U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

39–493 PDF 2008

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION:

INVESTMENT NEEDS AND THE BUDGET

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 25, 2007

Serial No. 110–23

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/budget/index.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina, Chairman 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut, 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

[Vacancy] 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, 

Ranking Minority Member 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

MARIO DIAZ–BALART, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

JON C. PORTER, Nevada 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

[Vacancy] 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

THOMAS S. KAHN, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

PATRICK L. KNUDSEN, Acting Minority Chief of Staff 

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page 

Hearing held in Washington, DC, October 25, 2007 ............................................. 1

Statement of: 

Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr., Chairman, House Committee on the Budget ..... 1

Hon. Paul Ryan, ranking minority member, House Committee on the 

Budget ............................................................................................................ 2

Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon: 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Article: ‘‘Unlocking the Gridlock,’’ by Pete Ruane, the Sunday [Washington] Times, dated October 7, 2007 .................................................. 24

Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nebraska, prepared statement of ................................................................ 4

Hon. Mary E. Peters, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation ......... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office ........... 30

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Janet F. Kavinoky, director of transportation infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and executive director, Americans for Transportation 

Mobility Coalition ......................................................................................... 45

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 47

Robert Puentes, fellow, metropolitan policy program, the Brookings Institution .............................................................................................................. 54

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 57

(1)

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION: INVESTMENT 

NEEDS AND THE BUDGET 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr. [Chairman 

of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Spratt, Doggett, Blumenauer, 

Etheridge, Moore, Ryan, Garrett, Hensarling, Porter, Alexander, 

and Smith. 

Chairman SPRATT. The Committee will come to order and we will 

proceed with our hearing this morning, and, first of all, welcome 

our witnesses and thank them for coming. 

This is a hearing on the surface transportation system of this 

country, the investment needs and the budgetary resources to meet 

those needs. 

Our witnesses include the Honorable Mary Peters, who is the 

Secretary of U.S. Department of Transportation. And, Ms. Peters, 

to you particularly, we wish to thank you for taking time from your 

schedule to come. 

Robert Sunshine, the Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Janet Kavinoky, who is the Director of Transportation Infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Robert Puentes, 

Fellow at the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. 

We will hear from Secretary Peters first. You are a panel by 

yourself. Then we will have a second panel of the other witnesses, 

and we will have questions for each panel after your testimony. 

As this Committee continues to consider the nation’s fiscal challenges, our nation’s infrastructure, its highways, its bridges, its 

transit systems are a vitally important topic. 

Surface transportation programs affect our economy. They affect 

our safety. They affect our quality of life. So it is important to understand what the needs are and what the options are for meeting 

these needs. With a new highway bill on the not-too-distant horizon, these issues take on an even greater element. 

This Committee in particular will need to examine this issue 

when resolving our decisions about our fiscal year 2009 budget resolution. 

The collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis in August raises 

the question of what level of resources do we need to be sure that 

our infrastructure is up to minimal standards. The collapse of the 

bridge was a gruesome reminder that when we talk about proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\DOCS\HEARINGS\110TH\110-23\39493.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
2

viding resources for public purposes, it is not merely a question of 

dollars and cents. It is not an abstract question. It is a question 

of decisions that have direct impact on the lives of our people. 

So we need to consider the question of the appropriate level of 

resources, but we also have to be sure that federal dollars are being 

spent wisely. 

We also today will focus on a looming budgetary issue, perhaps 

less traumatic, but important nevertheless, namely the projected 

imbalance in the Highway Trust Fund. Under current estimates, 

there will be a $4.3 billion shortfall in the year 2009, not far away, 

between projected collections coming into the account by way of the 

Highway Trust Fund and projected outlays from that account. 

The shortfall is projected to grow to more than $26 billion in the 

year 2012. Clearly this imbalance, shortfall, call it what you will, 

raises critical questions of how and at what level we will fund our 

infrastructure needs and puts pressure on our ability to bring the 

federal budget into balance. 

I hope that today’s hearing will bring this Committee up to speed 

on these important issues and some of the options for addressing 

them. 

Before turning to you, Secretary Peters, let us turn to Mr. Ryan 

for any opening statement he cares to make. 

Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for holding this 

hearing. I think it is a timely hearing that we talk about our transportation investment needs and the federal budget. 

Like most everyone, I believe that our transportation network is 

the backbone of our economy and it plays a vital role in the movement of people and goods. So it is obvious that we need a worldclass transportation infrastructure that meets the challenges and 

conditions of the 21st century. 

I am concerned, however, that our current spending and revenue 

structure for surface transportation is not delivering that. It is essentially a revenue-sharing program with states and localities. 

One of the key problems of the current structure is that it lacks 

a clear federal mission and fails across most modes to ensure that 

scarce transportation dollars are wisely and effectively allocated. 

In other words, that careful use of taxpayer resources simply is 

not happening. Instead, as we have seen with the last three surface 

transportation authorization bills, the allocation of federal transportation dollars has as much, if not more, to do with politics as 

it does with actual need. 

And with the reauthorization of the Multi-Year Surface Transportation Bill just around the corner, which this Committee will be 

first to address in its budget resolution, we need to start the process of fundamentally reexamining our current path now. And that 

is why this hearing is very timely. 

I understand that our witness today will share the view that a 

comprehensive review of our current program and revenue structure is certainly a wise use of this Congress’ time. I can think of 

no better example of what is wrong with our current structure and 

regrettably examples are plentiful from the bridge to nowhere to 

many earmarks. 

3

And if you take a look at the currently projected shortfall in the 

highway account of the Highway Trust Fund for which CBO recently projected a $4.3 billion shortfall in 2009 and which is rising 

thereon after, I think addressing this will be a good place to start 

as we reassess the federal government’s role in surface transportation. 

Given the importance of transportation infrastructure to our 

economy and our way of life and given the magnitude of the challenges we face, I look forward to the testimony of the distinguished 

panelists and I am very happy to have Secretary Peters here with 

us as well. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. 

Now, a few housekeeping details before we get started. First of 

all, I want to acknowledge Mr. Earl Blumenauer who was one of 

those who instigated, initiated, and requested this hearing because 

of his long-term interest in the infrastructure of this country. 

Earl, we will give you some extra time to ask any questions you 

would like to ask. 

I also want to ask unanimous consent that all members be allowed to submit an opening statement for the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blumenauer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Over the past several years, Americans have witnessed the practical effects of the 

decline of American infrastructure: New Orleans remains a shadow of its former self 

since the floodwaters receded; the I-35 bridge collapsed—just one of the 6,000 

bridges on the National Highway System with a rating of ‘‘structurally deficient;’’ 

in our cities, steampipes explode and sinkholes form; and everywhere Americans are 

stuck in traffic for longer periods and with few options to avoid such congestion. 

Looming over these known challenges are the twin—and inter-related—threats to 

our communities of global warming and energy supplies. In 2005, Congress passed SAFETEA-LU, which authorized the spending of $244.1 

billion over five years on transportation infrastructure. Yet this Act, sizeable as it 

was, was woefully short of the Department of Transportation’s own estimate of the 

need, which was $375 billion. DOT, however, failed to request that amount, undercutting its own programs. Today, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates 

that an investment of $1.6 trillion is necessary to update our public infrastructure. 

At the same time, the balances in the Highway Trust Fund are eroding and will 

run a $4 billion deficit in 2009. The Mass Transit Fund will be exhausted by 2011. 

Leaders on both sides of the aisle agree that the United States must update its 

public infrastructure. The failure to do so puts all users of our transportation systems at risk, puts the nation’s environment at risk, and puts the economic foundations of the country at risk. 

For all of these reasons, we face some critical questions: What are the appropriate 

levels our society should invest in transportation? How do we provide individuals 

with access and how are we going to move freight in an increasingly complex urban 

environment? How can we better allocate the billions of dollars in investments we 

make to better maximize our society’s returns? 

Answering these challenges will call forth the best in American ingenuity, craftsmanship, and foresight. To harness these abilities, we must articulate a new national vision of transportation infrastructure. This vision must be sufficiently inclusive to meet the challenges presented by the threat of global warming, a growing 

population, and an expanding economy. Resolving these challenges will bring tremendous benefits. Reorienting our antiquated infrastructure around efficiency, sustainability and reduced greenhouse gas emissions represents one of the preeminent 

engines for innovation, job creation, and economic productivity growth in coming 

decades. 

Fortunately, America has surmounted similar challenges before. In 1808, Albert 

Gallatin and the president he served, Thomas Jefferson, developed a plan that guided economic development for the 1800s. Almost exactly one hundred years ago, 

4

President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need to invest in and preserve our natural resources and he called forth national efforts that guided land-use and transportation policy for decades beyond his presidency. Today, America faces similar 

challenges and requires similar leadership. Our hearing should be part of the effort 

for Congress to begin laying the groundwork for a vision that will guide infrastructure investment for this century that will overcome the challenges we face.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ADRIAN SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing is necessary and timely, and I am pleased we are holding it today. 

Safe and efficient transportation is tremendously important to the Nation’s economy and to the Third District of Nebraska. 

The Federal surface transportation spending and revenue structure needs improvement. This is especially troubling to me since Nebraska is one of 25 donor 

states; putting more money in gas tax revenue into the Highway Trust Fund than 

we get back. As currently structured, funds are not targeted to most effectively address current and future challenges. 

Some of the these challenges in Nebraska relate to changing economic activity. 

For example, we still face significant transportation issues in the ethanol industry. 

As we see changes resulting from bioenergy development, transportation demands 

are changing and I question whether or not we are prepared to meet this challenge. 

I want to thank our witnesses for coming here today to provide testimony for the 

Committee, and I look forward to hearing from you. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I thank you 

for your time.

And, finally, Secretary Peters and the other witnesses, we have 

your prefiled testimony. We will, if there is no objection, make 

those statements part of the record so that you can summarize 

them in any way you see fit. 

The floor is yours. Thank you again for coming. We look forward 

to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much and thank 

you for the opportunity to be here. 

Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan, members of the Committee, it is truly an honor to appear before you here today. 

Since I had the opportunity to return to Washington last year, 

I have sought to ensure that the Department is focused on the 

most pressing transportation challenges facing our system. We 

must reverse the decline in overall transportation system performance. American families and American businesses pay a very high 

price for this decline by way of delays, unpredictability, wasted energy, and other costs. 

And we must continue to reduce transportation fatalities and injuries even as traffic volumes grow. We can do this by emphasizing 

comprehensive, data-driven approaches and new crash prevention 

technologies. 

This Committee will play a very important role, a vital role in 

reforming federal transportation spending policies and practices to 

respond to these challenges. 

The core problems plaguing America’s aviation highway and public transportation systems are strikingly similar. The current federal tax and spending structure that underpins each is increasingly 

5

ineffective at targeting resources where they are needed the most 

to respond to growing transportation congestion. 

