Transportation Decision Making

For the 21st Century

U.S. Department of Transportation
Definitions

Policy Architecture:

The policy architecture is an overarching framework that supports effective transportation

decision making. It offers a broad set of principles for decision making -- principles that all

members of the transportation enterprise can embrace. 

Transportation Enterprise:

The transportation enterprise includes all people, organizations and infrastructure involved

with transportation investment, labor, management, operations, and uses. It includes private

companies, public agencies, citizen groups, and individuals.

“Throughout the past century, America’s national transportation system has played a crucial

role in strengthening our economy, protecting our safety, and improving the quality of life for

all Americans. Interconnecting networks of railroads, ports, and waterways have transported

millions of passengers and billions of dollars’ worth of freight. Our national highway system

connected cities to rural communities and people to jobs. The Wright Brothers’ invention of

the airplane gave birth to a world-class aviation system that revolutionized travel, created new

industries, and brought the nations of the world closer. The quality and versatility of all these

modes of transportation gave our Nation a powerful defense tool as well, enabling us to move

troops and materiel swiftly and efficiently in times of conflict and crisis. Now, as we begin a

new century, our national transportation system must embrace exciting new possibilities and

new challenges.

If we make wise and informed choices today and in the years to come, we can make our

communities more livable, give our citizens greater choice and mobility, protect our

environment, and help create a truly global community. The 20th century was indeed a

golden age for transportation; the 21st century can be an even brighter one.”

— President William Jefferson Clinton
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

T

ransportation is essential to strengthening America for the untold challenges and limitless

opportunities of the 21st century. America will need an integrated transportation system that

moves people, goods, information, and services safely and efficiently as a means for spurring the

economy, enhancing the human and natural environment and ensuring national security.

President Clinton, Vice President Gore and I have set a vision for building the transportation system

of the future that is international in reach, intermodal in form, intelligent in character and inclusive

in service. We have fostered a climate for innovation essential for bringing such a system into being. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation and its 100,000 employees, working with our public and

private sector transportation partners, provide visionary and vigilant leadership in creating the quality

and character of our national and international transportation systems. It is crucial, as we enter this

new century and new millennium, that we work together to achieve our national goals. 

A common decision-making framework — a policy architecture — that allows us to reach sound and

effective transportation decisions is key to our success. This framework is needed to address the

challenges of the rapidly changing world as well as the complex transportation decision-making

environment. It provides a common approach for the myriad decision makers and stakeholders in

addressing complex decisions that transportation leaders face today and will face in the future. 

U.S. DOT developed this policy architecture though a series of 2025 Visioning Sessionswith hundreds

of stakeholders across the country — including industry, labor, academia, government, citizens, 

U.S. DOT employees, and other interest groups. I am extremely appreciative of the scores of groups

and individuals who participated in these sessions and contributed to our work. 

This report and its companion, The Changing Face of Transportation , complement the works of former

Secretary William T. Coleman, a visionary leader whose historic National Transportation Trends and

Choices Repor t defined the choices for transportation from 1975 to the year 2000. These reports give

decision makers a framework through which to consider needed changes in transportation

organizations, structures and processes. The adoption and use of this policy architecture will 

lead the way to a 21st century transportation system that is truly safe and sustainable. 

Rodney E. Slater

Secretary of Transportation

November 2000
“And I submit that as we live in times of change, we must be

architects of that change or we will most certainly 

be its victims.”

— John A. Volpe, June 6, 1972

A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

T

ransportation — and the world — are rapidly

changing. Transportation is increasingly viewed,

not as an end in itself, but as a means to enhance the

n a t i o n ’s economic health, and the quality of life of its

citizens. Transportation is more than concrete,

asphalt, and steel. Transportation serves people and

makes sure that no one is left behind. 

Globalization and improved communications are

increasing the demands on the transportation system

and challenging us to meet the needs for additional

capacity in light of concerns about safety, security, energy,

and the environment. At the same time, transportation

decision making has become more decentralized and

complex. These changes demand new tools, new

competencies, new alliances – in short, a new 

The Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) authorized

$151 billion over six years for highways,

mass transit and safety programs. The Act

emphasized intermodal planning and a

greater role for Metropolitan Planning

Organizations. In a major breakthrough,

the Act created the Surface Transportation

Program (STP) with flexible funding that

provided new opportunities for state and

local officials to establish transportation

priorities. The STP provided set-asides for

safety and transportation environmental

enhancements.

The 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century (TEA-21) guaranteed a record

$200 billion in surface transportation

investment for highways, highway safety,

transit and other surface transportation

programs from FY 1998 through FY 2003.

TEA-21 retains the basic structure

established by ISTEA, with some important

changes including: the guarantee of

funding and the expansion of the landmark

environmental programs. TEA-21

strengthens planning requirements,

expands flexible funding provisions, and

places a stronger emphasis on safety. It

includes new programs to meet specific

challenges, such as funding for border

crossing and trade corridor activities and

job access for welfare recipients, and

innovative financing mechanisms for

transportation projects of regional and

national significance.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998

required the U.S. Secretary of

Transportation to prepare a report on the

status of the marine transportation system

and to offer recommendations for

improvement. Under Secretary Rodney E.

Slater’s leadership, DOT developed a bold

and comprehensive plan to modernize our

nation’s Marine Transportation System

(MTS). The MTS Task Force was a highly

collaborative effort of federal, state, local

and private sector stakeholders in the

marine transportation sector to develop a

vision for the future, define the issues facing

the industry, and lay out a course of action.

The MTS vision is to be the world’s most

technologically advanced, safe, secure,

efficient, globally competitive, and

environmentally responsible system for

moving people and goods by 2020. 

The MTS Task Force recommended, and the

S e c re t a ry subsequently established, two

standing committees: an Interagency

Committee for the MTS (ICMTS) made up of

o fficials from the Departments of Defense,

Tr a n s p o rtation, Commerce, Tre a s u ry,

A g r i c u l t u re, and Interior and the

E n v i ronmental Protection Agency that is

c h a rged with improving the Federal

G o v e rn m e n t ’s coordination of MTS-re l a t e d

p rograms and ensuring that maritime policies,

strategies and goals are consistent with

national needs; and a Marine Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n

System National Advisory Council to addre s s

the diff e rent viewpoints of all the stakeholders

and to make recommendations for action.

“The policy architecture is a framework that allows all

parts of the transportation enterprise to make more

effective decisions.”

— Rodney E. Slater, U.S. Secre t a ry of Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n

A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

framework for making decisions — a new

transportation policy architecture. 

Defining this architecture and applying it is a

key part of the U.S. Department of

Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ’s strategy

for meeting the

challenges of the next 25

years. The architecture

is an overarching set of

principles to encourage more open,

collaborative, and flexible decision making

across the transportation enterprise. It will

allow all parts of the enterprise —

international, federal, state, regional, local, and

private — to make more effective decisions. 
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

“The challenge before us then will be to put together an

effective decision-making framework that allows the

entities of the transportation enterprise to make

decisions that ensure the safe, effective, and efficient

functioning of the enterprise as a whole.”

— Rodney E. Slater, U.S. Secre t a ry of Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n

United States policy has encouraged 

a historic expansion of the aviation

system, particularly in the cargo area. 

In the last eight years, the United States

has signed over 50 Open Skies

a g reements with countries on each

continent around the world. These

a g reements, as well as other carg o -

specific liberalization agreements, have

removed many of the restrictions that

p revented airlines from intro d u c i n g

c o s t - e ffective and flexible serv i c e

initiatives to respond to changing 

t r a ffic flows. Under Secre t a ry Slater’s

leadership, the U.S. has opened more

markets and created more opport u n i t i e s

for international air service than ever

b e f o re, tripling the number negotiated

b e f o re he took office. The impro v e d

market access and more vigoro u s

competition have brought passengers

and shippers better international serv i c e

at lower fares and rates. Secre t a ry

S l a t e r ’s historic Chicago confere n c e ,

“ Aviation in the 21st Century - Beyond

Open Skies Ministerial Conference,” 

55 years after the landmark aviation

c o n f e rence in 1944, engaged the

w o r l d ’s aviation leaders in a constru c t i v e

dialogue to consider moving beyond

bilateral agreements toward re g i o n a l

multilateral agreements. During the APEC

meeting in Brunei (November 2000)

P resident Clinton announced the first

multilateral agreement of its type

between the U.S. and Singapore, New

Zealand, Chile, and Bru n e i .

A

policy architecture for transportation was

never more needed than today. The

transportation enterprise faces challenges 

and opportunities unmatched in any previous

generation. Yet decision making is becoming

increasingly complex. A number of changes

within the transportation enterprise contribute

to today’s decision-making environment.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Today, decision makers are looking beyond

transportation’s traditional mission of moving

goods and people and addressing broader issues

such as economic growth, the movement of

information, land use, the environment,

poverty, accessibility, and equity. The mission

for transportation is expanding from the

movement of goods and people to the

improvement of quality of life.

▲ Decision Making Transformations

“We can address all the technical issues...but the

complexity of decision making is enormous.”

— John Mason, Mayor, Fairfax City, Vi rg i n i a

The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and

Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) provides

federal credit assistance to major

transportation investments of critical national

and regional importance filling market gaps

and leveraging private investment,

epitomizing the importance of public-private

partnerships under the Clinton-Gore

Administration. TIFIA, authorized under the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

(TEA-21), provides direct loans, loan

guarantees, and lines of credit to private and

public sponsors of major surface

transportation projects. The first two rounds

of TIFIA projects in FY 1999 and FY 2000

provided $2.24 billion in credit assistance to

leverage $8.5 billion in transportation

projects, at a cost to the Federal Government

of only $98.4 million. Every TIFIA dollar will

contribute to more than $86 in capital

investment. 

TIFIA continues to advance the state of

innovative financing for transportation

investment. Innovative funding programs

have helped finance nearly 200 projects

worth more than $13 billion. For example,

the Department’s support for the $2.4 billion

Alameda Corridor project in California helped

lay the groundwork for TIFIA. By providing a

$400 million loan, DOT is a minority-share

investor in this 20-mile rail express line that

will connect the nation’s largest port complex

at San Pedro Bay to the transcontinental rail

network near downtown Los Angeles. 
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

As a result, more groups than ever before have

claimed a stake in transportation decisions,

ranging from nongovernmental and

international organizations to neighborhood

coalitions and local businesses. At the same

time, in the United States, devolution and

deregulation have caused the locus of many

transportation decisions to move from the

Federal Government to regional and local

entities and the private sector. In the private

sector, many companies are becoming flatter

organizations with less hierarchical decision

making. 

There are many benefits to these

developments, which have empowered those

affected by transportation. But they also

add complexity and potential conflict. To

address these challenges, a more effective

decision-making process is needed — one

that mediates the values and goals of

different enterprise members, and emphasizes

collaboration, flexibility, and informed decision

makers and citizenry.

The highway fatality rate today stands at an

all time low; seat belt and safety seat use

rates are at all time highs. Secretary

Rodney E. Slater has set a “stretch“ goal of

reducing fatalities to 33,000 by 2008, and an

interim goal of moving below 40,000 by the

end of 2002. 

On December 10, 1999, President Clinton

signed the Motor Carrier Safety

I m p rovement Act of 1999, which created the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

This new agency

will work to get

d a n g e ro u s

vehicles off of

our highways,

save additional

lives and help

reach the goal of

cutting motor

c a rr i e r- re l a t e d

fatalities in half

by 2010.

