REMARKS FOR
THE HONORABLE MARY PETERS
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
RIPON SOCIETY CONGRESSIONAL “BULLY PULPIT”
WASHINGTON, D.C.
JUNE 13, 2008
12:20 PM
Good afternoon. Thank you, Congressman Petri for that kind introduction. And I
want to congratulate Chairman Frenzel and the Ripon Society for organizing this
session on transportation.
It is hard to think of a time when transportation commanded so much attention on
both political and public policy agendas or was a more frequent topic of dinner
table conversations around the country.
Unpredictable airline schedules, lengthening daily commutes, and the current
spike in gasoline prices are fueling frustration with a transportation system
that simply is not working as well as it should. And the American people know
it.
A look at public opinion polls confirms that transportation issues are a top
concern in the metropolitan regions that are choked by congestion.
A Harris poll taken last year found one in three Americans surveyed considered
traffic congestion to be a serious problem in their community, rising to one in
two in the West.
An April poll of Bay Area residents found transportation a close second to the
economy (22 percent to 18 percent) as the region’s biggest problem. And locally,
in the Commonwealth poll taken last month, 46 percent of Virginians – and 59
percent in Northern Virginia – said improving transportation is a top priority.
It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that our approach to
transportation in America needs to change. Exploding highway congestion, rising
fuel prices, unsustainable gas taxes, and spending decisions based on political
influence as opposed to merit are eroding confidence in government and
threatening our mobility, economy, and quality of life.
The good news is that we have a tremendous opportunity to reverse these policy
failures by infusing our approach to transportation with the spirit of free
enterprise that is one of the Ripon Society’s core principles.
This is true across the spectrum. And while I will be happy to address aviation
or other matters during the question and answer period, I would like to focus my
remarks today on surface transportation.
The expiration of SAFETEA-LU next year opens up an opportunity to move away from
the current government-centric transportation model in which central planners
try to determine what the market wants, levy taxes to try to meet that need,
then manage design and construction.
We can shift from reliance on regressive “flat fee” gas taxes in favor of a more
equitable user fee system that charges drivers for when and where they drive.
We can tap into the 400 billion in private-sector capital that is available
right now for infrastructure to unleash the greatest new wave of transportation
investment this country has ever seen.
And we can take full advantage of technology to help our congested highways
operate at peak efficiency.
If we get the policy right when SAFETEA-LU comes up for reauthorization… make
that reform… next year, the new bill has the potential to be as far-reaching and
visionary as the legislation President Eisenhower signed in 1956. I am talking
about the law that gave birth to a national Interstate Highway system that would
revolutionize the American economy and way of life.
Let me be clear. If we just content ourselves with figuring out the funding
formula – how to divvy up among the states what is left after the set-asides and
earmarks – we will have failed.
We are operating a system today that is very efficient at giving out money – so
efficient, in fact, that the Highway Trust Fund could run a shortfall before the
year’s end. But it is wildly inefficient at delivering results that improve
commutes or reduce congestion.
Consequently, Americans spend more than 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in
traffic. Not only does gridlock add to stress and cut down on family time, but
it wastes 3 billion gallons of fuel. At today’s gas prices, that is an extra $12
billion at the pump – putting a real strain on family budgets.
The time has come to move beyond superficial discussions of how much money we
are going to spend, and lay a policy foundation that fits our current
circumstances. So I am going to use the Bully Pulpit you have given me to lay
out the principles I believe should define the federal role in transportation
going forward.
To begin, the federal surface transportation program should be refocused on the
areas of greatest federal interest. When we try to be all things to all people,
we fail to be coherent and risk being nothing to anyone.
The program we created 50 years ago was well-defined and well-suited to its
time. The goal was clear: build the Interstate and connect the country – and we
did.
Since that mission was accomplished more than a quarter of a century ago,
however, our federal surface transportation program has lost its sense of
direction. It has become a breeding ground for earmarks and burdened by a
proliferation of special interest programs, goals, and requirements.
When I began working at the Arizona Department of Transportation in the 1980s,
we dealt with only a handful of such programs. Today, states must navigate more
than 108 different programs with numerous requirements and often conflicting
goals.
The time has come to eliminate the earmarks and set-asides and replace this
slice and dice approach with a structure that effectively focuses on the three
areas that are of greatest federal interest: 1) transportation safety; 2) the
Interstate Highway System and other nationally significant corridors; and 3)
mobility in metropolitan areas.
