MarEx Mailbag: Reader Response to Last Weeks MarEx Editorial and a Letter-to-the-Editor
MarEx reader weighs in on last week’s editorial, entitled “Cleaning Up the Mess: It’s the Clogged Arteries, Stupid,” as well as a letter written by another reader.
In last week’s edition of the MarEx e-newsletter, our lead editorial addressed (once again) the idea of Shortsea Shipping (brace yourself, I’m not going away on this one), through a piece that framed its arguments around a very fine article first published in “The Atlantic.” Written by Bruce Katz and Robert Puentes, the excellent piece details the billions of dollars lost and added freight costs incurred at various big cities and U.S. ports because of increasing congestion – and despite almost $50 billion spent last year for surface transportation improvements. You can read last week’s editorial by clicking HERE. You can also see what our reader thought about the article, and a letter to the editor from last week’s e-newsletter, below:
Joe,
I saw your comments in your most recent e-mail newsletter re: the “Clogged Arteries” piece in The Atlantic and thought you might find this of interest.
In the tail-end of the Clinton administration a group of industry leaders from across all transportation modes produced a document titled Vision 2050: An Integrated National Transportation System. http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/www/people/rjhans/docs/vision2050.pdf
I think the document is still pretty good and merits being resurrected. You may feel differently after you have looked at it. If so, I would like to know your objections.
With regard to the letter re: commercial vessels steaming to the aid of a distressed vessel in the right whale speed control area, I think it unlikely that a vessel responding to a call for help would be prosecuted. The obligation to render assistance is based in law, as would be any speed restriction. When laws conflict, judgment is necessary in the application of the law, and specifics matter a lot in the exercise of judgment. Having said all of that, I would like to suggest that there is a course of action that would be very helpful in such a situation.
Any vessel having heard a call for assistance should, as the very first act, ensure (or at least try to ensure) that the call for assistance has been received by the cognizant Rescue Coordination Center, as well as other vessels in the area. In relaying the call, the relaying vessel should also offer its assistance if needed. The RCC will be in a much better position to know what assistance is in the area and whether or not the relaying vessel’s help is needed. It may be that there is other assistance better positioned to offer aid. Or it may be that the RCC will accept the offer and ask the would-be rescuer to proceed to the distressed vessel. At that point, the assisting vessel should be covered. At least, I would hope so.
Regards,
Bob
Robert G. Ross - CAPT, USCG (Retired)
Chief, Risk Sciences Branch
Special Programs Division
Science and Technology Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Bob Ross weighs in from time to time and keeps me honest in my writing and opinions. I have left the link in to the document that Bob references; MarEx readers may find it to be of interest. To be honest, I haven’t yet had the opportunity to read the document – but, I will. With regard to policy that affects vessels compelled to exceed speed limits in restricted areas (right whale speed control areas, to be specific), Mr. Ross makes some excellent suggestions. But, I’d be more comfortable with firm policy laid out by the government. Ideally, that sort of contingency would be specified before enforcing a rule on a group of mariners who are already nervous about being prosecuted for a myriad of other things. Again, maybe NOAA will write in to MarEx and give us clarity on the matter. I hope so, too. But, I’m having a bit trouble defining exactly what “hope” means, especially this week.