This is true for two basic reasons. First, federal transportation 

taxes are not direct user charges and do not reflect the true cost 

of using transportation facilities. And, second, federal transportation programs are not sufficiently focused on stimulating the type 

of innovation necessary to lower the cost of transportation. 

By relying on an array of taxes on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, airline tickets, heavy truck sales, and truck tires, as well as general 

taxpayer funds, the federal government invests approximately $61 

billion a year in highways, bridges, airports, transit systems, and 

in our air traffic control system. 

These taxes are then deposited into dedicated trust funds and reallocated based on formulas, special designations, and earmarks, a 

significant level of earmarks. 

Current programs, regulations, and policies discourage the proper pricing of transportation infrastructure. They fail to sufficiently 

reward innovation and technology development. They do not 

prioritize investments based on economic returns and they blur the 

relative responsibilities of federal, state, and local authorities and 

the private sector. 

Because transportation users do not pay directly for providing 

and managing the nation’s transportation infrastructure, they have 

relatively little input into federal program and policy decisions and 

they are largely unaware of what it costs to provide transportation 

infrastructure or what they are paying to use it. 

This contrasts very sharply with the structure that the country 

has adopted for most other major network utilities such as telecommunications, electricity, pipelines, and railroads. 

The negative consequence of this flawed structure were not particularly important when our transportation infrastructure in this 

nation was greatly exceeded by travel demand. We had much more 

infrastructure than we had demand. However, thanks to the robust 

economy and population growth over many decades, transportation 

policy complacency is no longer acceptable. 

There is an intense focus right now on the sustainability of the 

federal trust funds that support this increasingly flawed model. On 

the highways and transit side, we currently spend billions more 

than we collect in tax revenue every year. And as a result, the 

highway account of the Highway Trust Fund is projected to experience a substantial cash shortfall the first time in 2009. The mass 

transit account will go negative in 2011. 

This impending shortfall should be viewed not as a crisis, but as 

an opportunity. It is an opportunity to redefine the federal government’s role in surface transportation following the completion of 

the interstate system. 

And thanks to technology developments in the last five to ten 

years, it is also an opportunity to start to shift away from today’s 

tax and spend model to a direct pricing and investment model. This 

model can and should embrace a larger role for the private sector 

in financing, managing, and operating the nation’s infrastructure. 

In just the last three years literally billions of dollars of private 

capital have been amassed with the main purpose of investing in 

U.S. transportation infrastructure. These resources stand waiting 

6

for our country’s political leadership to establish policies and parameters that would attract this investment. 

In the aftermath of the tragic collapse of the I-35W bridge in 

Minneapolis, several members of Congress have introduced legislation calling for an increased investment in highways and bridges. 

I strongly believe that any discussion about the amount of our investment would be misguided without a discussion about the quality of our investment and where we are spending money today. 

Contrary to the prevailing view, the DOT 2006 Conditions and 

Performance Report based on 2004 data indicates that the physical 

condition of our transportation infrastructure has been improving 

in recent years. Ninety-one percent of travel on the nation’s highway system takes place on roads that are considered acceptable 

ride quality. 

Similarly, we have seen a noticeable decline in the percentage of 

bridges considered to be structurally deficient over the last ten 

years. The same does not hold true when it comes to congestion or 

overall system performance. 

Despite substantial increases in federal spending since 1982, average rush hour delays in our nation’s urban areas have increased 

from 14 hours to 38 hours. Rush hour is no longer a true term. It 

is rush hours. Total hours of delay in those areas have increased 

from 800 million to 4.2 billion hours. 

Increases in federal taxes and spending would likely do little, if 

anything, to reverse these trends without a much more basic 

change in how we analyze competing spending options and manage 

existing systems more efficiently. 

Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the intense budgetary pressures that this Congress and this Committee are charged to address. With growing entitlement obligations and major national security needs, among other priorities, it is clear that this country 

will need to reassess many components of the federal budget and 

we have the opportunity to do so with transportation before us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mary E. Peters follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan, and Members of the Committee, I am 

honored to be here today. 

The United States has the world’s largest and most capable transportation systems. Those systems have enabled unprecedented growth in domestic and international trade, have brought our diverse States closer together, and have provided 

a critical foundation for the amazing wealth creation and economic prosperity that 

have taken place in the U.S. and around the world in the last 60 years. 

When I returned to Washington last year, I sought to ensure that the Department 

was focused on the challenges that were most pressing and the solutions to those 

challenges that would have the most impact. In my view, those challenges are: 1) 

reversing the decline in overall transportation systems performance that is increasingly imposing costs on American families and businesses by way of delays, unpredictability, and wasted energy, among other costs, and 2) ensuring a continued reduction in transportation system fatalities and injuries, even as traffic volumes 

grow, by emphasizing comprehensive, data-driven approaches and new crash prevention technologies. We have made significant strides forward in the past year. 

I was excited to receive the opportunity to testify here because I believe this Committee can play a vital role in reforming Federal spending policies and practices to 

respond to these challenges. I will focus the bulk of my testimony on surface transVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\HEARINGS\110TH\110-23\39493.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
7

portation, but the core problems plaguing America’s aviation, highway, and public 

transportation systems are strikingly similar. All are plagued by a Federal tax and 

spending structure that is increasingly ineffective at targeting resources and addressing declining performance. 

This is true for two basic reasons. First, Federal transportation taxes are not direct user charges, and do not reflect the true costs of using transportation facilities, 

including the costs of congestion. Second, Federal transportation programs are not 

sufficiently focused on stimulating the type of innovation necessary to lower the 

costs of transportation. 

Relying on an array of taxes on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, airline tickets, heavy 

truck sales, and truck tires, as well as general taxpayers, the Federal Government 

currently makes investments of approximately $61 billion in America’s highways, 

bridges, airports, transit systems, and in our air traffic control system. These taxes 

are deposited into dedicated trust funds and then re-allocated based on formulas, 

special designations and earmarks. Over the last 20 years, we have witnessed substantial increases in Federal transportation spending and simultaneous deterioration in the performance of the systems that are intended to benefit from this spending. 

Today’s Federal investment strategy for transportation often appears more focused on rewarding status quo constituencies than it does on improving the Nation’s 

transportation infrastructure. Current programs, regulations, and policies discourage the proper pricing of transportation infrastructure, fail to sufficiently reward innovation and technology development, do not prioritize investments based on economic returns, and blur the relative responsibilities of Federal, State, and local authorities and the private sector. And of course, they encourage the 6,000 plus earmarks we witnessed in the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). 

Because transportation system users do not pay directly for the costs of providing 

and managing the nation’s transportation infrastructure, they have relatively little 

input into Federal program and policy decisions. Polls confirm that users of our 

transportation systems are largely unaware of what it costs to provide transportation infrastructure or what they are paying to use it. This contrasts sharply with 

the structure the country has adopted for our other major network utilities such as 

telecommunications, electricity, pipelines, and railroads. 

For years, the negative consequences of this flawed structure were not particularly important as transportation infrastructure supply greatly exceeded travel demand. Thanks to robust economic and population growth over many decades, however, that era has ended. Transportation policy complacency is no longer acceptable 

if our transportation systems are to accommodate the type of growth that is projected for our economy. 

There is intense focus right now on the sustainability of the Federal trust funds 

that support this increasingly flawed model. On the highways and transit side, we 

are currently spending billions of dollars more than we collect in tax revenues. As 

a result, the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund is projected to experience 

a substantial cash shortfall for the first time in 2009. The Mass Transit Account 

will go negative in 2011. 

This impending shortfall should be viewed as an opportunity, not a crisis. By encouraging a shift away from a tax and spend model to a direct pricing investment 

model, dramatic transportation system improvements are possible. In fact, it is a 

rare moment indeed to have the chance to implement major economic policy changes 

that can benefit individuals, families, corporations, and the environment simultaneously. 

In the aftermath of the tragic collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, it is important that I provide an assessment of the overall condition of the 

Nation’s highways and bridges and provide further detail on some of the issues 

raised above. Recently, several members of Congress have introduced legislation 

calling for increased investment in highways and bridges. While I agree with these 

members of Congress that our financial model needs to be reexamined, I strongly 

believe that any discussion of the amount of our investment would be misguided 

without a discussion of the quality of our investment. 

As a preliminary matter, it is important to understand that while we must do a 

better job of improving the Nation’s transportation systems, the Nation’s infrastructure is not crumbling when compared to previous periods. The DOT 2006 Conditions 

and Performance (C&P) Report, based on 2004 data, indicates the physical condition 

of our transportation infrastructure is good and has been improving. This report describes the current highway, bridge and transit systems and provides an assessment 

of the condition of these systems as of the relevant reporting year. Highways are 

assessed to determine what percentage of the highway system provides ride quality 

8

that is at least acceptable. Bridges are assessed to determine the percentage of 

bridges that are structurally deficient and/or functionally obsolete. Transit is assessed to determine the condition of each transit asset on a five-point scale ranging 

from excellent to poor. 

The 2006 C&P Report indicates that the percentage of vehicle miles traveled on 

pavements with ‘‘good’’ ride quality rose from 39.4 percent in 1997 to 44.2 percent 

in 2004. Similarly, the percentage of bridges considered to be structurally deficient 

dropped from 16.0 percent in 1998 to 13.1 percent in 2004. The 2006 C&P Report 

also indicates that physical conditions for most transit assets have improved. 

Despite these increases, the percentage of travel occurring under congested conditions rose from 27.4 percent in 1997 to 31.6 percent in 2004. The average length 

of congested conditions per day rose from 6.2 hours in 1997 to 6.6 hours in 2004. 

Since 1982, average rush hour delays in our nation’s urban areas have increased 

from 14 hours to 38 hours. Total hours of delay in those areas have increased from 

800 million to 4.2 billion hours. Because the underperformance in the highway sector is fundamental, not incremental, I have come to believe strongly that increases 

in Federal taxes and spending would likely do little, if anything, to reverse these 

trends without a more basic change in how we analyze competing spending options 

and in how we manage existing systems. 

A review of the 2006 C&P Report highlights the following numbers. In 2004, capital investments in highways and bridges (across all levels of government) amounted 

to $70.3 billion. The annual capital investments required from 2005 to 2024 to 

maintain these highways and bridges at roughly their current condition and performance level would be $78.8 billion and the maximum economically justifiable investment during this period would be $131.7 billion per year. 

Although not expressed this way, it is important to differentiate between the costs 

to maintain the quality of the Nation’s infrastructure and the cost to improve the 

performance of the Nation’s infrastructure. In order to ensure that existing infrastructure quality is maintained, DOT estimates that approximately $40 billion a 

year in properly targeted highway and bridge expenditures would be sufficient. In 

order to substantially improve existing highways and bridge quality, DOT estimates 

that approximately $60 billion a year in properly targeted highway and bridge expenditures would be sufficient. These estimates are based on construction costs from 

2004. Substantial construction cost escalations since 2004 will probably result in 

significant increases in these estimates and will be reflected in the next C&P Report. 