We have taken ownership of safety, and we have made measurable progress in
reducing traffic fatalities. But with over 42,000 deaths on our roads every
year, we still have unfinished business. Using a data-driven approach, we are
focusing – and must continue to focus – on stubborn issues that put drivers,
passengers, and pedestrians at risk, including crashes involving drunk drivers,
motorcycles, work zones, and rural roads.
The federal government should similarly take ownership of improving and
maintaining the condition and performance of the Interstate Highway system and
other major corridors. Roughly one-quarter of all highway miles traveled in the
U.S. takes place on the Interstate system, and these roads are vital to
interstate commerce and global trade. We must continually improve, maintain, and
expand these roads to keep them in good condition and operating at peak
efficiency.
Finally, the massive congestion problem in our urban areas demands urgent and
strong federal focus.
We can use federal dollars to encourage state and local officials to pursue
congestion-relief strategies we know can provide almost immediate relief from
traffic and from high gasoline prices, if we are willing to use them.
Already, forward-leaning Governors and Mayors are leading a quiet revolution by
taking advantage of dynamic road pricing, cutting-edge technologies, and a
creative private sector.
We have seen through our Urban Partnership Agreements how relatively small
amounts of federal funding can serve as an important catalyst for strategies to
fight congestion through innovative combinations of technology, pricing, and
transit.
Just yesterday, I was with Governor Pawlenty and local officials in Minneapolis,
where they are putting a plan in place that almost overnight will relieve
traffic on one of the Twin Cities’ busiest highways.
Minneapolis is converting existing HOV and shoulder lanes along I-35 West to
High Occupancy Toll lanes. Commuters eager to use these new, dynamically priced
express lanes will pay modest tolls that vary with the amount of traffic. They
also will be available for Bus Rapid Transit.
The concept is a simple yet proven way to keep traffic moving, commutes
reliable, gas bills lower, and the air cleaner.
In addition to focusing our programs, we ought to make sure that the federal
government is making rational and accountable investment decisions.
We can strengthen the basis of our investment decisions by insisting on
benefit-cost analysis for projects receiving substantial federal support. And we
can improve accountability by having states and metropolitan areas set
meaningful performance goals and document their progress.
Flexibility must go hand-in-hand with performance management. By consolidating
dozens of stove-piped highway and transit programs into multi-modal programs, we
can increase state and municipal flexibility to fund their greatest
transportation priorities.
Much as we did with welfare reform in the 1990s, it is time for transportation
reform that encourages innovation, rather than stifling it. Process requirements
that are not producing outcomes are not worth keeping.
We must move the federal focus away from process oversight and instead demand
accountability. We need to define success in terms of increased travel-time
reliability, decreased delay hours, and improved condition of bridges and
pavement.
Finally, federal transportation dollars should be used to leverage new
investment by the states, localities, and the private sector.
Here in the United States, we are only just beginning to follow the path that
Europe, Asia, and South America have pursued for more than a decade and tap into
the vast amounts of private-sector capital available for infrastructure.
The money is out there. Pennsylvania just received the largest bid for
transportation infrastructure development investment in history – a $13 billion
dollar offer to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike and invest the proceeds in the
state’s infrastructure. To put this amount into perspective, it represents over
one-fourth of the federal government’s annual budget for highway construction.
The federal government’s role in transportation should not be simply to hand out
the cash. Too often, federal dollars diminish other investments instead of
encouraging more. But if we shape our programs right, every dollar we spend can
bring three to four additional dollars to the table.
Just imagine where we would be today if the $286.4 billion in SAFETEA-LU were
leveraged three- or four-fold, and those funds had been targeted to moving goods
faster and more safely over our transportation network. There is no question
that our Interstates and bridges would be in even better condition today, and
that congestion would be decreasing in our cities, rather than increasing.
Few things affect Americans in their daily lives as directly as congestion. Few
things are as important to our economic vitality as the efficiency and
performance of our transportation network.
We have a unique opportunity to put our transportation network back in the fast
lane by creating a coherent federal role, encouraging a wise investment
strategy, and delivering a higher level of performance for the American people.
We cannot afford to squander this opportunity to give America the transportation
policy it deserves.
Thank you. And now I would be happy to take a few questions.
###
Briefing
Room
