U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–655 PDF 2007

CELEBRATING 50 YEARS: THE EISENHOWER INTERSTATE HIGHWAY

SYSTEM

(109–85)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 27, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice-Chair

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Capka, J. Richard, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration,

U.S. Department of Transportation .................................................................... 5

Gifford, Jonathan, Professor, School of Public Policy, George Mason University ......................................................................................................................... 18

Lewis, Tom, Professor and Author, Skidmore College ......................................... 18

McCormick, Eugene R., Senior Vice President and Chairman of the Board,

Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas, and Chairman, American Roads

and Transportation Builders Association ........................................................... 18

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 36

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland ............................................................... 37

Defazio, Hon. Peter A., of Oregon .......................................................................... 43

Millender-McDonald, Hon. Juanita, of California ................................................. 60

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Capka, J. Richard .................................................................................................... 29

Gifford, Jonathan ..................................................................................................... 44

Lewis, Tom ............................................................................................................... 47

McCormick, Eugene R ............................................................................................. 53

(1)

CELEBRATING 50 YEARS: THE EISENHOWER

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Tuesday, June 27, 2006,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES,WASHINGTON, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 2167,

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Tom Petri [chairman of the committee] presiding.

Mr. PETRI. The hearing will come to order. My colleague and

counterpart, Mr. DeFazio, is on his way and I suspect will be here

by the time I finish my opening statement and he will have one

as well.

We would like to welcome members and the witnesses to today’s

hearing, which is entitled Celebrating 50 Years: The Eisenhower

Interstate Highway System. Since this is a celebration, we are

going to celebrate with cake immediately following today’s hearing.

That is cake, not pork pie. That is good cake. I invite you all to

stay and enjoy some in honor of the interstate’s 50th anniversary.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to provide members of the

Committee with a brief history of the interstate, its impact on

American culture, and the future of this vital system. On Thursday, June 29th, the interstate highway system will celebrate its

50th anniversary. In 1956, after much planning and compromise,

President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway

Act, creating the interstate highway system, a project which transformed America forever.

As our Country entered the 20th century, good roads, even paved

roads, weren’t common. Plans for a national system of expressways

were developed in 1944 by the National Highway Committee. Congress designated the 40,000 mile national system of interstate

highways in 1944, but funding would not be authorized until 1952,

when President Harry Truman signed the Federal Aid Highway

Act of 1952, offering a token down payment of $25 million for the

interstates.

However, it would be up to the next President, President Dwight

David Eisenhower, to lead the campaign for the Nation’s interstate

system. President Eisenhower made it a keystone of his domestic

agenda when he was elected to office in 1953. He envisaged a new,

tax-based financing plan with the Federal Government bearing the

largest share of construction costs. Eisenhower signed the Federal

Aid Highway Act without fanfare, in a hospital room at Walter

Reed Army Medical Center, where he was recovering from illness.
2

Today, Americans continue to reap the benefits of that legislation. The wide, relatively straight roadways in the interstate highway system were designed to be faster and safer than the two-lane

roads that preceded them. In fact, the interstate system is the

safest road system in America, with a fatality rate of .8 compared

to 1.44 for all roads in 2004.

The interstate system, which accounts for only 1 percent of the

Nation’s total road mileage, but carries over 24 percent of the Nation’s traffic, has come to be taken as a fact of life. Yet the interstate has become woven into the fabric of American life. In 2004,

Americans traveled about 267 billion vehicle miles on the rural

interstate roads, 26 billion vehicle miles on the small urban interstate roads, and over 434 billion vehicle miles on the urbanized

interstate roads. Chances are, almost everyone in this room traveled here today by interstate at some point in their journey.

We have invited two panels of witnesses today. On our first

panel, we welcome Mr. Richard Capka, Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. His testimony will explain how the

interstate came about through President’s Eisenhower’s determination for a national road and the impact that the interstate has

made on America’s daily life.

Our second panel includes Dr. Jonathon Gifford, a professor of

public management and policy at George Mason University; Dr.

Tom Lewis, an English professor at Skidmore College and author

of ‘‘Divided Highways,’’ a book dedicated to the creation of the highways and what its impact has been on American life; and finally,

Mr. Gene McCormick, Chairman of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association.

I would now ask if other members have any opening statements

that they would care to make. Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, we are here this afternoon to

mark this 50th anniversary of really a watershed moment in American history. Ike, President Eisenhower, knew what he was doing.

And it changed, really, the scope of what the Federal Government

should and could get involved in. And that has been one of the big

debates in the last 50 years, what should the Government be involved in, what should it stay out of. We know that the Government should stay out of our bedrooms. But we know also that the

commerce of the Nation depends on whether or not we can move

people and product. So Eisenhower knew what he was doing.

The world’s largest public works project, this was a 46,876 mile

web of superhighways. And it has really transformed our Nation,

Mr. Chairman, it has transformed our economy. There is probably

not one aspect of American society that hasn’t been affected by the

interstates.

Its total economic impact is incalculable. Increases in travel have

created a transportation system that is a sizeable element of the

Country’s gross domestic product. Interstates carry nearly 60,000

people per route mile per day. The economy of this Country depends on its interstates to move various goods. It is now an integral part of our homeland security network. We understand how

important it is to securing the Nation.

According to the Bureau of Transportation statistics, most transportation modes showed much higher productivity growth between
3

1955 and 1998 than did the U.S. business sector. It is easy to see

why. In the past 50 years, our population increased 1.75 times,

miles driven increased 4.5 times, and registered vehicles increased

2.51 times, registered trucks increased 8.9 times. So the growth is

very evident on the interstate system. It accounts for only 1 percent of the Nation’s total road mileage, and carries over 20 percent

of the Nation’s traffic. I find that to be a startling fact. I think it

is a fact.

Unfortunately, it seems we have come to the point where population growth has outstripped the system expansion and heavy use

has led to congestion and frustration. Come to New Jersey. It is estimated that by 2020, New Jersey will have 1.4 million additional

residents, double the amount of freight moving throughout the

State, a total of 34 billion additional vehicle miles will be traveled

on basically the same roads. Many of those miles are on interstate

roads.

Failure to keep up with demands will result in continued conges- tion and gridlock. Congestion costs more than $67 billion annually

in productivity. We have seen all the numbers there, how it affects

productivity.

So I support a surface transportation program that seeks to reduce congestion through multiple strategies, including creating

more capacity, maximizing efficiency and managing demand. The

interstate system has played a vital role in our economy and social

fabric, and even in the transformation of our American self-image,

from a dispersed collection of States to one of a unified Nation.

President Eisenhower said in 1955, ‘‘Together, the united forces of

our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear: the United States. Without them,

we would be a mere alliance of many separate parts.’’

So the interstate system really is a unifying symbol to the entire

Nation. And it is good that we are talking about it today at a time

when we are so divided, when we are so concerned that we are different and enunciate our differences. This is truly something to celebrate, I really believe that. We cannot plan a strategy just to pave

more roads. It is incredibly important to utilize what current roads

we have in the most efficient manner possible.

In an age of growing intermodalism, we must ensure that our

Nation’s highways are a part of a larger transportation policy

which includes rail, aviation and the maritime transportation system.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this is no small task for us to recognize. We have come a long way. The system needs repair, as all

systems do. And I am glad that as a member of Homeland Security, that we have looked and examined the infrastructure of our

roads and our intermodal forms of transportation and protecting

that infrastructure of this Country. Because it would be unbelievably catastrophic, we see what happens in a natural disaster, and

we see what happened when men and women are fools and try to

kill one another in a terrorist attack.

So Mr. Chairman, this is a big day for us and we can thank a

great Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, President of the United

States. And I like to say, there have been so few great Republicans,

I like to point them out.
4

[Laughter.]

Mr. PETRI. Abraham Lincoln is another one.

Mr. Coble.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I would like to

give the gentleman from New Jersey additional time. He is on a

good roll here.

[Laughter.]

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to thank

my friend from New Jersey, he very eloquently stated his case, and

I think very appropriately so. I remember, Mr. Chairman, and colleagues, in one of my earlier campaigns, one of my crusty constituents came up to me. And he said, you can do me a good favor as

my Congressman by seeing to it that our shores are safe, that my

mail is delivered in a timely way, and keep the Government’s hand

and nose out of my business.