T h rough the Depart m e n t ’s eff o rts nationwide,

seat belt use nationally rose to almost 70

p e rcent in 1999, the highest seatbelt usage

rate on re c o rd in the U.S. Each year, seat

belts are estimated to save more than 10,000

lives. President Clinton has set a goal of 90

p e rcent seatbelt usage by 2005.

Through the use of innovative public

service announcements, the Department

has already increased usage among such

groups as African-Americans, Hispanics and

Native Americans that have historically had

low seat belt usage.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

A number of societal forces and

transportation issues will

challenge transportation

decision makers over

the next 25 years. 

Societal forces include

globalization, continued economic

growth, rapid technological innovation, and

changing demographic factors such as the

changing composition of the population, the

aging of America and population growth in the

South and West.

Among the emerging transportation issues,

growth in travel, trade and tourism will strain

the capacity of transportation systems,

challenging the transportation enterprise to

better manage existing facilities, increase

service, and tap new technologies. Addressing

transportation congestion will be a continuing

concern. Moreover, the increased demand for

freight transportation and the continuing shift

to just-in-time delivery will place increasing cost

and reliability requirements on transportation

networks.

One of the greatest challenges to decision

makers will be to provide adequate capacity in

light of concerns about air quality, energy,

▲ Challenges

The 2000 Wendell H. Ford Aviation

Investment and Reform Act for the 21st

Century (commonly known as AIR-21)

substantially increases funding for airport

development both through the Airport

Improvement Program and by allowing an

increase in the Passenger Facility Charge.

The Act also funds the continued

redevelopment of the air traffic control

infrastructure, providing the most

significant change in technology and

procedures in fifty years. AIR-21 provides

needed airport

infrastructure

grants that can

result in

competitive

access for new

entrant carriers

across the nation. 

AIR-21 continues

implementing the

goal of

modernizing and stabilizing FAA’s critical air

traffic services for the nation. It shifts FAA’s

air traffic management from a centralized

command and control hierarchy to a more

demand responsive and collaborative

service model, managed by the expanded

Aviation Management Advisory Council.

The aviation consumer will benefit from the

increased authorization to fund

enforcement of consumer protection

provisions.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

global warming, and environmental justice.

Sprawl development will continue to be a

troublesome issue. Ensuring access for all

citizens — for the elderly and persons with

disabilities as well as for the transportation

disadvantaged — will require hard decisions

about economic development, land use, and 

the allocation of resources. 

Over the next 25 years, steady growth in 

travel will lead to heightened concerns for

transportation safety and security, with the

resulting need to exert greater efforts to

improve the safety of facilities and vehicles, 

and promote safer behavior of users. The risk

of injury to drivers and pedestrians will increase

due to the aging of the U.S. population. Other

safety issues will arise from the growth of air

transportation, which will stress an already

burdened system. 

As a consequence of the forces and issues

described above, transportation decision 

makers throughout the transportation

enterprise will be faced with increasingly

difficult and complicated choices.

The U.S. Department of Transportation 

is a leader in addressing public and private

accessibility issues for people with

disabilities. Examples of specific travel

advances include: increasing the nationwide

fleet of accessible transit buses to 80

percent, and issuing: new rules requiring

intercity bus service to be accessible, rules

to increase accessibility to commuter

aircraft service, a new rule to eliminate the

$2,500 cap on airlines’ liability for loss or

damage to wheelchairs and other assistive

devices, and proposed rules to improve the

safety of platform lifts used to enter motor

vehicles. In addition, the Federal Transit

Administration provided grants to support

the installation of lifts and restraint systems

in intercity buses.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

V

i s i o n a ry, inspiring and effective leadership at

all levels of the transportation enterprise is

key to sound transportation decision making.

V i s i o n a ry leaders foresee the changes that are

coming and create ways to address these

challenges. Visionary leaders have also worked to

create the future of their dreams.

As part of the U.S. Department of Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ’s

journey to pursue visionary leadership, Secretary Slater

convened over fifty 2025 Visioning Sessions around the

c o u n t ry with hundreds of enterprise leaders, stakeholders

and U.S. DOT employees. Participants in these forums

were asked to offer suggestions for a new transportation

policy architecture that would provide 21st century

transportation leaders with a framework for an open,

informed, and collaborative decision-making process. 

The policy architecture that emerged from these sessions

offers a broad set of principles for transportation

decision making — principles to guide the decisions of

all members of the transportation enterprise. These

principles work together as a set supporting each other.

While any one principle may appear more prominently

in a specific decision-making process, the application of

all of the principles together will yield better

transportation decisions well into the 21st century.

“The policy architecture is a declaration of principles.” 

— Rodney E. Slater, U.S. Secre t a ry of Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n

On July 1, 2000, Ingalls

Shipbuilding cut the first piece

of steel that will eventually

become the largest cruise ship

ever built in this country and

the first one in more than forty

years. Project America, as it is

known, includes the largest and

most complex transaction ever

completed by the Maritime

Administration (MARAD).

Project America involves more

than $1 billion in Title XI loan

guarantees and permits Ingalls

Shipbuilding the opportunity to

return America to the large

cruise vessel construction

industry. This loan guarantee

eclipses, by almost a factor of

five, the previous largest

MARAD project. To complete

this project in a prescribed time

period, MARAD staff had to

develop new financial analysis

skills and create new

organizational structures. 

More importantly, MARAD has

to maintain a strong businessbased partnership with Ingalls

Shipbuilding and the loan

applicant.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Over the past three years,

under the leadership of

Secretary Rodney E. Slater

and Deputy Secretary

Mortimer L. Downey, U.S.

DOT has put into place

internal systems and

processes to address the

nation’s future

transportation needs. The

Department’s strategic

planning process has

resulted in broad

organizational goals,

outlined major strategies

to achieve these goals,

and set a framework for

performance goals to

measure progress. The

Department issued a

Strategic Plan in 1997 with

a five-year time horizon

and in September 2000

issued an updated plan for

the period FY 2000 - 2005.

The Department’s

Performance Plan, with a

one-year time horizon,

describes specific

initiatives U.S. DOT will

undertake to implement

the Strategic Plan. The

U.S. DOT Performance

Report was issued in May

2000. All of these reports

were judged the best in

government.

Five core principles inform the transportation policy architecture:

A Holistic Approach: Transportation decision making should recognize

and foster appropriate tradeoffs among individual transportation

choices, industry forces and societal goals. 

Collaboration and Consensus Building: Transportation decision

making should use an open and inclusive process, providing an

opportunity for all parties and stakeholders to engage the issues and

influence the outcomes. 

Flexible and Adaptable: The transportation decision -making process

should be able to respond quickly and effectively to changing conditions

and unpredictable, unforeseen events. 

Informed and Transparent Decision Making: Transportation decisions

should be made openly and based on the best information and analysis

available.

Innovation: Transportation decisions should promote a continuing

climate of innovation that reflects vision and speeds the movement of

new ideas and products into service. 
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

▲ A Holistic Approach

E

ffective transportation decision making takes a

broad view, looking at all relevant aspects of

the transportation system and carefully weighing

tradeoffs among competing interests, views and

goals. Such an approach considers a variety of

connected relationships that can fit together to

work harmoniously. A holistic approach gives full

consideration to linkages, tradeoffs or impacts on

other transportation entities, facilities, systems or

users. Moreover, this approach considers issues

broader than safety and mobility, such as the

environment, economic development, accessibility,

and equity. 

All too often, existing institutions and processes prevent

a holistic approach. The enterprise’s modal structure

can prevent the broad framing of transportation

problems — across modes and interests — that yield the

best solutions for the transportation system and the

broadest range of users.

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Transportation

and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program

“A package can travel a lot better than a person between many

origins and destinations.”

— Ann Rappaport, Tufts University In 1994, U.S. Secre t a ry of

Tr a n s p o rtation Rodney E. Slater,

as Federal Highway

A d m i n i s t r a t o r, set a national

goal of doubling the amount of

walking and bicycling in the

U.S., while simultaneously

i m p roving bicyclist and

pedestrian safety by 10 perc e n t .

P ro g ress has been made in

meeting the safety goal — fro m

1993 to 1997, there were

d e c reases of 15 and 18 perc e n t

respectively in bicyclist and

pedestrian injuries, a 6 perc e n t

d e c rease in pedestrian fatalities

and a minor decrease in bicyclist

fatalities. The re s o u rces in ISTEA

and TEA-21 have enhanced

e ff o rts to make nonmotorized

modes part of an integrated

t r a n s p o rtation system. Spending

of federal transportation funds

on bicycling and walking ro s e

f rom $6 million in 1990 to $297

million in 2000. The U.S.

D e p a rtment of Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n

has also played a lead role in the

Millennium Trails initiative,

helping to create the vision of a

coast-to-coast and bord e r- t o -

b o rder network of trails that

honors our past and imagines

our future .
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

(TCSP), first authorized in 1998, is a good illustration

of a holistic, regional approach. This program

encourages the development of innovative strategies to

improve the efficiency of the transportation system;

reduce the environmental impacts of transportation;

reduce the need for costly future infrastructure

investments; ensure efficient access to jobs and centers

of trade; and examine private sector development

patterns and investments that support these goals. 

In another example, two petroleum giants, BP Amoco

and Royal Dutch Shell, have adopted a holistic

approach to meeting the world’s energy needs. These

companies have programs to introduce cleaner fuels,

conserve energy resources, cut greenhouse gas

emissions from their operations, and develop energy

alternatives, including solar electric and hydrogen fuel

cells. For example, BP Amoco’s “40 Cities Program” is

making cleaner fuels available to more than 40 of the

world’s most polluted cities – from Raleigh-Durham to

Istanbul. In California, a private-public partnership

among Shell, state agencies, and car manufacturers is

demonstrating the potential of fuel-cell electric

vehicles.

A third example of a holistic approach, called “Super

Optimality,” is used in the Netherlands. This approach

requires that transportation projects be cost-beneficial

— not only in terms of transportation, but in terms of

the environment, sustainability, and economic

development. It’s not enough that policies be neutral

in these areas — they must be shown to produce

positive and real benefits.

Garrett Morgan (1877-1963) was

an African-American inventor

whose lifetime of contributions

include the invention of the

traffic signal. This technology

has been electrified, then

computerized, but not replaced,

because the basic idea still works

well today. The Garrett A.

Morgan Technology and

Transportation Futures Program

serves as a catalyst to enhance

transportation education at all

levels by leveraging the

Department’s current technology,

education, and research program

through public/private

partnerships. The program has

three goals: build a bridge

between America’s youth and the

transportation community;

support the development of

improved educational technology

that provides better ways for

people to acquire new skills; and

ensure that America’s

transportation workforce for the

21st century is technologically

literate and internationally

competitive. Through 2000, the

Morgan Program has reached

over 2.8 million students, far

surpassing our goal of 1 million.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Few actions of the Federal Government have

greater influence over the character and growth

patterns of communities than transportation

investments. In conjunction with Vice President

Gore’s focus on livable communities, the

Department is providing communities with new

tools and resources to preserve green space,

ease traffic congestion, restore a sense of

community, pursue regional smart growth

strategies and enhance economic

competitiveness. All of the Department’s

programs affect the livability of our Nation’s

regions and communities. We have success

stories across the country showing how a

relatively small investment in transportation can

make a huge difference in making our

communities more livable. To promote the

development of more livable communities, the

Department has formed a partnership with a

single community in each of our ten regions.

And we are establishing partnerships with other

agencies to pursue smart growth initiatives.

