U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–533 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 110–1254 

GOODS MOVEMENT ON 

OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 8, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

THURSDAY MAY 8, 2008 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 13 

WITNESSES 

Gallis, Michael, Principal, Michael Gallis & Associates ....................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 10 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 11 

Potts, Charlie, CEO, Heritage Construction and Materials, The Heritage 

Group, on Behalf of The American Road and Transportation Builders Association .................................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 37 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 38 

Downey, Mortimer L., Chairman, PB Consult, on Behalf of The Coalition 

For America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors ................................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 47 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 48 

(1) 

GOODS MOVEMENT ON 

OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS 

THURSDAY MAY 8, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, and Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everybody. I call the hearing to 

order. We welcome you here. 

We are beginning to look at the reauthorization of the next highway bill, and this is an important time for us to just hear from the 

experts, from the folks who have ideas, so we are looking forward 

to hearing from our panel. 

I am going to make an opening statement. If my Ranking Member arrives, or any other colleagues, they will make an opening 

statement, and then we will call on each of you. We will give you 

7 minutes each, and then if you need more time we will extend 

that a little bit, and then we will go to questions. 

The tragic collapse of a Minnesota bridge in August of last year 

reminded us we need to invest more in the maintenance and preservation of our current transportation system. However, increased 

resources to better maintain the highways and bridges are not our 

only need; we face major challenges due to increased congestion 

and goods movement. 

The interState system was designed in the 1950’s, when the 

number of vehicle miles traveled was certainly much less than it 

is today. Miles traveled have increased from 600 billion in 1955 to 

3 trillion in 2006. Americans have been on the move. It is estimated we could reach 7 trillion miles traveled by 2055. 

Freight handled by trucks is projected to double by 2035, and the 

percentage of freight traffic handled by trucks will also increase. 

Traffic through West Coast ports alone could triple over the same 

period. We are already facing major issues in our ports with the 

quality of the air or lack thereof, so, obviously, we have a lot of 

work to do in this Committee. 

In 2005, the Texas Transportation Institute found that congestion resulted in 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel—imagine, wasted 

fuel at the prices that we are paying now—4.2 billion hours of 

2 

extra time, and $78 billion in delay and fuel costs. The value of 

delay and fuel costs per traveler was $710 in 2005, up from $260 

in 1982. 

Similarly, the Department of Transportation has estimated that the cost to our economy from traffic congestion is as high as $200 

billion per year. 

As our economy grows, congestion will continue to worsen unless 

we make major changes to improve goods movement. And nowhere 

is the need greater than in my State, particularly Southern California. 

Forty-five percent of all containerized cargo destined for the continental U.S. passes through California’s ports. We know trade is 

vital, and we want to make sure we continue trade, but it does 

have some adverse impacts: it clogs our roads, fouls our air, pollutes our water, it creates safety issues. We have to figure out how 

to mitigate those impacts so we can continue to grow. 

We also know the movement of goods has an impact on air quality and global warming. Freight transportation is still largely driven by fossil fuel combustion, and with that combustion comes emission of greenhouse gases. 

As a percentage of all mobile source emissions, heavy-duty truck, 

rail, and water transport together account for more than 25 percent 

of CO2 emissions, approximately 50 percent of NOx emissions, and 

40 percent of particulate matter emissions in the U.S. 

According to the California Air Resources Board, 75 percent of 

diesel particulate emissions in California are related to goods 

movement. So we can see all these issues are related. It is all a 

circle. And we know that 2400 premature deaths occur due to diesel emissions, and we see this only getting worse if we don’t act. 

By reducing congestion, we can improve air quality and public 

health. 

And as I look at the next reauthorization, to me, goods movement 

and air quality, those are going to be very key principles of our bill. 

The current highway and transit bill, SAFETEA-LU, will expire 

on September 30th, 2009. Goods movement and its impact will be, 

again, at the top of my list of issues, and today’s hearing is a first 

step. 

I appreciate the witnesses for being here. I look forward to your 

testimony and to working with you to ensure that the next bill 

makes real improvements to goods movement that will reduce congestion, improve air quality, and help grow our economy. 

Senator BOXER. I will keep the record open for 5 days so other 

colleagues can put their statements in the record, but why don’t we 

start off with Michael Gallis, Principal, Michael Gallis & Associates. Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GALLIS, PRINCIPAL, 

MICHAEL GALLIS & ASSOCIATES 

Mr. GALLIS. Thank you, Senator Boxer. It should be no surprise 

to anyone to say that we are living in the midst of the greatest 

change in human history. But what is surprising is how fast and 

how broad these changes are. 

While we are here to discuss roads, we must understand, as the 

Senator has pointed out, that they are components of a larger 

3 

transportation network that is the foundation of the U.S. economy. 

The real question on the table is what kind of system the U.S. 

needs to remain highly competitive within this global economy. 

And a second question starts to arise out of that which says why 

would the Nation with the most developed infrastructure in the 

world face not a problem, but what is called by many a crisis, that 

threatens our competitiveness within a world marketplace? 

It is because of the fact of the dramatic changes that took place 

after the collapse of the Soviet Union, leading to global market integration and the integration of the global network. We must remember that the U.S. system was created in the 20th century to 

serve the economy and trade patterns of a free world, not the 21st 

century to match the trade patterns and the economy of the 21st 

century. 

To put the changes that we are living in to three basic categories, 

I would like to point out these three. So here we have an image 

of the free world, U.S. in the center of that, communism on two 

sides. Here is the integrated global network, the first one. What is 

driving the goods through our ports in Southern California, New 

York, even into Chicago, putting huge new pressures is this: more 

nations connected into a world grid, pushing freight through this 

as production moves around the world. 

The second issue, a new global economic geography. It used to be 

the U.S. was the largest nation within a free world configuration, 

largely a domestic economy, only 10 percent dependent on foreign 

trade. Today, over 25 percent. We were, had the advantage of 

economies of scale and a national infrastructure. But today China, 

of course, much larger economies of scale and on a continental 

basis, does not have to struggle with cross-national boundary 

issues in formulating strategies. 

The third one, a new economy. We don’t really appreciate what 

information technology has done in replacing mass standardization. 

Today we have mass customization and the global redistribution of 

economic activity by which more pieces, parts, move more rapidly 

in more coordinated movements to more places than ever before, 

leading to a flood of goods on the freeway. 

This change accelerated after 2050. The world economy grew an 

amazing 52 percent between 2000 and 2006, from $31.9 trillion to 

$48.5 trillion—World Bank numbers—which gives you a sense of 

where is all this growth coming from in such a short time. 

We like to put the four problems facing the transportation into 

what I call the four other Cs. The trucker associations have created 

the three Cs. They got there first, so mine are the four other Cs. 

The first C I will talk about is condition. We know a lot about 

that; the Senator spoke about that. I can’t really add much to that. 

We know we have problems and they are huge. 

The second one was capacity. And a lot has been discussed about 

that capacity issue. But I want to talk about configuration. I want 

you to look to this light map for a minute. Everybody has seen this; 

it is on posters, walls. We take it for granted. But look at it again. 

Where is the Canadian border? Look at it again? I thought for sure 

the development between Mexico and the U.S. would show up, but 

where is the Mexican border? And where is any State border? 

4 

What you see is dots of light. Those are called economic regions. 

And you can see Denver, you can see Los Angeles, San Francisco, 

New York, Chicago. And then, if you look closely, you will see corridors. That is the network of transportation that is covering the 

United States. That is what we are talking about investing in. And 

where should we invest and how should we invest in that network? 

If the first C is condition, second C is capacity, the third C is configuration. And the way we do it today is this is a congestion map. 

I call it chasing the red. You say put some money on this red, put 

it on that red, and we fight over which red to put the money on. 

But, in fact, this is what is happening on a continental basis. There 

is a huge reconfiguration, largely driven by the private sector, that 

is putting huge pressure on key points like Southern California, 

like Chicago, like Memphis, Detroit, New York. Huge pressure as 

the reorganization of the rail network, the seaborne trade, airfreight moves across the Country, and this is the projections and 

corridors. 

This issue, the third C, configuration, raises the fourth C, constraints. While this reconfiguration is largely driven by the private 

sector, there has been no public sector response. There is no policy 

framework to understand these changes. It is not simply a funding 

problem; it is a national policy question of how is the public sector—from Federal, State, and local—going to respond to the private 

sector. Huge gap. 

So what is the way to the future? I believe there are three things 

that we must address as we think of reauthorization and is it just 

a financial question. First, what we have done is we fund projects. 

But we don’t have a strategy or framework to understand how any 

individual project fits into a broader national picture of what it will 

achieve on a national basis. How do we understand the tradeoff? 

Second, transportation planning has been largely reactive. That 

is this: Where is the congestion? Put the money there. It hasn’t 

been proactive, saying, What is happening to the Nation, the pattern of global trade? What do we need to achieve as a Nation to 

retain our competitiveness? So, as a result, we react to situations, 

we don’t proactively say where do we want to go. 

And the last one, strategic partnerships. We talk about the private sector reorganizing the grid, moving in new ways, the Federal 

side, the State side. How are we going to create the partnerships 

to create policy and to create the financing because of the vast 

amounts of money? 

And when I am in New York, I love to use this slide because I 

like to say to people are you mission driven? And they say, come 

on, Mike, this is New York; we are big boys, we know what we are 

going. But, in fact, this is the competition in the world today. 

So if we are big boys and know what we are doing, and these 

people are mission driven, we are competing in a new global economy. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallis follows:] 

5 


85533.001
6 


85533.002
7 


85533.003
8 


85533.004
9 


85533.005
10 

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL GALLIS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CARPER

Question 1. Government usually divides transportation by mode. In the Senate, 

we have highways in this committee, rail and air in the Commerce Committee and 

transit at Banking. At the U.S. Department of Transportation, each agency focuses 

on the movement ofmachines—trucks, trains, planes, cars and ships. 

But I have found that people rarely look at travel this way. They just want to 

get from point A to point B, quickly, conveniently and affordably. Most of the time, 

they use multiple modes for one trip. Freight movement is the same. Businesses and 

consumers just want to receive their goods quickly, safely and affordably. 

How do we break through this government stove-piping to ensure that we institute policies that facilitate smooth flow of goods (and people)?’’ 

Response. Ossification of bureaucratic structures has been one of the hallmarks 

of decline of empires since Roman times. Unless we can address the reformation of 

our current committee structure, we face serious consequences. 

The problem is that our current transportation system was created during the 

past two centuries in response to, first, the needs for seaports and canals, mail and 

military roads in the early Republic, and then evolving piecemeal as new technologies introduced new transportation modes, starting with railroads, then automobiles and trucks (which required roads and highways) and airplanes (which required airports). The Federal structure that supports transportation also evolved 

piecemeal over the same period. 