As you point out, Bill, there is a time and place for Government

involvement, and there is a time and place for Government to stay

out of the way. This is a situation where obviously, it was an appropriate place for the Government to be heavily involved, as my

friend from New Jersey pointed out, the moving of goods, products

and people from place to place.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, you live on the northern tier. I live

nearer the southern tier. But we are border to border, ocean to

ocean, a gigantically large, complex Country. But President Eisenhower and his supporters, both Democrat and Republican, who

forged this idea into reality, brought us together. And this is indeed, again, quoting my friend from New Jersey, this is a hallmark

day, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for having scheduled this

hearing, and I thank everyone in the audience for the attendance

here, too. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Are there other opening statements? Mr.

Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to commend

the gentleman from New Jersey, because I think he is right on target. As we celebrate the 50 years of the achievements of the interstate, I would hope somebody else would have a vision to be able

to take us to the next 50 years. Because I know that in my district,

I represent Myrtle Beach, which has 14 million visitors a year.

Somehow or another, in that early vision of the 1950s, they left

out Myrtle Beach. So there are other pockets around this Country

that need attention. So Mr. Director, I would hope that you would

be that person with that vision that we could maybe celebrate 50

years from now all of your achievements.

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I can’t help but saying that you remind

me of Cicero, who ended every speech by saying, and Carthage

must be destroyed, except you say, and Myrtle Beach must be

added to the interstate highway system.

[Laughter.]

Mr. PETRI. And I will say he got his way, eventually.

Mr. BROWN. I am still hoping, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Any other opening statements? If not, we will turn to

our first panel, which is Richard Capka, the Administrator of the
5

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Welcome.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD CAPKA, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. CAPKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. It is an honor for me to be here with you today to celebrate

the 50th anniversary of the Eisenhower Interstate System.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my full statement be admitted for the

record later on.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, last week, Secretary Mineta submitted his letter of resignation to President Bush. He did so only after

long and careful personal deliberations. He wanted me to convey

his deep and personal professional respect to you and the members

of this Committee. An extremely important part of his public career

and public service was conducted with and through this Committee. You have his admiration and appreciation. He looks forward to

maintaining his personal relationships with all of you throughout

the future.

In his letter to the President, Secretary Mineta paid tribute to

the concept of bipartisanship. The Federal Aid Highway Act of

1956 is a very good example of a bipartisanship effort.

On the Republican side, President Dwight David Eisenhower and

Senator Prescott Bush, President Bush’s grandfather; and on the

Democrat side, Congressman George Fallon, Hale Boggs, and Senator Albert Gore, Sr., all helped create one of the greatest public

works projects in history. Since 1956, every President and each

succeeding Congress has supported the Interstate system.

The importance of the Interstate system to our economy and our

way of life cannot be over-exaggerated. The system was conceived

at the end of the Depression and launched at the height of the Cold

War. It supported one of the most expansive periods of economic

growth and made America the most mobile society ever. It also

made highway travel safer and more efficient.

The following is a quote from a former chief of the U.S. Bureau

of Public Roads, Thomas McDonald, and one that I thought was

particularly insightful. ‘‘The roads themselves helped us create a

new wealth, in business and in industry and land values. So it was

not our wealth that made our highways possible; rather, it was our

highways that made our Nation’s wealth possible.’’ We could easily

substitute the words ‘‘Interstate system’’ for ‘‘highways’’ and the result is why we are here celebrating today.

In his Grand Plan, President Eisenhower envisioned each level

of government contributing to the upgrade of the Nation’s entire

road network. His goal was the creation of a system to improve

safety, reduce traffic jams, increase economic efficiency and provide

for the national defense. Indeed, the 1956 Act resulted in landmark

changes to the connectivity of the highways in the United States

and the ways in which those highways are financed. Not only did

he create today’s Interstate system, but it also established a Highway Trust Fund, uniformity of design and signs, and the linkage

between highway user tax revenue and highway expenditures.
6

The Interstate system has succeeded in achieving President Eisenhower’s vision. The system supports a growing economy, a

strong national defense, and the vibrant American way of life. It

is not only our safest highway network, but also the most flexible,

as it serves changing traffic, increasing freight needs, and evolving

American goals.

As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Interstate system,

we must think about the future. We must examine the remaining

service life of the Interstate highways and how to preserve in the

same way for the next 50 years. We need to broaden our thinking

and move forward to address today’s challenges.

In many respects, our transportation system has become a victim

of its own success. Our growing economy and standard of living

have created a demand for travel and movement of goods that is

increasingly more difficult to meet. Congestion is not an insurmountable problem, but we must embrace new solutions in order

to make meaningful progress in reducing congestion.

During National Transportation Week, Secretary Mineta

launched the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s

Transportation Network, a national congestion relief initiative designed to address the challenges ahead for our surface transportation system. This dynamic plan will maximize valuable tools Congress provided in SAFETEA-LU, to improve operation of our surface transportation system, encourage the development and deployment of new technologies and construction methods, and expand

opportunities for private investment in transportation infrastructure.

One of the most critical aspects of the initiative is reducing or

removing barriers to private-sector investment in the construction

and operation of transportation infrastructure. It is time to take

advantage of the private sector’s flexibility, innovation, creativity,

expertise and access to capital, while maintaining the public oversight, accountability to taxpayers, and long term strategic planning.

The Interstate system has been the backbone of our economy for

50 years. It provides a vital connection between people, goods, and

services to help link the U.S. markets with those around the world.

This year, we honor President Eisenhower’s vision of network of

highways that brought America together and strengthened the national economy.

But we also set the stage for the system’s next 50 years. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, which is meeting as we speak today, is beginning to think

comprehensively about the future of highway policy by reviewing

current methods and exploring alternatives for investing in and

managing our surface transportation systems.

Mr. Chairman, members, I want to congratulate all of you and

your Committee for your insights, your exceptional leadership, and

the prominent role in making our Nation’s Interstate highway system the success that it is today. The U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and I look forward to

continuing to work with you as we move forward in shaping the

next 50 years of our national highway transportation system.
7

Mr. Chairman, members, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today before you. I look forward to answering

your questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you for representing the Department on this

celebratory occasion.

Now for questions, Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Capka, the transformations that you talked

about with regard to transportation and its effect on the economy,

on our social and cultural mores, are in the record. After 50 years,

we have really come to a new phase in the system’s development,

this infrastructure that you talked about. Beyond simply building

the basic infrastructure, the time has come, I think, to implement

new innovations in design and management.

I have two questions. What plans does the Department have to

take the Interstate system into the future? Could you tell us of

those next 50 years, or 10 years, what is on the drawing board, to

give folks an opportunity to envision where we are going to be a

few years from now?

Mr. CAPKA. Thank you, sir, for your question. In fact, your opening statement very well articulated the challenges that we have

ahead of us. Certainly, the answer is not just building additional

capacity. It really isn’t. It is the most effective use of the system

that we do have, in other words, the operations of the highway systems. How can we maximize the throughput of the system that we

already have? How can we reduce congestion in the system that we

already have?

Secondly, as you also pointed out, is to make better use of the

resources that are given to us. How can we make the dollars

stretch further? How can we make the capital improvements last

longer? How can we count on the bridges lasting longer and withstanding the ever-increasing environmental challenges that are

here?

Each one of those factors will have to be contributing to the overall solution. There will be some added capacity, I think there has

to be. But at the same time, there are opportunities to use the system that we have better, and to be better stewards of the resources

that we are given.

Mr. PASCRELL. Your department has studied who the real culprits are in terms of congestion on our roads. And we have been

talking about this for some time now. What is your conclusion

about this congestion problem that we face? And am I to assume

from what you said we shouldn’t be looking for new roads, but trying to bring those roads that already exist into the 21st century?

That is, many of these roads were built 50 years ago. And many

of these roads can’t take the traffic that exists now. They are unsafe. People are getting killed throughout this Country, with roads

that were built many years ago.

Would you address these culprits, and would you tell us how we

should be addressing the major question of congestion?

Mr. CAPKA. Mr. Pascrell, again, a very important observation and

something that I think we have all locked onto. It is quite interesting, if you look back into history and the forward thinking, which

kind of overlooked the importance of truck traffic, as an example.

In the 1930s and 1940s when these plans were first being con-
8

ceived, trucks were considered to be an insignificant requirement

on the Interstates. Today we know how important truck traffic is.