Through such activities, communities are using

existing Departmental programs more

effectively to link safety, growth strategies,

environmental quality and economic

development in an integrated manner.

Arlington County, Virginia, is a national model

for such urban planning-transportation-land use

connections. A new project demonstrating this,

now being constructed, includes 300,000 square

feet of retail space, and about 800 housing units

— 500 of those above the shops — all virtually

on top of a mass transit station and beside a

major urban shopping center.

▲ Collaboration and 

Consensus Building

“Good transportation policy builds consensus

or builds on consensus when and as it can.”

— Larry Susskind, Massachusetts Institute of Te c h n o l o g y

Effective transportation decisions can best 

be reached through collaboration. This

demands inclusive decision making with all

parties involved at the earliest stages of the

process, when issues and potential problems

are first defined. Transportation decisions

should reflect the needs and interests of a

diverse population and diverse transportation

entities. Collaboration and consensus

building can be extremely effective in

overcoming institutional obstacles and other

barriers by shifting the focus to common

goals and how best to achieve them. 

In the private sector, collaboration and

partnership are a key component of the

strategy of modern companies. As

companies begin to specialize in their areas
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

In October 2000, U.S.

Secretary of Transportation

Rodney E. Slater hosted an

International Transportation

Symposium for over 1000

transport ministers and

other key transportation

officials from over 100

countries to review existing

transportation practices and

explore possibilities for a

global strategic vision for

the new century and the new

millennium. 

The participants reviewed

best practices in

transportation policies and

management throughout the

world that may serve as

future models for countries

that face similar challenges.

Conference participants

issued a Declaration of

Principles to guide future

transportation development. 

of competitive advantage, they work with partners to

accomplish the myriad tasks needed to develop, manufacture,

market, and support products and services. Business Week

summarized the trend noting that “business leaders once

thought that creating intense rivalries among competitors

motivated their employees and assured success. But in the

days to come, a company’s fiercest competitor might also be

its most important collaborator.”

In one example of a collaborative approach, the Federal

Railroad Administration (FRA) instituted a collaborative,

customer-focused approach to rail safety in its Safety

Assurance and Compliance Program in 1994. This approach

involves working with railroad labor and management as well

as other segments of the railroad community — including

states, manufacturers, contractors and suppliers — to identify

and correct the root cause of safety problems across the

entire railroad system. As part of a collaborative approach to

safety rulemaking, FRA established a Railroad Safety Advisory

Committee, composed of safety experts from all parts of the

railroad industry, which provides advice and

recommendations on the development of the railroad safety

regulatory program and identification of non-regulatory

alternatives for improving railroad safety.

Started by the private sector, Envision Utah is another excellent

example of a collaborative approach to improving transportation.

This public-private partnership has addressed the effects of too

rapid growth in an area stretching 100 miles north and south of

Salt Lake City. A broad group of organizations and citizens used

an extensive outreach process to develop a land use and

transportation “quality growth strategy” intended to keep that area 
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

of Utah beautiful,

prosperous and neighborly for future

generations. The goals include more land

c o n s e rvation and more housing choices, as well

as less air pollution, water consumption, and

traffic congestion. 

The commitment to build consensus on 

a regional scale is critical to solve tough

transportation issues that are outside of

individual local jurisdictional boundaries. 

San Diego’s successful TransNet local ballot

funding for transportation facilities is another

example of such a successful cooperative

effort. After two years of analysis and

discussions with elected officials and

community groups, the San Diego Association

of Governments put a proposition on the

ballot that would provide $4 billion over 20

years for local transportation improvements.

This proposition passed because a strong 

region-wide consensus had been built.

Over the next 30 years, new functionality will be

incorporated onto silicon chips — stru c t u res that will

enable the chip to not only think, but to sense, act,

and communicate. MEMS will enable this

re v o l u t i o n .

MEMS exploits the existing micro e l e c t ro n i c s

i n f r a s t ru c t u re to create complex machines at the

m i c ron scale. (A micron is one millionth of a meter. )

MEMS offers miniaturization (and there f o re cost

reduction), and also makes entirely new

technologies possible. MEMS devices are alre a d y

used in transportation, notably in automobiles

(accelerators, pre s s u re sensors, and inertial sensors).

M o re advanced applications may include

automobile collision avoidance; “smart suspension”

in sport utility and other vehicles; remote sensing of

methane and other hazardous materials; detection of

chemical and biological weapons at airport s ;

miniaturized radio frequency components in

communications equipment; and “smart” sensors

that continuously monitor the condition of ro a d s ,

bridges, rail, and other infrastru c t u re and act on this

i n f o rm a t i o n .

R e s e a rch shows that suitably designed MEMS hold

p romise for power generation and air transport

applications. According to MIT investigators, an

a i rcraft engine with a one-meter-diameter air in-take

generates about 100 megawatts (100 million watts).

At millimeter size, such an engine could pro d u c e

tens of watts. The millimeter-size engine would have

a thrust-to-weight ratio of about 100-to-1, compare d

to 10-to-1 for the best aircraft engines today — a

p e rf o rmance enchancement with pro f o u n d

implications for tomorro w ’s air- and space-craft.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

▲ Flexible and Adaptable

“The problem with decision making that we have today is that

we’ve taken a structure that’s 25 years old and said, ‘Now let’s

make decisions on what’s right for the future.’” 

— Ronald L. Barnes, Central Ohio Transit Authority

Transportation organizations at all levels need to be flexible

and adaptable. Changing issues, the rapid pace of today’s

world, and unforeseen events require a decision-making

process that minimizes rigid rules and procedures and

fosters the acceptance of new approaches. 

As an example, states and localities have growing flexibility

in their use of federal transportation funds. Legislation has

consistently increased funding flexibility among program

categories, allowing transportation investments to better

respond to locally-determined needs and priorities. The

gradual acceptance of airport project financing by means

of direct passenger charges is an example of removing

federal barriers to local decision making. In 1990, this

prohibition [that airports receiving federal funds were

prohibited from using local revenue sources for airport

improvements] was modified by allowing airports to collect

Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) for projects that improve

aviation safety, security or system capacity. Similarly, in

1994 Congress reduced the strictures placed on airport

operators that had prevented the use of airport funds for

non-aviation purposes. Finally, the Aviation Investment

Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), passed in 2000,

increased the maximum PFC that could be imposed. 

In March 1999, the 

U.S. Department of

Transportation held the first

ever national safety

conference in Washington,

D.C. to develop a

Transportation Safety Action

Plan that identifies specific

strategies to save lives and

reduce injuries in all modes

of transportation. The

conference included a

national town hall meeting

of 440 participants in

Washington, and 140 people

in Atlanta, Detroit, and San

Francisco via satellite

teleconference to gather

suggestions for strategies to

improve transportation

safety. U.S. Secretary of

Transportation Rodney E.

Slater, Surgeon General Dr.

David Satcher, and chiefs of

industry, labor, and law

enforcement organizations

signed a memorandum of

understanding pledging to

work as partners to improve

safety. It was there that the

Secretary developed the

pledge: Safety — A promise

we make and keep together.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

An organization’s responsiveness to

unforeseen events is another aspect of

flexibility. The Voluntary Intermodal

Sealift Agreement (VISA) and the Civil

Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) are two

outstanding examples of preparation for

such response. Through these programs,

the U.S. DOT is partnering with the

commercial maritime and aviation

industries to coordinate the use of

civilian assets (vessels and aircraft) and

worldwide logistics networks to meet

National Defense requirements in times

of emergency.

The capacity to transform new knowledge, concepts, and

ideas into new products, processes, and services is a top

priority for the Department and the entire transportation

enterprise. This process of innovation provides the linkage

between new technologies and the realization of their

benefits for society. Secretary Slater brought together

leaders from the transportation and technology

communities to explore how the transportation enterprise

might work together to ensure a climate that supports

innovation. Participants at this Spirit of Innovation in

Transportation conference held at the renowned Volpe

Center agreed that three elements were critical: (1) a welleducated population and a highly trained and motivated

workforce; (2) continuing investment by both government

and industry in cutting-edge research; and (3) strong

partnerships among all levels of government, academia,

and industry.

The innovation conference generated a number of ideas for

action for the Department, the government, and the entire

technology and transportation community. U.S DOT has taken

the lead in fostering a climate of transportation innovation

t h rough a number of actions. The development of the policy

a rc h i t e c t u re presented in this re p o rt is one of U.S. DOT’s key

contributions to advancing innovation. In addition, U.S. DOT

has: established the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and

Tr a n s p o rtation Futures Program, initiated a broad part n e r s h i p

to define and advance a national transportation education and

re s e a rch agenda, sponsored high-level focus group sessions

to identify transportation re q u i rements resulting from the

g rowth in electronic commerce; participated in the

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ’s Partnership for a New Generation of Ve h i c l e s

(PNGV) and the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program (AV P )

to improve medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and participated in

the Aviation Safety Research Alliance to attain critical aviation

safety goals in the next century.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

As researchers improve the

intelligence capabilities of computers

– particularly the ability to imitate the

human process of reasoning – they

will become an integral part of

safety-related decision processes

involved in transportation. The next

25 years hold great promise for the

evolution of information and

wireless technologies in future

transportation. Decisions that

include large numbers of factors

involving natural and human

processes — for example, driving a

motor vehicle — will benefit from

this capability. Vehicles will be

equipped with wireless devices that

will “read” their surroundings –

traffic congestion, road conditions,

air quality, weather, and compass

direction – perhaps even the driver’s

own vital signs. This information

will be updated continuously as part

of an ongoing, real-time

decision-making process of

identifying the most efficient route,

identifying unsafe speeds and

movements, and either alerting

drivers or taking actions

automatically.

▲ Informed and Transparent

“We need to learn the lesson of transparency.”

— Joseph Giglio, Nort h e a s t e rn University

Transportation decisions must be based on sound

technical analysis and objective facts. Performance

measures are needed to allow an assessment of the

entire transportation system. Informed decision

making requires that we to the degree possible assess

the consequences of

transportation policies

before they are

implemented. In

some cases, policies

may have unintended

consequences or may

neglect important

considerations. 

As importantly, all levels

of decision making

must be open and

transparent. Such transparency is essential for the

legitimacy of the decision-making process. Stakeholders

must have access to sound information about the issues

in order to participate effectively in the process. 

Even private companies are subject to public scrutiny

about their decision making: The ease with which

reliable information on companies is disseminated,
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Over the past decade and a half, the

transportation sector has been using Global

Positioning Satellites (GPS) for navigation. GPS

is a space-based global radionavigation system

operated by the U.S. Air Force. Until recently,

the two GPS services provided dramatically

different accuracy levels. The military Precise

Positioning Service provided full system

accuracy, while the civilian Standard Positioning

Service intentionally degraded the signal to limit

accuracy to about 100 meters. Transportation

providers and users have been using civilian GPS

technologies to improve transportation safety

and efficiency. Bus companies, taxicab fleets,

and trucking companies use GPS-based

automatic vehicle location systems to locate their

equipment on a real time basis. Railroads and

ocean shipping companies track the movement

and location of individual cars and containers

using GPS receivers.

On May 1, 2000, President Clinton ordered that

the intentional degrading of the civilian GPS

signal be discontinued immediately. This change

improves the GPS’ accuracy and dramatically

increases the scope of potential uses by

individuals and businesses. The more accurate

signal will lead to greater consumer confidence,

higher adoption rates and millions of dollars in

savings throughout the economy. In the future,

enhancements to the GPS system may result in

accurate position information to within

millimeters, increasing the cascade of benefits

that can be achieved in all sectors of the

economy, including many transportation

applications.

including the prices they charge and the

impact of their products on the

environment and society, is leading some

businesses to be more open with customers

about their decision-making processes. 