As a result, at the opening of the 21st century, while we need comprehensive and 

integrated approaches, what we actually have is a structure that is incapable of producing the needed response. Fragmented, mode specific improvements, as you so 

clearly point out, are not the real issue, rather moving passengers and freight on 

schedule and cost effectively from point A to B is the issue. This can only be 

achieved through integrated responses that involve coordinating planning and investments between multiple modes and across multiple jurisdictions. 

Transportation planning should function on ‘‘network performance’’—defined as 

the way in which all modes function, together with communications infrastructure, 

to effectively move people and goods. The regional and global movements of people 

and goods supporting the social and economic activities in our nation involve every 

mode including communications (IT). Recently, one of the large automakers told me, 

in response to the question of how we should redefine the infrastructure needs for 

the Detroit region to more effectively compete with foreign auto makers, ‘‘Transportation is no longer a separate function outside the manufacturing process. The 

movement of materials, parts and finished vehicles has become an integrated part 

of the entire manufacturing process.’’ These same sentiments have been restated to 

me from representatives from business service companies in the Chicago region to 

theme park owners in the Orlando region to developers in the Portland region. In 

every project we have been involved in across the US, it is on-time, cost effective 

movements, not the mode, that is the key issue. 

Unfortunately, the bureaucratic fragmentation and silo mentality that reinforces 

the mode specific approach is defeating our ability to address the freight movement 

problem. This problem can only be solved through creating an integrated multimodal network that can move freight seamlessly from US locations to global destinations. While the bureaucratic structure we created was effective in moving passengers, it is not effective in producing the kind of efficient and more cost effective 

infrastructure this nation needs to remain competitive in the 21 11 Century global 

economy. 

Question 2. ‘‘Drivers are often frustrated by the presence of large amounts of 

truck traffic and truck divers are severely impacted by heavy urban traffic in terms 

of lost time and lost fuel sitting in traffic. 

How does the lack of transportation options for people movement, such as rail and 

transit, impact goods movement? ’’ 

Response. Two macro scale forces have totally changed the amount of truck traffic 

on the nation’s roads. The first is the emergence of a global economy. The second 

is the rapid acceleration of technology and its application to all phases of economic 

activity from manufacturing to accounting that has increased the importance of ontime, scheduled delivery of goods and services. These two forces have combined to 

vastly accelerate the total amount of people and goods moving through the global 

and national transportation systems, resulting in a dramatic rise of truck traffic and 

congestion on the nation’s roads. 

Prior to 1991, the movement of goods (today referred to as logistics) was a small 

component of total demand on the nation’s transportation system (airports, seaports, 

roads and rails) and especially its highways. Today we essentially have two separate 

11 

components within our transportation system, one for the movement of people and 

the other for the movement of goods. These two systems are using the same highways, rails, airports and seaports and are in serious conflict as they have two separate functions, operate on two different kinds of schedules, and have two different 

kinds of impacts on the lives of our citizens. 

More choice is one of the answers, however the real challenge is how the two overlapping and parallel systems of freight and passengers should be configured to function. How should we differentiate the short-term actions from the long-term and 

make sure that we do not take actions in the short-term that preclude the actions 

that will be necessary in the long-term to develop the kind of system we will need. 

Traditionally, we did not have to address the freight issue, today we must. This 

issue further reinforces the need for reform that you addressed in your first question, as it is difficult if not impossible for a committee that addresses only two of 

the modes to solve the problem that extends across all modes within the system. 

Question 3. ‘‘We are dealing with limited funding for everything, certainly including transportation. Yet we have large maintenance and new capacity needs. 

In terms of competitiveness, how important is funding the maintenance of our 

current road system and smoother intermodal connections? How much funding 

should go to maintenance as opposed to new capacity? Should new capacity be evaluated for how it will help or hurt the movement of goods?’’ 

Response. The three interrelated categories of issues we face in developing the 

kind of system we will need in the 21st century are condition, capacity and configuration. Condition is vital. I four current system begins to deteriorate, we are in serious trouble, as we will lose the confidence of our own citizens as well as our productive capacity. If we do not expand capacity we will choke the system, which will lead 

to growing anger, frustration and increasing costs as productivity decreases due to 

lost time in the movement of people and goods. 

Configuration has not been effectively addressed and not sufficiently discussed. 

The system we now have was created on a mode specific basis over the past two 

hundred years with little or no concern for inter-modal efficiency, nor the effects of 

advanced communications infrastructure. As a result, what we have today is a highly fragmented system that was designed primarily for the movement of people, not 

freight. Further, the system is one that was developed to serve the 20th Century 

‘‘Free World’’ economy that America dominated, not the highly competitive global 

economy, covering a much larger geography and involving much larger flows of 

international commodities than ever before in history. 

We need funding for each of the three categories. However, if we are creative, we 

should be able to get higher performance from the future system if we take the time 

to plan an integrated, multimodal system and demand higher system performance 

from the entire network, rather than continue to fund and evaluate performance of 

our transportation system on a mode specific basis. Currently, we only have mode 

specific performance methodologies and would need to create the methodologies and 

metrics to measure system wide performance. This would be a key component of a 

long-term strategy. 

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL GALLIS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. ‘‘In your testimony you criticize our country’s response to infrastructure needs as being too segmented, and recommend a more integrated approach. Acknowledging the Federal Government cannot solve this problem alone, what recommendations would you have in the near term for a strategic approach, for policymakers about to reauthorize the Highway Bill, for meeting the requirements future 

freight growth will have on the system?’’ 

Response. There is a need to begin to change direction to create the kind of infrastructure this nation needs to remain competitive in the global economy. I believe 

we must develop a long-term and short-term strategy. If not, we will go into the 

future with series of short-term measures that will magnify, rather than solve, our 

current problems. The first step in the long-term strategy is to define the kind of 

system the U.S. will need in the 21st century. The EU has already done it, China 

has done it, India has done it, and even the Russian Federation has done it. We 

are the only major nation and continental trading bloc that has not done it! I believe 

that we need to include funding to create the national framework (rather than national plan) needed to define the kind of system we will need in new global economy. 

A network of gateways, corridors and inland hubs that are embedded in metropolitan areas forms the freight system. States should develop compatible regional and 

local State system plans utilizing policies adopted by the national commission on 

freight strategy. This will require the development of innovative funding methods, 

12 

including new national transportation bonds, and identification of new revenue 

sources that benefit from transportation investments. As part of this we should also 

define the critical issues that impact how our nation’s system functions within the 

context of the three-nation, North American trading bloc. Let’s get the dialog started. 

As to system capital funding, I believe we will need to include much stronger language defining how states should begin to address freight (logistics) and create a 

separate and flexible pool of freight system funding allocated on critical needs basis, 

defined by a set of national needs criteria. While the kind of massive new funding 

for the actual projects would appear to be impossible, a first step would be to create 

a pool of funds for State and local planning that uses a national needs criteria to 

coordinate those levels of planning with national strategies for gateways, hubs and 

corridors. 

A simple example of the current problem is that we develop separate policies and 

funding for urban transit and roads. We do not ask how can they work together to 

move people and goods through a metropolitan area. The current success of the first 

segment of the Charlotte metro system, which initially met no Federal transit guide 

lines, is due to the fact it was planned to weave together with the highway system 

and to create new commercial and residential development activity by creating corridors of high accessibility. Why are these concepts not in the transportation literature? Because transportation planning is reactive not proactive, and therefore 

constantly reinforces yesterdays patterns rather than developing the system to support future needs. 

Question 2. ‘‘In your testimony you project large growth in freight movement on 

a very specific network of us interstates. What analysis have you done to identify 

the locations of the Nation IS most heavily used interstates for goods movement and 

how would you address new and needed corridors?’’ 

Response. Our analysis is based on three areas of research that is focused on 

what we need in the future as opposed to traditional transportation planning that 

is reactive and focused on solving the problems of the past. First, and most important, are the direct interviews with major private sector transportation (trucking, 

rail and sea) companies on their current patterns and future plans for freight movements like I have conducted in places like Houston, Detroit, Chicago, Florida, and 

the West Coast. Second are interviews and primarily literature search on new infrastructure developments across North American and the other major trading blocs. 

The third are interviews and literature research on how technology is changing 

business processes, from manufacturing to business services, and what the implications are for our transportation system. These three areas have provided us with 

the information to understand not only where these critical corridors are emerging, 

but why they are emerging. 

In response to the question of who to address the new needs, I could, and am willing to offer a lengthy answer, but I feel it would be important for the American people to hear and understand the real concerns of business that I have heard in 

projects across the country and would be basis for what I would propose. 

I would suggest a series of hearings involving a targeted set of businesses from 

a variety of economic sectors to listen to their concerns about competing in a global 

economy and what they need from the transportation system. Second I suggest the 

Senate join with the House to commission a major congressional study to define 

what kind of system (everything on the table) we would need and what it would 

look like (include best case examples of where we are today) and what the alternative funding mechanisms would be needed to achieve such a system. 

Question 3. You spoke of how the current transportation network was not designed/configured for the 21st century trade patterns. Could the current system be 

modified to add capacity and increase efficiency of the distribution of good from the 

ports (and freight intensive airports) or will we have to think more comprehensively 

and build numerous new interstates/corridors?’’ 

Response. Yes, we will have to think and act more comprehensively. At the national scale, our system was developed to serve the Free World market. What his 

means is that the system was primarily a ’Midwest outbound to the two coasts’ system in configuration and operations, moving U.S. agricultural and industrial products from the heartland to foreign destinations. This was reflected in the pricing 

structure that defined the headhaul, the higher value direction, as Midwest to the 

coast and the lower value, backhaul, from coast to inland. 

After 1995 this entire system began to change as a massive redistribution of global economic activity was driven by the emergence of gigantic global corporations 

that formed to serve a global marketplace resulted a redeployment of US manufacturing to overseas locations (who would have believed that corporations as large as 

13 

Exxon and Mobile would have to merge?). With the new, inbound flow of goods to 

our air and, primarily, sea ports from a vastly expanded global marketplace, far beyond the geographic extent of the Free World, our transportation system was flooded, as it was never set up for this kind and direction of flow. A prime example is 

Chicago, where the rail yards ringed the city but never connected through it. As a 

manufacturing center sending goods out, this was not a problem, but as Chicago 

morphed into a distribution center the seamless rail connection through Chicago became a vital issue. This is not a question of capacity but configuration. 