I think we need to be able to throttle the demand for the use of

the capacity that we do have. Techniques, such as value pricing, to

look at the use of our highway system, much like we looked at the

use of utility systems, where in the summer time, when we are

using electricity, we understand that at peak periods we are going

to pay more for that electricity.

I think the same logic needs to be built into the highway systems

that we have, in order for folks to use the system that we do have

more rationally. That is one example. There are other examples as

well, as to how we might be able to use technology to better inform

the users of the system as to what they can expect, so they can

avoid the challenges that may be ahead and really craft more logical travel plans to get from one point to another.

There are plenty of opportunities, I think. Transportation technology right now is proceeding to the point where it will be an enabler for us to take full advantage.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Coble.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Capka, your testimony mentions transportation systems improvements, such as the national 5-1-1 traveler information number that will play a vital role in better management of the system.

Can that 5-1-1 number be generated only from cell phones or from

conventional phones as well?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, the 5-1-1 can be called up from any phone. A cell

phone obviously is one that, when folks are out and about is certainly a good technique of attaching to 5-1-1. The 5-1-1 can be

called from conventional phones, too, I believe. I haven’t tried it

that way, but I have been told that it would work.

Mr. COBLE. All right, sir. If I may extend from my friend from

New Jersey, let me ask you this question. What role do you think

the Highways for LIFE program will be in the future of the interstate system?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, that is another good question. In fact, you and

members of this Committee challenged us through the SAFETEALU legislation to pursue this Highways for LIFE program, which

is designed to ensure that emerging innovation, as it pops up in

one part of the Country, is rapidly deployed throughout the rest of

the Nation, so that we can find better techniques, longer lasting

techniques, construction materials, construction techniques, to

build highways quicker, the repairs, get the orange barrels out of

the roads sooner and faster, and then create a project that will last

longer. In other words, kind of putting the get-in, get-out, stay-out

into effect.

We see pockets of innovation everywhere. But what we would

like to do is make sure that we leap forward to making those pockets of innovation standard practice. And the Highways for LIFE

program will help us do that.

Mr. COBLE. Let me revisit the culprit question that my friend

mentioned. Identify if you will, Mr. Capka, who are the main culprits, that contribute to congestion? Of course, congestion is one of
9

the obvious thorns in everyone’s side as we negotiate travel from

here to there and yonder.

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, we certainly like to use the word culprit, but you

know, I think it is all of us who contribute to the challenges on the

highway. It is those of who are dependent upon the goods and services that need to use the highways. It is those of us who are moving back and forth to work every day, during the rush hour. It is

those of us going out and using the roads for family business, for

relaxation,and vacationing.

We are peaking the use of the highway systems in certain locations. Certainly in the metropolitan areas,we understand the congestion. Certainly here at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge locally, the

Springfield interchange, we can see how that can snarl traffic almost 24 hours a day. We need to work to improve that.

But I think, as I had mentioned earlier, we can also throttle demand and try to attenuate the peak period such that we can get

the most through the system that we do have. Just a small increase in the demand can make a significant increase in the

throughput of a system.

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and

yield back.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Capka, I agree that as we look forward, it is going to take

a comprehensive view of how we manage congestion and safety and

as Mr. Pascrell pointed out, there are some roads that are 50 years

old, and at this point, they weren’t designed correctly for the volume we have today. So building a new road is one component, but

redesign of existing infrastructure is important.

I come from a real fast growing State, the State of Utah, and out

there with the population growth, new construction is also a piece

of the mix. Do you think that in terms of the way, from a Federal

perspective, and we have created a situation where there is enough

flexibility to address these circumstances based on what is going on

in the particular local areas, so as I said for Mr. Pascrell, it may

be an existing road that is way beyond where its design indicated

it should be, and it needs a redesign. Whereas I have an area in

southwestern Utah, fifth fastest growing county in the United

States, we need some new construction. Is the flexibility built in

enough for you to take this comprehensive approach?

Mr. CAPKA. Well, certainly, sir, as you and the members of the

Committee have provided to us, and I would say us at the Federal

level, us at the State and local level, the Federal resources to attack these problems, you have given us a lot of flexibility. It is a

State-administered, federally-assisted program. And the flexibility

is built into the funding to allow the States to do their own planning, the folks who are very local to the problems, to do their planning and do their programming and project execution. So I think

there is an awful lot of flexibility that is provided.

At the same time, we do need a global view of the system and

how the system interconnects and how the system responds nationally. I think that the Federal role in that perspective is very important, to ensure that an overall general view, overarching view, is

maintained.
10

Mr. MATHESON. I agree with that, and that kind of leads into my

next regional-specific question, having to do with the Interstate 15

corridor. While I come from the State of Utah, it is such a significant corridor between the Los Angeles area and the ports there and

how we move goods and people, that stretch from L.A. up through

Las Vegas. Can you give me a sense of what the opportunities may

be for us to address what right now is a huge congestion problem

in that particular corridor, which affects the rest of the western

United States?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, another great question, and one that all of us in

the Department of Transportation have been scratching our heads

over, not only in the congestion that you see in Utah, but across

the Nation. The Secretary’s initiative that he announced back during National Transportation Week is taking a multi-pronged approach. We are looking at the congestion in the metropolitan areas,

we are looking to relieve congestion at the ports that obviously feed

the rest of the system. We are looking for corridor improvements

where we can, as you have pointed out in the I-15 corridor, how

can we move freight more effectively through those areas.

I think through partnerships and focused attention, we can address a lot of those issues. Then it is going to have to enter into

the priorities of how we invest the resources that we do have.

Mr. MATHESON. And the options always cost money, unfortunately.

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, they always cost money, but you know, there are

some innovative opportunities for us to take advantage of other

sources of resources to invest. Whether it is the private sector or

other public sector opportunities, there are, yes, sir, there are solutions to that problem.

Mr. MATHESON. Are you aware of specific thoughts about how we

can deal with that stretch from L.A. up to Las Vegas? Is there a

thought about expanding to additional lanes, doing a separate road,

or do you know where thoughts are about how to address that specific corridor?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, I have not given personal thoughts to that specific corridor, but Utah Transportation Executive Director John

Njord, who is very interested in what goes on in your State’s transportation, and I have been discussing the challenges there, both

from the mechanics of what need to be done, and how can we do

them more efficiently. He has been on top of that.

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Capka, how was the original interstate funded?

Mr. CAPKA. The original Interstate, sir, in 1956, the Highway

Trust Fund. And of course, leading up to the establishment of the

Highway Trust Fund, there were a number of different opinions

about how the resourcing would take place. In fact, the President,

I think his preferred method of doing it, bonding and such, was not

adopted. The Highway Trust Fund, pay-as-you-go was established

along with the Act in 1956.

Mr. BROWN. And what was the assessment for that?

Mr. CAPKA. What were the assessments? Sir, I don’t recall the

exact assessments, but I do believe the gas tax was on the order

of just a couple of cents a gallon.
11

Mr. BROWN. Construction cost was a little cheaper back then,

wasn’t it?

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, when you talk about estimates that it might

take to create the system that we have back then, the estimate was

somewhere just a little less than $30 billion, to create the system

that was laid out in 1956. Now, of course, we know that the system

in place, we did some estimates on it, perhaps $130 billion is what

it has taken to put the entire system in place.

Mr. BROWN. Do you have any plans to change the existing system and how would you pay for them?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, as far as the planning, we work with the States,

and there are a number of States who have recommended adding

features to the Interstate system. We work with them individually.

How we pay for it, I think we are just about at the max of what

the 1956 Act provided in terms ofIinterstate funding. I think it was

able to fund 43,000 miles of Interstate, plus or minus, and right

now we are at 46,000. So the amount above 43,000 was picked up

by the use of State-apportioned dollars and State funding.

Mr. BROWN. Are you looking at going back and looking at some

of the original ideas to create additional revenue in order to accomplish the expansion of the system?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, we are looking at anything we can find. We want

to be as innovative as we can, so nothing is taken off the table, per

se, in terms of what is being considered. We are also very much

looking forward to the recommendations that the commission that

I spoke about earlier, that is meeting, as we speak today, it is

meeting over in our NASSIF Building, we are looking to that set

of commissioners, very talented folks, to help us address that problem as well. That is one of the primary deliverables from that commission.