U.S. DOT’s program implementing the

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and

Innovation Act (TIFIA) is an excellent

illustration of transparent decision making.

TIFIA applications for federal loans, loan

guarantees, and lines of credit are ranked

openly in terms of clearly established

evaluation factors. 

The Federal Transit Administration’s

(FTA’s) evaluation and rating of major 

new transit investment projects is another

example of informed and transparent

decision making. The FTA openly evaluates

and rates proposed fixed guideway systems

and extensions using several pre-established
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Over the next 25 years in order to keep

up with the growth in world trade, a

new generation of ocean-going freight

carriers are being developed. This

next generation of ocean freight liners

will include ships that are dramatically

larger than those currently in

operation. In 1990, less than six

percent of U.S. containerized cargo

was handled on ships of 4,000 Trailer

Equivalent Units (TEUs) or more. At

least one study forecasts that by 2010,

between 20 percent and 30 percent of

ocean freight traffic may be carried on

liners in the 4,000 to 6,000 TEU class,

with more than nine percent in the

6,000 to 8,000 TEU class.

Ocean liners are being built with highspeed hull designs that will reduce

their transit and turn-around time. Fast

ships are being designed that will

dramatically increase the speed of

relatively large container ships. These

new designs will result in a class of

ships that, while slower then air travel,

are much faster than conventional

ocean shipping. Market demand for

these vessels is expected to be

significant. However, major

improvements to the marine

transportation infrastructure, including

channels, landside facilities, and

intermodal connections with surface

transportation, will be required to take

full advantage of their benefits. 

justification criteria. These ratings form the basis

for the FTA’s funding recommendations to

Congress. 

The Portland (OR) Metro planning organization

makes crucial decisions about the region’s longrange transportation and land-use planning in an

environment of openness and transparency. As

stated by David Rusk, “Portland area citizens...

know when and how such decisions will be made: 

in well-advertised public meetings after extensive

public hearings....And citizens know who will make

the decisions: the seven Metro councilors and

Metro chief executive who are directly elected by

the region’s citizens.”1

1 “Growth Management: The Core Regional Issue,” in Reflections on Regionalism,

Brookings Institution, 1999).
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Partnerships among government, industry,

and educational institutions can generate

new technologies that will grow our

economy and help our environment at the

same time. The Federal Government has

taken a leadership role in initiating

partnerships designed to fulfill all of these

objectives.

The Partnership for a New Generation of

Vehicles (PNGV) joins seven federal agencies

and 19 federal laboratories with the U.S.

Council for Automotive Research (USCAR),

which represents Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, and

General Motors. This partnership is

exploring new technologies that will lead to

a new class of vehicles with a fuel efficiency

of up to 80 miles per gallon while

maintaining performance, safety, and cost

comparable to today’s cars. The PNGV

partnership ultimately will help create new

jobs, improve global competitiveness,

reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and

decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Researchers expect the next 25 years to

bring strong new growth in development of

alternative fuels and other renewable energy

technologies for transportation that are

friendlier to the environment and that will be

economically competitive with current fossilfuel technologies. This market also presents

a remarkable opportunity for America’s

transportation enterprise, by developing

such technologies, to support mobility while

reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and

their associated environmental impacts.

▲ Innovation

“There is a lot of capacity left in the current

transportation network if we get better at using

technology and new approaches.”

— Michael W. Wickham, Roadway Express, Inc.

One clear reality of the 21st century is the power

of new ideas and new technologies. The creation

of a visionary, entrepreneurial culture within

organizations and across the transportation

enterprise is encouraging the development of

innovative approaches. Advances in information

systems, materials, and vehicles can achieve

dramatic improvements, making the

transportation system safer and more efficient. 

Yet, challenges remain to using technology

effectively, particularly the risk of new

applications. Demonstrations are key to

proving the feasibility of these new approaches. 

On a large scale, such demonstrations can help

to break existing patterns, creating new

markets and gaining critical financial and

administrative support. 

The Intelligent Transportation System 

(ITS) public/private partnership provides a

superb example of technological innovation

advanced by demonstrations. ITS represents a

next step in the evolution of the nation’s
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Designing, testing, and

manufacturing future aircraft

requires many human and

material resources.

Information technologies help

integrate computer design tools

with models and simulations of

manufacturing processes for

more efficient design, analysis,

and testing of products. These

virtual tools greatly reduce the

investment required for product

prototyping, testing, and

validation. A major example of

this approach is illustrated by

the development and

production of the Boeing 777,

which was completely designed

and pre-assembled virtually –

that is, by computer.

Performance and strength of

the plane were analyzed and

tested through complex

computer models. Of its three

million parts, more than

100,000 are unique; these parts

were precision-engineered from

computer models. The parts

were manufactured separately

at sites spread around the

world, then shipped to a central

plant, where they were

assembled, fitting together

perfectly on the first attempt. 

highway and transit systems applying new technologies

from computers, electronics, and communications to

make transportation safer, more efficient and more

effective. These technologies offer promising solutions

to the problems of congestion, crashes, and

environmental impacts. Already in use in areas across the

c o u n t ry, ITS is improving how transportation providers

offer services to the public. Recently, the focus of the

federal ITS effort has shifted from primarily research and

demonstrations to a balanced program that includes

support for deployment. 

The Coast Guard’s Deepwater Project uses a new

acquisition approach to procure state-of-the-art systems.

Instead of purchasing a single piece of equipment or

specific service in the traditional manner, the Coast

Guard is working with industry and stakeholders to

purchase complete systems through an innovative

Mission-Based Performance Acquisition approach.

The innovative Positive Train Control (PTC) 

effort consists of integrated command, control,

communications, and information systems for controlling

train movements with safety, precision, and efficiency.

PTC brings together a number of technologies including

digital communications networks; continuous and

accurate positioning systems such as GPS; and onboard

computers, displays, and speed control interfaces. Soon

to be introduced in the Northeast Corridor, Illinois, and

Michigan, PTC will improve rail safety by significantly

reducing the probability of collisions between trains,

casualties to roadway workers, and overspeed crashes. 
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Today’s research provides a glimpse

of the future in transportation

manufacturing, construction, and

operations. Scientists are rapidly

gaining the ability to build devices

and materials at the nanoscale (the

level of atoms and molecules) and 

to exploit their unique properties. 

A nanometer is one-billionth of a

meter, or about ten times the size 

of an individual atom. The unique

properties are due to the different

behavior of things at the nanoscale

as compared with either isolated

molecules or larger structures. In the

emerging field of nanotechnology,

researchers are working to exploit

these properties to develop devices

and materials with vastly improved

performance and characteristics —

for example, materials that are ten

times stronger than steel but only a

fraction of the weight. In

transportation, the potential benefits

are broad and pervasive. Among the

breakthroughs that we may see are

custom-tailored materials for

infrastructure and vehicles; materials

that monitor their own health and

repair any defects; “brilliant”

vehicles that avoid crashes and

improve operator performance; tiny

traps that remove pollutants from

emissions; and fuel cells that use

carbon nanotubes as hydrogen

“supersponges.”

T

he transportation enterprise is moving

toward an increasingly flexible, multimodal

association of organizations that invests in the

creation and operation of locally and globally

responsive systems. However, it is clear that the

way decisions have been made in the past will not

be sufficient to meet the challenges of the future. 

The continuing evolution of effective transportation

decision making includes such actions as the following:

• Actively engaging all stakeholders thoughout the

process from beginning to end.

• Giving greater attention to techniques for

consensus building and conflict resolution. 

• Forging global cooperation and new partnerships

to identify the best practices for solving

transportation problems.

• Increasing integration of local and regional

transportation planning with commercial concerns,

environmental and equity issues, and other social

needs and national priorities. 

• Changing structures, organizations, and processes —

p e rhaps even developing new organizations — so

they are more responsive to customers and more

appropriate to new methods of operation.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

To meet the transportation challenges of this century, all members of 

the transportation enterprise must adopt the core principles of a holistic

approach, collaboration and consensus building, flexibility and adaptability,

informed and transparent decision making, and innovation. This

framework — the transportation policy architecture — will allow a common

approach to the complex decisions that transportation leaders face today

and in the future. It will provide a framework for considering needed

changes in transportation structures, organizations and processes, and 

lead the way to a transportation system that is truly safe and 

sustainable for all citizens.

“My fellow Americans, on this day, with high hopes and brave

hearts, in massive numbers, the American people have voted to

make a new beginning. This election is a clarion call for our

country to face the challenges of the end of the Cold War and the

beginning of the next century, to restore growth to our country and

opportunity to our people, to empower our own people so that they

can take more responsibility for their own lives, to face problems

too-long ignored, from AIDS to the environment to the conversion

of our economy from a defense to a domestic economic giant.”

— President Elect William Jefferson Clinton, November 3, 1992
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix III

Appendix IV

Appendix V

The Evolution of U.S. Transportation Policy Development

Participants in the National Policy Architecture Forum, Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA, May 23, 2000

Participants in the Department of Transportation Secretaries’

Event, National Press Club, Washington, DC, May 15, 2000

Participants in Secretary Rodney Slater’s Stakeholder 2025

Visioning Sessions

Department of Transportation Participants in Secretary Rodney

Slater’s 2025 Visioning Sessions
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

T

ransportation policy development in the United States has evolved in response 

to national challenges and opportunities, shifts in ideology on the role of

government, and changes in the nation’s transportation systems, networks, and

technology, as our society has changed.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy described the American approach to transportation as

"(a) chaotic patchwork of inconsistent and often obsolete legislation and regulation."

President Lyndon B. Johnson wrote that "(t)he country ’s transportation facilities respond to

the needs of an earlier America," and asked that the Congress establish the U.S. Department

of Transportation to create a "coordinated transportation system."

Many U.S. DOT programs originated in other Executive cabinet departments or as

independent agencies. The highway grant programs, for example, originated as Department

of Agriculture programs to improve access for farmers to markets in urban areas. The

The U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 tied the creation of the Department to the economic growth and

stability of the Nation. The U.S. DOT was established in 1968 to: 

• assure the coordinated, effective administration of the Federal Government’s transportation programs;

• facilitate the development and improvement of coordinated transportation service, to be provided by

private enterprise to the maximum extent feasible;

• encourage the cooperation of federal, state, and local governments, carriers, labor, and other

interested parties toward the achievement of national transportation objectives;

• stimulate technological advances in transportation;

• provide general leadership in the identification of transportation problems; and 

• develop and recommend to the President and the Congress for approval national transportation

policies and programs to accomplish these objectives with full and appropriate consideration of the

needs of the public, users, carriers, industry, labor and the national defense.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

aviation programs were started to nurture and ensure the safety of air travel. Maritime

programs were created to enforce revenue laws during the 18th century and to ensure

domestic sealift and shipbuilding capacity for national defense. The U.S. Department of

1976 Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act)

1977 Air Cargo Deregulation

1978 Airline Deregulation Act of 1978

1980 Motor Carrier Act of 1980

Staggers Rail Act of 1980

Household Goods Transportation Act of 1980

1982 Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982

1984 Shipping Act of 1984

1986 Surface Freight Forwarders Deregulation Act of 1986

1994 Trucking Industry Regulatory Reform Act of 1994

Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994

1995 Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995

1998 The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998

Maritime Security Program

1978 Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (STAA)

1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA)

1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)

1995 National Highway Deregulation Act of 1995 (NHDA)

1996 Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (FARA)

1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

2000 Wendell Ford Aviation Investment & Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21)

Bipartisan legislation enacted in each of the past three decades codified a new

regulatory principle that competition is the best regulator of transportation. Federal

economic regulation has increasingly been reserved for major market failures or as a tool

to pursue broader social purposes. 