Because advocates of higher taxes and spending frequently cite the C&P Report 

incorrectly, it is important to explain its limitations. One of the most important traditional limitations of the C&P Report has been that while it identified the amount 

of capital investment required to maintain or improve highway and transit systems, 

it has not directly assessed the impact that alternative financing mechanisms could 

have on the total amount of investment required. 

For example, increased funding for highways from gas taxes and other general 

revenue sources would have different implications than increased funding for highways from tolls or other direct user charges. While increased funding from taxes 

does little, if anything, to address congestion specifically, direct road pricing corresponding to the economic cost of congestion would reduce peak traffic volumes and 

increase net benefits to all users. 

To begin to address this limitation, the 2006 C&P Report includes a preliminary 

analysis of the application of universal congestion pricing to our highways and the 

effect this would have on the calculation of capital investment needs. Congestion 

pricing involves charging drivers more to use a facility or system during peak congestion periods. It works by shifting discretionary rush hour highway travel to other 

modes of transportation or to off-peak periods. 

As expected, the preliminary analysis included in the 2006 C&P Report confirmed 

that universal congestion pricing, by improving the performance of our current highway system, could significantly reduce the level of future highway investment that 

would be required to maintain or improve the condition of our highways. The 2006 

C&P Report suggested that applying congestion tolls to all of the congested roads 

in the system could reduce the cost to maintain the system by $21.6 billion per year, 

or 27.5 percent, leaving it at $57.2 billion, which is well below the current level of 

capital spending. 

This preliminary analysis affirms the Department’s conviction that the costs of 

our Nation’s transportation systems are intrinsically linked to the types of investments that we make. If we make investments that will increase system performance, such as congestion pricing, we can reduce costs and bring down the amount 

of investment required to maintain our system by billions of dollars. 

9

As the Committee on the Budget is aware, while cost-benefit analysis should be 

a minimum condition to investment, it is by no means sufficient to justify additional 

spending. Cost-beneficial highway projects need to be compared and prioritized with 

other investment options. A project with a benefit/cost ratio just above one is likely 

to rank very low when compared to other conceivable investment options. In fact, 

most private corporations employ ‘‘hurdle rates’’ that imply benefit/cost ratios far in 

excess of one. 

All levels of government, including the Federal Government, have limited resources to fund programs. Transportation spending needs to compete with health 

care, the environment, social services, and many other important programs. Moreover, all forms of government spending compete with private sector spending. We 

should not tax our citizens and spend the proceeds for government purposes—even 

those whose benefits exceed their costs—if taxpayers have even more compelling 

needs to spend those funds in the private sector. 

In addition, while the models used for the C&P Report assume that projects are 

prioritized based on their cost-benefit ratios, this assumption is not consistent with 

actual patterns of project selection and funding distribution that occur in the real 

world. As noted above, in the real world, major spending decisions often have nothing to do with underlying economics. Real world process and legal limitations also 

constrain the ability to make cost-beneficial investments. For example, a Federal 

Environmental Impact Statement currently takes over sixty months to complete, regardless of how cost-beneficial a certain project may be. In fact, many of the urban 

highway expansion projects that would be embedded in a $131.7 billion national 

cost-beneficial spending figure would not obtain the political support or environmental approvals needed to move the projects forward. 

Another important characteristic of the C&P Report is that while it suggests how 

much money could be spent cost-beneficially across all levels of government for capital investment in transportation, it does not make any recommendation as to the 

percentage of that investment that should be provided by the Federal Government. 

The 2006 C&P Report, in fact, reports that Federal highway capital investment is 

increasing more rapidly than State and local highway capital investment. Between 

1997 and 2004, Federal capital investments in highways rose 52.9 percent, while 

State and local capital investment increased by only 39.9 percent. The Federal Government’s portion of total capital outlay increased from 41.6 percent in 1997 to 43.8 

percent in 2004. In 2002, the Federal Government’s portion of total capital outlays 

was 46.1 percent, the highest level since 1986. 

This trend was noted by an August 2004 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Federal Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and 

Options for Future Program Design (GAO-04-802). The GAO report noted that while 

‘‘the Nation’s capital investment in its highway system has doubled in the last 20 

years, and during that time period as a whole, state and local investment in highways outstripped federal investment in highways,’’ nevertheless, ‘‘since the early 

1990s, state and local investment in highways has increased at a slower rate than 

federal investment in highways.’’

According to the GAO report, from 1991 through 2002, State and local investment 

increased by 23 percent while Federal investment increased by 47 percent. 

The GAO report concluded that ‘‘federal-aid highway grants have influenced state 

and local governments to substitute federal funds for state and local funds that otherwise would have been spent on highways.’’ This substitution limits the effectiveness of Federal aid to achieve important highway program goals, because increases 

in Federal aid do not translate into increased overall highway capital investment. 

One way to improve the emphasis on investment quality and efficient system pricing is to expand the involvement of the private sector in the construction, financing, 

and operation of our transportation systems. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) for 

transportation projects reduce their costs, provide incentives for better pricing of 

transportation assets, accelerate project delivery, reduce public sector risk, and 

bring increased innovation and competition to the industry. To the extent capital 

investments in our highways and bridges facilitate PPPs, they are likely to reduce 

the total amount of investment required to maintain and improve our highways and 

bridges. 

There is no clearer evidence of this failure to prioritize spending than the disturbing evolution of the Federal highway program. This program has seen politically 

designated projects grow from a handful in the surface transportation bill enacted 

in the early 1980s to more than 6,000 enacted in SAFETEA-LU. The cost of these 

earmarks totaled $23 billion—a truly staggering figure. 

The real cost of these earmarks is much higher. Looking at a sample of various 

recent earmarks, we found that the Federal earmark amounts themselves comprised 

on average only 10% of the total project cost. Because of this, State departments 

10

of transportation will typically either delay the earmarked project indefinitely or reallocate resources from higher priorities to fill the funding gap. In addition, earmarks present administrative burdens for States that must dedicate scarce personnel resources to managing lower priority projects that are subject to earmarking. 

In short, earmarks ripple through the entire Federal-aid program structure. 

In addition to earmarks, there are a number of special interest programs that 

have been created to provide funding for projects that may or may not be a State 

and local priority. As a former State DOT director, I have had first-hand experience 

with the difficulties created when Washington mandates override State priorities. 

While it is true that not all earmarks or special interest investments are wasteful, 

it is also true that virtually no comparative economic analysis is conducted to support these spending decisions. No business could survive for any meaningful period 

of time using a similar investment strategy. Not surprisingly, new economic literature reveals that the returns on our highway investments have plummeted into 

the low single digits in recent years. 

The Department is working with States to encourage them to regularly use benefit-cost analysis (BCA) when making project selection decisions. Currently, approximately 20 States make some use of BCA, while 6 States use the technique regularly. 

The GAO recently conducted two studies to identify the key processes for surface 

transportation infrastructure planning and decisionmaking, with a particular emphasis on the role of economic analysis methods and the factors that affect the use 

of such methods. 

These studies are Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information on Projects’ Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results 

(GAO-05-172); and Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions (GAO-04-744). The former report noted that ‘‘the increased use of economic analytical tools, such as benefit-cost analysis, could improve the information available 

to decision makers and, ultimately, lead to better-informed transportation investment decision making’’ (GAO-05-172, p. 6). 

Among other reasons, GAO cited ‘‘political concerns’’ for why BCA is not more 

widely used in U.S. public sector surface transportation decisionmaking. GAO observed that projects may be important for a particular interest group or constituency 

even though they are not efficient from an economic standpoint. At a minimum, 

BCA would provide additional transparency to decisions that are less cost-beneficial. 

Ideally, BCA would actually begin to prevent inefficient decisions from being made 

in the first place. 

GAO also noted that BCA results are rarely reviewed in light of actual project 

outcomes. In other words, not only is BCA underused in the project planning process, it is also rarely used to assess the efficacy of a previous investment. This is 

in stark contrast to typical capital investment models employed in the private sector. It is important that Congress and the Department work together to establish 

far more productive means to ensure that scarce resources are flowing to projects 

that benefit the public the most. BCA is likely to be one of our most effective tools 

to advance that objective. 

Moreover, since Federal transportation funding levels are not linked to specific 

performance-related goals and outcomes, the public has rightfully lost confidence in 

the ability of traditional approaches to deliver. The use of performance measures, 

by helping to identify weaknesses as well as strengths, can improve the transportation project selection process and the delivery of transportation services. 

In addition to an insufficient performance and cost-benefit focus, the current gas 

tax-dependent model does virtually nothing to address directly the growing costs of 

congestion and system unreliability. Taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, motor vehicles, 

tires, property and consumer products—the dominant means of raising revenues for 

transportation—are levied regardless of when and where a driver uses a highway. 

This leads to a misperception that highways are ‘‘free,’’ which in turns encourages 

overuse and gridlock at precisely the times we need highways the most. Consistent 

with the views of almost every expert who has looked at the issue, GAO recently 

released a report arguing that gas taxes are fundamentally incapable of balancing 

supply and demand for roads during heavily congested periods. 

The data simply do not lie in this case. Relying extensively on gas and motor vehicle taxes, virtually every metropolitan area in the U.S. has witnessed an explosion 

in traffic delays over the last 25 years. Meanwhile, in recent years, the increase in 

surface transportation funding has significantly outpaced the overall growth of nondefense, non-homeland security Federal discretionary spending. And, since 1991, 

capital outlays at all levels of government have nearly doubled. Economists have 

long understood the connection between payment mechanisms and system performance, but technology and administrative complexities limited the ability of policymakers to explore alternatives. Today, those barriers no longer exist. 

11

This is one of the main reasons that our Department has been strongly supporting 

States that wish to experiment with electronic tolling and congestion pricing. Nationwide, the majority of projects in excess of $500 million currently in development 

are projected to be financed at least in part with electronic tolls. In the middle of 

August, we announced Federal grants of more than $800 million to some of the 

country’s largest cities to explore fully the concept of electronic tolling combined 

with expanded commuter transit options and deployment of new operational technologies. Nationwide, the trends are inescapable and encouraging. 

We believe that, to the extent feasible, users should finance the costs of building, 

maintaining, and operating our country’s highways and bridges. What is increasingly clear is that directly charging for road use (similar to the way we charge for 

electricity, water, and telecommunications services) holds enormous promise to generate large amounts of revenues for re-investment and to cut congestion. Equally 

important, however, prices send better signals to State DOTs, planners, and system 

users as to where capacity expansion is most critical. Prices are not simply about 

demand management; they are about adding the right supply. 

The current financial model is also contradictory to other critical national policy 

objectives. As a country, we are rightly exploring every conceivable mechanism to 

increase energy independence, promote fuel economy in automobiles, stimulate alternative fuel development, and reduce emissions. President Bush has urged Congress to pass laws that will substantially expand our alternative energy capabilities 

and increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements for automobiles and 

light trucks. The Federal Government should be strongly encouraging States to explore alternatives to petroleum-based taxes and not to expand the country’s reliance 

upon them. 