Mr. BROWN. So you think the commission report will help in projecting planning for expanding the system?

Mr. CAPKA. Absolutely, sir.

Mr. BROWN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Any other questions? Mr. Bishop?

Mr. BISHOP. Just one question. I am sorry I came in late.

You indicate that as part of the future strategy, you would want

to encourage States to engage in or at least pursue private partnerships and that there are entities that are interested in investing

significant sums of money in our infrastructure and our highway

system. Is your comment in your testimony limited to just roads

and other infrastructure that are State-owned or county-owned, or

would you also see the Federal transportation system, the Interstate system, as a part of infrastructure that would lend itself to

private investment?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, in principle, we would like the States, and all of

us who have a role in shaping the surface transportation, to have

the flexibility that we need--as many tools in the toolbox as available. I would not attempt to prescribe a solution for a specific

State. But if a State is looking for, as an example, an opportunity

to take advantage of what the private sector can offer, we would

like to, at the Federal level, shape a tool that would suit the State’s

needs.
12

Now, whether it is just State owned infrastructure or Federal, we

have a couple of pilot programs that were introduced in SAFETEALU and during TEA-21, the prior authorizing legislation, that is piloting an opportunity to toll, as an example, existing infrastructure,

again on a pilot case by case basis that we are hoping to learn

from. And we would like to learn as much as we can from those

pilots before we take the next step.

But as far as Federal interest, if there is a Federal interest in

the piece of infrastructure, that Federal interest will remain.

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. No more questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be

very brief, since I wasn’t here earlier. We are going to have a celebration in Thursday about this 50th anniversary, and certainly the

Interstate highway system has changed the face of America, and it

has helped improve our economy by making the movement of people and goods much faster and easier. It is amazing to me to see

what has happened, though, because I have mentioned before that

when I was growing up, most families had one car, some families

had two cars.

But I don’t think we ever knew of any family that had more than

two cars. And now you have the mother, the dad, both the teenagers, they all have vehicles, and maybe they have a pickup truck

in addition to that, families have four or five vehicles sometimes.

It is just amazing.

Just to give you an example, I can remember when Knoxville to

Nashville, which is 185 miles, it took six hours to do that trip. Now

it takes three. I remember going from Knoxville to Florida, and it

took two 10 or 11 hour days to drive that. Now you can go in one

long day. So there have been some wonderful things.

But I guess really what I am wondering about, the number of

registered vehicles has gone way up, the number of vehicle miles

traveled has gone way up. What do you see in the future? Is there

any really exciting research that is going on in your office that you

could tell us about? What gets you excited about the future? Are

we going to see changes? The people love the Interstates, but on

the other hand, you also hear people say they don’t want to see the

whole Country paved over. I remember when the Interstate,

though, in Knoxville was just two lanes, west Knoxville. Now we

are going to five lanes on each side and the traffic is horrendous.

What do you see for the future?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, that is a great question. I think all of us and our

concept of the freedom to move kind of take for granted the impact

that it puts on the infrastructure that we have today. So I think

in the future there is going to be a recognition that we have to use

the system more wisely. And perhaps through value pricing, as an

example, using the model of a utility to help us manage the use

of the discrete amount of capacity that we have in our system more

effectively is an appropriate way to look at that.

Secondly, I am really excited about the intelligent transportation

system advancements that have been made over the years, but

even more so very recently. What we are seeing in terms of 5-1-

1 type communications with drivers, is an ability to call up and

kind of plot your course based upon the existing conditions of the
13

day. So I think communications between the drivers and the infrastructure, if you will, is going to be extremely important. I think

the technologies are going to make our system much safer to use.

Although certainly as we pointed out, it is probably the safest system that we have, certainly in the Country, if not the world, we

are still losing 43,000, 44,000 Americans every year on our highways. So safety, I see some very encouraging advancements along

those lines.

But the use of technology, the prospects of all of us looking at

the system that we have today as a utility, something that we have

to be frugal with as we go forward, will make a difference in how

we maximize the throughput capacity of our surface transportation

system.

I might also say, the problem is not just one of the highways. It

is a multi-modal, inter-modal kind of problem. I am very much encouraged to see, within the U.S. Department of Transportation, and

other areas, a multi-modal view of how we need to address the

challenges that we have in today’s system.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, well, thank you very much, and congratulations, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing

today.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Ms. Millender-McDonald.

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,

and the Acting Ranking Member Pascrell. Thank you so much for

bringing this very important hearing. It is great to be here together

to celebrate 50 years of the Interstate highway system, a salute to

the late President Dwight Eisenhower for his vision in creating this

extremely important highway.

You may not be aware of this, Mr. Capka, but I created and

founded the Goods Movement Caucus in the 108th Congress to examine freight issues as it relates to that. So I am particularly interested in the Interstate’s impact on our Nation’s economy and our

ability to move goods from ports to inland States.

There is a tremendous amount of traffic, as you might well know,

on the I-710 that leads from the ports of Los Angeles and Long

Beach and out to downtown rail yards and throughout the Country.

While there are adverse health and environmental effects, given

the tremendous amount of traffic, we cannot simply shut down one

of our Nation’s most important roadways.

So does the FHA devote sufficient resources to balancing our

economy engine, while the health of those who live next to these

railroads are taken into consideration?

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, ma’am, thank you very much for your observations there. I think you have put your finger on what I would call

one of the congestion hot spots in the Nation. I know that you are

very actively engaged in pursuing solutions there.

The short answer to your question is yes, we need to address

both issues concurrently. I think that by addressing even the congestion and moving the goods in and out of our ports more efficiently will also solve some of the community problems. Idling

trucks just don’t do a whole lot for the quality of life. So what we

want to do is ensure that we have a good system of moving goods

in and out of the ports.
14

In Secretary Mineta’s congestion initiative, which I believe you

are familiar with, he has focused specific attention on the port

problems that we do have. Also, he has focused attention on corridors, which will move the goods from the ports away from the

port areas and on to different areas of the Country efficiently. So

we have recognized that congestion is a multi-faceted problem that

affects many people from many different perspectives. We are very,

very much energized to tackling that.

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, I thank you very much for

that. The Committee recently met to discuss the impact of intermodalism, using multiple transportation methodologies to move

goods. I am particularly interested in rail, because I am the creator

of the Alameda Corridor, that everyone knows about. It is up to

just 37 or 38 percent of its capacity. We are looking at now trying

to see whether we can use rail from the docks of the ports as opposed to mini-trucks, as you know, they are going to quadruple by

the year 2015, 2020, in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area.

So do you feel the FHA is engaged in studying the impacts of

this trend, and hopefully we can perhaps look at rail as an alternative, especially given the environmental issues that we faced

with, with idling trucks and the emission that comes from them?

Mr. CAPKA. Another great question. And yes, we are. We are

working to establish national freight policy. And we use the word

national rather than Federal to connote the fact that it is not just

the Federal organization, Federal agency, who will be looking at

this, but it is a collection of all the stakeholders: State, local level,

as well as public and private sector, because as you know, the rail

is a privately-owned and operated system. The rail is being taxed

in terms of capacity just like the trucking industry is being taxed

in terms of their capacity to move freight.

So the solution cannot be one mode, the solution has to be multimode. And rail is certainly a major player in helping us address

the issue.

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, so much, Mr. Capka, for

being here as we celebrate 50 years.

Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to place my full

statement in the record.

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, so ordered.

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you and the Ranking Member.

Mr. PETRI. Any questions, Mr. Boozman?

Mr. BOOZMAN. None, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Shuster.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

Mr. Capka, thank you for being here today. There are some

members on my side of the aisle that believe that the Federal Government should do less as far as transportation, a national transportation system. I fundamentally disagree with that. I believe that

our national transportation system is an essential responsibility of

the Federal Government. In fact, laid out in the Constitution, the

three things the Federal Government was charged with was national defense, commerce, promoting and regulating, and making

the post roads. I think our national transportation system does all

three of those things.
15

So when I look at our national transportation system, we have

to either better utilize what we put through the pipe or make the

pipe bigger, it seems it comes down to those two things. And you

have talked here about that, both those things today. I wondered

if you might get into a little more specifics about better utilization.

I know we talked about the intelligent transportation. I think those

things are good, and there is a place for them.