Consequently, the decision-making process covering entry, exit, control, pricing, and

quality of service has been relinquished by the Federal Government and turned over to the

carriers and their customers. 

The Federal Government is more stringently enforcing safety and environmental

standards.

STAAof ’78 first combined highway, transit and safety into a single law. It increased

highway funding flexibility.

STAA of ’82 created the Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund.

ISTEA strengthened state and local planning requirements, increased public participation

requirements, and provided unprecedented funding flexibility for state and local officials

to tailor transportation investments to meet local needs. 

NHDA created the National Highway System and State Infrastructure Bank Pilot Program.

FARA instituted FAA reform on cost accounting of federal aviation expenditures. It

established airport privatization pilot programs.

TEA-21 aff i rms President Clinton’s key priorities: improving safety, protecting public health

and the environment, and creating opportunity for all Americans. It provides re c o rd levels of

investment to continue rebuilding America’s highways and transit systems, doing so within a

balanced budget. TEA-21 expands the proven strategies of public participation in the

planning process to even greater levels.

The 2000 Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century

(commonly known as AIR-21) substantially increases funding for airport development both

through the Airport Improvement Program and by allowing an increase in the Passenger

Facility Charge. The Act also funds the continued redevelopment of the air traffic control

infrastructure, providing the most significant change in technology and procedures in fifty

years. AIR-21 provides airport infrastructure grants that can result in competitive access

for new entrant carriers. AIR-21 emphasizes modernization of air traffic system

management. 
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Transportation was created in 1966 to bring order and cohesion to federal transportation

policy and agencies, and to move towards a comprehensive and coordinated transportation

decision-making process. Since then, a number of federal transportation legislations have had

a significant impact on transportation decision making.

As a part of its leadership responsibility, the U.S. DOT periodically assesses the status of

the transportation system to determine whether it is prepared to meet emerging

challenges and opportunities. Since 1968, the Department has undertaken six such

major, comprehensive, intermodal assessments. Other independent commissions have

prepared additional system-wide reports. A common theme in these reports is the

desirability of greater coordination among programs and the need to bring a more

intermodal, or multimodal, perspective to transportation policies and programs.

1972 National Transportation Study John A. Volpe

1974 National Transportation Study Claude S. Brinegar

1977 National Transportation Trends & Choices William T. Coleman, Jr.

1980 National Energy Transportation Study Neil Goldschmidt (DOT) and Charles Duncan, Jr (DOE)

1990 National Transportation Strategic Planning Study Samuel K. Skinner

1996 A Progress Report on the 

National Transportation System Initiative Federico F. Peña

1979 National Transportation Policies Through the Year 2000 National Transportation Policy Study Commission

1985 Freight Transportation Eno Foundation

1988 Fragile Foundations: Report on America’s Public Works National Council on Public Works Improvement

1991 Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Office of Technology Assessment

Management and Financing

1994 Toward a National Intermodal Transportation System National Commission on Intermodal Transportation

One of the most comprehensive and far-reaching studies was National Tr a n s p o rtation Tre n d s

and Choices released in 1977 by then Secretary William T. Coleman Jr. Trends and Choices

was prepared during a period of major energy shortages, high inflation, slow economic

growth, and extensive economic regulation of transportation operations. The report
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

emphasized the importance of: (1) a comprehensive transportation policy, (2) competition

among transportation modes, and (3) the role of the U.S. Department of Transportation in

making program and resource allocation decisions to serve broader national objectives. The

world has changed substantially since that report was issued. The Nation is in a period of

globalization and economic growth with relatively low inflation and rapid technological

transformation. Policy processes must change to meet these new realities.
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

DOT Secretaries and their terms of service:

Secretary Alan S. Boyd 

January 16, 1967-January 20, 1969

Secretary William T. Coleman

March 7, 1975-January 20, 1977

Secretary Samuel K. Skinner

February 6, 1989-December 13, 1991

Secretary Rodney E. Slater

February 14, 1997- Present

Moderators:

Stephen Van Beek, Associate Deputy Secretary

David Winstead, National Transportation Week Chair 

S e c re t a ry Of Tr a n s p o rtation Rodney Slater

Ronald L. Barnes, General Manager, Central Ohio Tr a n s i t

A u t h o r i t y

Ellen Bell, Volpe Center

B e rn a rd Blood, Volpe Center

Edith Boyden, Volpe Center

Sarah Campbell, President, TransManagement, Inc.

Eugene Conti, Jr. , Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

Kelley Coyner, A d m i n i s t r a t o r, Research & Special Programs

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

Nuria Fernandez, A d m i n i s t r a t o r, Federal Transit Administration

P rofessor Joseph Giglio, Senior Academic Specialist, College of

Business Administration and General Management, Northeastern

U n i v e r s i t y

P rofessor Daniel F. Hastings, Department of Aero & Astronautics,

Massachusetts Institute of Te c h n o l o g y

R i c h a rd John, D i r e c t o r, Volpe Center

N o rma Krayem, Deputy Chief of Staff

R o b e rt D. Krebs, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway

Linda Lawson, D i r e c t o r, Office of Transportation Policy

D e v e l o p m e n t

P rofessor David Luber o ff, Kennedy School of Government,

H a rvard University

Thomas E. Marchessault, Office of Transportation Policy

D e v e l o p m e n t

John Mason, Mayor of Fairfax City, VA

Oliver McGee, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

Deborah Meehan, Chief Operating Officer, SH&E

D r. Ralph Merkle, President and CEO, Zyrex, Inc.

Jolene Molitoris, A d m i n s t r a t o r, Federal Railway Administration

Jack Murr a y, Deputy Administrator, Research & Special Programs

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

P rofessor Ann Rappaport, Department of Urban & Environmental

P o l i c y, Tufts University

R o b e rt Roach, Jr., General Vice President, The International

Association of Machinists and Aerospace Wo r k e r s

Ashish Sen, D i r e c t o r, Bureau of Transportation Statistics

P rofessor Lawrence E. Susskind, Department of Urban and

Environmental Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Te c h n o l o g y

Michael W. Wickham, Chairman and CEO, Roadway Express, Inc.

Ed We i n e r, Office of Transportation Policy Development

Kenneth Wykle, A d m i n i s t r a t o r, Federal Highway Administration

▲ Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Cambridge, MA • May 23, 2000

▲ National Press Club, Washington, DC • May 15, 2000
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Aron, Mark, Executive Vice President, CSX

Ackermans, Faye, General Manager, Safety Regulatory

Affairs, Canadian Pacific Railways

Acuna, Roger, Team Leader, California Foundation for

Independent Living Centers

Adams, Alisha, sophomore - Biology major, Spellman

College, Atlanta, Ga.

Amekudzi, Dr. Adjo, Georgia Institute of Technology

Anthony Clarence, Mayor of South Bay, FL

Archer, Dennis, Mayor of Detroit, MI

Arnold, Meredith, Berkeley Commission on Aging

Bannister, Dan, Chairman, DynCorp; Business Roundtable 

Baptiste, Gerald, Deputy Director, The Center for

Independent Living, Berkeley, CA

Barnes, Brian C., sophomore - Mathematics major,

Morehouse College

Barry, Anna, Director, Railroad Operations, Massachusetts

Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Barry, Greg, VP of ExxonMobil Refining & Supplies;

Chairman, Fairfax County Economic Development

Authority

Bauer, Ken J., Acting President, 

MTA - Long Island Rail Road

Beardsworth, Randy CAPT., Director for Defense Policy,

National Security Council

Becker, Bill, Executive Director, State and Territorial Air

Pollution Program Administrators and Association of

Local Air Pollution Control Officers

Bender, Rick, Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO

Berglund, Steven W., President & CEO, Trimble

Navigation Limited

Bernhardt, Dr. Robert, Professor and Director, Ray W.

Herrick Laboratories, Perdue University

B e rns, Dr. Scott, Hasbro Children’s Hospital, Providence, RI

Berry, Marion, Member of Congress U.S. House of

Representatives, Arkansas 1st Congressional District

Betcher, Charlie, President, Bus Riders Union

Blake, Joe, President, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce

Blue, Mary, Chair, RTD Board

Bohlinger, Linda, Executive Director, Tri-County

Commuter Rail Authority

Boylan, Christopher, Deputy Executive Director, NY-MTA

Boyle, Robin, Associate Dean -- CULMA: Chair, Geography

and Urban Planning Dept., Wayne State University

Braaten, Kaye, County Service Representative, National

Association of Counties

Bradshaw, Thomas W., Managing Director, Salomon Smith

Barney

Branche, Dr. Christine M., D i r e c t o r, Division of

Unintentional Injury Prevention Centers for Disease Control

Bravo, Raul V., Raul V. Bravo & Associates

Bray, Robert, Chairman, American Association of Port

Authorities, Executive Director, Virginia Port Authority

Breau, Pat, Omni Trak

Breckner, Terrie, Transit User

Brennar, Summer, Contra-Costa Commute Alternative

Network

Bridges, Melissa K., Little Rock Board of Directors Office 

Brightfill, Tom, Para-transit coordinator for Alemeda

County

Brinson, Ron, President and CEO, Port of New Orleans

Brooks, Roberta, Assistant District Administrator, Office of

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, 

Brown Lee, Mayor of Houston, TX

Browning, Dr. Jess, University of Washington

Bruccoleri, Theodore A Managing Director,

StratfordGroup

Brunkenhoefer, James, National Legislative Director,

United Transportation Union

Buchanan, Donald, Director, Railroads & Shipyards, Sheet

Metal Workers, International Association

Burgey, Will, Delta Pilots Representative.