Unfortunately as Chicago developed its rail plan, the truckers refused to come to 

the table for fear of revealing their customers and, therefore, the rail plan is not 

integrated with the highway plan. Oopsl Further problems occur because the plan 

for O’Hare is not connected with the surface system and the Port of Chicago is on 

its own and not part of any plan to facilitate the movement of goods. 

We may need new Interstates, but more importantly, I feel we to re-engineer and 

reconfigure the system to wring out more efficiency. We could do this by developing 

more efficient network performance through higher levels of integration, consolidation and connectivity. I feel this next highway bill is the platform to use to start 

the process. This cannot be done in a day, but for over a decade we have watched 

our nation lose position relative to the other trading blocs, and we need to get started today. China will finish it first phase of a massive multi-modal, power and communications infrastructure in 2020. We cannot be left behind! 

Question 4. ‘‘During the Questions and Answers portion of the hearing, I asked 

Mr. Potts about the negative perceptions associated with what some call the 

’NAFTA Super highway’. Around the country, my State in particular, people are 

concerned that in many ways we may be losing our sovereignty by developing large 

transportation corridors into neighboring countries. Do you think these concerns are 

warranted? ’’ 

Response. There are two different issues involved with this question. The first is 

how the emergence of a new global economic geography based on trading blocs (EU, 

Russian Federation—China and India) is affecting the U.S. economy and transportation system. The second is how the Dallas, Texas based initiative, ‘‘NASCO— 

North American Super Corridor Organization,’’ is affecting U.S. sovereignty. 

The first issue is key to developing the future of our national system. Prior to the 

collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. was the largest ‘‘Free World’’ economy. In this 

configuration, our nation provided the ‘‘defense shield’’ against Communist aggression and, in exchange, our allies supported our economy. Following the collapse of 

communism in 1991, economic integration pulled China and India into the global 

marketplace. With an economy only a fraction of that of the U.S., but with a potential workforce and consumer base five times our size, China and India drove the creation of a new global economic geography, based on creating larger economic units, 

such as NAFTA, the EU and the Russian Federation, that could more effectively 

compete with the new super size nations that were now part of the world economy. 

Without a national policy and development framework, the US is unable to negotiate with either Canada or Mexico to work out how the transportation system that 

is the foundation for how the North American trading bloc can compete. The lack 

of a negotiated strategy is driving both Canada and Mexico to develop national 

strategies that will facilitate their economies, but may be detrimental to the US. As 

a result, North America is the only major trading bloc in the world today without 

a continental scale transportation strategy. This represents a very real threat to the 

future of our economic status in the world. 

I feel this is a question that needs to be addressed, and that there is too much 

misinformation and misplaced fear concerning global competition that could lead us 

in a protectionist direction that would doom our economy. In closing, it is important 

to note that the U.S. is looking to global growth to pull us away from recession. 

global capital to fund our debt and to attract support for our financial system. Cut 

the world offhand we are in serious trouble. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. That was very interesting. 

Since we have been joined by my Ranking Member, Senator 

Inhofe, I would love to turn to him for an opening statement, and 

then we will continue with the panel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to talk about one of the most critical issues that we are 

14 

faced with here. There is no denying that the level of commitment 

to our Nation’s infrastructure is directly linked to the United 

States’ continued place as the world economic leader. And I am 

pleased, Madame Chairman, that you have convened this hearing 

to examine the role of freight movement on our Nation’s highways. 

When President Eisenhower first conceived the National InterState System over 50 years ago, he could not have imagined that 

the Nation’s transportation system, once coveted by the world for 

its innovative planning and connectivity, would be struggling to accommodate the exponential growth in people and goods movements 

today. Much of our industrial success and our rapidly growing GDP 

is the result of our ‘‘just in time economy,’’ which relies heavily on 

the free flowing transportation network. 

I would ask unanimous consent that I put the remainder of my 

statement in the record and just comment that this is a problem 

that we talked about all the time. We went through, in 2005, a 

huge bill. At that time the Republicans were the majority. I think 

it went down as the largest non-defense spending bill in history, 

and, yet, it has barely maintained what we have today. 

We recognized at that time that we were going to have to do 

some innovative things to resolve this, and it is going to have to 

include everything. A lot of people don’t realize, in my State of 

Oklahoma, that we actually have barge traffic. So we are going to 

have to address this thing. It is a serious problem, and I appreciate 

you bringing this to the public’s attention. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Chairman Boxer. I appreciate the opportunity to examine the movement of goods on our nation’s highways and its contributions to our future competitive trade advantage with other nations. There is no denying that the level of commitment to our nation’s infrastructure is directly linked to the United States continued place as the world economic leader. Thus, I am pleased, Madame Chairman, 

that you have convened this hearing to examine the role of freight movement on 

our nation’s highways. 

When President Eisenhower first conceived the National InterState System over 

50 years ago he could not have imagined that the nation’s transportation system, 

once coveted by the world for its innovative planning and connectivity, would be 

struggling to accommodate the exponential growth in people and goods movement 

of today. Much of our industrial success and our rapidly growing GDP is the result 

of our ‘‘just in time economy,’’ which relies heavily on a free flowing transportation 

network. 

Our nation’s roads and bridges move close to $40 billion worth of goods daily, and 

with that number expected to rapidly increase with the growth in foreign trade and 

doubling of American port capacity, our infrastructure problem will soon be a crisis. 

Our expansive network of highways is operating well above its designed capacity, 

and as trucks continue to be delayed by congestion, which DOT estimates as an $8 

billion loss every year, our economy will suffer. 

As I have said many times before, current funding of our highway program is 

barely enough to maintain the system, let alone provide for much needed new comprehensive investment in future infrastructure needs. We cannot afford to ignore 

the consequences of barely ‘‘maintaining’’ our transportation networks while the rest 

of the world continues to spend heavily on bigger and better ways of competing with 

our once superior highway system. 

The rest of the world is financing new ports, highways, and sophisticated rail networks to attract new commerce, yet we are falling behind. There is no question that 

there will be a negative impact on our own industries if we fail to provide a free 

flowing transportation system. Today, business has moved away from a warehousing 

business model to a ‘‘just in time’’ model that depends on getting what they need 

when they need it. If we want to encourage our manufacturing industries to stay 

15 

in this country, one of the things we must do is provide adequate transportation infrastructure. 

Our neighbors to the North and South are committing billions to the construction 

of new high capacity ports and rail systems specifically to divert foreign cargo trade 

away from our heavily congested ports in the Northeast and Southern California . 

The United States ’ economy cannot afford to be outpaced in infrastructure spending 

by other rapidly growing countries, eager to attract new commerce to their economies. 

The reliable and free flowing movement of goods on our nation’s highways is, in 

my opinion, of the strongest Federal interest. There is no more important role of 

Federal Government as it relates to transportation than to address the needs that 

affect the vitality of our interState commerce, and our economy as a whole. As we 

gear up for re-authorization of the Highway Bill, it is critical that we explore the 

ideas of a new national freight movement program. It is time for a new vision on 

how we address the exponential growth of goods movement, and I think it is time 

to seriously consider a separate program dedicated to freight. 

As we begin reauthorization discussions, my hope is that we will be able to work 

together in developing solutions to our critical transportation infrastructure needs 

which may include making bold changes to the traditional Federal highway program. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Inhofe. And I do 

look forward to working with you on our next reauthorization. 

Next we will hear from Charlie Potts, CEO, Heritage Construction and Materials, The Heritage Group, on behalf of the American 

Road and Transportation Builders Association. Thank you, sir, for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLIE POTTS, CEO, HERITAGE CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS, THE HERITAGE GROUP, ON BEHALF 

OF THE AMERICAN ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. POTTS. Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, first of all, I want 

to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today 

and for recognizing the enormous crisis that we as a Nation face 

with America’s transportation network. 

The 2009 reauthorization of the Federal Surface Transportation 

Program I think provides the best opportunity in more than 50 

years to chart a new course for the future of America’s highway 

and transit systems. In 2002, The Brookings Institution published 

a book celebrating the Federal Government’s top 25 accomplishments of the 20th century. Ranked number 7 was the 1956 law establishing our interState system. It represented a bold vision and 

it filled an unmet need and established a clear Federal responsibility. 

While a national system of highways seems like a foregone conclusion today, the 1956 legislation was quite controversial and it 

actually took years to enact. And most of us, I think, would agree 

today that the battles fought and ultimately won to create the 

interState highway system was well worth that effort. 

But I think now it is time to wage a transportation battle for the 

21st century. America’s transportation network is facing Herculean 

challenges, as you have already pointed out. Highway bottlenecks 

cause the trucking industry $8 billion per year and 243 million 

hours of lost time annually. Traffic congestion drains $78 billion 

from the United States economy in lost productivity and wasted 

fuel. Federal Government projections of expanding freight shipments, increasing automobile usage, and growing population over 

the next 25 years pose an even greater threat. 

16 

The debate over a new vision for the Federal role in transportation has been waged over the past few years, and throughout 

these wide-ranging discussions there has been one overwhelming 

agreement in all of the comments: there is no national strategy for 

the movement of goods. Yes, there are several Federal programs 

that have a freight component and the U.S. Department of Transportation has created a Corridors of the Future program. But distributing seed money to a handful of projects in a piecemeal fashion does not constitute a national plan to help ensure U.S. competitiveness in a global market. 

A U.S. Department of Transportation report shows one-quarter of 

the economic activity in each State depends on the ability to move 

goods on the nationwide highway system. As such, efficient freight 

movement is critical for all States and warrants a national solution. 

A General Accountability Office report earlier this year called for 

a national freight strategy. The deliberations of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission also underscored the need for bold Federal action to ensure reliable goods 

movement. 

The question then becomes how do we achieve the goal of a federally led freight program? Shortly after the enactment of 

SAFETEA-LU, ARTBA members began the process of developing 

specific proposals for the 2009 reauthorization debate. In January 

2007, ARTBA called for the creation of a new Critical Commerce 

Corridors, or a 3C program. 

Now, while my written testimony describes this proposal in much 

more detail, I would like to at least provide a brief overview of the 

concept. 

Under our proposal, the U.S. Department of Transportation 

would bring together public and private sector stakeholders to develop a strategic national business plan for the 3C program. It 

would include a proposed national 3C map that ties together regionally developed freight system maps and a proposed short-and 

long-range schedule for executing and completing proposed 3C 

projects by region. 

We envision the 3C program being financed outside the Highway 

Trust Fund, with new freight-related user fees. The concept of user 

fee financing for transportation programs has proven to be an effective and stable source of revenue for long-term projects. We think 

we should build on this successful model in developing a national 

freight program. 

It is essential, however, that existing roads and public transportation programs not be shortchanged to support the new 3C program. As such, we also recommend creating a budget firewall to ensure that new 3C revenue are used exclusively to enhance freight 

movement. 