But I don’t know how that, to some degree it helps, but the pipe

still needs to be bigger, I think. So can you talk about other ways

that we can better utilize our highway system, besides using intelligent systems?

Mr. CAPKA. The congestion problem, if we set aside added capacity in terms of added infrastructure, is also a matter of how do we

better use the infrastructure that we do have. It is a matter of providing information to the users and encouraging users to use it at

the most opportune time. So throttling demand I think is very important. And there is some self-leveling that occurs when folks just

get so frustrated with the congestion that they go elsewhere.

But there is a different way of handling that problem. I think

providing information also to the drivers and the users of the system will help them make those smart decisions. You had mentioned and I had mentioned earlier the technology that is making

itself available to do just that. And also to set up a system where

our newer vehicles can talk to the infrastructure and even make

it safer. And certainly a safer infrastructure with fewer incidents

that need to be policed off the highway, those non-recurring incidents of congestion is also a factor in how we make the system

more responsive and with increased throughput.

Mr. SHUSTER. Have there been any thoughts given to reversing

the flow of traffic? For instance, in Washington, D.C., everybody

comes into Washington, D.C. I for the past five years thought that

the Federal Government, private industry, at some point the light

bulb has to go on in somebody’s head and say, you know, we don’t

need to build our facility inside the Beltway. We can build it in

southern rural Pennsylvania or rural Maryland or rural Virginia,

60 or 70 or 80 miles outside of the city of Washington, D.C. Then

people can commute from rural Virginia or rural Pennsylvania into

that facility or live in suburban Washington, D.C. and do a reverse

commute out. Has any thought been given to that, are people talking to you about that?

Mr. CAPKA. Well, certainly in terms of land use and where business centers would develop, that is certainly part of the solution.

In fact, we would certainly encourage that. And we are starting to

see that in a number of different locations. As you pointed out, it

is kind of a blinding flash of the obvious that some of these solutions are there.

The other is, using technology to avoid having to get up on the

highways to begin with, whether it is tele-commuting or other

means of virtual business processes. There are some other opportunities that are emerging in that same vein to reduce the demand

for folks to all converge at the same place at the same time.

Mr. SHUSTER. And a lot of it comes down to dollars—I see my

time is running out—but you keep mentioning value pricing, which

leads me to believe that tolling roads is something that is on your
16

agenda. That would seem to me, value pricing, how do we get more

money into the system, because we can come up with a lot of great

new technologies, but I still think that pipe needs to be made bigger. So is that what you are talking about, value pricing, tolling

roads and those types of things?

Mr. CAPKA. Sure, in value pricing the concept is that your toll

is more expensive during peak hours, and less expensive during offpeak hours. So you toll for the value of what you are getting. Much

like utilities and electricity in the summer time, as an example,

you can help the discretion used by drivers to stay away from the

peak.

Mr. SHUSTER. But that would suggest that you are saying we

need to toll the Beltway around Washington, we need to add tolling

lanes to it, we need to toll different, because there are really very

few toll roads in this Country to be able to, with that pricing, help

to administer who is going to be on the roads and when they are

going to be on incentives, those types of things.

Mr. CAPKA. There are a number of States right now who are already exploring the potential for exactly that, the high occupancy

toll. In fact, Virginia is one. So, as you had suggested, here in the

Washington metropolitan area, Virginia is looking at variable pricing themselves.

I was just out in Denver a week or two ago and I helped the city

there convert an HOV lane to include toll-paying, value pricing tollpaying drivers. So there are a number of communities that are

looking to take advantage of those kinds of opportunities.

Mr. SHUSTER. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Sodrel?

Mr. SODREL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being

here today, Mr. Capka.

I personally grew up on the Interstate highway system. My

great-granddad was in river transportation and his son and my dad

got into the trucking business. I had a chance to watch it from the

ground up from the time I was a kid. I think it has had the greatest impact on the quality of life and delivering goods into the

United States than anything we ever did.

But as we look forward, it seems to me we have two big challenges. One is how we make the highway and bridge assets last

longer. I think we are doing some things in that regard, like cablestay bridges are lower maintenance than the old box girder bridges,

and pavement and so on. But it seems the other thing is, how do

we continue to adequately fund the system? I know in our case,

over a 20 year period, we doubled our miles on the same gallons,

everything from aerodynamic devices to devices that lowered the

parasitic friction, or loss in carrying goods down the highway, down

to radial tires, gearing. We thought it was in the national energy

interest, we also thought it was environmentally the right thing to

do.

But what happens inadvertently is we are paying less per mile

to use the highways than we used to. If the fuel tax per gallon remains fixed, which it has for some time, and you travel farther on

the same amount of gallons, that on a per-mile basis we are paying

less. And CAFE has caused a lot of people in private vehicles to

pay less, because they are getting better fuel mileage than they did
17

before. We also have alternative, renewable sources of energy, electric cars, we have all kinds of things that will degrade the amount

of revenue available to maintain roads and bridges, while the construction is traveling up with the per gallon cost of fuel.

So I guess my question is, is everything on the table here as the

commission goes forward, including the fact that we spend about

22 percent of the Highway Trust Fund on things other than bridges

and highways? And I don’t know if we can afford that luxury any

longer. I would just like comments on everything we are looking at

to try to make sure we have adequate revenue to keep the system

operable.

Mr. CAPKA. Great question, sir, and you put your finger on a

number of the challenges that we are facing. Certainly finding the

revenues that are required to support what needs to be done in the

future, and certainly the economy is going to demand that we have

the infrastructure to maintain its position in a global economy here

in the future.

The commission is tackling the full gamut of issues, with needs.

What are the needs of the system, what is the Federal role, what

is the State role, what are other roles that could be played by public and private sector entities? What should the Federal investment

be, what should it cover? And then how do we raise the resources

and what should be given to those practitioners who are responsible for delivering the needs? What tools need to be in the tool

boxes?

All of those, I think, are in play. I sat through yesterday’s session

with the commission and this morning, and those are the issues

that are being teed up right now for the next year’s worth of deliberative work there.

Mr. SODREL. Just kind of a follow-up, are we doing any experimenting on road construction techniques or materials that will last

longer or be lower maintenance over the long term as well?

Mr. CAPKA. Absolutely. That is key to accomplishing what you

suggested, to make bridges last longer, to make the pavements last

longer, so we can be better stewards of the dollars that we are investing today. Absolutely.

One of the reasons that we are very interested in sharing the research and technology programs that we have throughout the highway community remains strong, and that we have a Federal role

in pursuing the advanced research which uncovers the breakthroughs in materials and techniques that will be very important.

The Highways for LIFE program that you and the members of

the Committee provided to us in the SAFETEA-LU legislation is

another example of doing exactly that, finding the pockets of excellence, great ideas and innovation, and making it standard practice.

So when materials are shown to be better materials, we can integrate that into the standard practice very, very efficiently, and everyone take advantage of it.

Mr. SODREL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. The commission was mentioned, and I

guess they met this morning. I just thought I would ask you before

you leave if you could tell us how they are doing. As you know, a

lot of people are all looking forward to them doing their work, and

independent, and hopefully thinking even if it is not conventional
18

ideas, coming up with some new ideas, are helping to explore options as we go forward with funding the Federal system, and defining its scope. If the resources continue to shrink relative to our

economy at the Federal level, then we are going to somehow figure

out how to focus our effort better, or we are going to basically thin

things down and not get much value, or as much value for what

we are spending.

Would you care to comment on how they are doing so far?

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, sir, I would be delighted to do that. I have participated at least as an observer, and also a briefer, during the first

two sessions of the commission. I would tell you that each one of

the commissioners is engaged and engaged very intently. I gave a

presentation yesterday on my views of the surface transportation

from a highway perspective, and had some very insightful questions addressing exactly, sir, the questions that you are raising

today.

How are we going to make the system as responsive as it needs

to be in the future? What are the roles of the team players, at the

State level, the local level, the Federal level? How are we going to

raise the required requisite resources to ensure that we are able to

handle the challenges and the requirements of the system in the

future?

All the questions that are being teed up today and yesterday

were devoted to bringing all the commissioners up to a common

level of understanding of what data exists, where the challenges

are and I believe the commission is working very well to tackle the

mission that it has over the next 12 months.

