projects , seek and review bids for the work, award a bid, inspect the work and issue incremental payments And this is how public bid projects are administered today.

And as Defoe describes the scope of the Commissions’ duties to evaluate inter municipal cooperative roadway improvements , it maybe the first cited example of Joint Municipal Planning.

Defoe advocated roadway elements such as signage; names and miles to destinations at all crossways. He also saw an opportunity for roadways to assist the poor who would live in homes to be built during roadway construction activities . He suggested to have these homes (cottages) “ erected at certain distances” where the poor could dwell and in turn perform certain maintenance /oversight duties in lieu of rent.

But Defoe wasn’t altruistic in every suggestion. There was of course the question who would perform the labor? He had an answer: Criminals. Such “ criminals as are condemned to die for smaller crimes ( petty theft?) may, instead… be ordered a year’s work on the highways.” Think modern era chain gangs. And “instead of whippings” - put criminals to work on a roadway for a “propositioned time.” He also suggested the use of negro slaves noting that the roadway construction projects could be advanced if “ 200 Negroes, who are generally persons that do a great deal of work,” could be brought to the construction sites.

Not an engineer by trade , Defoe understood the importance of drainage to a roadway and of securing sufficient rights of way for the cart path, a cleared shoulder and adequate drainage area to remove standing water.

In this essay Defoe listed specific roadways to be upgraded and repaired and roadways to be constructed. His lists identified mileage lengths; material and cost estimates for each roadway segment. He discussed how the monies would be raised, what type of security of performance should be established and spelled out the amount of profit the “undertaker of the project” ( contractor) should receive. There were no prevailing wage rates at this time.

Defoe would later expound on his “roadways in England theories” in an essay, “ A Tour Thro’ The Whole Island Of Great Britain Divided Into Circuits Or Journeys,(1792)” In this essay Defoe heaped praise on an Act of Parliament which established turnpike trusts and toll collecting to construct, and maintain roadways. He also recognized an opportunity for the privatization of roadways and collection of traveler fees (tolls) for their continual maintenance, especially key highways that carried commercial activity.

We have seen various attempts at privatizing highways/toll roads here in America. There are a variety of classification of roadways that fall within the term privately owned and operated. Some of the examples below were built with private dollars and some were originally with public funds but then at some point were leased to private firms to maintain and operate.

The earliest privately constructed toll road was probably the Lancaster Pike, built in 1792 which ran from Philadelphia to Lancaster , PA now known as Rt 30. California allowed a private consortium to construct toll lanes within the medium of the Riverside Freeway in 1989. Virginia negotiated a privately funded 14 mile highway project which connects Dulles Airport in Washington, DC with Leesburgh , VA. And Disney World in Orlando Florida built a series of major highway roads to service their resort. And the Chicago ( Illinois) Sky way as it is known , was a publicly constructed 7.5 mile highway which in 2006 was leased to a Private concern for its complete operations.

Lately America has witnessed the transfer of major highway segments , via negotiated leases, to private concerns which are charged to operate , maintain and collect revenues. I think this action has been facilitated by the advent of electronic toll collection. A key reason for a publicly owned and operated highway toll system was patronage- jobs. A toll collector job came with grand benefits both during work career and retirement . How else to explain the ( now defunct) minor roadway 10 cent toll booths along the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey? Operating 24 hours a day, seven days week, what was the personnel costs for these ?

Well ,here we are 300 + years since Defoe’s roadway ruminations and we are discussing those issues illuminated but in 21^st century terminology. I will re-read Robinson Crusoe to determine if he had any obsession with roadways on the deserted island.

WORCESTER: I was a Teenage Gravedigger, Pt I

WORCESTER: I WAS A TEENAGE GRAVE DIGGER Pt 1

I was a gravedigger many years ago in my home town, Worcester, MA. An interesting summer job.

As a grave digger I was in pretty lofty company. Abraham Lincoln as a sexton in a church dug graves. Shakespeare understood the importance of gravediggers. In “Hamlet” at the burial site of Ophelia, we meet two of “us” and some light hearted banter. Both Lenin and Trotsky of the 1918 Russian revolution saw the bourgeois as grave diggers – for their own graves!

Merriam-Webster’s web site defines a gravedigger as “one that digs graves especially as a means of livelihood.” Oh, and the site also informs you that this word is currently in the “bottom 20% of look-ups.”