Before reaching the conclusion that additional Federal spending and taxes is the 

right path, we should critically examine how we establish spending priorities today. 

We need a data-driven, performance-based approach to building and maintaining 

our Nation’s infrastructure assets—a process where we are making decisions based 

on safety first, economics second, and politics not at all. And we need an underlying 

framework that is responsive to today’s and tomorrow’s challenges, not those of the 

1950s. 

I look forward to working with you and would be pleased to answer any questions 

you may have.

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

We have ten minutes to go vote. But before we do that, what I 

am going to do is yield my time and open time to Mr. Blumenauer 

to make a statement he cares to make and then we will go to you, 

Mr. Ryan, if that is agreeable. 

Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

courtesy and I also appreciate your having this hearing. 

And what I would do is just briefly suggest a slight alternative 

to the vision that has been advanced by our distinguished witness 

because I think Congress is in the midst of a fundamental assessment of our role of infrastructure and the role that the three percent of the $2 trillion that is spent each year on transportation that 

is federal will play. 

Some say tax and spend. We have not kept pace with inflation 

with the gas tax. And the Department of Transportation itself gave 

us an assessment of what should have been in the last Transportation Bill, $375 billion, a figure, by the way, that was embraced 

unanimously by the Republicans and the Democrats in the House 

Transportation Bill. 

We are losing the infrastructure race in this country. The rest of 

the world is spending not tens of billions but trillions of dollars on 

modernizing a system of transportation, roads, bridges, mass transit, pipelines, aviation, looking at ways to integrate it. 

I would suggest that the bridge issues is just the tip of the iceberg. We have looming over us twin challenges, interrelated threats 

to our communities of global warming and energy supplies that are 

12

further going to throw our current system of transportation funding heavily reliant on a fixed gas tax into a downward spiral. We did SAFETEA-LU in 2005 at a $244 billion level when the 

Department itself in its analysis said we needed 375. The American 

Society of Civil Engineers estimates that an investment of $1.6 trillion is necessary to update our public infrastructure while, as the 

Secretary points out, the balances are eroding and we cannot even 

support the current level of system. 

We ought to be asking a fundamental question about the appropriate role for investing in infrastructure, how are we going to provide individuals with access, how are we going to move freight 

through an increasingly complex urban environment, how do we 

better allocate billions of dollars in investment to maximize returns. 

Congestion pricing and other mechanisms, I think, or market signals are appropriate, but they are certainly, I think, by no stretch 

of the imagination going to be sufficient. 

I hope that this hearing and the work that we can do looks at 

the big picture, not on a bike path or even the Republican bridge 

to nowhere, but what the big picture should be. How are we going 

to reorient our antiquated infrastructure around efficiencies, sustainability, reducing greenhouse gases? 

We have done this in the past. We are coming up on the 200th 

anniversary of the Galiton plan from Thomas Jefferson that guided 

development for a century. Ninety-nine years ago, a Republican 

President, Teddy Roosevelt, convened a national conference on infrastructure that set the stage for decades to come on the interstate 

freeway system and dam construction, a whole host of other things. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that our Committee continues out this bigger picture about what role that is going to play in both how we 

budget for it, the appropriate role, what it means, and how we deal 

with the big picture rather than slogans and ideology. We have got 

a massive problem before us and I am hopeful that this Committee 

can help unlock it by looking at it in a factual way. 

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer. 

And we have about five minutes to make it to the floor to vote 

on a motion to adjourn. That is not a good sign. I am not quite sure 

what is afoot today. 

But in any event, we have got to go vote and we will get back 

as quickly as possible. To the best of my knowledge, there is no 

vote following this, so we should be back shortly. 

The Committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you for your patience. I call the hearing and the Committee back to order. 

And we turn next to the Ranking Member, Mr. Ryan, for any 

questions he may have. 

Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Chairman. I think just two areas I want 

to get into. 

Secretary Peters, the National Surface Transportation Policy and 

Revenue Study Commission was created by SAFETEA- LU. The 

Commission is tasked with creating the 50-year vision for our country’s surface transportation system. Frank Busalacchi, our own 

13

Secretary of Transportation in Wisconsin, is a member of this 12-

person Commission. It is my understanding that they are supposed 

to send their report to Congress December 31st of this year. 

I was wondering if you could share with us your views on the 

Committee’s work to date and any sneak peek that you can give 

us. And then I have a question about earmarks I want to ask you 

as well. 

Secretary PETERS. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Ryan, yes, I would be happy to share. 

The Commission has been diligently working since May of last 

year and we have accomplished a lot. We have looked at a lot of 

research and draft report writing is now being developed. 

What the Commission is looking at are a variety of areas. One 

is what the federal role should be vis-a-vis state, local government, 

and private sector roles, what various funding sources might be 

and what the yield of those funding sources would be over time, 

and then also looking at governance, how should this system be 

managed in the future, who should make recommendations and decisions on how much funding, where the funding should go, things 

like that, and then, finally, looking toward the future, 50 years out, 

what are going to be the best methods for financing and managing 

the system during that time. 

I will tell you we have had very robust policy conversations within the Commission and we are not all on the same page yet, which 

I think is good to have that kind of robust conversation. But, again, 

we are committed to issuing a report to Congress by the end of this 

year. 

Mr. RYAN. No consensus has yet been reached then about——

Secretary PETERS. No, sir. And perhaps it is a little early because 

we are just in draft report writing right now. Some of the things 

we are discussing are whether or not we have a specific recommendation or set of recommendations or options. And if we are 

not able to reach consensus, I suspect it will be the latter. 

Mr. RYAN. Okay. On to earmarks. How many earmarks do we 

have in SAFETEA-LU? Sixty-three hundred——

Secretary PETERS. Yes. 

Mr. RYAN [continuing]. Earmarks in SAFETEA-LU. Is it not true 

that many of these earmarked projects are never obligated or advance at a slower rate than usual because they were not ready to 

move forward when the money was earmarked in the Highway 

Bill? That is question one. 

Question two, can you give us just sort of a summary of the Clyburn report, the IG report, and give us your views, which you 

touched on in your opening statement, on whether or not this is the 

right way to go given the fact that we have all of these infrastructure problems as highlighted from the bridge collapse in Minnesota 

and whether priorities could be met otherwise, in better ways than 

the earmark process? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I would be happy to. And I 

would be very happy to address those areas. 

I think misallocation of resources is one of the biggest problems 

we have today and it is something we really have to look at before 

we say we do not have enough money. 

14

And the earmarking, as you pointed out, takes a substantial amount of the program. Some $23 billion were associated with 

those over 6,000 earmarks. 

But the what I call the dirty little secret of earmarking is several 

things. One, it usually only represents about ten percent of the 

total cost of a project. And so what the total value of funding that 

is pulled out of the process is well in excess of what the actual earmarks are. 

Mr. RYAN. So that $23 billion of earmarks that were actually in the bill leveraged about $230 billion——

Secretary PETERS. That is correct. 

Mr. RYAN [continuing]. Of earmarks away from other priority 

projects? 

Secretary PETERS. That is correct. That is based on our analysis. 

And as you said, in many cases, these projects are not ready to go. 

They are not on the state’s priority transportation list, the TIP or 

the STIP. 

And as a former administrator in the State of Arizona, I can attest to that fact that when we got an earmark for a project that 

was not included in the priority list but there was an expectation 

that that project would be funded, then we had to go find money 

from other projects that had already been prioritized and move 

them to that project. 

Let me move now to the IG’s findings and a report on earmarks 

that had been requested by Congressman Clyburn. The IG found 

several things. He identified over 8,000 earmarked projects within 

the DOT programs that had received more than $8.54 billion just 

since fiscal year 2006. And 99 percent of the earmarks that they 

studied were either not subject to agency review or the selection 

process bypassed the state’s normal planning and programming 

process. 

Earmarks can reduce the funding that states have for core transportation programs because, as I said earlier, they pull funding 

away from other prioritized projects. Airports do not always coincide with strategic goals, especially research goals. In fact, none of 

the 46 earmarked projects valued at $40 million in FTA’s National 

Research Program addressed FTA’s research goals to deliver solutions and improve public transportation. 

Many low priority earmarked projects are funded over high priority earmarked projects. Many, many times that is the case. And 

earmarks provide funds, and this is very important, for projects 

that would otherwise be ineligible. Sometimes the earmark comes 

with a notwithstanding any other provision of law phrase and it 

funds projects that would not even be legally eligible for funding 

under the earmarked categories. 

And so these are just a top level look at what the problem with 

earmarking is. 

Mr. RYAN. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman SPRATT. We just had the bell ring for another vote. I 

am not going to that vote. I am going to miss the vote. So members 

who would like to stay and ask questions can run, vote, and come 

back. 

In the meantime, I will recognize Mr. Doggett because he is next 

on the pecking order. 

15

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Madam Secretary, for your testimony and your 

service. 

I must say that I am a bit surprised by your use of the term tax 

and spend because, of course, as you know from your long career, 

the tax and spend approach had its origin under Dwight David Eisenhower who felt the ‘‘National Interstate and Defense Highways 

Act’’ should be paid for as you go and that the pay as you go approach was the appropriate one as the ‘‘Highway Revenue Act’’ was 

enacted at the same time in 1956. 

It is true that in the last seven years, on everything, this Administration has preferred a borrow and spend approach for all of our 

national needs, but it would seem to me that the more fiscally responsible one is to pay for our highways as we determine we need 

them. 

Now, there is an alternative model that Texas has really been 

pioneering with. And as you know, we have a Governor in Texas 

who seems to have never met a highway that he did not think he 

could toll. If he had his way, we would have toll roads blossoming 

in Texas like the wild flowers in the spring. 

I have some concerns about the fact that the Administration in 

its budget proposal really seems to want to incentivize more toll 

roads such as by its proposal to tax and spend for grants for hightech electronic toll booths that would encourage states to use that 

means of finance. 

Let me ask you if you support the requirement that no tolling 

occur on federal highways in the State of Texas or anywhere else. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I would be happy to answer 

your question. The answer is, no, the Administration does not support that provision and let me explain why. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, because my time is short, and I will give you 

an opportunity to elaborate at the end, but do you support prohibiting states from buying back federal highways that the taxpayers 

have already paid for in order to toll those highways? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, we prefer to let states make 

those decisions. And I think one of the fundamental problems that 

we have today is decision making in too many cases has been 

moved away from state and local governments and decisions are 

being made at the federal level. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, I guess the concern is that these highways 

were paid for with federal tax dollars. You are proposing in your 

budget to encourage the states to toll more highways and you just 

indicated by your answers that you do not support restricting tolls 

on federal taxpayer financed highways and that you approve of the 

practice of the states coming and buying back highways taxpayers 

have already paid for and tolling them. 

