Property Rights
In Washington state the town of North Bend has all but outlawed truck Parking on I-94 JWO Snoqualmie Pass, which is a major E/W Interstate into Seattle. The towns of Albertville and Otsego in Minnesota is also making it difficult for a truck stop to exist near I-94. These are just two examples of Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) property owners when it comes to truck stops and therein lies the problem. Do property owners have a right to quash a truck stop, when that truck stop is a stopping place for trucks who are mandated to stop? Do the property owners have the last say, if it is a public safety issue?
One of the biggest issues in trucking today in America is; how do municipalities help alleviate the commercial truck parking problem? Do municipalities even have an obligation to help? Are property rights more important than public safety? Public safety and the safety of the drivers are in peril because of not enough places to park.
In 2009 Jason Rivenburg was shot and killed while parked at a closed gas station waiting for the time to go to a location to unload. The receiving location wouldn't let him stay there, the shoulder of the road is illegal to park on, and there was no truck stop. So he parked in an unlit unsafe place and was killed for $7.
The reason for Jason having to stop, was because of The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or FMCSA, mandating hours of service. A driver can only drive 11 hours in a 14 hour period, at which time they need to have 10 consecutive hours in the sleeper. That mandate created a shortage not only in parking, but safe parking. Truck drivers need more safe places to park.
The hours of service rules are meant a safety measure that keeps drivers from becoming fatigued, and thus a safety hazard. More safe places need to be made available to drivers so they can stop and live to tell about it.
Property owners have a right to their neighborhoods. But if the land is near an Interstate then a compromise needs to be made to let the truck stop exist or expand, while allowing the property owners certain concessions.
Let's understand what the NIMBY"S don't. Commercial trucks bring 75% of what is consumed in this country. Without trucks this country shuts down. Through proper zoning policies municipalities can place these stop area's in an area where it is commercial, and not residential. There are two way's to solve this problem.
One way to solve the problem, is to build regional distribution network on rail lines, so as to make the over the road trucker obsolete. The runs would be shorter, and then the parking problem would sort itself out.
The other way is to build more private and government rest area's. And to do this land is needed, Which brings us to our original question. Do private property rights supersede the safety of the drivers that deliver what they consume. The former is years off, the latter could and should be used as a stopgap between the past and the future in trucking. Not to mention to make us a little bit more safe. So what say you?
One of the biggest issues in trucking today in America is; how do municipalities help alleviate the commercial truck parking problem? Do municipalities even have an obligation to help? Are property rights more important than public safety? Public safety and the safety of the drivers are in peril because of not enough places to park.
In 2009 Jason Rivenburg was shot and killed while parked at a closed gas station waiting for the time to go to a location to unload. The receiving location wouldn't let him stay there, the shoulder of the road is illegal to park on, and there was no truck stop. So he parked in an unlit unsafe place and was killed for $7.
The reason for Jason having to stop, was because of The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or FMCSA, mandating hours of service. A driver can only drive 11 hours in a 14 hour period, at which time they need to have 10 consecutive hours in the sleeper. That mandate created a shortage not only in parking, but safe parking. Truck drivers need more safe places to park.
The hours of service rules are meant a safety measure that keeps drivers from becoming fatigued, and thus a safety hazard. More safe places need to be made available to drivers so they can stop and live to tell about it.
Property owners have a right to their neighborhoods. But if the land is near an Interstate then a compromise needs to be made to let the truck stop exist or expand, while allowing the property owners certain concessions.
Let's understand what the NIMBY"S don't. Commercial trucks bring 75% of what is consumed in this country. Without trucks this country shuts down. Through proper zoning policies municipalities can place these stop area's in an area where it is commercial, and not residential. There are two way's to solve this problem.
One way to solve the problem, is to build regional distribution network on rail lines, so as to make the over the road trucker obsolete. The runs would be shorter, and then the parking problem would sort itself out.
The other way is to build more private and government rest area's. And to do this land is needed, Which brings us to our original question. Do private property rights supersede the safety of the drivers that deliver what they consume. The former is years off, the latter could and should be used as a stopgap between the past and the future in trucking. Not to mention to make us a little bit more safe. So what say you?
Comments
Post a Comment