Gravedigging is a very important and unheralded occupation and has often been a contentious labor issue with far reaching consequences. In 1992 Chicago’s unionized gravediggers went on strike just before Christmas and by the first week of January, 1993 over 200 bodies had yet to be properly interred.

In January ,1979 in Liverpool England gravediggers had gone on strike along with sanitation workers. Soon over 150 bodies were awaiting burial with about 25 more per day. The City Council considered allowing family members or private contractors to dig the graves but were concerned about “unseemly scenes at cemetery gates” with union members.

And in 1919 gravediggers at St Michael s Cemetery on Long Island, NY went on strike to demand a pay raise from $3.75 to $4.00 per day and a six day work week, according to the NYT “TimesMachine” site.

T here shouldn’t be much levity in gravedigging or lounging about in a graveyard, but in Mel Brook’s 1971 masterpiece ”Young Frankenstein” as Dr. Frank Frankenstein (Gene Wilder) and Igor (Marty Feldman) attempt to wrench a coffin out of the ground, Dr. Frank says: “What a filthy job.” Igor remarks: “It could be worse.” Dr. Frank :” How? Igor: “ It could be raining.” And you guessed it. It begins to pour.

                                                              I would arrive at the cemetery around 7:30AM. There was a crew of about 2 or 3 that showed up each morning to get our daily assignments. The Manager, Louis, was a tall angular fellow with close cropped gray kinky hair. We called him the old man. He had a severe case of psoriasis especially on his hands and arms. When he gestured small flakes of dry skin would waft down onto the floor. We would glance at each other and hold back the laughter.

Most of crew were teenagers like me, happy to have a summer job with outside work. Every now and then an older guy would appear and I often wondered about his life. What paths did he lead or leave behind thatn brought him to this time and place.

His office was adjacent to the non denominational chapel where services were held. His office also served as a crematorium . The outside wall was lined with scolded red bricks and in the center was the door where the (wooden) coffins, stripped of their handles, would be pushed along a light rail deep into the oven.

He would give us our daily work orders and then motion to the oven door. “Jack, you’ ll help ,me with the job.” The job was the cremation. And Jack was me.

On a table near a window that overlooked the cemetery was a collection of artificial hip sockets and other surgically inserted body paraphernalia that was not consumed by the pyre. We weren’t sure if there was any order to how these things were displayed. We hoped there was none. That would have been really odd. But Louis did take some perverse enjoyment from the collection. Every now and then he would hold a hip joint socket in his palm, study it for a moment and exclaim: “ This guy was a big guy.”

Days before a scheduled funeral Louis holding a rolled up engineering plat of the cemetery’s section ,and I would walk to the area of the burial site. I usually held 4 or 5 small pointed wooden stakes. Louis would pull out a measuring tape and placing it in an exact spot have me walk the tape to the dimensions he called. “ Stop!” I would stop and hammer a stake where the tape directed. A couple more measurements and we had the four corners of the grave staked, string lines attached and the poor deceased’ s final resting spot was now ready for excavation.

Rod Stewart the famous British singer performed this grave site measuring/stringing activity in an English cemetery giving rise to the myth that he once was a gravedigger. “It's a

delicious, mysterious piece of back-story”” he said. I think he perpetrated the myth because it attracted girls. In my world it didn’t.

The dump truck holding all our tools would be backed onto the grave site area. Included were rolls of green shiny plastic artificial grass. We removed the sod and then Louis drove the backhoe and opened the grave. The bucket would place the dirt aside the grave and level it out. One of the crew members would jump into the grave , remove the last few inches and square the base . “ Tight square, tight corners,” Louis called out.

The back hoe lifted the rectangular concrete vault pieces into position first the base then the four sides. I usually had the duty of jumping into the grave and directing the pieces so that there was a snug fit. “ Count those fingers, Jack” Louis would say, “ Be sure you climb of there with all ten.”The cap remained on the truck. The vault will prevent the grave from caving-in as the wooden coffin deteriorates over the decades.