Mr. PETRI. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony, and you mentioned at the beginning of your remarks the fact

that our Secretary of Transportation is retiring. I know I speak for

our entire Committee, as one of his former colleagues, serving

under his leadership, that we thank him for his service and we all

wish him very happy retirement and success in the next chapter.

Mr. CAPKA. Thank you, sir. I will pass it on to him. I have a feeling he is looking over my shoulder right now.

Mr. PETRI. All right, thank you.

The next panel, Dr. Jonathon Gifford, professor at George Mason

University; Tom Lewis, professor and author, Skidmore College;

and Gene McCormick, Chairman of the American Roads and

Transportation Builders Association.

Gentlemen, we welcome you. We thank you for the prepared remarks that you have submitted for this occasion, and we would invite you to summarize those remarks for the Committee on the

record, approximately five minutes, beginning with Dr. Gifford.

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN GIFFORD, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL

OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY; TOM

LEWIS, PROFESSOR AND AUTHOR, SKIDMORE COLLEGE; EUGENE R. MCCORMICK, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PARSONS, BRINKERHOFF, QUADE AND

DOUGLAS, AND CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. GIFFORD. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here this

afternoon on this very important occasion. The planning, design
19

and construction and ongoing renewal of the interstate highway

system together are a really extraordinary accomplishment in the

history of our Nation. The system is the envy of the world, and it

is being emulated today around the world, from China to India to

the expanded European Union.

I would like to focus my remarks today on the benefits of the

interstate highway system and on the lessons we can learn from

it. First, safety impacts have already been mentioned, and that is

perhaps its most important legacy. As shown in this chart, the red

line on the top is the fatality rate on non-interstate highways. The

blue line on the bottom is the fatality rate for interstate highways,

starting in the 1960s and going up until recently.

As you can see, the fatality rate was less than 3 per 100 million

vehicle miles in the 1960s, about half the rate of other highways.

Over time it has declined, as mentioned earlier, to one death per

100 million vehicle miles today.

Another important effect of the interstate is that it demonstrated

the distinctive design features of the interstate system for use off

the system, such as medians between opposing lanes, grade-separated interchanges, and high design speeds. And that demonstration effect also brings safety benefits off the system.

Together, these on-and-off-system effects have saved tens of

thousands of lives over the last half century. That is a tremendous

legacy.

The second legacy is the effect which has already been mentioned

on American lifestyles. The interstate development occurred during

a time when the Nation was engaged in a massive shift of housing,

retail and employment to the suburbs. Demand for suburbanization

arose from many sources, besides the interstate, including the G.I.

Bill, G.I. housing loans, mortgage interest deductibility and so

forth. All of these combined to contribute to America’s suburbanization. But it is fair to say that the interstate was a powerful force

in shaping how much and how quickly suburbanization occurred.

Today the majority of Americans reside in suburbs. The interstate system is an integral part of everyday life. Almost every

American household has a range of choices of where to work, live,

play, study and worship that would not be possible without the

interstate system.

The third legacy is that the interstates facilitated a fundamental

transformation of our freight and distribution system. Truck utilization has soared almost 200-fold in the last 50 years. That is a

rate of increase of 12 percent per year for a period of a half century. Today, virtually every item in our workplaces and households

has reached us via the interstate system.

This shift to truck-based distribution allows our economy to have

the world’s most efficient supply chain management system. Our

total logistics costs have declined from 16 percent of our national

product to 10 percent, 16 percent in 1980 to 10 percent today, or

recently in 2001, at the same time as our freight volumes have exploded.

The interstate has also taught us some important lessons. First,

it has taught us that large scale social and technological systems

like the interstate are complex and unpredictable. Many of the consequences of the interstate system, both positive and negative,
20

were not anticipated. As Mr. Capka indicated earlier, the Bureau

of Public Roads predicted in 1937 that trucks would never carry a

significant portion of our Nation’s freight because they would be inexorably squeezed by rail on the bulk commodity side, and air

freight on the high value freight side.

Mayors clamored for urban interstates as a way to revitalize

their downtowns. Transit industry owners believed that their primary concern was being exempted from motor vehicle taxes.

Reality turned out to be dramatically different. So going forward,

we really need to be humble about our ability to predict consequences, and that supports research and careful monitoring and

measurement as we go forward in order to continue to make our

programs benefit the economy.

The second lesson we have learned from half a century of interstate building is how much we value community preservation, social justice and environmental stewardship. In the early years, the

interstate had serious adverse impacts on many older cities, especially on poor and disadvantaged communities. Our urban renewal

policy of using interstate highway investments to remove blighted

areas displaced tens of thousands of poor African-American citizens. We also sought to build interstates through parks and environmentally sensitive spaces.

Congress soon responded with landmark environmental legislation such as the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental

Protection Act of 1969. These are laws that continue to shape our

policies today.

Finally, and most importantly, the interstate shows that the development of a carefully engineered and planned system can bring

extraordinary benefits to our Nation. This achievement arose from

strong Federal leadership for planning and financing that is almost

unprecedented in our 230-year history. The Nation has spent $420

billion in 2001 dollars on the interstate system, $370 billion from

Federal sources.

The system development has adhered generally to the 42,000

mile network that was laid out between the 1930s and the mid1950s. For almost four decades, Congress was satisfied to focus on

building the interstate as planned at that time, and special projects

were a rarity. No other system in our history, with the possible exception of the air traffic control system, has commanded such longlasting Federal leadership and support.

So in closing, let me say that these legacies and these lessons

make a strong case for strong and continued attention to the stewardship and renewal of the interstate that we have built, as well

as careful consideration of options for expanding and adapting it to

the challenges and realities of the 21st century. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Dr. Lewis.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for inviting me this afternoon.

At 11:15 on Monday morning, July 7th, 1919, a 3-mile caravan

of Army motorcycles, cars, and trucks, 260 enlisted men, 35 officers

and a 15-piece van provided by the Goodyear Tire and Rubber

Company, set out from Lafayette Square in Washington for Union

Square in San Francisco, 3,000 miles away. It took 62 days for

those soldiers to cross the Country. They averaged but five miles
21

an hour. Some days they went as few as three miles. Breakdowns

and accidents were frequent. In the Sierra, they lost a truck into

a steep ravine.

One 28 year old Army major on the trip described it as a journey

through darkest American with truck and tank. The condition of

the roads ranged from average to non-existent. America, that officer said in his report to superiors, must have better roads.

Thirty-seven years later, on July 29th, 1956, that Army officer,

Dwight David Eisenhower, now President of the United States,

signed into law the legislation creating the interstate highway system. That signature changed the landscape of America and helped

to bring about the extraordinary economic engine that has enabled

this nation to remain the preeminent power in the world. The story

of the interstates has deep roots in our desire for freedom and

movement, and our knowledge that we are at liberty to resolve our

destiny in our vast landscape.

For centuries, we Americans have relentlessly celebrated our mobility. Our forebears from Europe and other continents came to invent and reinvent themselves in unfamiliar places. Eight decades

after they formed the Union, they took pains to manumit those

whom they had brought in chains, and in a limited way, granted

the newly emancipated the freedom to go forth and invent themselves also.

Across the landscape of our continent, we Americans have left

the imprint of our movements, paths, roads, turnpikes and canals

in the 18th century, railroad tracks in the 19th and an ever-increasing number of wide roads and streamlined highways in the

20th. Today, 50 years after President Eisenhower signed the legislation creating the interstate highway system, we can see how

these roads have changed our landscape and our lives.

If you go west across the Nation on Interstate 40 from Wilmington, North Carolina, you will pass through the tobacco country of

Greensboro and Winston-Salem, the Great Smokey Mountains, the

city of Nashville, home to country music, Memphis, the city of W.C.

Handy and Elvis, fireworks shacks in Arkansas, oil derricks in

Oklahoma, the remnants of old Route 66, the parched, dusty towns

of the Texas Panhandle, the Continental Divide in New Mexico, the

banded purple, scarlet and pink tints of the Painted Desert in Arizona, and the desolate blur of California before reaching the end

of the interstate at Barstow.

And along the way, you will pass 36 KOA campgrounds, 37 Holiday Inns, about 100 Wal-Marts, 46 Burger Kings and 82 McDonalds. That is a Big Mac for every 31 miles of interstate.