Madam Chairman, over the past decade I have had the opportunity to discuss America’s transportation challenges with industry, business, government, and civil groups across the Nation. I am 

convinced the American public and business community will support the future Federal Surface Transportation Program that we 

are proposing. We urge you and all Members of Congress to seize 

17 

the opportunity the 2009 reauthorization debate presents, and I 

look forward to working with you in this effort. 

Again, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you, 

and I would be happy to answer questions later. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Potts follows:] 

18 


85533.006
19 


85533.007
20 


85533.008
21 


85533.009
22 


85533.010
23 


85533.011
24 


85533.012
25 


85533.013
26 


85533.014
27 


85533.015
28 


85533.016
29 


85533.017
30 


85533.018
31 


85533.019
32 


85533.020
33 


85533.021
34 


85533.022
35 


85533.023
36 


85533.024
37 

RESPONSES BY CHARLIE POTTS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CARPER

Question 1. Government usually divides transportation responsibility by mode. In 

the Senate, we have highways in this committee, rail and air in the Commerce Committee and transit atBanking. At the U.S. DepartmentofTransportation,each agency 

focuses on the movement of machines—trucks, trains, planes, cars and ships. 

But I have found that people rarely look at travel this way. They just want to 

get from point A to point B, quickly, conveniently and affordably. Most of the time, 

they use multiple modes for one trip. Freight movement is the same. Businesses and 

consumers just want to receive their goods quickly, safely and affordably. 

How do we break though this government stove-piping to ensure that we institute 

policies that facilitate smooth flow of goods (and people)? 

Response. I agree with your observation about the unique nature of goods movement and how it doesn’t fit the current structure of the Federal surface transportation program. In fact, I would take your analysis one step further. While the 

‘‘stove-piping’’ of Federal policies and funds among modes of transportation you describe is certainly problematic for optimal goods movement, so, too, is the absence 

of Federal priority setting in this area. Providing near total autonomy to State and 

regional transportation officials, with respect to how Federal funds are invested, 

makes achieving national goals very difficult. 

Freight, by its nature, is not constrained by the geographic boundaries of individual states. As you said, ‘‘Business and consumers just want to receive their goods 

quickly.’’ They don’t care how many donor or donee states a product had to go 

through to reach its end point, or if these states ‘‘got their fair share’’ of Federal 

dollars. Their only concern is whether or not the product was delivered in the most 

efficient and cost effective manner. Even though the structure of the current Federal 

surface transportation program is not conducive to maximizing goods movement, enabling interstate commerce—i.e., freight movement—is still a clear Federal responsibility. Without bold leadership from the Federal Government in this area, we can 

continue to expect a patchwork of freight projects in severely congested areas instead of a comprehensive approach that yields a true national system. 

ARTBA is proposing to reform and restructure the Federal surface transportation 

program into two separate, but equal priorities: 

• The existing Federal highways and public transportation programs to protect 

past investments in critical transportation infrastructure facilities and to provide regional mobility; 

• A new ‘‘Critical Commerce Corridors’’ (3C) Program exclusively dedicated to 

building a national, intermodal goods movement network. 

The details of the 3C proposal are included in ARTBA’s written testimony, but 

the proposal calls for a national planning process that would tie together critical 

freight projects identified at the regional level. A separate planning process and programmatic structure, however, is not enough. To be truly effective, a freight program must have its own unique revenue source through freight-related user fees. 

This would ensure goods movement projects are not sacrificed for other surface 

transportation priorities and that existing highway and transit needs are not subservient to freight improvements. 

This approach would not create another ‘‘stove-pipe,’’ but rather it would alleviate 

state and local authorities from having to make a choice between moving goods and 

moving people. The structure we are advocating would ensure both these critical 

priorities are addressed through separate Federal initiatives and that the Federal 

Government is asserting its responsibility to meeting the national goal of maximizing the efficient movement of goods. 

Question 2. Drivers are often frustrated by the presence of large amounts of truck 

traffic and truck drivers are severely impacted by heavy urban traffic in terms of 

lost time and lost fuel sitting in traffic. 

How does the lack of transportation options for people movement, such as rail and 

transit, impact goods movement? 

Response. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines holistic as ‘‘an organic or integrated whole [that] has a reality independent of and greater than the sum of its 

parts.’’ This definition is the embodiment of what a national transportation system 

must be and underscores the need for the Federal Government to ensure a holistic 

approach to the nation’s transportation challenges is implemented. 

The value of one state’s road way network or one city’s public transportation system is greatly diluted if it is viewed in isolation. Integrating these facilities into a 

national transportation network, however, can facilitate economic growth for a region, provide citizens with unimpeded mobility, and ensures national objectives, 

38 

such as public safety, are addressed. For example, a major metropolitan area with 

a successful public transportation system achieves more than just mobility for users 

of that system. Freight shipments to and from this area by highway are also greatly 

enhanced by the reduced roadway congestion facilitated by a successful public transportation system. As a result, businesses in that area and across the nation are 

more productive due to the opening of this market that is realized because of a local 

transportation solution. 

While the importance o fa truly integrated surface transportation system cannot 

be overstated, a lack of options is not the root of our problem. The fundamental reason why the U.S. transportation network is falling further and further behind the 

growing demands being placed on it is that governments at all levels have failed 

to make adequate investment in the upkeep and enhancement to fall modes of surface transportation infrastructure. For example, the primary mechanism for financing highway and public transportation improvements at the Federal level—the 

motor fuels tax—has not been adjusted for 15 years. While some are attempting to 

claim the fuels tax is antiquated, expecting a user fee rate set in1993 to accommodate the prices and demands of 2008 lacks all common sense. 

Yes, we need to make better transportation policy decisions and we need to seek 

new ways to meet our transportation needs. However, without increased investment 

from all levels of government, the nation’s surface transportation challenges will 

continue to go unmet. 

Question 3. We are dealing with limited funding for everything, certainly including transportation. Yet we have large maintenance and new capacity needs. 

In terms of competitiveness, how important is funding the maintenance of our 

current road system and smoother intermodal connections? How much funding 

should go to maintenance as opposed to new capacity? Should new capacity be evaluated for how it will help or hurt the movement of goods? 

Response. The U.S. surface transportation needs are so voluminous that they cannot be approached from a ‘‘this or that’’ perspective. We are beyond the point of trying to balance competing needs. Rather, we must begin a path that provides a way 

to answer these types of question with ‘‘all of the above.’’ In terms of goods movement, while additional capacity to eliminate a choke point may be necessary to ease 

freight shipments in one region, these shipments will also inevitably have to travel 

over existing roadways or bridges. Neglecting maintenance needs of these facilities 

in favor of new capacity will ultimately just shift the choke point to another location. 

One of the major tenets of ARTBA’s recommendations for the next surface transportation reauthorization bill is that both maintaining the existing transportation 

system AND enabling the safe and efficient movement of goods are critically important. We must dramatically increase investment in the core highway and public 

transportation programs to address existing maintenance challenges, improve regional mobility, and improve safety. The existing Federal motor fuels tax should be 

increased and continue to be devoted to these programs. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 2006 Conditions and Performance report, Federal 

highway investment must be increased by an average of $19 billion per year over 

the life of the next surface transportation reauthorization bill to maintain current 

physical conditions and traffic congestion levels. 

The second component of ARTBA’s vision for a restructured Federal surface transportation program is the 3C Program. This new federally-led freight program would 

add new capacity to ensure the reliable movement of goods and help maintain U.S. 

competitiveness in the global marketplace. Freight improvements would be identified at the regional level by all involved stake holders and Federal revenues for 

these projects would be generated from new freight-related user fees. While funds 

generated from these new revenues for the 3C program would be used exclusively 

for goods movement purposes, states are allowed to use core Federal highway funds 

for capacity needs. As such, states could still add capacity from their core program 

funds and this capacity would not be required to have freight benefits. 

This type of structure would allow both capacity and maintenance needs to be fulfilled and avoids the ‘‘zero sum game’’ mentality that perpetuates the existing transportation planning process. 

RESPONSES BY CHARLIE POTTS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. The triple C program envisions a new way of planning for freight 

projects. It is critical to change the current planning model to improve freight mobility? Al so, how will your proposed planning model ensure the appropriate projects 

are built to improve freight mobility? 

39 

Response. The existing Federal transportation planning process has served the 

nation very well and should be continued for a significant portion of Federal surface 

transportation activities. The last three Federal surface transportation reauthorization bills have greatly elevated the role of State departments of transportation in 

deciding how to use Federal highway funds. While it is entirely appropriate for 

states to be the prime decision makers for projects within their own borders, the 

movement of goods is not constrained by the geographic boundaries of an individual 

state and often times will travel through many states to reach a final destination. 

Accordingly, freight improvement projects will likely have benefits that accrue outside an individual state and many of these projects are regional in nature. As such, 

freight projects are frequently not among the highest priority for an individual 

state—even though they may have major regional or national benefits. 

The 3C Program envisions a process by which states, shippers, the Federal Government and other relevant stake holders develop a national freight plan. This type 

of process would include much broader stakeholder participation than the existing 

transportation process and is reflective of the type of input needed to develop an 

effective freight strategy. The trucking industry, general business community and 

logistics experts have significant expertise that must be harnessed to maximize the 

movement of goods. 

Furthermore, the 3C proposal calls for new freight-related user fees to be generated to finance this new national program. This dedicated funding mechanism is 

essential to ensure goods movement projects are a national priority and provide certainty that a national goods movement network will be developed. The existing 

transportation planning process allows states great discretion over how Federal 

funds are allocated. It is imperative, however, for the shipping community to have 

confidence the new freight user fees would not be diverted to non-freight projects. 

Only a separate process devoted to the new national freight network can achieve 

this goal. 

By involving relevant stakeholders in the public and private sector, the 3C planning process would identify goods movement impediments and develop solutions. 

This process would begin at a regional level, utilizing the already established 

AASHTO regional divisions, and these solutions would bubble up into a combined 

national plan. While the planning process would identify these solutions, the 3C enabling legislation would set criteria for project eligibility and establish performance 

standards that must be achieved for projects financed with the 3C program’s new 

freight user fee revenues. 

As such, the existing transportation planning process should continue for the core 

Federal highway and public transportation program, and a new process should be 

utilized for the 3C Program. 

Question 2. You are calling for the creation of a new Federal freight program. 

What kind of projects would be funded under your proposed Critical Commerce Corridors Program? 