Burke, Rubin, United Auto Workers
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Burnley. Jim, Senior Attorney, Winston & Strawn

Burrell, George, Deputy Mayor of Philadelphia, PA

Butcher, George, Goldman Sachs and Company

Caldwell, Linda, Unicoi Turnpike Trail

Caldwell, Ray, Great Western Trail Association

Cantrell, J. T., Training Chief, Little Rock Fire

Department

C a rdinet, George, Juan Bautista de Anza Nat'l. Historic Tr a i l

Carlin, Mike, Public Affairs Director, Washington Gas,

Chair of REGION Coalition (Responsible Economic

Growth In Our Nation)

Carlson, Steven, Securities Industry Association

Carlstrom, Terry R., National Park Service – NCR

Carney, John, American Consulting Engineers Council

Carpenter, A. R., Vice Chairman, CSX Corporation

Carroll, Charles, Executive Director, National Association

of Waterfront Employers

Carroll, David, AMTRAK

Carson, Jeff, Commission of Fine Arts (CFA)

Cauthen, Wayne, Chief of Staff, Mayor Webb’s Office

Chang, Kevin, Engineer, Project Management and Design

Unit, King County Department of Transportation, King

County, Washington

Chase, Robert, Vice President, The DCM Group

Chin, Joyce, Center for Independent Living, Desk Services

Department

Cisco, Judge Carl, St. Francis County Arkansas County

Judge

Cole, Mike, Administrator, Orientation Center For the

Blind

Coleman, William T., Former Secretary, U.S. DOT

Cook, Michelle, Human Resources, Daimler Chrysler

Cook, Robert, Washington Interdependence Council 

Copeland, Guy, Vice President, Information Infrastructure

Advisory Programs, Special Assistant to the CEO,

Computer Sciences Corporation 

Corbitt, Colonel Harry, Deputy Superiintendent, New

York State Police

Corley, Walter, President, CORE Logistics

Coughlin, Joseph, Director, University Transportation

Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Craig, Larry, Chief Engineer, Noise and Emissions, Boeing

Cross, Nancy Jewel, AC Transit Board of Directors

Cummings, Ezra C.,Washington Interdependence Council

Czuczman, John, International Vice President, Transport

Workers Union of America

Dailey, Jim, Mayor of Little Rock, AR

Dana, Greg, Vice President, Environmental Affairs for the

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

Daniel, Janice, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering, New Jersey Institute of

Technology

Daniels, Rolanda, Master’s student in City Planning,

Georgia Institute of Technology

Davis Jr., Dr. Lawrence, President University of Arkansas

at Pine Bluff - HBCU 

Dean, Shirley, Mayor, of Berkeley, CA

Dear, Joe, Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor of

Washington

Dearien, Dr. John A., CEO, CyberTran

DeCicco, John, Transportation Manager, Senior Associate,

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy

DePaepe, Timothy, Director – Research, Brotherhood of

Railway Signalmen

Decker, Michael, The Bond Market Association

Delaney, Richard, Director, Urban Harbor Institute,

University of Massachusetts

Deno, Stanford, Director of Technical Operations,

International Council of Cruise Lines 

Derath, Richard, Executive Director, Access Services

Dermody, James, Senior Vice President Operations, MTA -

Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)

Derrick Jr., John M., President & CEO, Pepco

Diamond, Leonard, Manager of Emergency Management

and Support Services Division, NJ Transit Authority,

Dinsmore, Mic, Port of Seattle

DiPrinzio, Raymond A., Managing Director, Scully Capital

Donohue, Jr., Thomas, Managing Director, The Adelphi

Group

Dowd, Bill, National Capital Planning Commission

Driver, Michael, Patton Boggs

Dukakis, Governor Michael, AMTRAK

Dyke, Jim, Partner, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe;

Chairman, Metropolitan Washington Coalition of

Chambers of Commerce

Dubinski, Rick, United Pilots Representative.

Duperron, Tim, Chief Operating Officer, Focus-Hope

Duffy, Dennis, Executive Vice President Operations,

Union Pacific Corporation
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

D u ff y, Dr. Gloria, CEO, Commonwealth Club/Silicon Valley 

Dwinnell, W. Ben, Assistant General Manager, Railroad

Division, Southeastern Pennsylvania

Dysart, Mark R., President & CEO, High Speed Ground

Transportation Association

Ebbert, Mike, Jonesboro Coalition

Eckles, Karyl, Program Administrator, World Institute on

Disability (WID)

Edmonds, Al, Vice President, EDS 

Ellis, Jack, Mayor of Macon, GA

Emerson, Monica, Human Resources, Daimler Chrysler

Emig, Larry, Kansas Department of Transportation

Esmaili, David, Director, Advanced Transportation

Technologies, West Valley College

Everett, Claude, Senior Assistant Manager, Bay Area Jobs

Consortium

Felder, Wilson, Vice President, Aviation Systems and

Services, TRW

Felkins, Charles, Union Pacific Railroad

Fernandez, Jose, Vice President - System Safety, MTA -

Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)

Ferrington, Howard, Northwest Airline Pilots

Representative. 

Filipovic, Mark, Vice President, International Association

of Machinist & Aerospace Workers

Finberg, Jack, General Services Administration - NCR

Finn, Deborah, Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

Fleming, Mac, President, Brotherhood of Maintenance

Way Employes

Flowers, Dan , Director, Arkansas State Highway and

Transportation Department

Flynn, Cathal (Irish) RADM, Associate Administrator for

Civil Aviation Security, FAA 

Foran, Robert E., Senior Managing Director, Bear Stearns

Forlaw, Blair, Director, Policy Programming, East West

Gateway Coordinating Council

Forrest, Craig, Chairman, Baltimore Regional

Transportation Board

Frausto, Marta, Cal Transit in Fresno

Game, R., Arkansas Boating Law Administrator

Garcia-Sinclair Neil, Vice President, CyberTran 

Garret Jan, Executive Director, Berkeley Center for

Independent Living

Gerston, Lar ry, Professor, Political Science, San Jose State

University

Giacopini, Dorene, Board Member, Metropolitan

Transportation Commission (MTC)

Gibbs, Kenneth, Director, Public Finance, First Albany

Corporation

Giglio, Joseph, Senior Academic Specialist, College of

Business Administration and General Management,

Northeastern University

Giulietti, Joe, Deputy Executive Director, Tri-County

Commuter Rail Authority

Gokche, Zeki, Graduate Student, GWU

Goldberg, Arthur, Transport Workers Union

Golden, Marilyn, Senior Attorney, Disability Rights

Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)

Gray, Beverly, Friends of the Freedom Society-UGRR

Gray, Judy, FC CofC, President/CEO 

Griggs Jr., Leonard L., Director, Lambert-St Louis

International Airport

Grow, Robert, Director of Transportation, The Greater

Washington Board of Trade

Guensler, Dr. Randy, Georgia Institute of Technology

Hale Jr., Lewis D., Vice President Transportation Services,

Norfolk Southern Corporation

Hall, Wade, General Manager – Amtrak, Washington

Commuter Services

Hamberger, Edward, President & CEO, Association of

American Railroads

Hammers, Dave, National Park Service - NCR

Hammerschmidt, John, NTSB Board Member

Hanif, Abdelaziz (Abdul), Realty & Regional

Transportation Specialist, NASA-Ames Research Center

Hanlon, Dan, Architect of the Capitol - Dir. of Engrg.

Hanson, Dr. Carl, Senior Vice President, Harris, Miller

Miller & Hanson

Harlow, Ilana, International Express

Harris, Edward

Harvey, Robert A., Regulatory Research Coordinator,

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

Haverty, Michael R., President and CEO, Kansas City

Southern Railway Company

Heatley, Kathryn, CEO, Outreach

Heimowitz, Daniel, Managing Director, Lehman Brothers

Heitman, Diedre, MTC's Welfare to Work Project Manager
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Herrity, Pat, CFO, Dimensions International, Chair of

NVTC Transportation Committee 

Hillebrand, Don, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Daimler

Chrysler 

Howard, Darrell, Master’s City Planning, Georgia Institute

of Technology

Hodges, Sue, Commissioner, Oakland Commission on

Disability

Hoey, Ann, Vice President - Service Operations, National

Railroad Passenger Corporation

Hooper, Fran, American Public Transit Association

Howard, Darrell, Master’s student in City Planning,

Georgia Institute of Technology

Ice, Carl, Vice President - Operations, Burlington

Northern Sante Fe Railway

Inclima, Rick, Director - Education & Safety, Brotherhood

of Maintenance Way Employes

Irwin, Thomas J., Executive Director, Bi-State

Development Agency

Isaki, Paul, Governor's Special Trade Representative

Jacobi, Tom, Senior Assistant Vice President Safety and

Operations, Union Pacific Corporation

Jester, Norm, Vice President and General Manager,

Herzog Transportation Authority

Johnson, Harvey, Mayor of Jackson, MS

Johnson, James, Dean of the Engineering Department,

Howard University

Johnson, Joyce, Transportation Institute, North Carolina

Agricultural & Technical State University

Johnson, Lawrence, Chief, Little Rock Police Department

Johnson, Muhammad, student, Morehouse College

Johnston, Phil, Fire Chief, Little Rock Fire Department

Jones, Keith, Central Arkansas Transit Authority

Jones, Leroy, Vice President & National Legislative

Representative, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

Jones, Susan, Mississippi River Cycling & Hiking Corridor

Jordan, Cedestra, Jordan Consulting Group

Kaliski, John, Senior Associate, Cambridge Associates

Kane, John M. , President & CEO, Office Movers, Inc.

Kaplan, Deborah, Executive Director, World Institute on

Disability (WID)

Katz, Bruce, Brookings

Keck, Michael, Little Rock City Council

Keller, Tamara, Master’s student in City Planning, Georgia

Institute of Technology

Kelly, Nancy, Anza Trail Coalition

Kibbe Reed, Dr. Trudie, President Philander Smith 

Kidd, Lane, President, Arkansas Trucking Association

Kienitz, Roy, Executive Director, Surface Transportation

Policy Project

King, Brian, Appalachian Trail Conference

Kinghorn, Bert., RADM, Commander, USCG Maintenance

and Logistics Command, Atlantic 

Kirk, Ron, Mayor of Dallas, TX 

Knight, John, Director, Arkansas Dept. of Aeronautics 

Kovacs, Jeff, Director - Safety Programs, Compliance and

Training, New Jersey Transit Corporation

Krebs, Robert D., Chairman & CEO, Burlington Northern

Sante Fe Railway

Kruesi, Frank, President, Chicago Transit Authority

Kumpuris, Dean, Little Rock City Director

Kuo, Chin, Dean, College of Engineering, Wayne State

University

Laden, Ken, Administrator, D.C. Transportation

Intermodal Planning

LaLonde, Frank, Manager Engineering, Transport Canada

L a u b y, Robert, D i r e c t o r, National Transportation Safety Board

Lee, Barbara, Member of Congress, U.S. House of

Representatives, 9th California Congressional District

Lebedev, Greg, Exec. V. Pres. and CEO of U.S. Chamber

of Commerce

Lecos, William, Senior Vice President, The Greater

Washington Board of Trade

Leibovich, Dr. Marvin, Medical Director, Emergency

Services Baptist Medical Center

Leopold, Tom, Director - Rules/Safety, Kansas City

Southern Railway Company

Lerche, Renee, Director, Work Force Development, Ford

Motor Company

Lieber, John N., Consultant, Penn Station Redevelopment

Corporation

Lindstrom, Frederick J., Commission of Fine Arts (CFA)

Lofgren, Zoe, Member of Congress, U.S. House of

Representative, 16th California District

Lovell, Ellen, White House Millennium Council

Lynch, Bill, Director, Business Development, Lockheed

Martin Co., Missiles & Space Operations
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

McAdam, Michael, Head of Government Affairs for

Environmental Policy, BP

McBain, Jack

McCann, F. Leo, President, American Train Dispatchers

Department

McCrory, Donald C. "Don", Executive Director,

International Port of Memphis 

McDaniel, Ron L., President, Western-Cullen-Hayes, Inc.

McDonald, George, Safety Director, Transport Workers

Union of America

McGinness, Pat, Executive Director, Council for

Excellence in Government

McLarty, Alice, National Park Service - NACC 

McLaughlin, Jim, Director of Transit Planning for LA MTA 

McLean, Mark, Northwest Pilots Representative

McLemore, Teresa, Arkansas Administrator, MADD

McKenzie, Jim, Executive Director Metroplan

McMillin, Daniel, Deputy Director, Plans and Policy, U.S.