And I find that to be very problematic and something that I am 

hearing from many people in Texas is not the way to go. And the 

partner to the toll way on every highway that the taxpayers have 

already paid for in Texas is, of course, the very controversial transTexas corridor where the same Governor is proposing to take 

swaths of land as wide as ten miles that would separate someone’s 

century-owned farm or ranch home from their pastures and their 

field. This has been a very secretive process. As you know, the 

16

House has also passed bipartisan language concerning the transTexas corridor. 

Is there any federal money of any type going into the planning 

of the trans-Texas corridor at present? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I will have to check on that. I 

know at one time, there was, but let me check on that and get back 

to you. 

Mr. DOGGETT. All right. The approach of doing so much of this 

in secret and treating our farmers and ranchers as just so much 

road kill when it comes to participation in the process is one that 

I know bothered not only me but bothers members on both sides 

of the aisle here. That is why the House overwhelmingly approved 

legislation directed to the so-called NAFTA super highway. 

I know the Administration does not concede there is such a highway. But as relates to participation in working groups concerning 

the trans-Texas corridor and the NAFTA super highway if it is to 

extend beyond Texas, does the Administration support the amendment that the House overwhelmingly approved in that regard? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I would say that we have not 

taken a position on that issue yet, but let me explain——

Mr. DOGGETT. We passed it a long time ago. Do you plan to take 

a position as this measure moves through conference one way or 

the other? Do you object to the restrictions that the House approved by a vote of 362 to 63 in July concerning this matter? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, we believe that state government should have much more latitude than they have today to 

make decisions. 

Mr. DOGGETT. So it sounds to me like you want to give them the 

authority to have a secretive process to build a ten-mile wide highway, tearing up farms and ranches and rural communities where 

these people will not even be able to access the toll way perhaps 

built by a foreign firm, that as long as that is the state decision, 

you are content to let them do whatever they want to do. 

I think we have some responsibility for federal tax dollars to try 

to safeguard property rights and involve the public in participation 

in these decisions. 

Let me just close, because I can see my time is up and I know 

the vote is underway, by also commenting about what you call your 

dirty little secret on earmarks. It is not a dirty little secret that 

both of the Federal transportation authorization acts were approved by Republican Congresses with Republican Chairs, that the 

so-called bridge to nowhere was the project, a totally Republican 

project. 

There is not one earmark in either of these transportation acts 

that would be there if this Administration and the Republican leadership had wanted to cut them out. 

Why is it that the Administration has been so quiet for so long 

and has not done anything about these earmarks until the fact that 

we now finally have a Democratic Congress? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, let me take two answers. First 

of all, with all respect, you misinterpreted my comments about the 

trans-Texas corridor. Second, there is no NAFTA super highway. 

There is no NAFTA super highway at all. And we certainly believe 

in public disclosure as projects are developed. 

17

This Administration also has a long record, a long, long record 

in speaking out against earmarks, speaking out against using the 

public’s money in a way that is not publicly disclosed. And we will 

continue to stand behind that opposition. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Just specifically on the NAFTA super highway 

then, is there any things that you believe in letting the states do 

essentially whatever they want in this area to prevent the transTexas corridor when it goes from Mexico to the Oklahoma border 

from being connected to a trans-Oklahoma corridor and then a 

trans-Kansas corridor all the way up to the Canadian border? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, there are restrictions about connecting to interstate highways, access points to interstate highways. Any time that a road accesses or intersects with an interstate highway, that does have to be approved. 

Mr. DOGGETT. But you have put money in the past into the 

trans-Texas corridor. 

Secretary PETERS. As I said, sir, I will research that and get back 

to you. 

Mr. DOGGETT. I think you said you had done it in the past. You 

were not sure if you were doing it now. 

Secretary PETERS. I said I thought we had, sir. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And you said that I have not correctly interpreted 

your comments about the trans-Texas corridor. Would you just 

elaborate on what your position is on the trans-Texas corridor? 

Secretary PETERS. I would be happy to, sir. We believe that there 

should be a full disclosure process, a process that involves not only 

the potential users of a highway but those who are affected by the 

highway. This is required by the ‘‘National Environmental Protection Act’’ and those types of processes, those open public processes, 

so the public has an opportunity to participate in decision making 

is absolutely something that we do support. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Garrett. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And before I begin, are there any other points that you wish to 

clarify on the question that was just made? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman Garrett, thank you so much. 

And I would like to briefly clarify on that. 

When the interstate highway system was proposed, actually 

Dwight David Eisenhower proposed it be a toll system, but the 

technology did not exist at that time. But that type of taxing collected on a cost to complete basis the interstate highway system at 

that point in our nation’s history was appropriate. 

It is not appropriate today. It is not appropriate today to have 

40 some odd highway programs and 20 some odd highway programs that divert this money in many, many different ways from 

where the American public believes it should be spent. 

Mr. GARRETT. I appreciate that. 

And I will say this on one point. I do agree, I think, where Mr. 

Doggett is going with regard to his concern about earmarks. As a 

conservative on these earmark issues over the last five years, I 

have stood out and spoken out against them. 

18

I understand the President has a difficult time in vetoing an entire bill where this percentage of the bill is earmarks and the rest 

of the bill is something that everybody else in the Congress and the 

country wants. 

I will suggest, however, that the other side of the aisle repeatedly 

is given the opportunity. As you well know, we have a champion 

in this cause in the form of Congressman Jeff Flake who goes to 

the floor on a daily basis when the appropriation bills are here, 

puts up amendments to strike down some of these earmarks. 

And generally speaking, and I cannot speak to where Mr. 

Doggett is on this, we get no support from the other side of the 

aisle when Mr. Flake is on the floor to try to strike down some of 

these earmarks. 

And if he was here today, I am sure he would extend an invitation to the other side of the aisle the next time we have an appropriation bill up and next time we have an amendment to try to 

strike any of these earmarks, we will be looking now to see whether they will support him in this cause. 

I would like, first of all, to thank you again for coming here. And 

I would just like to get your thoughts on something actually that 

Mr. Blumenauer was saying before, that the big picture, and I 

think his comment was, we need to take a step back and look at 

the appropriate federal role for infrastructure investment. 

The idea that I would like to get your opinion on was once championed years ago back in 1996 by a former Chairman of this Committee, John Casik. In 1996, Chairman Casik and also the current 

Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey proposed a bill at that 

time which would basically phase out essentially a majority, almost 

all of the federal government’s role in our nation’s highway system 

by phasing out almost all of the federal gasoline tax. 

I have now submitted a bill that takes a varying form of that. 

I call it the ‘‘State Act,’’ H.R. 3497, and it does not totally eliminate 

the federal gasoline tax for the entire country. What it does instead, though, is to allow a state the opportunity to opt out of the 

system. So if my state wants to opt out and the other 49 wants to 

stay in, they can do so. 

The reason for this idea is a couple-fold. As you know, it is not 

an equitable and fair system as far as the distribution of transportation dollars. Some states such as Massachusetts, Pennsylvania 

get well over a dollar. I will not tell you how much Alaska gets for 

every dollar that they contribute. While other states like Texas and 

Georgia and Florida only get back 90 cents or less on every dollar, 

around 90 cents on every dollar that they contribute. So there is 

not a fair distribution of the dollars in and the dollars back. 

Additionally, there is a question of the efficiencies of the dollars 

going into Washington through the great hands of your Administration, of your agency, and then coming back with red tape and 

strings and what have you attached. 

And we know, thirdly, on top of all that, there is in federal law 

a mandate of around ten percent, so that comes to around $3.9 billion, of the surface transportation programs go to enhancements. 

And these are some of the things I think that Jeff Flake talks 

about sometimes. 

19

Enhancement programs are landscaping, flower planting, historic 

preservation, hiking trails, river walks, and that sort of thing, all 

great things, but not addressing the fundamental issues, I think, 

that Mr. Blumenauer would talk about as the infrastructure of our 

transportation. 

So I could go on on some of the other problems that we have as 

to the equity and the fairness and the efficiency of the program, 

but where would you come down on the idea of allowing a state the 

opportunity to simply opt out and keep our funds but still have a 

system in place where we have an interconnectivity and a standard 

basis? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I would support that. The Administration has not taken a position. But if you will check my 

comments over the past years, I absolutely would support that. 

And I think one of the fundamental problems with the federal 

surface transportation programs today is that they lack a federal 

focus. When the interstate highway system was being built, there 

was a compelling national interest in building that system. But 

since its completion, as you said, these funds have been spun off 

in many, many different directions. 

In fact, today only about 60 percent of the total funds that are 

collected for federal surface transportation actually go to highway 

and bridge uses. Another about 20 percent go to transit projects, 

but the remainder go into a variety of projects, as you have talked 

about. 

I do believe that the closest that we can get decision making and 

taxing authority to the people, we have the best projects. I believe 

that if we get a price and invest model instead of a tax and spend 

model, it is better. 

And I believe that my own agency has too much emphasis on 

process, too little emphasis on performance, and this program has 

become very complex, lots of strings attached to every dollar you 

spend in the federal government today. And I absolutely believe 

that there is a much more efficient way to do this. 

Mr. GARRETT. I appreciate it. And if I can just give one comment 

back, I remember my first year I was here I was contacted by some 

of our county engineers, the Road Department, and they were complaining about a program in place at that time with regard to 

guardrail improvements on roads and straightening of roads. And 

these were old county roads that we were getting federal dollars for 

and our county engineer said, you know, the roads are not that 

crooked. We really do not need to straighten them out and we certainly do not need guardrails along all of the cornfields. But because we are in this federal program, we needed it. 

When I raised that question to one of your predecessors or someone from the Administration, they said, well, we have the engineers down here in Washington and we are in a better position to 

make those determinations. And I just reminded them that the engineers down here in Washington quite honestly were not going to 

be driving on that road. My local engineer drives on that road 

every single day. His family does. My constituents do. 

So if there is anyone who is going to have a keen interest to 

make sure that road is appropriately safe, but not excessively so 

as far as those dollars being spent, more worthwhile on bridge reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\HEARINGS\110TH\110-23\39493.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
20

pairs, what have you, I think it is our local engineers who are educated, trained, and can make those decisions by themselves. 

Secretary PETERS. I absolutely agree. Central planning rarely 

yields the best results. 

Mr. GARRETT. I appreciate it and appreciate the Chairman’s forbearance for the extra time. 

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Garrett. 

Madam Secretary, you referred in your testimony to direct road 

pricing and universal congestion policies. Would you take just a 

minute to explain, number one, what those mean and, number two, 

how we can take those concepts and apply them in practice across 

the millions of cars and drivers that use the highways of our country every day? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to and 

thank you for the opportunity. 

What direct road pricing means is that the price you pay for 

using that road is assessed based on when and how you use that 

road, what time of day. It could be assessed on the weight of your 

vehicle, the number of occupants in your car, and a variety of other 

things. 

Technology today has eliminated the barriers that in the past 

made it very difficult to make that direct connection between the 

use of the road, the cost of the road, and then how that road performs. 

An example I would give you is on State Route 91 in southern 

California, roughly Riverside County going into Orange County, 

there are some lanes, express lanes that are dynamically priced. 