Response. There are a wide variety of improvement projects that can ease the flow 

of freight and all should be eligible. Logical inclusions for this program would include: 

• Projects on the InterState HighwaySystem 

• Truck only lanes 

• Bottleneck relief 

• Intermodal connectors and intermodal projects 

• Freight exchange centers 

• Technology applications and upgrades 

While these are just examples, the 3C Program planning process would bring together public and private sector stakeholders under the leadership of the Federal 

Government to strategically identify the specific freight solutions needed on a regional level to ensure the safe and reliable movement of goods throughout the Nation. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. And I think your Critical Commerce Corridors program is really very clever because it does capture what we are facing, and I really appreciate that. 

Mortimer Downey, Chairman, PB Consult, on behalf of the Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors. 

40 

STATEMENT OF MORTIMER L. DOWNEY, CHAIRMAN, PB CONSULT, ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION FOR AMERICA’S 

GATEWAYS AND TRADE CORRIDORS 

Mr. DOWNEY. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe. 

It is a pleasure to be here today on behalf of the Coalition. You 

have our written testimony and you see on the masthead that this 

group represents a wide variety of public and private entities with 

a concern for the effectiveness of our freight system. 

Michael has certainly laid out for us what the challenge is in 

terms of the changing flow of goods and key issues in terms of congestion and delays and bottlenecks within that system. It is music 

to our ears to hear that in the next authorization bill goods movement will be an important part of your thinking. We want to help 

you with that. If we don’t deal well with that problem, we really 

are creating more and more congestion, and the environmental 

problems, the energy problems that come with that, but we are also 

adding to the costs for American consumers and we are adding 

penalties in terms of competitiveness for American exporters in 

terms of moving goods in this new world economy. 

Despite everyone’s agreement that this is an issue we should be 

addressing, there is not yet a consensus about how to do that, but 

I am sure such will evolve; a way to both design funding and design programs that will be tailored to freight and will do more for 

this issue than we have been able to do in the past with the existing highway and transportation programs. 

We also recognize that the challenge for you is a tough one, given 

the fact that existing revenue sources are, at best, stable, perhaps 

declining, with the current shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund a 

real indicator of an imbalance between our resources and our 

needs. It is our view, as a Coalition, that we must deal with both 

sides of the issue in looking at the future, a revenue side with a 

form of freight trust fund or some other form of dedicated account 

that would raise funds that will benefit the freight system and that 

will be used only for that purpose, and also with programs that will 

be designed to make improvement in the freight system. 

In our written testimony we have laid out some principles we 

think should be followed with respect to both revenues and programs. Our belief is that the raising of funds should be in a way 

that has the user and the ultimate beneficiary of the freight movement paying for it, assessing in terms of benefit with a variety of 

different charges so that no one entity is carrying an excess portion 

of the weight. The funds should have predictable, dedicated, sustained revenues because they will be supporting long-term capital 

investments; and it should be firewalled, as Charlie said, in order 

to be sure that it will be used for its purpose. 

In terms of program design, it will be important to be able to 

support a variety of different projects. Some will be large, some will 

be small; some will connect a number of States, some will be located in individual metropolitan areas. I think the design will need 

to be more project-focused than our existing systems, or I think 

that can be done. There will need to be an overall planning process 

to design a system that works, to design a system that is in fact 

multi-modal. I think, in the words of the Transportation Policy 

Commission that reported earlier this year, it should be mode-neuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:49 Feb 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85533.TXT VERN
41 

tral and performance-based. We really have to have something that 

works. 

We would draw to your attention—I know you are familiar with 

it—the Projects of Regional and National Significance Program 

that was part of the last authorization bill. Within that legislation 

there was a requirement that the Department of Transportation, 

my former agency, is now exercising, which is to create through a 

rulemaking process a method of criteria-based, performance-based, 

selection of projects. We hope that DOT will complete that effort 

before a new authorization bill comes forward. 

In terms of a freight trust fund, there are a variety of ways that 

such a fund could be provided with money: motor fuel user fees, 

particularly related to those who are moving freight; vehicle fees 

are a potential; indirect user fees; perhaps a value added tax or a 

bill of lading tax on the movement of goods; collection of fees 

against containers; or longer term approaches that might relate to 

the savings of fuel costs and energy costs through more efficient 

use. 

We don’t have a single answer; I think the outcome of the debate 

will be a mix and a variety of potential sources. But if we look then 

to the benefits that will be achieved and the problems that will be 

averted for the users of the freight system, we are hopeful that 

there will be consensus on moving forward in a way that relates 

projects to need, relates funding to projects, relates funding to 

beneficiaries, and allows for both the public sector and the private 

sector to be participants in this system. Many of the benefits, in 

fact, do flow to the private sector and the private sector can be a 

part of the funding system. 

But dealing with the issue overall is an important matter for 

quality of life, for the strength of our economy, and for relating 

21st century America to its place in a 21st century global system. 

We certainly look forward to working with you over the next year 

to design a way to move forward on something that in fact is a national priority and will add a strong national reason for legislation 

and for Federal activity in an area that really affects all of America. So thank you for inviting me this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Downey follows:] 

42 


85533.025
43 


85533.026
44 


85533.027
45 


85533.028
46 


85533.029
47 

RESPONSES BY MORTIMER L. DOWNEY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CARPER

Question 1. Government usually divides transportation responsibility by mode. In 

the Senate, we have highways in this committee, rail and air in the Commerce Committee and transit at Banking. At the US Department of Transportation, each agency focuses on the movement of machines-trucks, trains, planes, cars and ships. 

But I have found that people rarely look at travel this way. They just want to 

get from point A to point B, quickly, conveniently and affordably. Most of the time, 

they use multiple modes for one trip. Freight movement is the same. Businesses and 

consumers just want to receive their goods quickly, safely and affordably. 

How do we break through this government stove-piping to ensure that we institute policies that facilitate smooth flow of goods (and people)? 

Response. Senator, your point is well taken. People are most interested in the 

seamless trip that takes them from origin to destination at reasonable cost and convenience, and freight shippers have the same concern. There is a tendency toward 

‘‘stove-piping’’ (what the various modal advocates might call ‘‘cylinders of excellence’’) and there is a real opportunity to overcome this in the upcoming legislation. 

Some of this ‘‘stove-piping’’ is the natural result of affinity between the governmental interests (congressional and Executive) and the transportation modes they 

have responsibility for. But there is also the impact of statutory provisions and constraints. Often, even good intentioned efforts for better coordination are frustrated 

because of these provisions, which are written at different times, in different committees and without consideration of their intermodal impact. Attention to this in 

the next legislative round would be very helpful. It may be possible to harmonize 

some of the regulations and procedures, and perhaps also to give the Secretary of 

Transportation authority to take a flexible approach in the public interest. 

I would be cautious about organizational changes at the USDOT, having tried 

that on two occasions (1979 and 1995) with remarkable lack of success. However, 

I would offer two suggestions. First, it would be helpful to update and reiterate the 

statement of national policy that was a part of ISTEA and not repeated in subsequent bills. Second, it is my view that the recent USDOT reorganization that downgraded the Office of Intermodalism (also a product of ISTEA) was not a good idea. 

The establishment of an Undersecretary for Policy has generally worked. Whether 

or not one agrees with the policies espoused, the Department has been thoughtful 

in terms of process and consistent in its advocacy. Reinstating an Office of Intermodalism at the Secretarial level would give the Department better leverage in 

terms of making policies operational and invoking better intermodal cooperation. 

Question 2. Drivers are often frustrated by the presence of large amounts of truck 

traffic and truck drivers are severely impacted by heavy urban traffic in terms of 

lost time and lost fuel sitting in traffic. 

How does the lack of transportation options for people movement, such as rail and 

transit, impact goods movement? 

Response. This is another manifestation of our lack of comprehensive vision. With 

goods movement as an afterthought in the planning process, such conflicts are 

bound to develop. A broader view might offer differential facilities or prices for use 

of facilities to reduce conflicts. Optimal routings for goods movement don’t necessarily have to be the same as those for personal travel. As an example, better rail 

connections and the availability of a short sea shipping option for the Ports in Newark and Elizabeth New Jersey could dramatically reduce truck volumes moving 

across the George Washington Bridge for access to New England destinations. 

On the other side of the coin, better transit services in a region could open up 

highway capacity for truck movement, although the current narrow rules for costbenefit analysis of transit projects don’t give sufficient credit for such improvements 

affecting non-users. 

Question 3. We are dealing with limited funding for everything, certainly including transportation. Yet we have large maintenance and new capacity needs. 

In terms of competitiveness, how important is funding the maintenance of our 

current road system and smoother intermodal connections? How much funding 

should go to maintenance as opposed to new capacity? Should new capacity be evaluated for how it will help or hurt the movement of goods? 

Response. The issues you raise need to be part of the debate not only in the upcoming legislation but in the national and regional plan development process that 

hopefully will follow. Maintaining and improving our current system has to be an 

integral part of both legislation and plans, and our funding sources need to reflect 

this. At the same time, we must recognize that the United States, unlike most other 

industrialized nations, is continuing to grow its population, and we must invest to 

accommodate and optimize this growth. The mix between maintenance and new caVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:49 Feb 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85533.TXT VERN
48 

pacity will vary region-by-region, and this needs to be taken into account in funding 

formulas and program structures. 

When new capacity is under consideration, it should be put under careful scrutiny, on a modallyneutral basis, as to its impacts and benefits on a variety of issues, 

including impacts on goods movement. This should not be a process that serves to 

delay and diminish investments, but should be the basis for economic justification 

and even the attraction of funding to well-justified projects. 

RESPONSES BY MORTIMER L. DOWNEY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. I In your testimony you advocate a new ‘‘Freight Trust Fund’’ funded 

outside current revenue sources. Do you think it’s better to create a formula to distribute this freight money to states or to model a program on Transit’s new starts 

full funding agreement model? 

Response. I believe a well designed freight program will have elements of both 

formula and project-specific funding. The formula funds would assure wide participation, development of sound plans and planning capacity, focusing on smaller-scale 

improvements such as the ‘‘last mile’’ problems now plaguing our ports. 

But there also needs to be a project-specific source of funding to accommodate the 

larger, ‘‘lumpy,’’ investment needs. Such a program needs, also, to reflect the diverse 

nature of goods movement projects and the deep and positive involvement of private 

carriers in our freight system. The Transit new starts process offers both positive 

and negative precedents—positive in terms of careful review and integration of the 

projects, with involvement of both congressional and Executive agencies in a meritbased review, negative in terms of the long delays and the modal bias that is inherent in applying such rules to transit projects only. There are also lessons to be 

learned from some of the financing programs now in place at the USDOT. The ability to craft project specific finance plans, such as was done for the Alameda Corridor 

and for certain projects under the TIFIA loan program, is a good model for future 

diverse goods movement projects. 