Transportation Command

McConchie, Linda, The Freedom Trail Foundation

Madden, Charles, Vice President, Modern Continental

Construction

Madigan, Kim, Canadian National/Illinois Central

Maestri, Bruno, Norfolk Southern

Magleby, Curt, Legislative Manager for Clean Air and

Fuels, Ford Motor Company

Mahoney, Carole, The Civil War Preservation Trust

Malone, Percy, Arkansas General Assembly

Mangum, Michael, President and CEO of the Mangum Group

Manley, Thomas, Vice President, Labor Relations, Bechtel

Mann, Bill, Little Rock City Attorney’s Office

Marchi, Richard, Vice President, Airports Council

International

Marino, Lelio "Les", President and Owner of Modern

Continental Construction

Mark, Jason , Senior Transportation Analyst, Union of

Concerned Scientists

Marsela, Cal, Executive Director, Denver RTD

Marshall, Will, President, Progressive Policy Institute

Mattingly, Joe, International Vice President Midwest

Marsilio, Nyla, Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc.

Martin, Jerry L., Director, Rail Division, Railroad

Commission of Texas

Martino, Mike, Assistant Vice President of Assistance

Safety, National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Maslanka, Gar y, International Representative, Transport

Workers Union of America

Matthews, Robert, President, Railway Progress Institute

Matthews, Tanya, Senior VP, Parsons Brinkerhoff

Mercer, Betty, Executive Director, Michigan Office of

Highway Safety Planning 

Meadows, Charles, Director of the Center for Teacher

Preparation, Morehouse College, Atlanta, Ga.

Merten, Alan, President, George Mason University 

Metzger, Janice, Co-Director, Chicagoland Transportation

and Air Quality Commission

Meyer, Gerard, Director of the Carnegie Mellon Driver

Training and Safety Institute

Meyer, Dr. Michael, Professor and Chair, Georgia Institute

of Technology

Millar, William W., President, American Public

Transportation Association

Miller, Andrew P., Partner, Dickstein Shapiro Morin &

Oshinsky

Miller, Albert, President, Miller-Newell Engineers of

Newport Arkansas & Cassville, MO

Miller, Julia, Georgia Environment Facilities Authority

Milliken, John G., Attorney, Venable

Mineta, Norman Y., Senior Vice President, Lockheed

Transportation Systems Division

Minter, Eric Lamar, University Transportation Center’s

Outstanding Student of the Year, North Carolina

Agriculture and Technical State University

Mitchell, Everett, senior - Mathematics major, Morehouse

College

Miyashiro, Stephanie, Board of Directors, Through the

Looking Glass

Mohan, Laurie, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Moller, Jeff, Director, Casualty Prevention, Safety and

Operations, Association of American Railroads 

Monfort, Mar y, Washington Water Trails Association

Moon, Marilyn, Urban Institute

Moon, Spencer, Teacher at City College in San Francisco

Mooney, Bruce, Transit User

Moore, Bruce, Office of the City Manager, Little Rock, AR

Moore, David, Mayor of Beaumont, TX

Morales, Jeff, Director, Caltrans
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Morris, Cynthia J., Piper Marbury Rudnick Wolfe L.L.P.

Morrissey, Stephen, Manager, Public & Governmental

Affairs, United Airlines, Inc.

Morrone, Fred, NY/NJ Port Authority Transit Authority

Police Department, representing: International

Association of Airport and Seaport Police 

Motevalli, Vahid, Professor, GWU, Transportation

Research Institute

Moulton, Jennifer, Director, Office of Planning and

Development, Denver City & County

Muhammed, Rushanna, Undergraduate student in Civil &

Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of

Technology

Murrell, Marilyn, Mayor of Arcadia, OK

Mulholland, Kathy, Hatfield-McCoy Rec. Development

Coalition

Muller, Carol, Managing Director, PaineWebber Inc.

Mundy, Chuck

Myers, Melissa, Arkansas Waterways Commission

Nagle, Kurt, President, American Association of Port

Authorities

Napier, Marvin, Assistant General President,

Transportation Communication Union Carmen Division

Natale, Patrick, Kansas Department of Transportation

Needham, Susan, Vice President, CSC 

Nelson, Faye, Vice President, Governmental &

Community Affairs, Wayne State University

Neukirch, Peter, Southeast Business Partnership

Nihan, Nancy L., TransNow

Niva, Connie, Washington State Transportation

Commission

Norton, Tom, Director, Colorado State Department of

Transportation

O'Connell, Dave, General Manager, Mason Transit

Authority in Washington State

O'Neal, Daniel, Greenbrier Companies and the Freight

Mobility Roundtable

O'Rourke, Betsy , Senior Vice President, Travel Industry

Association of America

Oberstar, James, Member of Congress, U.S. House of

Representatives, 8th District, Minnesota

Odom, Elzie, Mayor of Arlington, TX

Olson, Jeffrey , Lewis & Clark Heritage Foundation

Ogborne, Michael, Omni Trak

Ogilvie, Sarah, Project Analyst, Parsons Brinkerhoff

Olekszyk, Phil, World Wide Rail Inc.

O'Rourke, Betsy , Senior Vice President, Travel Industry

Association of America

Pagano, Philip A., Executive Director, Metra

Pantuso, Peter, President, American Bus Association

Paolillo, Rosemar y, Denver RTD Board Member

Paparello, Kim, Director of Finance, Metropolitan

Transportation Authority

Papp, Bob, North Country Trail Association

Pantuso, Peter, President, American Bus Association

Paradis, Lar ry, Executive Director, Disability Rights

Advocates

Passman, Jane, Smithsonian Institution

Patillo, Avery L., National Capital Planning Commission

Paul, Donald L., Vice President, Technology &

Environmental Affairs, Chevron 

Peacock, Tom, Director - Technology Service Operations,

American Public Transit Association

Pender, Pat, Vice President Transportation & Field

Operations, Canadian Pacific Railways

Peterson, Cynthia, Para-transit coordinator for the Golden

Gate Highway and Transportation District

Petrosky, Joseph, Director of Government & Public

Affairs, Focus-Hope

Pickett, Dan, Brotherhood of Railway Signalmen

Pikrallidas, Susan, Vice President, American Automobile

Association

Pile, Elizabeth, Legislative Representative, Transportation

Trades Department AFL-CIO

Pinkard, Robert M., CEO, Cassidy & Pinkard

Pisarski, Alan, Consultant, Veterans Administration

Plavin, David Z., President, ACI-NA

Porcari, John, Secretary of Transportation, State of

Maryland 

Porter, Gar y, General Services Administration - Historic

Potter, Tony, County of San Diego Health and Human

Services Agencies, Aging and Independent Services

Pulley III, J. Waverly , Hunton & Williams

Pylypec, Nestor , Vice President, Air Transport Association

Rees, A. B., Senior Vice President International

Operations, Kansas City Southern Railway Company

Revis, Paul, Arkansas Waterways Commission
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Reilly Jr., Matthew, Executive Director Federal & Industry

Programs, American Short Line and Regional Railroad,

Association

Rice, J. Craig, President & CEO, Brenco

Rich, Bob, Merrill Lynch

Riniker, Andrea, Port of Tacoma

Riva, Valentin, President & CEO of The American

Concrete Paving Association 

Robb, Charles, U.S. Senator for Virginia

Roberts, Tricia D i r e c t o r, Delaware Office of Highway Safety

Rogers, Mike, Georgia Tech

Rosales-Fike, Sylvia, Transportation Coordinator, Alemeda

County Social Services Agency

Rose, Dave, Denver RTD Board Member

Rose, Matt, BNSF

Rosenbloom, Sandra, Roy P. Drachman Institute for Land

and Regional Development Studies, University of Arizona

Ross, Dr. Catherine, Executive Director, Georgia Regional

Transportation Authority 

Roth, Rob, Deaf Counseling & Referral Agency

Rubin, Jonathan, Assistant Professor of Resource

Economics and Policy, University of Maine

Rybeck, Rick, DC Department of Public Works

Sanders, Jane, VP, Business Information and

Development, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Sanderson, Susie, B A RT, Manager of para-transit programs

Schmeltz, Edward, Senior Vice President, Frederick

Harris, Inc.

Schneider, Michael, President, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Schomer, Dr. Paul, Chairman, Noise Committee,

American National Standards Institute

Schumaker, Richard, Manager of Exterior Noise

Compliance, General Motors

Schuster, Neil, Exec. Director, International Bridge,

Tunnel and Turnpike Association

Schwartz, Deborah H., A.A.E.Airport Manager/Little Rock

National Airport 

Scopatz, Dr. Robert, Kissimmee, Florida

Seats, Peggy, Washington Interdependence Council

Seltzer, David W., Univ. of Southern California, National

Center for Innovations in Public Finance

Shandherr, Steve, Executive Vice President, Associated

General Contractors

Sherrer El, Khaatim, English major, Morehouse College

Sibly, John, President, Georgia Conservatory

Simon, Lisa, Senior Vice President, National Tour

Association, Lexington, KY

Skaff, Richard, Deputy Director, San Francisco Mayor’s

Office on Disability

Skinner, Robert, Executive Director, Transportation

Research Board

Slater, Thomas, Chairman SE Division HNTB

Sloane, Christine, Chief Technologist, PNGV Program,

General Motors

Smith, Judge Steven, 361st District Court, Bryan, Texas

Snyder, David, Manager - Railroad Services, Virginia

Railway Express, Operations Group

Snyder, Vic, Member of Congress, U.S. House of

Representatives, Arkansas 2nd District

Soper, Connie, Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Sparrow, Bob, FHWA - EFLHD

Spasovic, Lazar, Director of the University Transportation

Center at the New Jersey Institute of Technology

Starkloff, Max, President, Paraquad

Stehly, Mark P., Assistant Vice President, Environmental

and Hazardous Waste Materials, Burlington and Santa Fe

Railroad Company

Stengem, Greg, Vice President - Safety, Training, Technical

Research, Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway

Stowe, Tim, Anderson & Associates, Representing

American Consulting Engineers Associates

Strachan, Robert S., General Manager, Amtrak

Strang, Jo, Chief, Rail Accident Division, National

Transportation Safety Board 

Suskie, John, Executive Director, Arkansas Asphalt

Pavement Assn

Swanson, Richard, Litton-Tasc

Syaifuddin, Mohammed, Graduate Student, 

George Washington University

Tabor, Doris, Transit User

Tanner, Robert, Vice President, Frederick Harris, Inc.

Tate, William, Group Director--Human Resources, General

Motors

Taylor II, James, Managing Director, Bear Stearns,

Department of Public Finance

Teague, Steve, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation

Department

Teikari, Alan, Federal Highway Administration - EFLHD
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Terry, Contente, Master's student in City Planning,

Georgia Institute of Technology

Thurman, Robin, Marketing Manager, TRWChamber

Board member

Toohey Jr., William D., Senior Vice President, American

Road & Transportation Builders Assn.