And by that, I mean people pay for the use of those lanes, not on 

a per mile basis, but on a charge based on how much traffic is 

using the road at any given time. If the traffic is braking down and 

slowing down, the price goes up incrementally. On the other hand, 

if there are too few vehicles on the lanes, the price goes down incrementally. 

Chairman SPRATT. Are these charges electronically imposed? 

Secretary PETERS. Yes, sir, they are. They are electronically imposed. 

Chairman SPRATT. Every vehicle would have to have some sort 

of transponder, receiver, admitter, or something like that? 

Secretary PETERS. That is correct, sir. That is correct. And these 

transponders can be very much like the EZ Pass if you have seen 

those on the I-95 corridor. They can be something as thin as that 

little cellophane piece that is put on your windshield after you get 

your oil changed. And so either one of those technologies work 

today. In the future, that technology will be built into vehicles. 

Chairman SPRATT. We are collecting a substantial sum, not 

enough as it is. I want to ask you about that momentarily. 

But I believe the collection of the Highway Trust Fund receipts 

and revenues is about $39 billion——

Secretary PETERS. Correct. 

Chairman SPRATT [continuing]. This year. Would you propose to 

make up for those revenues or would you simply add to those revenues by the pricing methods you are talking about? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, under current circumstances, my recommendation would be that they supplement those current reveVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\HEARINGS\110TH\110-23\39493.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
21

nues. However, in the future, as you discussed earlier, the highway 

account of the Highway Trust Fund will go into deficit likely by 

2009. We hope we can make it through 2009. And so in the future, 

I believe that those types of revenues could supplant some other 

revenues that are coming in today. 

But as I spoke to earlier, I do believe that we need to very carefully, and I appreciate this Committee looking at it so early, redefine what the federal role is. And then the federal government 

should only collect those revenues that support that role and the 

balance of the revenues would be left to the discretion of the states 

to use gas taxes, I do believe the gas taxes are neither responsive 

nor sustainable in the future, or a variety of other methods to collect them. 

And I absolutely believe that private sector revenues can. In fact, 

a 2005 report by HLB Decision Economics indicated that tolling of 

the interstates and the freeway alone could generate between 84 

and $105 billion. And that was in 2002 dollars. So there is a substantial amount of money that could be invested where the roadways would warrant it due to congestion or overuse. 

Chairman SPRATT. So in your testimony, you speak rather disparagingly of the gasoline tax, but I just heard you acknowledge 

that we are destined to keep it for some time to come because we 

do not have any ways, any immediate ways to make up for $40 billion in revenues, much less $50 billion which is probably what we 

are going to need in the fairly foreseeable future. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I do believe that there are a 

number of problems with the gas tax as a revenue sources today, 

but I do not believe that it is going to go away tomorrow. I do believe, though, especially in the next authorization act, that we really have to challenge ourselves to wean ourselves off, if you will, of 

the gas tax over time and implement new ways, better ways of investing and financing our roadways. 

Some of the problems with the user fees today are because they 

do not bear a direct relation to how and when people use the system. They are perceived as being free. And, of course, we know that 

is not the case. 

Chairman SPRATT. Let us talk just a minute about the imminent 

shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. Number one, what is your assessment of why we are experiencing this shortfall? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, the reason that we are experiencing this shortfall is in blunt terms, we are spending more than 

we are taking in into the account. In fact, we are spending up to 

$5 billion a year more than we are taking in. 

Now, when SAFETEA-LU spending levels were set, the intent 

was to spend down the current receipts and the balance that had 

been accumulated into the trust fund. It was widely discussed at 

that time that those balances would have to be carefully monitored 

and adjustments made over time. 

But the fact is that the sustainability of the trust fund is indeed 

in serious jeopardy. And because we are spending so much more 

than we are taking in, we believe that we will have a deficit according to the mid-session review of as much as $4.3 billion by 

2009. That is something that we are all going to have to work at 

together. 

22

In fact, when the Administration submitted our 2008 budget, we 

proposed a budget that would have addressed the federal fund deficit at that time. And we proposed that we not allocate the RABA 

dollars. We proposed that spending restraint and prioritization be 

implemented. 

The appropriators, unfortunately, not only ignored our proposal, 

which would have withheld some monies, but they added a billion 

dollars for bridge repairs, and they also added several billion dollars in earmarks to what has been passed to date. So we do have 

very serious concerns about the fund balance. 

Chairman SPRATT. So your preferred solution at least for now 

would be to reduce spending to the level of receipts? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, I think that would be very difficult and 

we will be proposing, the Administration will propose some solutions. I know others have talked about solutions to at least get us 

through 2009. But I do believe we have to exercise spending restraint and prioritization. 

Chairman SPRATT. Let me ask you generally about the infrastructure of this country since we have become much more concerned about that as a result of the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis. 

What is your assessment of the infrastructure? Do we need a 

program specially focused on infrastructure improvements or do we 

put more attention on operations and maintenance and repairs in 

particular as opposed to new capital improvements? What do you 

think we should be doing and just how serious is the structural deficiency of many of our sensitive infrastructure projects like interstate bridges? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, very good question. And following the very tragic events in Minneapolis, we have looked very 

closely at the bridge program. I have asked, in fact, our Inspector 

General to do a very good scrub-up of that program. 

The NTSB still has not issued a finding in terms of what happened. However, I did issue two advisories as a result of the bridge 

collapse. One, I asked that all similar bridges be reinspected and 

97 percent of those have been accomplished to date. I also issued 

an advisory cautioning state and local governments that if they 

were doing repair or reconstruction on bridges that they be mindful 

of the loading of construction materials and equipment on the 

bridges. 

That said, nationally, bridge conditions are improving. In fact, 

the 2006 Conditions and Performance Report which was referred to 

earlier would indicate that the overall condition of our highways, 

bridges, and transit systems are good and improving. 

For example, on structurally deficient bridges, that figure was at 

19 percent in the 1990s. It is at 12 percent today. So we are seeing 

modest, if you will, improvements. Do we need to still invest in 

maintaining and operating our infrastructure? Absolutely we do. 

But I believe, sir, that if we properly target money that we are 

collecting today that there would not be a problem in not having 

enough money to maintain and repair our bridges. 

Chairman SPRATT. Let me ask you one final question. Going back 

to the issue of tolls on new roads as opposed to old roads, as I am 

sure you are aware, there is an interstate system called I-73, InterVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\HEARINGS\110TH\110-23\39493.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
23

state 73, and it branches into 73 and 74 as it comes to its terminus 

in the Carolinas. 

Would that type of road, new interstate road be eligible for tolling to support some of its capital costs? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, a newly built road, and I had 

the opportunity to visit that area fairly recently, yes, would qualify. 

Under existing roads, existing interstate highways, there are only 

three pilot programs allowed to toll any kind of existing interstate. 

And those tolling interstates would have to repair or refurbish the 

road and it would have to be demonstrated that there were not 

other funds available to do that. 

Chairman SPRATT. So there is a limitation now for three pilot 

projects on——

Secretary PETERS. Existing interstates, sir. 

Chairman SPRATT [continuing]. Existing interstates? 

Secretary PETERS. But newly built——

Chairman SPRATT. A new interstate, however, is there any limitation on new interstates? 

Secretary PETERS. No, sir, other than meeting the interstate 

standards, of course. 

Chairman SPRATT. Okay. I believe you were in Myrtle Beach at 

the request of one of your Committee members, Henry Brown, and 

you indicated a favorable attitude towards the possibility of tolling 

the new construction. 

Secretary PETERS. Yes, we did, sir. 

Chairman SPRATT. Okay. Let me turn now to Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And, again, Secretary Peters, we appreciate 

your patience with our running back and forth here. 

I think for purposes here, I will just agree to disagree about the 

funding level, although, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into 

our record an opinion piece authored by Pete Ruane, the President 

of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, 

that talks about the infrastructure problem and the need for more 

resources. 

Chairman SPRATT. Without objection, it will be made part of the 

record. 

[The attachment follows:]

24

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much. 

I guess I want to go back and look a little at some of the concepts 

that you are talking about because I do think that there is some 

notion of having more market forces at work. 

Currently it costs the same for somebody to use a piece of roadway for high value freight, a stressed mom in the morning commute, and somebody who has just decided that they want to go 

downtown for a latte. All of them can use the same space and bear 

the same cost to the public, although wildly different value. 

And we have actually in the northwest, as you know, in Oregon, 

we have been looking at ways to explore helping shift some of the 

costs like a mileage-based registration fee. And we are part of the 

study that is being done looking at congestion pricing because we 


artba.eps
25

want to make sure all of those options are on the table. And our 

region is very interested in working with the Department on that. 

I was curious if you have given some thought to applying those 

principles of pricing to the federal government itself. 

It is hard sometimes to work through all of the nuances and 

these are very complex, as you know, if we are going to try and put 

in the new technology, deal with the shifts in traffic patterns, get 

the public along with it, and make sure that we are dealing with 

everybody equitably. 

But we would suffer no such disability with the federal government. For instance, I am assuming that there are a vast array of 

employees who work for the Department of Transportation, EPA, 

the Department of Defense, who are treated much differently in 

terms of their transportation costs. Some get free parking. Some 

pay for parking. Some have the transit benefit that we have mandated so that it is not just free parking for them, but they get transit, so that we help level the playing field. 

Although to the best of my knowledge, people who walk get no 

help, even though they put the least stress and we have not done 

that very much for bicycles, although we are trying to get some legislation that would at least have a minuscule commuter benefit. 

Have you given some thought to having the federal government 

practice what it is preaching by having its employees all treated 

the same for transportation benefits so that the invisible hand of 

the market will guide those choices and we will not have a system 

that skews their decisions and that this might be a model that you 

could use, therefore, to extend this concept? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I would. In fact, the DOT just 

moved into a new building that this Congress helped us get established over in the southeast part of the city. And we do give our 

employees transit benefits. I am very pleased to see that a number 

of employees do use transit. 

We also endorse telecommuting and we——

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Excuse me. Let me rephrase my question. I 

understand that. My question is, have you taken the next step to 

level the playing field so that all employees are treated the same 

with an identical transportation benefit that he or she may then 

choose to use to bike, use transit, or park, but that you do not 

weight it by giving a disproportionate benefit to one mode over another? 

Secretary PETERS. I see what you mean, sir. I would be very 

happy to explore that with you, yes. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would really love to do that because I think 

if it is a good idea, it ought to be a good idea for the federal government to do it and we can lead by example. 

And the last time I checked, there was no uniform policy for how 

we treated commuting costs, transit, cycling, parking. Some provided free parking for some. Others charged. No uniform policy 

whatsoever and we are missing an opportunity. I would love to explore that with you. 

