REMARKS FOR
THE HONORABLE MARY PETERS
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: OPPORTUNITY ‘08
“GEARING UP TO PUT AMERICA BACK IN THE FAST LANE”
WASHINGTON, D.C.
APRIL 28, 2008
10 AM
Good morning. Thank you, Mike O’Hanlon, for that kind introduction. And I want
to congratulate you and Brookings on your Opportunity ’08 program and especially
for organizing this session on transportation.
The conversation we are having today on transportation policy is particularly
relevant because of a confluence of factors.
First are the obvious political implications. If transportation is not high on
the agenda of candidates for public office this year, it absolutely should be. A
look at public opinion polls confirms that transportation issues are a top
concern for people in every part of our country.
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.
Locally, in a Washington Post poll taken last fall, 33 percent of Virginia
voters statewide – and 52 percent in Northern Virginia – ranked transportation
issues, including traffic, roads, and transit, as the number one or number two
issue facing the state.
A more recent poll this month of Bay Area residents found transportation a close
second to the economy (22 percent to 18 percent) as the biggest problem in the
region.
Our transportation systems simply are not performing as well as they should, and
the American people know it. Exploding highway congestion, 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.
Second, reversing the transportation policy failures that cause Americans to
spend 4.2 billion hours a year in traffic has far-reaching consequences.
We can reduce our dependence on foreign oil by clearing the traffic congestion
that wastes 3 billion gallons of gasoline a year.
We can cut harmful greenhouse gas emissions and help the environment by getting
idling vehicles moving again on our city streets and highways.
We can promote economic vitality by eliminating the 72-billion-dollar drain on
our economy that results when workers can’t get to their jobs, businesses can’t
depend on timely deliveries, and inefficient transportation systems make
American goods less competitive.
And we can support family values by relieving the stress that comes from
unpredictable commutes and by allowing Americans to spend more time with their
families and in their communities, and less time in traffic.
And finally, there is opportunity. Our next President will almost certainly sign
into law a new surface transportation bill. If we get the policy right, that
bill has the potential to be as far-reaching and visionary as the legislation
President Eisenhower signed in 1956 giving 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 balance in 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.
We can no longer afford to congratulate ourselves for spending record amounts on
infrastructure without asking whether the taxpayers’ money is being spent wisely
and well. The time has come to move beyond superficial discussions of how much
money we are going to spend, and start talking about a policy foundation that
fits our current circumstances.
What I want to do is lay out a few principles that I believe should define the
federal role in transportation as we move forward. These are not Republican or
Democrat principles; they are good public policy principles designed to promote
accountability and deliver results the American people want and deserve. And
they are principles that hold true not just for our transportation programs, but
for other government programs as well.
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 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 administered by five different agencies within the
Department of Transportation.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report last month condemning this
maze of programs, noting their numerous and conflicting goals, their
ineffectiveness at addressing key transportation challenges, and their
stove-piped approach which can impede effective planning and project selection.
The time has come to eliminate the earmarks and set-asides and to refocus our
programmatic structure and the funding that follows primarily 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 keep them in good condition and
operating at peak efficiency.
Finally, the massive congestion problem in our urban areas demands immediate and
strong federal focus. As was reported by a 2007 Brookings study, America’s 100
largest metropolitan areas are its key drivers of prosperity, generating
three-quarters of U.S. gross domestic product. But growing gridlock threatens to
stall this economic engine.
We need to use federal dollars to encourage state and local officials to pursue
more effective and sustainable congestion-relief strategies. There are
technologies and models that can provide almost immediate relief, if we are
willing to use them.
For example, Cliff Winston here at Brookings has estimated that using congestion
pricing in the largest 98 metropolitan areas alone would generate approximately
$120 billion a year in revenues while simultaneously solving the recurring
congestion problems in those areas.
We have seen through the Urban Partnership Agreements the Department negotiated
last year 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. We also are seeing that
effective integration of public transportation and highway investment strategies
is central to success in fighting urban congestion.
Just last week, I was in Los Angeles with Mayor Villaraigosa and Governor
Schwarzenegger to announce a new congestion relief demonstration project. The LA
plan features dynamically priced HOT lanes and will deliver faster commutes,
cleaner air, and better transit in our nation’s most congested city.
In addition to refocusing 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. We can increase
State and municipal flexibility to fund their greatest transportation priorities
by consolidating dozens of stove-piped highway and transit programs into
multi-modal programs.
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.
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. Here in the United States, we are
only just beginning to tap into the $400 billion in private-sector capital
available for infrastructure.
Several proven strategies are available to encourage this type of leveraging,
including removing federal restrictions preventing tolling of Interstates and
other major highways and encouraging the expanded use of public-private
partnerships. We can also expand investment by broadening the availability of
TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) credit
assistance and private activity bonds, and by allowing jurisdictions greater
flexibility to create and use state infrastructure banks.
The role of the federal government in transportation should not be simply to
hand out the cash. It must instead encourage new investment, stimulate new
innovation, and produce real results.
Just imagine where we would be if the $286.4 billion in SAFETEA-LU were
leveraged three- or four-fold – and those funds had been targeted to goals
moving goods faster and more safely 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.
Our next President has 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