Back hoe removed, we rolled out the plastic green grass around the grave and spread it smooth. Sometimes a canopy was erected which interfered with our grave closure routine. We loaded the tools and half hidden by a maple tree, lit cigarettes and awaited the procession and muffled words

I did not know their names or anything about the deceased. But I vividly remember watching the assembled mourners standing along the grave’s edge glancing down into the impenetrable bronze/back rectangular hole that I and the crew had recently excavated. And as soon as the last mourner had departed the grave, as soon as the last vehicle was loaded and rolling towards the graveyard entrance the crew would pounce onto the gravesite. In a well rehearsed style we rolled up the grass sheaths, had the concrete cap settled onto the grave and then begin the task of filling the grave with the excavated soil. We used a tamping bar to insure the dirt was solidly packed around all edges. We laid the sod and tamped it down tight. The grass would cover all the disturbance of burial.

I was always reminded of Carl Sandburg’s poem “Grass” a homage and lamentation to battlefield deaths. “I am the grass ;I cover all. I am the grass. Let me do my work.”

I think back upon those moments when our crew sat idle waiting for the burial ceremony to end. We were young; we had no experience with funerals or death. But now 40 years on, I’m sure those grave digging crew members, like me, have attended a fair share of burial ceremonies. Mothers, fathers, siblings, children, dear friends.

And as I stood over my father’s grave one rainy Monday morning many years ago, I knew nearby, out of view a grave digging crew was waiting… with a job to do.

END

EMPTY WINDSHILEDS VEHICLE SAFETY INSPECTIONS

EMPTY WINDSHIELDS

The circuitous route of Vehicular State Safety Inspection Programs.

As a transplanted North easterner, I grew accustomed in a subtle safety way, to see a small calendar- driven State Vehicle Safety Inspection sticker prominently displayed on a vehicle’s interior windshield. Usually in bold red square Gothic letters , it boasted the month and year of expiration. There was a sense of accomplishment, of responsibility that my vehicle successfully passed a safety test. I had one on my windshield and everyone I knew had one on theirs. In fact, I knew of no one legally and for any length of time, driving on a public road (day or night) with out one.

Years ago when a vehicle failed the safety inspection, the owner was shamed into riding around with a bright oval REJECTION sticker prominently displayed on the windshield. And you had 30 days to correct the defect. ( New Englanders love their “Scarlet Letter” moments.)

As I traveled our Nation’s interstate highways and state roadways I must have unconsciously assumed that every vehicle I saw had successfully passed a state -mandated vehicle safety inspection of the important mechanical operations; brake function, tail lights working, turn signals operating correctly, and the measurement of a tire’s tread depth. Important safety items.

When you hail from a state that requires vehicle safety inspections (VSI) as an integral component of maintaining your your vehicle’s registration , you are resigned to experience the pressure of having your driving privilege in the hands of an auto mechanic . And when your vehicle has “passed” the inspection, once the inspection mechanic (registered and licensed by the state) peels the adhesive from the back of the sticker and pastes the 2.5” rectangle onto your interior windshield you can drive away with a level of confidence in those crucial vehicle safety mechanicals. And breath a sigh of relief.

But now I live in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina- a state that does-not have a Vehicle Safety Inspection Program (VSIP.) How can this be ? Maybe the blue SC- registered VW ahead me on Farrow Boulevard has worn brake linings! Is the traveling public at risk? Am I at risk? And if SC doesn’t have a VSIP, how many other states do not? Am I safer on a VSIP- state road? Do VSIP states have better accident avoidance rates? There are studies that speak to this quandary. But first a brief history of state sponsored safety inspection programs.

What began as a volunteer safety inspection program in Massachusetts in 1926 was soon followed by state mandated programs amongst some states and then ultimately a National mandated program requiring all states to implement a VSIP via Congressional legislation in 1966. This Act set the stage for a classic state sovereignty versus -federal mandate struggle. And we know the outcome.

Only 15 states have a mandated VSIP as of 2016. In fact, Mississippi just recently repealed its VSIP in 2015. And North Carolina ( see below) is teetering on abandoning theirs, too.

TABLE :GAO , Appendix II

Most states without a mandatory VSIP allow patrolling officers to stop a vehicle and, if deemed necessary in the opinion of the officer, may require certain safety inspections before it is allowed to continue. ( Thank God!- we have all seen a vehicle on the roadway that has met- or exceeded this test.)

Some states require a safety inspection by the age of the vehicle measured from date of initial registration. In Delaware once the vehicle reaches 5 registration years , it is subjected to a VSI. In Utah the Beehive state, once a vehicle attains the registration age of 10 years an annual VSI is required .