I cannot let this opportunity, though, pass without just making 

one little footnote because I was appalled listening to NPR, to hear 

you talking about bike paths as somehow a symbol of egregious 

waste and earmarking because it has been my experience that the 

26

cycling earmarks have been extraordinarily popular, very cost effective, very much in keeping with what is going on regionally, happened quickly, and make up for a lack of aggressive federal policy 

dealing with something in my community. As you know, because 

you have been there, over five percent of the people cycle. And 

there is a disproportionate rate of injury for pedestrian and cyclists. 

And so I was just kind of taken aback that I would hear the Secretary of Transportation signaling out bike paths as an area of 

abuse. 

Secretary PETERS. Well, Congressman, I heard from thousands of 

other bicyclists as well about that comment. And I regret that I 

misstated what I was talking about that day. 

What I was talking about was prioritizing and focusing on what 

should be the federal government’s role versus state and local government roles. There are many meritorious purposes including bicycle paths that federal transportation dollars are spent on today. 

But I do disagree that the federal government should, as another 

member of this Committee just suggested, collect all that money 

and then allocate it out into these many different programs. I believe that state and local government officials are much better positioned to make those decisions to collect and spend that money 

than is the federal government. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy and 

I will wait for another cycle here. 

But I would just conclude by noting the Administration 

trumpeted the earmarks in the legislation that it passed. I mean, 

President Bush when he was in Illinois signing it pointed out one 

of Speaker Hastert’s earmarks as an example that is going to provide economic development and he signed all the Republican bills 

that have far more earmarks than we are talking about now. 

And I find it a little disorienting to have the Administration now 

pointing to, as my good friend, Mr. Ryan, was talking about, the 

Republican bridge to nowhere. I think poor Don Young and the Republican delegation in Alaska have really paid the price for that. 

But the Administration signed all these Republican bills that had 

the earmarks shooting up and when we are actually moving to reduce them, I think to somehow suggest that further earmark reform is going to solve a multi-billion dollar problem every single 

year strikes me as being a little out of sync with what I have been 

watching for the last 12 years. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. Garrett, do you have further questions? 

Mr. GARRETT. I will just follow-up on that, if I may, just for a 

quick question. 

And I will extend to the gentleman as I did when you were out 

of the room the next time Congressman Flake is to the floor with 

his earmark striking amendments to join with us to strike those 

earmarks because I concur with you that many times they are for 

not necessarily worthwhile purposes. 

One question that he did raise and then a final question. On the 

bike paths, because that is something my constituents ask me 

about sometimes, we do not have bike paths up in my neck of the 

27

woods. And those that we do have are in parks and are recreational 

in nature. 

The bike paths that are funded by the federal government, can 

you delineate for me how much of them really are for transportation purposes, people who are transporting goods via the bikes or 

people who are transporting themselves by going to work or to the 

A&P or something like that versus bike paths that are done in a 

park or along the road for purely recreational purposes? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, federal revenues pay for both 

types of bike paths today, those which are recreational purposes, 

rails to trails, things like that, as well as those that are along highways that may be used for commuting. 

I do not have that data with me today, but I will get it back to 

you. It is a relatively small percent of people who use bicycling to 

commute to and from work. 

Mr. GARRETT. Yeah, because I assume we would have other programs from various other agencies and what have you that deal 

with the recreational needs of Americans versus what you are looking at which is transportation. 

And one other clarification for me. One of the earlier questions 

talked about, and you brought it up, I think, with earmarks in general, you get the price of the earmark that we discussed on the 

floor and then you said there was an extension of that because of 

the project. 

I did not know that was the case because I thought if I was lucky enough, so to speak, to get an earmark for $100,000 to start a 

project, I would not necessarily be guaranteed that the federal government would then actually finish that project for us. 

Secretary PETERS. Let me clarify. Let us say hypothetically there is a $100,000 earmark on a $900,000 project. That other $800,000 

generally state governments have to take that from other sources 

that they have. A good part of those sources may be federal revenues, federal revenues that they have discretion over where to 

spend them or it could be state or local revenues as well. 

Mr. GARRETT. Got you. Thanks. I appreciate the clarification. 

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Garrett. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Can I just have one last question? 

Chairman SPRATT. The gentleman is recognized for one last question. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And just a comment to Mr. Garrett. We do not 

distinguish in auto use for commuting or recreation, business. In 

fact, in terms of the total amount of traffic in most metropolitan 

areas, the daily commute is a small and declining percentage of vehicle miles traveled. 

There are things that are other, business and recreation that go 

on in the course of the day. We do not do that for cars. We are trying to integrate them, at least in communities that are serious 

about cycling, we are trying to integrate them both. 

Mr. GARRETT. If the gentleman will yield. I appreciate that. And 

I guess you can make the small case of the person who is just out 

traveling and seeing the sights as opposed to even if I am driving 

to the library or to the movies, that maybe you can classify as 

28

being recreational use of the transportation purposes as opposed to 

traveling to work. But it is still a transportation purpose. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would suggest you talk to your local cyclists 

and you will find that they think that their cycling to go to the library is important or people who cycle to go out to lunch. 

Mr. GARRETT. And that is the information she is going to get for 

us. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Okay. Great. 

The question I wanted to pose to the Secretary dealt with how 

we squeeze more value out of the system. And I understand you 

want to further squeeze earmarks and I understand given the 

abuse that we have seen under what I think we are going to do 

better, why you want to zero in and see if we can squeeze some 

value. 

One of the areas that I am interested in squeezing value is out 

of the federal process. We treat different modes differently. There 

are different mechanisms for cost effectiveness that people with a 

transit project—for example, I do a lot of work, as you know, with 

people around the country with light rail which for the last 20 

years, we—you have been to our rail dilution conference. We bring 

people. Those people go through a different process. It is more extensive. There is a different cost, you know, in terms of accountability that somebody who wants to drop down an intersection, a 

freeway exchange actually usually getting more federal money, 

they do not do that at all, that we have a different match mode. 

I am curious what you and the Administration are doing to 

squeeze value out of what appears to be a cumbersome, outmoded, 

stovepipe-driven process where a light rail project deals with one 

set of rules, one set of financing. People who are going to put an 

interchange are not held to a standard of proving that it is going 

to reduce congestion and the delays that people face, particularly 

on the transit side of the equation. As you well know from your 

past experience, transportation related inflation is two or three or 

four times the regular rate of inflation. 

What is the Administration doing to have a uniform system and 

one that squeezes everybody the same so that the system is not determining the transportation decision and that we are getting as 

much value as possible in a time/money sense? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, you are right. We do use a costeffectiveness rating for transit projects and I think that is very 

good. And I think the federal government should be investing 

where things are cost effective. 

But on the highway side of the business where I have spent most 

of my career, it is more process driven than outcome driven. We do 

not do those same kind of analyses and that is exactly what I mean 

by saying a price and invest model, a price and invest model that 

would look at the cost effectiveness of all projects, not just transit 

projects. And I do again believe that when we are spending federal 

dollars, we ought to only invest in those projects that are most cost 

effective. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Let me just interrupt because I want to be 

clear. What I am saying is why can’t we use the same process for 

cost effectiveness for road, for transit, and have the same match 

ratio? Make it a lower match ratio if you are trying to stretch dolVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\HEARINGS\110TH\110-23\39493.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
29

lars. Why should the federal bureaucrats pick and choose the local 

transportation decision based on the formula and the process people go through? Would it not be better if we treated everybody the 

same? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, I think it would be better if we let state 

and local governments make those decisions and, again, only collect 

those revenues at the federal level that are truly attributable to a 

federal purpose. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. If it is good for the state and local people to 

make the decisions for roads, why should they not make those decisions for transit? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, I am agreeing with you. We are following 

the law of the current bill right now. But in the next bill, as I said 

earlier, we have a tremendous opportunity to do things differently. 

And, again, I do not think federal bureaucrats ought to be making 

those decisions. I just think state and local governments ought to 

be making those decisions. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your patience. I 

would just put one of the things I hope we can explore is the impact of having the system itself drive local decisions. 

Fifty years ago, we gave free money for highways, 92 percent, 

and they had to pay for transit on their own. So everybody decided 

that they were going to build freeways. If we treated everybody 

uniformly, it might shift that process. And I hope we can explore 

that. 

Chairman SPRATT. Madam Secretary, thank you for coming. 

Thank you for your testimony and your forthright answers. We 

very much appreciate it. And I have a feeling we will be seeing you 

again as we deal with the problems that are imminent in the Highway Trust Fund. Thank you very much, though, for your testimony. 

Now, we have a decision here to make. We have eight minutes 

to get to the floor to vote if we care to vote. Do you wish to vote, 

Mr. Blumenauer? 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will run and come right back. I got tackled 

by a reporter. I apologize. I will come right back. 

Chairman SPRATT. Okay. 

I will ask our next panel to come on up. We will go vote quickly 

and we beg your pardon, but this is the nature of this institution, 

particularly when it gets into disputes about how a bill is going to 

be brought to the floor. 

This panel consists of Mr. Robert Sunshine, who is the Deputy 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office; Ms. Janet Kavinoky, 

Director of Transportation with the Chamber of Commerce; and 

Robert Puentes, who is a Fellow at Brookings. 

We will be back shortly. Thank you very much for your indulgence and forbearance. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman SPRATT. I call the meeting back to order, and I ask our 

next panel to take their seats. 

We do not make the decisions to put all these obstacles in our 

way, but we very much appreciate you coming even under these 

circumstances. And why don’t we begin with Mr. Sunshine because 

he has got an overview of the highway programs and his very useful summary. 

30

So bear in mind that by previous order, your prefiled testimony 

was made part of the record, so you can summarize it as you see 

fit. 

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT A. SUNSHINE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE; JANET F. KAVINOKY, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, U.S. 

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; ROBERT PUENTES, FELLOW, THE 

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. SUNSHINE 

Mr. SUNSHINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Blumenauer. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss some of the issues facing the Congress with regard to the 

nation’s surface transportation infrastructure. 

The Congress faces some important policy decisions over the next 

two years with regard to surface transportation. And in addressing 

those decisions, it is useful to consider some of the broader questions of what total spending ought to be and what role the federal 

government ought to play in financing that spending. 

The first set of questions I would suggest deal with how effectively money is spent. Are the funds that the federal government 

is currently collecting and spending for surface transportation 

going to their best uses? Could some needs be met at least in part 

by better targeting spending to its most productive uses? 

If more money is raised from transportation related taxes or fees, 

what steps ought to be taken to ensure that those funds are used 

to meet the highest priority needs? 

Other questions deal with determining the appropriate role for 

the federal government. For example, if more money is needed, 

should the federal government raise taxes to collect it or should 

states which ultimately determine how much of the funds are spent 

bear the responsibility for imposing and collecting the necessary 

taxes or fees? 

If the federal government collects the money, how much flexibility should states have in determining how to spend the federal 

dollars? To what extent does federal funding just substitute for 

spending that would otherwise be undertaken by other levels of 

government? 

And what is the appropriate role for the private sector in the financing of transportation infrastructure? Should the federal government facilitate a greater private sector role and, if so, how? 