Question 2. As I mentioned in my statement, current funding levels for the highway program can barely maintain our current infrastructure, let alone address the 

challenges raised in the testimony we’ve heard today. Assuming that we do not increase the gas tax, what is the best way to fund a dedicated freight program? 

Response. In my view, there is a need for additional broad based revenues to meet 

ongoing transportation system requirements, and this need is currently best served 

through the fuel tax. We recognize, however, both the constraints on that tax and 

the need over time to adapt it to a changing mix and efficiency of system users to 

maintain purchasing power. 

This revenue source can be supplemented, however, by targeted contributions for 

goods movement investments coming from the beneficiaries of such investment 

through measures such as a waybill tax, port charges, customs fees, dedication of 

some fuel taxes on freight carriers or other related measures. Such charges are certainly not without controversy, but should be on the table for debate. Your committee could contribute to that debate by encouraging appropriate agencies such as 

the GAO and the CBO to evaluate and recommend an appropriate mix. 

Question 3. Freight railroads have a key role in the movement of goods, but are 

owned and operated by private corporations. To make our freight transportation network best equipped to handle future freight patterns and volumes, our freight rail 

infrastructure requires investment levels far in excess of the capability of the Railroads. At the same time, they have considerable suspicion about government involvement in their business decisions. What are your thoughts on this problem? 

Response. As you note, our freight railroads are firmly within the private sector 

and we should do everything possible to maintain that status. That said, we also 

know that the level of investment needed will be significantly higher than what the 

railroads are likely to be able to raise in terms of private capital. 

The current proposals for investment tax credits, both for short line rehabilitation 

and for investments to increase system capacity is one way to bridge that gap. Such 

credits are a recognized tool for encouraging private investment at a somewhat lowered cost, with all of the decisions being made by owners in their economic interests, 

but with public benefits such as reduced congestion and energy use accruing to the 

public. 

Beyond such credits, it is my belief that we will see more true public-private partnerships, with public funds going to provide for specific investment to meet broader 

social needs, such as capacity for passenger rail service in a freight corridor through 

joint improvement. Providing for such partnerships on a mutually beneficial basis 

should be a real opportunity to be taken up in this legislation. 

49 

Question 4. During the Questions and Answers portion of the hearing, I asked Mr. 

Potts about the negative perceptions associated with what some call the ‘‘NAFTA 

Super highway’’. Around the country, my State in particular, people are concerned 

that in many ways we may be losing our sovereignty by developing large transportation corridors into neighboring countries. Do you think these concerns are warranted? 

Response. Based on my experience, I do not think these concerns are warranted, 

but recognize that such views are held. Since 1991 and the passage of ISTEA, followed by the congressional approval of the National Highway System in 1994, a 

process has been underway to redesign our roadway network to reflect today’s economic realities. These realities include a significant growth in North-South goods 

movement brought on by the changing trade patterns under NAFTA. America’s rail 

and highway networks traditionally devoted more capacity to East-West movements, 

perhaps reflecting our heritage as the frontier moved from Atlantic to Pacific. 

But the development of 21st century capacity, both road and rail, to match a 21st 

century economy should not be seen as risking our sovereignty. The roads under 

consideration will still be controlled and regulated by the respective states. Development of this capacity and encouragement of its effective use will and should entail 

improved effectiveness of border facilities, including those devoted to better management of immigration and goods movement. Making this system work well in all respects should not be viewed as a risk, but rather as an opportunity. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Downey. Thank all three of you. 

This has been really very helpful to me. 

As Senator Inhofe and I and other members of the Committee, 

grapple with the future here, we really have issues. We know that 

the gas tax is dwindling for a number of reasons and our needs are 

growing for a number of reasons, and we do have to look at other 

ways to keep this Country the strongest economic power in the 

world, and that means a first-class infrastructure. 

So I am going to ask you to be a little bit more specific, because 

I like what you have laid out here, all of you, which is looking at 

the whole picture and looking at a way that we can pay for a system that is top-notch, and doing it in a way that doesn’t hurt any 

one sector. 

And also, I would agree with you, Mr. Downey, that whatever we 

do has to be walled off so that it is only used for the purposes that 

the fees are paid for. That, to me, is absolutely critical. 

So I would ask each of you to comment on how we get to fund 

our needs, because, as I see it, you have got heavy-duty commerce 

on one side. When I think about it, I think about Southern California ports, Long Beach and LA, where 40 percent of the goods 

come in and then they go all across everybody else’s States, putting 

a lot of pressure not only on us, but all across America. So everybody has to deal. 

So I would ask you this. If we think of it as heavy commerce 

goods movement on one hand and then the other uses I would call 

family travel, which I would look at as sort of a less of a strain because of different weights and all of that on our system. How do 

you see—for example, what if we were to say that we would use 

the gas tax for the family travel part, which is lighter needs, but 

then we would institute a series of user fees that wouldn’t be overly burdensome? How would that work? 

Mr. Downey, you talked about it. Would it be container fees that 

the importers would paid? Would it be a small fee on truckers? We 

hate to do that given what is happening now with gas, so how do 

you all envision this? 

Mr. DOWNEY. It could very well be all of the above. I think you 

are correct, as well, to say that a gas tax collected in the way it 

50 

is now collected can be a fundamental part of our overall system, 

dealing with the broad base of maintaining the system we have out 

there and making it work well, dealing with many of the metropolitan issues. That might be supplemented by vehicle use fees in 

parts of the Country where greater capacity is needed or greater 

usage occurs. 

But overlaid on those requirements is the movement of freight. 

And you have to look and say, well, who benefits? The ultimate 

consumer benefits, and we want to see a way in which the costs 

can be imbedded in what they pay. Exporters benefit. You want to 

be able to do the same for them. That could very well be raised 

through a form of freight free, either against the freight itself or 

by container, which might be a more manageable approach, since 

many times you don’t know what is in the container, but you know 

it is getting the benefit of the transportation system. 

Weight distance taxes, which have been used in some of the 

States, are a potential. Fuel fees, particularly focused on those who 

are benefiting in terms of moving freight, both the railroads and 

the truckers. 

No one will be happy about this. I looked around, coming in the 

building today. The crowds of people surrounding the building to 

say put new taxes on weren’t there. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DOWNEY. But all the people who will argue about the cost 

of the things they buy or the congestion on the roadways that they 

use are concerned about it, and I think we just have to educate 

that this problem will not be resolved unless all of the participants 

pay some small portion toward a better system that benefits all 

participants. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Potts, Mr. Gallis, anything to add? 

Mr. POTTS. I would like to just add a few comments. First of all, 

Mort has kind of laid out a lot of the funding possibilities. One single thing is not going to fund this transportation network, and I 

think everybody recognizes that. The other point that he made, and 

I think we should keep that in mind, is the delivery system that 

we have in this Country, whether it is for getting from our house 

to the grocery store or deliver us to school or the freight we get, 

everybody benefits from that, so everybody should share in paying 

for it at the same time. But I think it is something that, as we 

move forward, we need to explore all the possibilities. 

You are also correct, I think a part of this Critical Commerce 

Corridor and freight system is dedicated truck lanes, which can be 

designed and built to different standards than those that are carrying primarily passenger cars. And also, which we have not talked 

about here but it is in the detail, transfer centers for bringing containers across the Country and transferring them to other modes 

of movement. 

So I think that, as I had suggested in the short version, that we 

do this by region to pull up a national plan, and, in doing that, part 

of that is going to be addressing the financing issues too. But I do 

believe that we need to bifurcate the funding. We need to firewall 

for the freight and the core program must be protected. The vehicle 

we are using right now is motor fuel excise tax, and I still think 

51 

that will be the primary way of funding that particular program for 

the near term. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Gallis, anything? And then we will turn to 

Senator Inhofe and then Senator Barrasso. 

Mr. GALLIS. I think your question reveals the very core of the 

problem we are struggling with. I like to envision a triangular matrix, and along one side we talk about the shift in the U.S. economy 

from manufacturing to service and the demands that puts on the 

economy. The second side would be the scales of movement. As you 

were talking, there is a global scale by which goods move around 

the world and enter the United States. The second scale is continental movements within the United States once it is here; third 

is super-regional. You are talking about Southern California, Arizona, that whole zone; you are talking regional; and then you are 

talking local. For most people, the transportation problem is the 

ride to work. That is a local movement, it isn’t the global movements of freight. And as we shifted to a service economy within a 

global economy, more manufacturing moved overseas into new locations. That is part of what this diagram shows. 

As that took place, then the freights entering through the ports, 

but our service economy is based here, moving outbound. It is also 

globalized. So thinking of global movements, what do those do to 

our system? What is the continental movements, the super-regional, regional, local? Those are all different kinds of movements 

involving combinations of freight and passengers moving in different kinds of directions. 

That is putting pressure that even where we are doing projects 

in Detroit, their system wasn’t set up for the kind of manufacturing 

in the 21st century—— 

Senator BOXER. But my question was who pays to make it work. 

Mr. GALLIS. Oh, OK. Well, given that complexity of that, the pay 

is this. Where is the money in the world today? Because there are 

two, there is capital expenses and operating expenses. And I think 

we need to distinguish. There is hundreds of billions of dollars of 

equity, but most of the growth in the global economy has ended up 

both in sovereign funds and private funds, by which we are looking 

at huge mountains of private or national equity looking for places 

to go, where our own budgets are under stress. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. GALLIS. So I think we have to begin to think about how do 

we apply capital—and often times it can be private capital—in a 

public good. Is there a way to do it, an effective way? I don’t think 

we have captured totally the revolutionary moment we live in and 

the changes both in capital structure and financing, the changes in 

kinds of movements and the shift in our economy. 

Senator BOXER. So you are saying highway bonds is what I hear, 

because that would attract that kind of capital. 

Mr. GALLIS. It could be a mechanism. I haven’t seen them yet 

worked out. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we do it in California every day of the 

week, but, anyway, let me turn to Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me do this. 

I have someone I have to say hello to. I would like to defer to Senator Barrasso and then, when I get back, Mr. Gallis, both Senator 

52 

Barrasso and I were on the floor and had to make statements, so 

we are a little bit late getting here, so I want to ask you a couple 

of questions about what you are showing up here. I will be right 

back. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate 

this opportunity to visit with the three of you. In Wyoming, in the 

State Senate, I was the chair of our transportation committee. I am 

very focused and interested in all of these issues. Wyoming is obviously one of those very large States with very few people, half a 

million people, 100,000 square miles; about five people per square 

mile. But, yet, the national commerce relies on Wyoming for I–80, 

the interState running around the center of the State and then 

running the lower portion of the State east to west, and then we 

have a north to south route, I–25. 