Think of where our economy would be today if there were no

interstate highway system. There are approximately 16,000 exits

on more than 40,000 miles of interstate. With the interstate highway, the Federal Government created thousands of economic opportunities for development at each of those places. Those exits have

functioned in the same way that stops on the railroad did in the

19th century, but with one difference: the railroads offered but a

few hundred stops, or economic opportunities.

In building the interstate highway system, we revealed on that

great stage all our glory and sometimes our meanness, all our vision and sometimes our shortsightedness. We revealed all of our
22

democracies, virtues and sometimes its failings. As the American

poet Walt Whitman said more than a century ago, ‘‘Oh, public road,

you express me better than I can express myself.’’

So let us celebrate all that Dwight David Eisenhower achieved

with his signature on June 29th, 1956. Though I doubt he realized

how momentous that occasion was, the President approved a bill

that ranks with Social Security, the G.I. Bill of Rights, and civil

rights legislation as the most important bills in the 20th century.

Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. McCormick.

Mr. MCCORMICK. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Representative

Bishop, members of the Subcommittee. My name is Gene McCormick. I am the Senior Vice President and Chairman of the Board

of Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas, a planning, engineering and construction management firm. I am appearing before you

today as the 2006 Chairman of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association.

Nearly 50 years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower signed a law

authorizing the construction of the interstate highway system. It

was the greatest domestic achievement of his presidency. It also

represented the fulfillment of the 1901 vision of ARTBA founder,

Horatio Earle, who advocated a federally-built capital-connecting

government highway system, which he said would connect every

State capital with each other and our Nation’s capital here in

Washington. ARTBA is very pleased to be a part of this Subcommittee’s observation of the 50th anniversary of this milestone

legislation.

Now that the core interstate highway system is complete, there

are those who believe our work is complete. Mr. Chairman, nothing

could be further from the truth. In fact, much remains to be done

to assure we protect our past investment for future generations.

The interstate highways are the foundation of our Nation’s surface

transportation system. Traffic demand continues to grow. In the

last decade alone, the amount of travel on the interstate highways

grew more than 36 percent. During that same decade, truck traffic

nearly doubled.

All of this is putting great strain on our network of interstate

highways. And according to the latest report from the Texas Transportation Institute, 59 percent of roads in urban areas are congested during peak periods each day, compared to only 34 percent

20 years ago. The amount of peak period travel on major urban

roads under congested conditions has grown from 32 percent to 67

percent.

The cost of that congestion is estimated at nearly $70 billion a

year in lost productivity and is the equivalent of $520 per year per

capita in our largest 75 metropolitan areas alone.

This kind of travel demand also takes a toll on the physical condition of the interstate highway system. According to the U.S.

DOT, an average annual investment of $18.8 billion in 2002 dollars

would be necessary to just maintain current physical and operating

conditions on the interstate highways over the next 16 years. And

this figure does not take into account the rising cost of highway
23

construction materials and labor, which have increased by over 20

percent in the last two years alone. By contrast, all levels of government invested only $15.1 billion in 2003 and $14.7 billion in 2004 on interstate highways. This represents a gap between investment levels and system needs of between $4 billion and $5 billion annually. While we can’t predict

how much will be invested in interstate highways in future years,

the amount to maintain current physical conditions and levels of

congestion will grow from $20 billion in 2004 to $29 billion in 2015,

far more than is being currently invested.

This Subcommittee’s interest in the interstate highway system

and today’s hearing is certainly a positive sign that the needs of

our interstate highways will be met in the future. As we prepare

to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the system, this milestone

achievement provides an opportunity to launch the much-needed

public dialogue on how the challenges facing the interstates and

other components of our Nation’s transportation network should be

addressed.

We clearly need to renew our vision of the interstate system, and

in fact, our surface transportation system. In my judgment, we are

losing global competitiveness on our surface transportation system

today. Yet we can look back at the interstate system and see three

key lessons, key elements that have served us well. One was the

creation of the Highway Trust Fund. Secondly, the partnership between the Federal, State and private sector in delivering the

project, the interstate system. And thirdly, a multi-year reauthorization period for Federal highway legislation.

We at ARTBA are committed to maintain that partnership role

with you and with the public at large as we move forward upon

celebrating the 50th anniversary, and create that vision for the future. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, and now we will turn to questions, beginning with Mr. Bishop.

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for Mr.

McCormick. You make reference to the challenges that we must

confront in the future. At the risk of oversimplifying our principal

challenge, it would seem to me, would be to identify sufficient resources to both maintain the system that we have and in fact expand it or improve it.

When we began the process of looking at the highway reauthorization, we began originally at I think $375 billion over six years.

The notion was that we were going to increase the gasoline tax, so

as to increase proceeds into the trust fund. We backed away from

that, as you know, we ultimately passed $284 billion over six years.

In terms of the funding challenge that we have, what is my perspective, what advice can you give us as public policy makers? Is

the gasoline tax something that ought to be seriously considered?

Should we be more aggressive in terms of pursuing public-private

partnerships, such as are currently being pursued in some cases?

Is bonding really another way to go? What is your thought on that?

Mr. MCCORMICK. Thank you, Representative Bishop. It is probably a little bit of both, quite frankly, in my judgment. Yes, I do

believe that there is a role for some increased tolling, some increased public-private participation and partnership. But fun-
24

damentally--and Committee members have mentioned it earlier--

the Federal role in terms of providing an interstate-like system for

our national, both interstate commerce and defense, purposes

seems to me to clearly suggest a strong Federal role.

And yes, I do believe the current mechanism of the gas tax, as

politically unattractive as that may be right now, is probably part

of the future. But also in the longer term, there are probably other

funding mechanisms, but still founded upon the concept of a user

fee that I think has served us so well over the years.

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. No more questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Are there questions on this side? Mr.

Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I heard you mention user

fee. Is that, do you think that is a viable alternative to tolls on the

interstates?

Mr. MCCORMICK. I didn’t mean to suggest, Mr. Brown, that I

thought the best approach was to toll all the interstates. There

may be certain areas, certain corridors, certain conditions, certain

interests at the local and State level that make that a viable alternative. I think it would take quite a public awareness campaign,

if you will, in terms of a broad application of tolls nationwide on

the entire system.

Mr. BROWN. Well, how would you feel about enhancing or raising

the Federal gas tax?

Mr. MCCORMICK. I do believe in user fees. The cost that we as

individual users of the system pay today is an extremely good bargain. The 18.4 cents per gallon Federal gas tax, which represents

roughly 6 to 7 percent of the total price of fuel that we pay today

seems to me to be a bargain. Of course, that gas tax has not been

increased in 13 years, if I recall correctly. And we have seen highway construction costs increase about 20 percent in the last 2 years

alone.

So yes, I think we collectively need to develop a broader public

awareness of the value that is derived from that Federal gas tax

and create the support for considering a user fee increase.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I know that this is the last panel before the cake, but could I give those other two guys a chance to respond to that same question, if they have a comment?

Mr. PETRI. Sure.

Mr. LEWIS. I would like to respond. To begin with, in 1956, the

gasoline tax was raised 3 cents, I believe you might have been the

gentleman who asked that question earlier this afternoon. The Federal gasoline tax stood at 3 cents.

If you cost that out in 2006 dollars, that is equal to 22 cents. At

the moment, our gasoline tax is 18.4 cents. We have been falling

behind in the gas tax revenues in terms of real dollars charged for

a gallon of gas since probably for the last 15 years. This to me

seems a compelling argument for raising taxes.

I actually think that Congress should raise taxes a lot, lot more.

You will see in my extended remarks, which I believe will be put

into the record, that they should be significantly raised. I think

that the tax system should be used for two things: first, for building and rebuilding the interstates and maybe getting an interstate
25

to Myrtle Beach, I believe you are the gentleman from Myrtle

Beach.

Mr. BROWN. Amen.

[Laughter.]

Mr. LEWIS. I can give you a historical reason why you didn’t get

a road to Myrtle Beach, and that was because in 1956 or whenever

it was planned, the system was planned a little earlier, probably

Myrtle Beach did not have 50,000 people. And the interstate connected communities of 50,000. But now maybe you deserve one.

My point is that Myrtle Beach, of course, needs an interstate, but

the rest of the interstates need to be maintained and rebuilt. And

the second point that I would make is that part of that gasoline

tax, very much increased gasoline tax, should be put into the seeking of an alternative fuel source, and alternative energy sources.

