Transportation department assures that drivers from Mexico meet requirements

I'd like to take a moment to weigh in on Jessie William's column summarizing online comment boards -- specifically with regard to a comment on the U.S. Department of Transportation's cross-border trucking demonstration program, "Readers weigh in on ICE office" on May 5.

Under the program, Mexican carriers and drivers are held to the same safety standards as U.S. carriers and drivers.

We have U.S. inspections teams in Mexico verifying that every participating carrier meets the same requirements that apply to U.S. truckers, including: driver training, verification of a U.S. insurance policy, full compliance with hours-of-service regulations, vehicle maintenance, the ability to communicate in English, and drug and alcohol testing. Every inspected carrier has sent its drivers to U.S. labs to collect samples and conduct these tests.

The inspectors also conduct a full, 38-point, front-to-back inspection on every vehicle that the carrier intends to use in the United States.

So far, 27 carriers have passed this inspection, accounting for approximately 150 vehicles. This program will be capped at 100 carriers. As such, it's difficult to imagine a scenario with "more than 5,000 Mexican trucks."

This program will allow U.S. carriers to expand their businesses into Mexico for the first time ever, beginning at the same time that Mexican trucks are allowed to operate beyond the U.S. border areas. These opportunities put the program on track to lower costs for U.S. consumers and make our economy more competitive.

John H. Hill is administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Both of my children gained valuable educations at Aims Community College

According to the Tribune's May 18 editorial, "Aims Community College will be more 'on course' if it offers more vocational degrees and certificates, and fewer transfer degrees." As a parent of two Aims graduates, I fail to understand the logic of the editorial.

My daughter is just completing an Associate of Applied Science in graphic design. She learned up-to-the-minute software and will soon start an internship in her field. My son, on the other hand, earned an Associate of Science Degree and transferred to Colorado State University where he earned a bachelor's degree in computer science. He's now a software developer at Raytheon. He never complained about his Aims education. Quite the contrary. The courses he took there in calculus, physics and C++ gave him a firm foundation for his upper-division coursework at CSU in artificial intelligence and genetic algorithms.

For some reason, Aims' well-documented ability to prepare engineering and computer science students so that they compete favorably at CSU, the University of Colorado and the Colorado School of Mines is a secret in this community.

I'm proud of both my children and very happy with the education they both received. According to the editorial, what my daughter did at Aims was more "on course" than what my son did. As a parent, I cannot understand why on earth one is better than the other.

Source : http://www.greeleytrib.com