Tooley, Melisa, Director, University Transportation Center

at the University of Arkansas

Turner, Bob, Director of Public Wo rks

Turner, Frank W., President, American Short Line and

Regional Railroad Association

Tydings, John R., President, The Greater Washington

Board of Trade

Undeland, John, Senior, Public Affairs Counselor,

Strat@comm

VanDorn, Pat

Vanegas, Dr. Jorge, Georgia Institute of Technology

Van Kefsel, Craig, Transportation Coordinator, ALTRANS 

Vanezula, Carlos, Division Director, Family Loan Program

of the Family Service Agency of San Motail County

Vidal, Bill, Director, Denver Regional Council of

Governments

Villins, Floyd G. "Buddy", Pulaski Co. Judge 

Voell, Chris, American Discovery Trail

Votava, Karen, East Coast Greenway

Vuchic,.Vukan R.., University of Pennsylvania

Vujic, Tatjana, Law Student, George Washington University

Waldrip, Jan, Operation Lifesaver

Wallace, Joe, Board Member of AC Transit and Municipal

Advisory Council

Walton, C. Michael, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair

in Engineering, University of Texas at Austin*

Ward, Chris, Chief of Planning & External Affairs, Port

Authority of NY/NJ

Ward, Michael, Executive Vice President – Operations,

CSX Corporation

Washington, Bobby, Mayor of Cullen, LA

Waters, Ms. Kathryn D., Manager & COO/MARC Train

Services, MARC/Mass Transit 

Waters, Rod, Student Trustee, The BACCHUS and

GAMMA Peer Education Network

Webb, Wellington, Mayor of Denver, CO

Webster, Pat, Consultant, Veterans Administration

Wehrmeister, Chuck, Vice President Safety &

Environment,

Weinstein, James, American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials

Wells, Linton, Principal Deputy, Office of the Assistant

Secretary of Defense

Williams, James, ABF Freight Systems

Williams, Patricia, Senior Vice President, American

Association of Museums; Chair, Partners in Tourism,

Washington DC

Williams, Steve, President, Maverick Transportation

Wiess, Jonathan, Executive Director, Center on

Sustainability and Regional Growth, George Washington

University, and student 

Winston, Cliff, Brookings Institute

Weinstein, Ken, Hudson Institute

Weiss, Levin, State Relations Manager, Daimler Chrysler

Wertheim, Susan, National Gallery of Art (NGA)

Westby, Karl, University of Washington

White, Vanessa, Job Consortium

Whitmer, Martin, Manager of Political Affairs, American

Road & Transportation Builders Association

Wilding, James A., President and CEO, Metropolitan

Washington Airports Authority

Williams, Susan J., President, Bracy Williams & Company

Wilson, Bonnie A., Vice President, Airport Facilities and

Services, Airports Council International-North America

Wilson, Dan, American Institute of Architects

Winstead, David, Wilkes Artis 

Woerth, Duane E., President, Air Line Pilots Association

International.

Wolf, Jean, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Wutton, Omar, Morehouse College

Yaeger, Linda, Executive Director, OATS, Inc

Yarberry, David, Administrative Manager, Little Rock PD

Yasumoto, Liane, Executive Director, Corporation on

Disabilities and Telecommunication 

Young, Alma, Interim Dean, College of Urban, Labor &

Metropolitan Affairs, Wayne State University

Zearfoss, Christopher E., Acting Deputy Mayor, City of

Philadelphia
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Allen, Bernestine, Director, Office of International

Transportation and Trade, OST-X

B a c h n e r, Jane, Federal Railroad Administration

B a i r, Scott, Office of the Secretary

Banks, David, Statistician, BTS

B a s h a w, Peter, Director of Maintenance

Bennett, Randall, D i r e c t o r, Office of Aviation and

International Economics

Betts, Charles, Transportation Specialist, Office of

Hazardous Materials Standards, RSPA

B i n d e r, Susan, D i r e c t o r, Office of Legislation & S t r a t e g i c

Planning, FHWA

Bingham, Te rri, Chief, US Air Carrier Licensing Division,

Office of International Affairs, OST

Brandt, Carol, Geospatial Programs Manager, BTS

Brigham, Ed, Acting Associate Administrator for

Management and Administration, RSPA

Bright, Don, D i r e c t o r, Office of Airline Information, BTS

B rown, Brenda, External Affairs Specialist, BTS

B u rden, Allen W., (Co-Chair) FHWA, EFLHD

C h r i s t o p h e r, Edward, Transportation Industry Analyst, BTS 

Cocci, Erm, Associate Administrator, SLSDC

C ross, Te rry RADM, Assistant Commandant for

Operations, U.S. Coast Guard 

Davies, Ronald, Curator of Air Transport, National Air and

Space Museum

D e C a rme, David, Chief, Maritime Surface and Facilitation

Division, OST

D e Va n y, Dennis, Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division,

Office of Aviation, OST

E i s e n b e rg, Albert C., Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Transportation Policy 

Ewen, Paula, D i r e c t o r, Office of Resource Management,

F H WA

Fenton, Carol, Director of Lock Operations, SLSDC

F l e t c h e r, Wendell, Assistant Director for Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n

Analysis, BTS

Gavalla, George, Associate Administrator for Safety, FRA

Gaynes, Jef f re y, Assistant Director, Regulatory Affairs,

Office of International Aviation, OST- X

G l a s e r, Jim, CIA Liaison, Office of Intelligence and

S e c u r i t y, OST

G o l d n e r, Robert, Special Assistant, Office of Aviation and

International Affairs, OST

G o r s k y, Susan, Senior Transportation Specialist, Office of

Hazardous Materials Standards, RSPA

Grant, Joyce, Office of Policy Systems, FRA

G retch, Paul, D i r e c t o r, Office of International Av i a t i o n

H a m b y, Gary, F H WA

Hamilton, Art, Program Manager, Office of Federal Lands

H i g h w a y, FHWA

H a n l e y, Janet, Program Support Assistant, Office of

Transportation Policy Studies, FHWA

Harbaugh, Carol, Office of Highway Policy Information,

F H WA

Hazel, Mary Ann, Director of Administration, SLSDC

Hempel, Fred, D i r e c t o r, Corporate Management, FHWA

Henderson, Gary L., DC Division, FHWA

Hicks, Santhea, Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator,

R S PA

Hill, Damon, Program Assistant, Office of the

A d m i n i s t r a t o r, RSPA

Hines, Gale, Program Assistant, Office of Emergency

Transportation, RSPA

Hollomon, Mary, Administrative Staff Assistant, SLSDC 

Homan, Todd, Office of Aviation and International

Economics, OST

Hung, Steve, Director of Engineering, SLSDC

Huriaux, Richard, Regulations Manager, Office of Pipeline

S a f e t y, RSPA

J a c o b y, Carol, Program Coordinator, Office of Program

Development, FHWA 

Johnson, Christine, Program Manager of Operations,

F H WA

Jones, Mary W., Deputy Director, Departmental Office of

Civil Rights

Joost, Elaine, Acting Chief Counsel, RSPA

Judycki, Denny, D i r e c t o r, Research, Development and

Te c h n o l o g y, FHWA

Kane, To n y, Executive Administrator, Office of the

A d m i n i s t r a t o r, FHWA

Kaye, Scott, Office of the Associate Administrator for

S a f e t y, FRA

K i s e r, John, Chief, Pricing and Multilateral Affairs Division,

Office of International Aviation, OST
A FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Klein, Te rry, Assistant Director for Information

Te c h n o l o g y, SLSDC

Knapp, Lindy, Deputy General Counsel, OST

Kowalski, Rick, Deputy Director, BTS

K u s s y, Ed, Deputy Chief Counsel, FHWA

Lapham, Susan, Associate Director for Statistical and

S u rvey Programs, BTS

Lehman, Dave, Operations Research Analyst, Office of

Hazardous Materials Planning and Analysis, RSPA

L e i s t e r, Doug, Office of Planning and Special Projects, OST

Litman, Diane, Chief Information Office

Lutz, Joyce, Staff Assistant, Office of the Administrator, FHWA

Mahon, Pat, F H WA

M a rchese, April, Office of the Chief Counsel, FHWA

M a rgosian, Ed, Director of Finance, SLSDC

Merlo, Tom, Office of Budget and Finance, FHWA

M c D e rmott, Susan, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of

Aviation and International Affairs

M c E l ro y, Regina, Team Leader, Office of Asset

Management, FHWA 

M c G u i re, Robert A., Acting Associate Administrator for

Hazardous Materials Safety, RSPA

M i d d l e b rook, Craig, Deputy Administrator, SLSDC

Milan, Regis P. Assoc. D i r. Office of Aviation Analysis &

Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Aviation and

International Affairs, OST

Miller, Virginia, Special Assistant, Office of Public Affairs,

FHWA

Mims, A. Bradley, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of

Aviation and International Affairs, OST

Mongini, Arrigo, Deputy Associate Administrator for

Railroad Development, FRA

M o rris, Ed, D i r e c t o r, Office of Civil Rights, FHWA

Mulugeta, Mark, Senior Advisor, Office of the

A d m i n i s t r a t o r, FRA

M u r p h y, John, Director, Labor and Special Programs Staff,

FRA

M u r p h y, Kathy, D i r e c t o r, Office of Budget, FRA

N e w, James D i r e c t o r, Office of Planning and Special

Projects, OST

N o rth, Robert RADM, Asst. Commandant for Marine

Safety and Environmental Protection, USCG

O'Connell, John, D i r e c t o r, Office of Hazardous Materials

Enforcement, RSPA

O ' M a l l e y, Kevin, Director of Budget and Logistics, SLSDC

O l d e n b u rg, Kirsten, Program Analyst, Office of

Transportation Studies, BTS

Patrick, Donald, Federal Lands Highway HQ, FHWA 

Paulhous, Norm, Senior Technical Advisor, Office of

Research Technology and Analysis, RSPA

Pisani, Sal, Deputy Associate Administrator, SLSDC

P reston, Phyllis, Chief Information Office

Ransom, Richard, Information Technology Program

M a n a g e r, BTS

R o s e n b e rry, Roy, Office of Transportation Policy Studies,

F H WA

Sanchez, Francisco J., Assistant Secretary, Office of

Aviation and International Affairs, OST

S a v o y, Marie, Director of Administration, Office of

Management and Administration, RSPA

S c h i m m o l l e r, Vince, Program Manager, Infrastructure, FHWA

Scott, Tom, Office of Contracts and Procurement, RSPA

Sen, Ashish, D i r e c t o r, BTS

Sheldahl, Edward A., DC Division, FHWA

S h rouds, Jim, D i r e c t o r, Office of Natural Environment, FHWA

Stankus, Bernie, Systems Accountant, Office of Airline

Information, BTS

S t e a rns, Amy, University Program Specialist, Office of

Research Technology and Analysis, RSPA

S t roman, Ronald, D i r e c t o r, Office of Civil Rights 

S u a rez, Rick, Federal Aid Programs Leader, Office of

Program Administration, FHWA

Ta y l o r, Jim, Response Plans Officer, Office of Pipeline

S a f e t y, RSPA

Trilling, Don, Policy OST

Toole, Joe, Director of Professional Development, FHWA

Tuggle, Don, Special Assistant, Office of the Executive

D i r e c t o r, FHWA

Trentacoste, Michael, D i r e c t o r, Office of Safety Research

and Development, FHWA 

Umbs, Rudy, F H WA

U n d e rwood, Jim RADM, D i r e c t o r, Office of Intelligence

and Security, OST

Vecchietti, Mike, D i r e c t o r, Office of Information and

Management Services, FHWA

Wells, Jack, Deputy Administrator, FRA

W h i t n e y, John, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Policy and

Program Support, RSPA

Williams, Va n e s t e r, Chief Information Office

Wilson, Michael, Office of Civil Rights, FHWA

Witman, Leon, F H WA

Wright, Bud, Office of Budget and Finance, FHWA

Wykle, Kenneth R., A d m i n i s t r a t o r, FHWA

Young, Felicia, Team Leader, Office of Human

Environment, FHWA

Young, Peg, Statistician, BTS

Zack, Michael, Office of International Affairs, USCG

Zok, Carole, Assistant Director for Outreach and

Communications, BTS

Division Chiefs and Staff, Office of Civil Rights

Senior Management Team, Federal Aviation Administration