Issues in Freight Transportation Regulation: Discussion

Abstract

The two papers I will discuss today appear to be quite different in approach to the subject matter of transportation policy. Shaffer speaks about the problems of instituting market and political mechanisms for articulating preferences for transportation. Kriebel and Baumel discuss issues in freight transportation regulation from the viewpoint of carriers, shippers, consumers, and policy makers. Shaffer's presentation leads us to a new slant in mostly traditional policy questions, while the Kriebel and Baumel summarizes traditional positions associated with the deregulation question. But, the papers are not as different from each other as first glance would suggest because both focus on the question of how the conflicting preferences should be resolved in the area of transportation policy, specifically regulation. This commonality is reinforced by the decision of the authors only to raise questions in their presentations rather than provide answers or even a framework for seeking out solutions. I do hope this was the charge of the paper received by authors because I do not, as I will indicate below, believe it is the state of affairs in transportation policy. Shaffer offers us a traditional, nonrigorous treatment of pricing, regulation, and ownership. It is in the areas ofjurisdictional boundaries, settlement impact, and energy-market problems where his known innovativeness and perspective became evident. Nowhere is the question of jurisdictional boundaries more evident than the current discussion, at the federal level, of truck weight and length variation in state regulations. Preference articulation in this instance may be achieved by a federal mandate on weight and length to be settled in a court case evaluating states rights. A point worth repeating is Shaffer's assertion in his discussion on settlement impact, that decisions in regard to location of activity made by