That would have the effect ultimately, I believe, of diminishing our

reliance upon foreign oil.

And by the way, oil is the four-letter word here and it hasn’t

been mentioned this afternoon. I think I have just been the first

person to say it. But it is a very serious issue.

Mr. BROWN. I think one issue that we will be taking up this

week on the House floor is the offshore drilling, which would at

least allow some of the royalty fees to remain on the coast where

those wells would be put. That could be an alternative source for

revenue for transportation.

And I do thank you, my time is expired.

Mr. GIFFORD. May I respond at this time? I would say two things

in response to the gentleman’s question. One, it was a very difficult

battle to put together the highway trust fund in 1956. There was

an extended period of 12 years after World War II, where we wrangled over how to pay for the interstate system. And there was

something compelling about the interstate, there was something

compelling about the vision of this system that would allow you to

travel from coast to coast without a traffic signal that I think captured the imagination, not only of the American public, but also

members of Congress and the Executive Branch and the States.

So there was a broad-based coalition that was extremely committed to the completion of the interstate. And as I mentioned in my

statement, up until the 1990s we had a program that was basically

committed to building out a map that had been drawn in the

1950s. I think today the commissions that Mr. Capka mentioned

are wrestling with is, is there a vision going forward that will carry

us the next 50 years. And I think there isn’t yet an emergent vision

that will fulfill that role. I think until you have something that is

compelling to the American people, you will have difficulty overcoming the resistance to raise taxes and make tough choices.

One of the beauties of the interstate system was that it was this

42,000 mile system that was conceived in 1956 and finalized in

1956. Yet, one of the weaknesses is that that map was drawn in

1956 and places like Myrtle Beach and other places around the

Country that weren’t big enough at that time to merit an interstate

connection have been excluded from it.

So there was an idea that we could finish our interstate and then

we had done our work. But you will never finish the economy. It
26

is an ongoing enterprise that requires continued support. Building

the public commitment to that is a real challenge.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Platts.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to add my

words of thanks for your hosting this hearing and for the presenters. My daily service here kind of embodies the benefits of the

interstate system. I commute from central Pennsylvania every day,

just under 100 miles, Interstate 83, 295, 95, 495, 695 and thank

goodness for the interstate system. It allows me to be a member

back in my district every day and hands-on dad to my 10 year old

and 7 year old sons.

I appreciate the efforts of our panelists in helping to raise the

awareness of not just maintaining but improving and expanding

the interstate system to the realities of 50 years later in 2006.

Hopefully we will have success as we go forward in finding the

means of achieving this very important goal. So thanks again for

your presentations, and Mr. Chairman, thanks for your efforts in

leading the charge here. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Diaz-Balart, any questions?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. No thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. If not, just before we conclude, I will give each of you

a chance to make a concluding remark, if you would care to, to the

Committee. I feel, as I think maybe some others in this room, do,

a little bit of a child in this. I got my driver’s license in 1956. And

before that, I traveled with grandparents and so on across the

Country. The roads and conditions were far different than they are

today. I think there was one interstate type system, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and the Garden State Parkway. Some things were

done with a little bit of a different concept than our interstate system and are in the process even now of being rebuilt.

But this clearly is something that has transformed our Country

and is vital. Its continued success and maintenance and modernization and expansion as the economy and population shift are vital

to our well-being as a Country and to our efficiency as a Country

and our international competitiveness as a Country.

I think there was some testimony to the effect that costs of logistics in the United States has dropped from 15 percent to 10 percent. We have had some recent testimony that that has leveled out

and in fact, is now in the process of reversing itself. We have a

huge international competitive edge in part because of logistics efficiency. We take it for granted in the atmosphere here.

But you go to Europe, their road system cost of transporting

goods is much higher. You go to India or China, it is still much

more expensive than we are here in the United States. So we undergird our high standard of living through efficiency in a variety

of areas, including the interstate system. Maintaining that and

stopping that trend from going down and reversing it and having

it continue to be efficient and more efficient is a major challenge.

I don’t know if any of you have any comments at all on that, any

explanation as to why it has started to go down or if you would

care to dispute or expand on my kind of little ode to the interstate

highway system. But we thank you for your testimony and will

give you a chance to make a concluding remark.
27

Mr. MCCORMICK. Well, Mr. Chairman, be assured I will not dispute any of the statements you made, because they are completely

accurate. I believe--and I have been blessed--I have worked over 40

years in my profession. The interstate system has always been a

part of that profession. I had a chance to work at State DOT level,

Federal Government and the private sector. It is that partnership

and it is the fact, in my judgment, that it has been an effective capital investment program that has served our Country so well over

the last 50 years.

And investment is a never-ending process, as the point was made

a moment ago. If we look to the future and our global competitiveness, the interstate system was planned in the 1930s and 1940s.

The program has been such a success it has changed the economic

structure of this Country. And it is time for us to create the vision

that supports change and renews our effort for the future.

Mr. GIFFORD. Directly on the Chairman’s point on our logistics

costs, let me just quote some statistics that I looked up before coming in today. If you want to measure the efficiency of our transportation system, one measure is transportation costs as a percentage

of the value of goods transported. So what fraction of delivered

goods is tied up in transportation costs?

In the U.S., it is between 3 and 4 percent. In the EU 15 countries, it is 5 to 6 percent. In Canada, it is 4 to 6 percent, depending

on the measure. So we are significantly below, and I think that

provides competitive advantage in our economy and also improves

the quality of life of our citizens.

You invited us to make a concluding point, I have just finished

a sabbatical at the Transportation Research Board for the last nine

months. One of the things I was looking at was the interstate system, what I call an exceptional system, and looking back in our history over 230 years to ask whether there are other examples where

the Federal Government stepped in and took actions like this.

I mentioned air traffic control as one example, but there really

aren’t any other examples. It is very unusual to have such strong

Federal leadership in what really is a centrally planned system

that was designated and closely coordinated with the States, but

had a very strong central, Federal role. I have called it un-American in a way. I was explaining it once to some Chinese central

planners who didn’t understand our electric power system, which

grew from the bottom up. The interstate system they understood

immediately.

And it is very unusual in our history as a Country for the Federal Government to take such a strong role and to centrally plan

a system. I think the takeaway message is the benefits that have

come from that have been extraordinary. It is not a perfect system

by any manner or means. We learned a lot along the way, we made

some mistakes.

But if you look at it as a system, there is almost nothing else in

our economy that has had such a strong centrally planned, centrally organized role. Going forward, we have to think carefully

about whether we will be able to replicate that. Maybe we can.

Maybe we should. But it is a challenge. It is a challenge in these

days of scarce Federal resources, retirement entitlements and so
28

forth. It is a real challenge going forward to say whether we will

be able to replicate that achievement.

Mr. LEWIS. First, thank you very much for your remarks, Mr.

Chairman. And thank you also again for inviting me to participate.

I do want to, since I am the historian on the group here, to tell

you a couple of things, remind us of a couple of things. In 1972,

that was the year that the original interstate was expected to be

finished, to be completed. It took a good deal longer, as we of

course know. But I think that is an important thing for us to understand.

And as the historian, I also want to just pay some maybe homage

to Representative Fallon, who was a part of this Committee many

years ago, and who was so important in the creation of the interstate highway system. And he is one of the great ones who should

be remembered.

But then as well, I think it is important for us on this moment,

as we are celebrating the interstate highway system, to remember

the extraordinary achievements of the engineers who created this,

the members of AASHTO, what is now AASHTO. All of these State

and regional planners and engineers did an extraordinary job. We

are in their debt, because they have helped to make America what

it is today in terms of its strength.

This Congress, the people, representatives in this room are the

ones who obviously have the power to create these systems, but the

men and women who brought it together and instituted it really

deserve our thanks as well.

And finally I want to just say, looking to the future, that you all,

the representatives on this Committee and our representatives in

Congress, have an extraordinary responsibility. Because the interstate system has been so successful and has created the economic

power of this Country and helped maintain the economic power of

this Country, you have an extraordinary responsibility to chart a

course to keep that system not only healthy but also to expand it.

And so thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. That is an appropriate note on which to end this

hearing. We thank you for your contribution. The hearing is adjourned and there is cake to celebrate. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62Æ