Much more truck traffic on I–80, significant damage to our interState routes as a result of that, whether it is from Portland, Oregon or Los Angeles, things coming from our ports, then they come 

to a pinch point in Utah where those roads come together, gets 

onto I–80, and then every one of those trucks heading east goes 

right through the southern portion of Wyoming, does a significant 

amount of damage to the roads, not by Wyoming drivers, clearly, 

but by playing an important role in our national commerce. 

So the question for all three of you is how do we as a Nation deal 

with that funding? The State of Wyoming has stepped up, put more 

State money in the last several years into highway funding, but 

they are not going to be able to do it; there are just not enough 

people there, living there. The distances are so vast, but the needs 

are real and the benefit is to all the people of America. 

So I don’t know if you want to start, Mr. Gallis, and work down, 

either way. 

Mr. GALLIS. Clearly, the funding mechanisms and planning processes have focused on individual States and have not recognized 

the flow diagram that takes place across the State and how that 

is occurring. Your State, as you point out, occupies a key point between the northwest and the midwest and, therefore, that flow diagram across it, but you get an allocation based on population, area, 

etc. It doesn’t recognize that. Every State has that same problem. 

New Jersey, goods come into the Port of New York. New Jersey 

feeds 52 million dimension markets in the northeast, but they get 

an allocation on a State basis. 

We haven’t recognized this overlay of the global and continental 

scales, and how to fund that overlay that every State has a differential amount of that pressure put on them that is not funded 

in the normal formulas; and I think until we have a framework 

that demonstrates that—and, as you say, this corridor has more 

than that corridor—and that is everywhere in the Country and 

that is the Critical Commerce Corridor issue—should we create a 

policy framework within which we recognize national global movements as an overlay on the local system? And that is the importance of the scale issue. 

Senator BARRASSO. Is someone working on that this you know of 

right now? 

Mr. GALLIS. I don’t think so. 

53 

Senator BARRASSO. But there is a need there, Madam Chairman, 

we just heard. 

Mr. POTTS. Mr. POTTS. But I think Michael has touched on the issue, because it is one of the things that needs to be addressed, and by 

firewalling a funding mechanism for freight movement and bifurcating the program, you would have a distribution for the commerce corridors that, as those projects qualify, then that is how you 

support them. 

I agree with you totally, the demand on those kinds of systems 

and the loads that are put on them our normal funding system, 

and in a lot of other States besides Wyoming, could not carry that 

kind of load. But everybody benefits from it. And if you went all 

the way back to 1956, some of the same debate was going on with 

the interState system because at the time it was built there was 

certainly not the same distribution economically that you should 

see on the map today, there was a disproportionate amount in 

other areas, and at the end of the day it worked well. 

The fact that we have to remember in this is talking about the 

tremendous growth in traffic in the last 25 years with passenger 

cars going up 225 percent, trucks 550, and capacity only up 6 percent, and then saying it is going to double in the next 25 years. The 

reality of it is unless we do something else like the Critical Commerce Corridors, it can’t happen, because the system today is already at capacity, so you are going to have to change our whole 

mind-set. And a State like Wyoming that carries the corridors that 

it has, those are critical commerce corridors coming from coast to 

coast. 

So I would agree with you totally that it is an issue that must 

be addressed, but I believe that in our written description of how 

you go about it, by bifurcating the program and firewalling the 

freight component, that you can address it through the same kinds 

of formula systems we have done before. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, my time is up, but in the absence of Senator 

Inhofe, would you mind if I ask Mr. Downey to—— 

Senator BOXER. Go right ahead, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Downey, would you mind commenting as well? 

Mr. DOWNEY. I would be very happy to. At a recent conference 

that our Coalition sponsored, Wyoming DOT was there and laid out 

the future for I–80, and it is a pretty bleak future. They projected 

that with the growth of truck traffic moving goods across the Country, with the cost of keeping that roadway in good condition, this 

could eat the State’s entire highway budget within a relatively 

short period of time. 

I think there are two responses we really need to look at. One 

is providing national support, in a way that Charlie spoke of, that 

allows a spreading of the money to the places where the need is 

greatest, not simply sending it back to the places where it was 

raised; and in the case of freight, that will give that opportunity 

to fund and support a national system. 

It may also be a necessity for States like Wyoming to impose 

tolls on their facilities. I know they have a study underway at the 

54 

moment to look at that. Currently, such tolling that is almost impossible under Federal law. And I think it may also be useful in 

reauthorization to look at those constraints and say if the need 

cannot be met through a national program, we certainly should not 

impose it as a burden on a State; we should allow a State to fund 

its own system, and that could attract the kind of capital that Michael was talking about in terms of investment. So I think we have 

to come at it from both ways. 

Senator BARRASSO. Especially if you are looking to try to go to 

a third lane or different options, and not just repair. But if Nebraska wants to go to a third lane and Wyoming doesn’t, it is the 

same truck traffic, it just goes all the way through. So you want 

to avoid bottlenecks, pinch points and the same. So anything that 

slows down the commerce isn’t helpful to our economy. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the additional time. I appreciate it. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Let me start off with you, Mr. Gallis, since we were not here 

when you—you brought your laptop, and I want you to put it to 

use here and kind of explain what it was, if the Chairman would 

excuse the redundancy here. 

Senator BOXER. Go right ahead. 

Mr. GALLIS. This diagram was constructed for the purpose of trying to demonstrate some of the new flows that are being emerging 

after a global economy. It was constructed out of discussions with 

the auto industries in Detroit, Chicago, the northeast, New York, 

New Jersey, et cetera. 

What it shows, the red line going vertically down is something 

that is talked about as the NAFTA corridor. It is not a corridor of 

highways, it is a corridor of trade largely driven by the auto industry and has become the industrial backbone of North America. It 

starts with auto engines and parts in Mexico and it terminates in 

Toronto and London at the northern end with also specialty parts 

for the auto industry moving up and down this tremendous corridor 

with textiles entering in the southeast. That is the vertical line; 

goods go up and down, move out. 

The two yellow lines are the traditional north-south lines, but 

what is important to notice here is Chicago and Memphis. What 

has happened is traditionally we had four transcontinental hubs 

down the center of the United States—Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans. What is happening is, because of the 

amount of goods flow, you would think there would be more places, 

but it is not. 

To simplify the management structures, the industry is concentrating around Chicago and Memphis; and, of course, you have Atlanta and Dallas also in the southeast. But what is happening is, 

in this consolidation, it is also consolidating around the ports, 

where the growth is going to take place. So what we have is the 

continental scale movements driven by the global trade patterns. 

Now, I have given you an example of what pressure that is putting. As the Senator just spoke, it is not only moving across his 

State, but Chicago, for instance. Our whole system was set up midwest, agriculture and manufacturing outbound. All of a sudden we 

55 

have ports inbound. The whole flow diagram just reversed on us. 

Chicago was set up with rail yards all around the outside. There 

is no throughput on a rail. Suddenly they have to move through 

Chicago. The Southern California Alameda corridor is not big 

enough already. New Jersey has a Portway program. This is what 

is driving. 

So what we show here is the Los Angeles ports. Already, this 

year it is about 12 million containers, projected to go to 40 million. 

It is impossible. Then we see Seattle growing, New York growing. 

When you normally see it, you get port data, but you don’t get the 

corridor data connected with the port. And when you see the corridor, as you spoke about Los Angeles doesn’t serve Los Angeles, 

it serves the whole continental United States. So it isn’t only what 

is happening at the port, but the big corridors moving across, 

where it hits at other metropolitan areas of the United States. This 

is the overlay. 

And I contrasted that with this, because this is congestion, you 

know, the projection of congestion. And if you just throw money at 

the red, Senator Barrasso’s State would never get anything because 

his corridor, while it shows up in this diagram, does not show up 

here. So if we just chase—I call it chasing the red, then we hand 

it to the States and say do the best you can, but those projects 

don’t add to this. 

And that is where we have to, I think, in the allocation formulas 

that were always based on States within a national policy framework, you actually have a bifurcated funding mechanism, one that 

is dedicated on the regular allocation, traditional States; the other 

one is a national application that recognizes these change. This is 

what is driving business crazy—whether it be in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York—is this is not working. 

As Sealand Maersk said to us when we were trying to do the big 

picture vision for the United States, they said we work around the 

system, not in the system, and if that isn’t the bottom line of where 

we are today—— 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Senator BOXER. I am giving you another 5 minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, that is fine. 

Mr. Potts, of course, you are coming from the road side of it here, 

but I assume that we are all talking about intermodal and we are 

all concerned about moving freight, and it has got to include all of 

the above. And I made a brief comment about the barge traffic, and 

there is a place for everything, rails included. 

Two of you have referred to the corridor there. Are you having 

problems dealing with the negative that is out there, the misunderstanding, somehow there is a conspiracy that these corridors are— 

that we are losing our—anyway, do you deal with that? Has this 

been a problem as you are developing these things, people complaining that somehow we are losing our sovereignty through these 

corridors? If you don’t hear it, I am surprised, because we sure do. 

Mr. POTTS. Are you asking me? 

Senator INHOFE. I am asking anyone. Probably you, Mr. Potts, 

because they are talking about going through my State of Oklahoma. A lot of them are talking about the NAFTA corridor as if 

there is something negative there. I just wondered if—— 

56 

Mr. POTTS. No, I think it is a good point. In responding to that, 

I would also like to comment with Senator Barrasso. All the discussion we are having is making the key point that we do need a national plan for freight and we do need a strong Federal leadership, 

or it is not going to happen. 

Now, as part of my previous life I spent 16 years in a DOT, and 

I have met with the AASHTO leadership and talked to those fellows, and some of my very good friends from Oklahoma also, and 

any DOT, first, has got to look after their own State. But when I 

referred to the regions and developing a regional plan, what I was 

referring to is basically using the five AASHTO regions that exist 

right now and roll those plans up from the group of States, because 

they all recognize that our competitive position does not stop at 

their border. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, I understand that, and I probably shouldn’t 

even have brought this up, but this is a problem that we deal with 

in Oklahoma, and I know in Texas it is quite a thing. 

Now, on the firewalls we talk about, or the walls—the Chairman 

mentioned this—this is really difficult to do because we are talking 

about getting into some type of innovative funding mechanism that 

is different than what we have been doing since the Eisenhower 

Administration. And when you do that, you folks are addressing 

freight movement. Now, we have all the rest of the movements 

going on at the same time. Have you given a lot of thought on how 

you actually do that? I know there could be dedicated corridors and 

all of this, but are the walls a serious problem, as you look at the 

overall picture? 