The following states have annual inspections regardless of the registration age ; ME, MD , MA, NH, NY, NC , PA ( also emissions inspection in certain population centers like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia as a result of the Clean Air Act, 1990;) and TX. Louisiana and Rhode Island require a VSI every two years.

In some states, inspections are done at state-operated garages, usually located somewhere near the local DMV office. Drivers in other states have the option to go to privately owned garages that are eligible to conduct inspections with approval from the state DOT.

In 1926 Massachusetts was the first state to promulgate vehicle safety standards via inspections but on a voluntary basis. New York and Maryland soon followed. In 1927 these states sought a volunteer inspection program, sponsored by AAA under the slogan: “ Save a Life.” By 1966 21 states had implemented mandatory VSIPs. But Washington was intent on requiring all 50 states to enact such requirements.

In 1966 Congress passed the Highway Safety Act which mandated every state to introduce and maintain a VSIP. That same legislation established the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (NTMVS) which promulgated national standards for vehicle registration, operation and inspection. And contained within the Highway Safety Act’s directives was the The Highway Safety Program which provided states with funding to implement the federally mandated VSIP but with a firm deadline: December 31, 1969. That was 47 years ago.

Washington had created a classic confrontation between the national government and the states. A one size fits all vehicle safety inspection program for our nation was sure to encounter obstacles. States balked. So by 1976 Congress had weakened the Highway Safety Act’s authority to enforce its own VSI regulations. Hence the hodgepodge of VSI regulations we have today. The original VSIP states- mostly in the Northeast became sort of original colonies once more.

It wasn’t until 1970 that Congress amended the Highway Safety Act to create the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with the following mission :“ to help reduce the number of deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes in the Nation’s highways.”

Of course key questions arise concerning the efficacy of a VSIP.

First, is there a measurable effect regarding vehicle accident history in states with an active VSIP versus those without?

Second, are the costs to administer such programs ( inspection fees paid by the public, administering State bureaucracies ) less than, equal to, or greater than the benefits derived from a VSIP? Less accidents, less insurance costs, less angst.

The answers of course are not easily discernible.

There are many studies which evaluated the effectiveness of a safety inspection program. There has been a cascading race to conduct VSIP studies; and studies to study the original study and studies to study a compilation of studies ( in a per-review situation.) Publication literature on this topic can be dizzying. But many studies seem to have some unmeasurable threads which disturb a purely statistical analysis. They are driven by anecdotal information , personal observations and the domains of the stakeholders ( Advocacy groups like Automobile Repair Association, NHTSA, AAA and participating state governments.).

Most studies begin with a conjecture : a Vehicle Safety Inspection Program is a factor is reducing vehicle accidents .And not surprisingly with such a complicated platform of analysis, for every determinant justifying a VSIP there is a corresponding study that found the search for such evidence to be elusive at best and in some studies totally unjustified. For example A GAO report“ Vehicle Safety Inspections (2015)” cited a NHTSA figure that vehicle component failure is a factor in 2-7 % of all crashes. But the report noted that such a “relatively small percentage” makes it difficult to “determine the effect of inspections programs based on crash data.”

One of the most prominent and cited analysis was conducted by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. for Pennsylvania’s Department of Transportation. The report issued March 2009 used as it basis for statistical analysis the Federally maintained “Fatality Analysis Reporting System.”

Measuring the level and frequency of fatalities and not a general analysis of traffic accidents, the report concluded: “states with vehicle safety inspection programs have significantly [fewer] fatal crashes than states without programs. The results of the research clearly demonstrate that the Vehicle Safety Inspection program in Pennsylvania is effective and saves lives.” The report noted the level of fatalities seems to increase with the age of vehicles; 3 model year old vehicles and up were more apt to be involved in a fatal car crash.

But there are many studies that analyzed the cost effectiveness of Periodic Inspection Programs. One by Arthur Wolfe and James O’Day , (1985) published by the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute studied 41 such studies witch sought evidence that “ requiring all motorists to have certain safety components-inspected and repaired- on a regular basis are less than the benefits gained from inspections in terms of safer vehicles and fewer vehicle-defect accidents.”

Their conclusion: “There is credible evidence that existing vehicle safety inspection programs are not as reliable in detecting degraded safety components and forcing their repair.”

