As Yogi Berra would say, “it’s déjà vu all over again.”  Last spring, the House passed H.147, an extensive highway safety bill which 1) created a ban on handheld electronic devices; 2) created a primary seatbelt law and 3) place additional restrictions on young drivers for night time driving, cell phone use, and carrying passengers.  This was sent to the Senate where it remains unattended.

This winter, the Senate passed a brand new bill, S.280 with the narrow purpose of banning texting while driving. The “texting bill” went to House Judiciary which added back the broader language from H.147.  This passed the House last week. I voted in support of the expanded House bill and here is why:

In 2006, the Strategic Highway Safety Plan was created following a near record-breaking year for highway deaths and incapacitating injuries.  A report to the governor indicated that traffic crashes cost Vermont about $221 million each year in medical expenses, lost productivity, property damage and related costs.  The report also indicated that each highway fatality cost the state close to $1 million. This was seen as a terrible toll in terms of human suffering and financial loss resulting from motor vehicle crashes.  Something needed to be done.

In July, 2006, the Vermont Department of Health held a symposium on preventing crashes among young drivers bringing together key leaders in highway safety, transportation, public health and youth development.  From a public health perspective, motor vehicle accidents were found to be the most serious and the leading cause of death among teenagers.  According to the Vermont Safety Education Center, about two-thirds of crash deaths involving young drivers occurred when carrying teenage passengers. In fact, crash risks were found to increase incrementally with one, two, three or more passengers and the risk was three times higher when driving three or more passengers. A second finding from VSEC indicated that four out of every ten teen accidents occur between 9 pm and 6 am with midnight to 2 am being the most deadly.  A third finding revealed that cell phone use and teen drivers, new to driving and vulnerable to distraction, was a very bad mix.

As for seatbelt use, crashes involving unrestrained persons cost 55% more than restrained persons and these accidents are not born by the victims alone. About 74% of these costs are born by society thereby blunting the “personal freedom” argument.  Vermont currently has a secondary seatbelt law meaning a person must first be stopped for a primary office, such as speeding, and can then be given a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.  In addition, states with primary seat belt laws tend to see 10% more use. Law enforcement officials backed this change, noting the secondary law was confusing.

There are certainly arguments that talking on a cell phone is just one of many distractions such as adjusting CD’s, and attending to children.  Questions also remain as to whether hands-free usage while driving is really any safer than handheld; however a total ban is unlikely.  Like cup holders, cell phone usage while driving is here to stay.  That handheld usage is more easily enforced and hands-free allows drivers to keep two hands on the wheel were compelling arguments in support of this bill.

It is unlikely the Senate will accept this broader version and the bill will end up in a smaller committee of conference to reconcile the differences.  I would expect the hugely popular texting ban to remain, however the future of the primary seatbelt law, use of handheld electronic devices and young driver restrictions remains unclear.

Our committee continues to receive weekly updates from the radiologic health chief.  We will be scheduling a trip to Vernon in order to see the activities and speak with those on site in 2 weeks.

Dr. Irwin reported that a significant leakage source has been found in a flawed concrete joint in the AOG pipe tunnel.  VY and NRC concur that this is one clear source of groundwater contamination which probably occurred in the last 18-24 months.  While this is one leak, it may not be the only leak.  It could be that about 300,000 gallons of ground water are contaminated and could have been happening at a rate of about 100 gallons per day.

Dr. Irwin’s review of the documents indicated that the AOG system was modified in 1972, creating a very long pipe tunnel that was otherwise inaccessible to inspection.  Later modifications in 1978 were described as “a set of construction practices that are, frankly, totally alien to nuclear facility construction practices.”  He described one piece of form wood originally used to create a form around the impaired concrete duct that had been left there “by neglect.” Over the course of years, when the wood rotted, this created an open space or pathway for this water to leak out (especially when wet) of this otherwise sealed pipe tunnel.

When asked if he thought this could happen again, he state that these exact circumstances might not happen, however the evidence that the workmanship here was “so shoddy it would not likely pass the local town building inspector, let alone the nuclear facility inspector…This defies all basic engineering principles, in my opinion, to have so much important piping where it is physically uninspectable, let alone where you have to literally break thru 24 inch concrete flooring to get to it to affect any repairs.” It is possible that this kind of work may have occurred elsewhere.

In his discussion with the VY engineer, they acknowledged that “when this kind of work was done in 60-70′s for these nuclear power plants, people really thought that it was unlikely that these plants would have to run so long that corrosion problems such as this would occur…It was in an era when it was too cheap to meter and where multiple hundreds of nuclear power plants would exist and this one would simply be shut down after a certain period of time and a new one put up next to it to replace it.”

Dr. Irwin was also asked about the missing awareness of underground pipes, he said to his knowledge the documentation of these pipes has always been there.  He saw dates from the drawings from 60′s and 70′s.  He saw documents that list dates like 2007, so he didn’t know the basis for those opinions. “It seems pretty clear that people have known about all of these.”

When tritium first made itself known, they suspected this AOG pipe tunnel and drain line and had pulled drawings out to review at that time.  There are system engineers that were aware of and very well described all of these systems.  “Why you would think there weren’t any of these is hard to imagine.”

Ah, train travel. You arrive at the station 5 minutes before departure; there is no security screening and you end up right in the center of town. You can sleep, read and even text safely while traveling. Once the form of travel that inspired songs, Vermont went the way of many states, preferring the speed of air and the flexibility of the personal automobile. Over time, we have let our tracks deteriorate or even disappear, decreasing the viability of passenger rail to an even greater extent.

As air and road travel have become increasingly more unpleasant, we have seen resurging interest in train travel. First year legislators in the House Transportation Committee could not contain their excitement when the subject of reinvesting in Vermont’s rail system began to seem like a real possibility.

Act 50, passed last year, directed the Agency of Transportation to estimate the cost of upgrading the track and creating passenger rail service along the western corridor from Burlington to Rutland to Bennington to Albany. They also directed the Agency to look at connecting Rutland to Whitehall, New York.

As part of the ARRA stimulus funding, Vermont applied for over $100 million in three separate stimulus rail grants through the Federal Rail Administration. These awards were announced by President Obama the day after his State of the Union address. Vermont won two out of three of the awards. Sadly for Shelburne, the Western Corridor was not one of them.

The “Track-One” grant was awarded to the privately owned New England Central Rail (NECR) line which serves the “Vermonter.” The Vermonter originates in St Albans with service to Essex Junction, Waterbury, Montpelier, White River, Ascutney, Bellows Falls, and Brattleboro. From there, it heads south through Massachusetts and Connecticut then on to New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Improvements to the track, roadbed and bridges were expected to increase speeds, thus decreasing travel time in Vermont by 27 minutes and 80 minutes overall to NYC.

The “Track-Two” grant for the Western Rail Corridor did not go through. The $73 million request would have brought upgrades to the rail line connecting Burlington to Rutland and beyond for both passengers and freight. The Western Corridor is state-owned and run by Vermont Railway systems. For the past decade, $28 million in Jeffords earmarks have gone unspent for this line. This may well have jeopardized this project.

The Track-Three grant award does offer some hope for the future of the Western Corridor. The $500,000 bi-state grant to New York and Vermont will fund a study of the future of passenger rail service between New York City, Albany, Bennington and Rutland. The plan looks at options for equipment, frequency and schedules to assure the most practical and cost effective service for both states. Results of this study may help secure additional funding should federal rail grants become available again.