Mr. DOWNEY. I would say they are in terms of getting support 

for making the investments, asking people to pay with some assurance that they will see what they get. When the Highway Trust 

Fund was created, the Eisenhower legislation, there were no such 

firewalls. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, there didn’t really need to be. 

Mr. DOWNEY. Right. In the early years of the interState, in fact, 

they were short of money and additional taxes were added. But 

over time we developed a pattern in which funds were being raised 

and then were not being spent, and the credibility of the entire system was called into question. In legislation that passed in the late 

1990’s, we did impose the firewalls and really rebuilt credibility 

when the system put trust back in the Trust Fund, and we think 

that has been extremely beneficial. And I don’t believe we will be 

able to convince others that they should be charged for the use of 

the system if they don’t get the same kind of protection. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, you know, in the short period of time we 

have all been here, we have seen it change. When I first came 22 

years ago, there really wasn’t this problem. In fact, I was on the 

House side, as was the Chairman, at that time, on the transportation committees. It looked like what was started back in the 

1950’s was going to continue to work at that time. 

Now we have seen, in the last 10, 15 years, it is a serious problem. In the last few authorization bills that we have done, we have 

recognized that we are going to have—we even have a committee 

that is supposed to be—I am not real happy with their product, but 

is supposed to be looking at other ways of funding. Now that we 

57 

have this escalated cost of fuel, now it is a crisis and we have to 

do something to address it. 

Now, we don’t have the luxury of time right now, and I would 

ask the three of you to give some thought to this, to give an immediate response and maybe some thought and respond for the 

record. We are going to be doing our 2009 reauthorization bill, at 

least we want to do that, and I think this is where we are going 

to have to address this. So I don’t think there is a lot of time to 

do a lot more studying. I think we need specific recommendations 

as to what each one of the three of you thinks that we should do 

in the 2009 reauthorization bill specifically for the freight movement problem. 

Why don’t you start, Mr. Downey. 

Mr. DOWNEY. We have laid out some specifics in our written testimony. 

Senator INHOFE. Specifically for 2009? 

Mr. DOWNEY. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. But highlight them for the Senator. 

Mr. DOWNEY. We can provide those, but it is basically a mix of 

direct and traditional user fees. Perhaps some portion of what is 

now collected could be allocated to freight. Other ideas include additional charges through value added taxes or cargo facility fees or 

bill of lading charges, which used to be collected at the Federal 

level; or perhaps an allocation of some portion of customs fees that 

are now collected. Customs fees are continuing to grow and there 

is a history of some portions of those being allocated for other purposes. 

But anything that will tie directly to improvements and benefits 

on the freight side we think should be considered. We would be 

glad to go further as we build some consensus within our Coalition 

for a specific. I think it would be also helpful if your committee 

would ask GAO and the Congressional Budget Office, with the analytical resources that they have, to evaluate some of these and to 

evaluate the impacts of them so that we are ready for the debate 

in 2009 that will have to happen. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I was saying to the Chairman that it 

wouldn’t be a bad idea to get—I am really impressed with the three 

of you and your testimony—to maybe get with the committee that 

is supposed to be doing this, to get us prepared for 2009, because 

I think you have some really good ideas. 

Mr. Potts. 

Mr. POTTS. Let me clarify. 

Senator INHOFE. Specifically for 2009. 

Mr. POTTS. How to pay for it, is that what specifically? Well, of 

course, Mort has laid out a pretty good buffet list of things that are 

there, you know, bill of lading tax, rate mileage-based user fees, 

Federal custom fees, if we build—which we will build—transfer 

centers, entrance type fees for using those mileage tax on truck 

travel. Matter of fact, American Trucking Association has indicated 

a willingness to support a tax of that type provided it was 

firewalled and used for freight corridors. Public-private partnerships, as mentioned before, there are some positions that this 

would fit very well into. Custom fees and, where appropriate that 

it fit, there is the possibility to toll some of those corridors, too. 

58 

So I think to sit down and discuss it—I made a comment to some 

people earlier, it is like some of my business, acquiring companies. 

If you are trying to acquire a company and there is a deal to be 

made, somewhere on the table you will find it. This is something 

that we don’t have that choice; we have to find the location on the 

table to pay for it and do it. And I think we can do it, but the avenues are available to us and it is just a matter of identifying those. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, we do need to—I would almost say that 

we are passed the buffet and we are ready to order from the menu 

now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. POTTS. And I agree with you. I think it is just a matter of 

sitting down and seeing what are the best options in a particular 

location. It may be a little different as we identify the projects and 

how we pay for one, say, in Wyoming, as opposed to Oklahoma or 

California, but, nonetheless, we do the same thing with our core 

program, too, right now, actually. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there time for him to respond to that, too? 

Senator BOXER. Sure. Go ahead. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Gallis, specifically for 2009. 

Mr. GALLIS. I think Mort and Charlie have spoken directly to the 

funding issue, so I would like to speak to the issue you brought up 

and the perceptual issue, because I think that we have not addressed. Politics operates often not in the world of reality, but perceptions of reality. 

Senator INHOFE. Really? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GALLIS. Just an observation. But I would say this. I would 

say this, that to me the biggest gap is there is a lack of alignment 

between the new realities in our transportation system and our 

funding mechanisms. I think we have to, in 2009, begin to talk 

about creating alignment between the new demands on the system 

and the funding—whether or not we are able to do it, we need to 

move toward that—that are driven by new global economic considerations. 

So I think we have to start establishing a conceptual alignment 

that there are demands that didn’t exist before, driven by our global competitiveness, that must be reflected in funding. Whether or 

not we can do it in 2009, I think we have to begin to talk about 

it and get it on the table so that people begin to become educated 

to that. I think that is one of our biggest barriers, the reality 

versus this perception. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you, Senator Inhofe. I thought that 

was a really good line of questioning. 

You know, as I think about this, I think that Senator Inhofe is 

right, we are passed the buffet; we are actually working toward the 

dessert, so we really have a problem on our hands. And the way 

I like to think about problems—because it helps me see the big picture—is to kind of separate out the different issues we are dealing 

with. 

One is the safety and maintenance of our existing infrastructure, 

and this speaks to your point, Mr. Gallis. Things have changed. At 

one point in time in history that was enough. What is our existing 

59 

structure? How do we keep it safe and sound, and that is it. Well, 

obviously, there is more. 

So it seems to me one source of funding could deal with the safety and maintenance of our existing infrastructure. Another source 

of funding, which I think would be the gas tax, because as I was 

speaking with your staff, the gas tax, we are running so low, we 

could probably do a good job if we just limit it to that, and not the 

new kind of projects. 

Then I think there are enhancements to the basic system, which 

would be things like—that I love in my State—bike paths and HOV 

lanes, you know, enhancements to that, which could be another 

fund. And then the third one is I rather call it goods movement, 

because freight says to me somehow railroads. If we are talking 

goods, we are talking trucks, we are talking trains, we are talking 

barges, we are talking everything. So then the goods movement 

corridor projects I think is the third piece, and that is the one 

where I think we really need to be extremely creative in terms of 

how we fund it. 

And I think, Senator Inhofe, if we did have a table and we did 

sit down with our colleagues, with the private sector, with the best 

minds we have, we are going to have to come up with something 

that makes sense; and I think if it is a little of this and a little 

of that, as long as it is put in a fund that is absolutely airtight— 

and we can do that, we can do that, I think—I think we are going 

to be OK. 

But we talked about vehicle miles traveled as one way, and at 

first I thought, well, maybe we could get folks, you know, every 

year, when they send in their registration, I don’t know, a penny 

a mile or pay a fee. I don’t know if that is workable. I don’t like 

the idea of people having some device in their car that Uncle Sam 

can look at every time to know when you are out and why you are 

out. I reject that and I think Senator Inhofe and I both felt that 

way. 

But have you thought about how to do a vehicle miles traveled? 

I think Mr. Potts might have mentioned it in terms of truckers who 

put on a lot of miles, but how can we deal with vehicle miles traveled in a fair way that doesn’t set up big brother is watching you 

kind of deal? Would it be at the time you register your car? 

Mr. DOWNEY. It certainly would be difficult with respect to the 

auto, although a lot of people are looking at that and thinking perhaps this is the way to go. My view is it is many years off, until 

a lot of problems are resolved. It may be simpler with respect to 

truck movements. There is an important safety and security need 

and other needs to identify the movements the trucks are making, 

the number of hours that are being driven, the number of miles 

that are being carried, and that could be implemented much sooner 

than some nationwide system. 

Senator BOXER. Interesting. 

Mr. DOWNEY. And it wouldn’t be welcomed, but probably it would 

be recognized as a significant improvement. 

Senator BOXER. But let me ask about an alternative, and tell me 

if this is just too simple. That we simply ask the trucker and we 

ask the driver every year, when they register the vehicle, how 

many miles did you travel, and you just list what your odometer 

60 

said the year before and the next year, and then you can tell it? 

Why do we need all these fancy ways of doing it? 

Mr. DOWNEY. I think a little more than that would be needed to 

really get serious answers. From my DOT experience, I know we 

talked many times about hours of service in truck movement. That 

is a voluntary system, where the truck driver fills in his log book 

on how many hours they have driven, and in the vernacular of the 

trade, they are known as the comic book. I am not sure you would 

get the kind of compliance on a voluntary basis that would work. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is sad. 

Mr. DOWNEY. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me say thank you on behalf of all of us 

here. This has been very important. We have a long way to go, but 

we are determined to work across party lines on this, and I think 

Senator Inhofe and I have proven that. Except when it comes to 

the environment and it has to do with infrastructure, we really 

work very well together. So we look forward to calling on all three 

of you in the future, and I trust you will be there for us when we 

call. Yes? 

Mr. DOWNEY. Be happy to do that. And I think if the perception 

is there that you are serious about this effort, lots of people will 

come to the table who now are sort of hanging out in the back and 

saying maybe I won’t have to play. 

Senator BOXER. Good. Well, sir, you can spread the word. We have no choice. Right now, I think we are $5 billion short. Is that 

right? 

Mr. DOWNEY. For 2009, yes. 

Senator BOXER. By the end of 2009, we could be $5 billion just 

for what we are doing now, and what we are doing now is woefully 

inadequate. So you are right, this is very, very serious. It is really 

a decision we have to make as a Nation if we really want to stay 

competitive and be able to carry forward, because I will tell you, 

at the ports in California people are just saying no more, can’t take 

it, it is too hard, too hard on our breathing. So we need to figure 

out how to move this, do it cleanly, and this is our challenge. But 

we can do it because this is America, and we can do anything we 

put our minds to. 

Thank you very much, everybody. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