Anther study appearing in Public Choice Magazine, December 2002 written by Daniel Sutter and Marc Poitras titled : “ Political Economy of Automobile Safety Inspections” which zeroed in on the key stakeholder in any mandatory vehicle safety inspection program-the State bureaucracy that administers it, or put in another way- public interests versus political interests. The article concludes: “ Recent studies find that safety inspections fail to improve highway safety.” And , “ the continued existence of inspection programs can be attributed to political transactions versus demands of interest groups.” Or , states with a VSIP have enormous political capital invested in such programs.

Another study conducted by Sutter and Poitras as published in the Southern Economic Journal, April 2002, concluded that “ Inspections had no significant impact on the number of older cars on the road or the amount of revenue that repair companies earn.”

And to begin to bring VSIP s perilously close to the precipice of effective doubtfulness, North Carolina General Assembly’s Program Evaluation Division recently set about to determine , “ if the state’s vehicle safety ( and emission) programs are effective for required mechanical systems.”

The Report’s ( #2008-12-06, 2008) conclusion : “No evidence exists that safety inspection programs are effective” and North Carolina should “ reevaluate the need for a safety inspection program.” The Report also recommended that vehicles 3 model years or less should be exempt for the program should it continue. As noted above advocacy stakeholders in this debate have a big stake in the program. North Carolina allocates over $40,000,000 to its inspection program annually.

The international community also grapples with vehicle safety inspections. Japan has completed evaluations of the effectiveness of vehicle safety Inspections. Writing in the Social Science Research Network Journal , K. Saito, June , 2009 produced an article titled: “ Evaluating Automobile Inspection Policy Using Auto Insurance Data” which investigated the relationship between care age and accident rates. The author concludes that there is :“little evidence that accident rates decline due to safety inspections… most vehicle accidents are not caused by mechanical failure.”

A visit to the NHTSA’s website reveals their position ( as April, 2014) advocating for a VSIP a position which has not changed in 47 years.

It states:

“Each State (should) have a program for periodic inspection of all registered vehicles to reduce the number of vehicles with existing or potential conditions that may contribute to crashes or increase the severity of crashes that do occur, and should require the owner to correct such conditions.
1. An inspection program would provide, at a minimum, that:

a. Every vehicle registered in the State is inspected at the time of initial registration and on a periodic basis thereafter.
b. The inspection is performed by competent personnel specifically trained to perform their duties and certified by the State.
c. The inspection covers systems, subsystems, and components having substantial relation to safe vehicle performance.”

There are numerous organizations advocating for a VSIP. The American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators which represents “ states and Provincial ( Canada)officials who administer and enforce vehicle laws” including vehicle safety, recommends member jurisdictions “ … implement mechanical safety inspection programs… ( Amended 2013)”

Those advocating a VSIP maintain that many accidents are caused by defective vehicle components; periodic inspection programs are vital to insure minimum safety standards are met. But critics of a VSIP believe that owners are self-encouraged to maintain their vehicles in a safe manner. Also auto manufacturers are building more durable components with built-in deterioration warnings.

The Automobile Service Association which advances “professionalism and excellence in the automotive repair industry “ and a strong advocate of VSIPs believes the Federal government should offer incentives to States to either institute a VSIP or enhance existing ones and offers another advantage of such programs: “ VSIPs provide an avenue for increased recall awareness.”

It just seems common sense that a vehicle that has successfully passed a safety inspection is a safer vehicle – to drive and drive aside. But the evidence does not support this conclusion.

A flaw in the collection of accident data and evaluation of the efficacy of VSIP, especially the safety factor maybe a result of lack of information collected in a vehicle accident incident report (IR). Most officers completing an IR, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is is the inability to ascertain such information in a timely and cost effective manner, do not measure the tread depth nor brake lining caliber nor does an IR determine brake light or turn signal function status, all of which are integral components of a VSIP.

Perhaps a more comprehensive IR data collection system might help to measure such safety factors. Another opportunity to find compromise on this issue could be what some states are doing and have done; give amnesty to inspections for model years 4 and under. Maybe 5.

Perhaps auto insurers could offer policy discounts to owners registered in a VSIP mandated state . And offer discounts to insurers who voluntarily have their vehicles inspected according to “industry -designed standards.” If only the data could support such incentives. But it doesn’t.

But I put aside this algorithm dance when I am stopped on a steep incline at a red signal and watch as a 1988 red Buick Le Sabre comes rolling down in my lane with a headlight dangling from its front frame and a glistening cracked windshield. I hold my breath when I see its empty windshield.

END