The answers to those questions are not necessarily clear or 

straightforward, but they are relevant in determining both the 

funding and financing strategies for surface transportation. 

Now a little context for addressing those questions. In 2007, the 

federal government spent about $50 billion, almost two percent of 

the federal budget, for surface transportation, mostly for roads. The 

federal government and state and local governments play very different roles in the financing of surface transportation infrastructure. 

For the most part, the federal government pays for capital investments, building and rehabilitating roads and bridges, for examVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\HEARINGS\110TH\110-23\39493.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
31

ple, and it provides close to half of total governmental funding for 

those purposes. 

In contrast, state and local governments allocate most of their infrastructure funds to operation and maintenance activities and 

they bear almost the entire cost of those activities. 

Combining the two, the federal government is supplying about 

one-quarter of all public funding for surface transportation infrastructure. 

Most of the federal government spending for this comes from the 

Highway Trust Fund. The two accounts, one for highways and one 

for transit, track receipts from gasoline and other taxes against 

spending for the trust fund’s programs. And annual spending from 

that fund is largely controlled by obligation limits set in the appropriation acts. 

The balances in the trust fund rose rapidly in the late 1990s, but 

spending began to exceed receipts starting in 2001. And since then, 

balances in the trust fund have been falling. 

CBO projects that the highway account will run out of money in 

2009 and the transit account by 2012. These projections assume 

that obligations continue at the amounts set in the most recent 

highway and transit authorization bill, SAFETEA-LU, adjusted for 

inflation after 2009. 

The continuing mismatch between revenues and outlays in the 

highway account which we estimate will average about $8 billion 

from 2009 to 2017 could be remedied by a reduction of 40 percent 

of obligations in 2009 and about 20 percent in subsequent years. 

It would take a sharp change in the funding levels and the 

spending levels to bridge that gap. Alternatively, it would take 

about a five cent per gallon increase in the gas tax or some combination of the two to accomplish the same result. 

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that each penny on 

the gas tax would raise slightly less than $2 billion a year on average over the next ten years. 

While this is going on, demands on the system are growing. Passenger travel and the volume of freight carried on trucks are growing at two percent or more a year which does not seem like a lot, 

but if those rates continue, such growth would increase traffic volume by 20 to 25 percent over a ten-year period. 

Congestion is growing. Department of Transportation projects 

that traffic on a substantial portion of the interstate highway system will exceed the system’s capacity by 2020. But most of the existing taxes are a fixed number of cents per gallon and they do not 

increase with inflation. 

Even though revenues credited to the highway account in 2006 

were 47 percent higher than the amounts accrued in 1998, eight 

years earlier, the price of goods and services used in highway construction has risen much more so that the annual receipts credited 

to the highway account provided about 15 percent less in purchasing power for construction purposes than they did eight years 

earlier. 

In assessing ways to finance transportation spending whether at 

the federal level or state and local levels, it is useful to consider 

not only how much various financing approaches might raise but 

32

what kinds of incentives they provide to users of the transportation 

system. 

As we have discussed earlier, there is a strong rationale for 

charging users of that infrastructure because they reap substantial 

benefits from it and to encourage efficient use of the system. 

Such charges could help measure the value of investing in increased capacity and help pay for the construction of new infrastructure in the right places and at the right time. A number of 

such fees already exist at state and local levels. They include tolls 

that vary by time of day, fees based on mileage that might depend 

on both location and time of day, fees based both on weight and 

mileage, and congestion related fees that are higher in times or 

places with heavy traffic. 

Widespread use of such systems may not be practical in the short 

term, but they might be worth considering over the longer term, 

particularly if technological developments continue to make them 

more feasible. They offer some possibility of getting more bang for 

our transportation buck during a period when the long-term pressures on the federal budget will pose an increasing challenge to the 

nation’s fiscal well-being. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions later on. 

[The prepared statement of Robert Sunshine follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. SUNSHINE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL

BUDGET OFFICE

Chairman Spratt, Congressman Ryan, and Members of the Committee, thank you 

for the invitation to discuss public spending on surface transportation infrastructure. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the balance in the Highway Trust Fund will be exhausted at some point during fiscal year 2009. In addition, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU) expires at the end of that fiscal year. Consequently, the 

Congress will face important policy questions about how much to invest in surface 

transportation systems; how to apportion that spending among roads, rail, transit, 

and other modes of transportation; how best to finance that spending; and which 

levels of government are best positioned to make those decisions. 

To shed light on those issues, my statement today describes recent trends in public spending for infrastructure at all levels, the role of Highway Trust Fund in accounting for such spending, and some options for financing future spending on 

transportation infrastructure. 

In my testimony, I will make the following points: 

• Spending on surface transportation infrastructure by all levels of government 

in 2004 was $191 billion (in 2006 dollars), or 1.5 percent of gross domestic product 

(GDP). The federal government provided about one-quarter of those funds, and 

states and localities provided the rest. Those funds were split about equally between 

spending for capital projects and operation and maintenance. Most of that spending 

was for roads. 

• Federal outlays are directed almost entirely to capital projects and account for 

slightly less than one-half of all public spending on such projects. In contrast, state 

and local governments provide virtually all of the public spending to operate and 

maintain the surface transportation infrastructure. 

• Most of the federal spending for infrastructure comes from excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel and other taxes that are credited to the Highway Trust Fund. 

In recent years, spending from the highway account of the trust fund has consistently exceeded its income. According to CBO’s projections, if annual spending continues at its currently authorized levels (adjusted for inflation after 2009), the highway account of the trust fund will be exhausted at some point during fiscal year 

2009; the mass transit account will have sufficient revenues to cover its expenditures until 2012. 

• Over the 2009-2017 period, policymakers face a growing differential between expected revenues in the highway account and spending from that account that could 

33

occur if obligations continue at the levels authorized in SAFETEA-LU, adjusted for 

inflation. Eliminating that differential would require a cut in spending authority of 

40 percent below projected levels during 2009 and about 20 percent annually thereafter through 2017; an increase in revenues of about 20 percent over the period; or 

some combination of the two approaches. 

• The current system of generating revenues to fund surface transportation 

projects relies primarily on various excise taxes. Under current law, those taxes are 

not sufficient to pay for rising highway construction costs or to account for the external costs of pollution or congestion. To balance the trust fund’s spending and revenues, tax rates could be increased or indexed. However, because the taxes are not 

linked to the use of specific roads, they do not provide signals to policymakers indicating which are most valuable to users. 

• As an alternative to the current system, existing taxes could be replaced or supplemented with charges to users based on the costs that they impose on the system 

and the external costs of pollution and congestion. For example, tolls or fees based 

on mileage or vehicle weight may provide users a clearer signal of the costs that 

they impose on the system. Even so, such user charges by themselves may not be 

able to finance the entire highway system, and their administrative feasibility over 

a nationwide system of roads has not yet been demonstrated. 

TRENDS IN PUBLIC SPENDING ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

The federal government and state and local governments devote substantial resources to building, operating, and maintaining the nation’s surface transportation 

infrastructure. During 2004, which is the most recent year for which comprehensive 

data are available, total public spending on surface transportation infrastructure 

was $191 billion (measured in 2006 dollars), or 1.5 percent of GDP. Those figures 

include spending by federal, state, and local governments on roads, rail, mass transit, and water transportation. Since 1956, annual public spending on such infrastructure has ranged between 1.4 percent and 2.0 percent of GDP.1

In 2004, about half of total public spending on surface transportation infrastructure went to capital projects, for example, building or rehabilitating physical infrastructure. The other half was spent on operating and maintaining that infrastructure. The shares of capital expenditures and operation and maintenance expenditures within the total have been fairly stable since the mid-1980s. Before then, capital expenditures usually exceeded spending on operation and maintenance (see Figure 1).

34

Measured in 2006 dollars, spending for operation and maintenance has trended 

steadily upward over the past 50 years. Measured the same way, capital spending 

for surface transportation peaked in the late 1960s (in part because of the construction of the Interstate Highway System), declined through the early 1980s, and has 

grown steadily since then. 

Spending priorities on surface transportation infrastructure vary by level of government. In 2004, federal outlays—almost entirely in the form of grants and loans 

to states and localities—principally funded capital projects; 92 cents of every federal 

dollar spent on such infrastructure was for capital projects rather than operation 

and maintenance. In contrast, the majority of state and local spending (64 percent) 

was allocated to operation and maintenance. The federal government provided almost one-half (46 percent) of total public funding for surface transportation capital 

projects, and states and localities accounted for virtually all (96 percent) of public 

spending to operate and maintain that infrastructure.2

Among types of surface transportation, roads account for the largest share of infrastructure spending by any level of government (see Figure 2). About 80 percent 

of capital spending on surface transportation infrastructure by the federal government and state and local governments (net of federal grants and loan subsidies) 

goes to roads. Roads also account for a large portion of spending to operate and 

maintain surface transportation infrastructure, though that share is considerably 

larger at the state and local levels than at the federal level (64 percent versus 30 

percent, respectively).


sunf1.eps
35

Federal spending on surface transportation infrastructure in 2007 was about $50 

billion.3 The federal government supplied about one-quarter of all public funding for 

surface transportation infrastructure, with state and local governments providing 

the rest. That share has been roughly stable over the past several decades. 

In addition to government, private entities play a limited role in providing surface 

transportation infrastructure beyond simply supplying services under contract to a 

government agency. Such participation by the private sector, which is often referred 

to as public—private partnerships, has so far constituted only a relatively small 

amount of infrastructure funding. Under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance 

and Innovation Act (TIFIA) of 1998 (Public Law 105-178), the federal government 

has encouraged private investment to improve the nation’s surface transportation 

system by providing direct loans at below-market rates and loan guarantees—at a 

cost of $240 million through 2006. 

OVERVIEW OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

The federal government’s surface transportation programs are financed mostly 

through the Highway Trust Fund (certain transit programs receive appropriations 

from the U.S. Treasury’s general fund). Those surface transportation programs are 

administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal 

Transit Administration.4

The Highway Trust Fund is an accounting mechanism in the federal budget. The 

fund comprises two separate accounts, one for highways and one for mass transit. 

It records specific cash inflows (revenues from certain excise taxes on motor fuels 

and trucks) and cash outflows (spending on designated highway and mass transit 

programs). By far, the largest component of the trust fund is the Federal-Aid Highway program (see Table 1).


sunf2.eps
36

Spending from the Highway Trust Fund is not automatically triggered by tax revenues credited to it. Authorization acts provide budget authority for highway programs, mostly in the form of contract authority (the authority to incur obligations 

in advance of appropriations). Annual spending from the fund is largely controlled 

by limits on the amount of contract authority that can be obligated in a particular 

year. 

Such obligation limitations are customarily set in annual appropriation acts. The 

most recent authorization law governing spending from the trust fund—SAFETEALU—was enacted in 2005 and is due to expire at the end of 2009. The law provides 

specific amounts of contract authority over the 2005—2009 period and authorizes 

appropriations for certain programs that are not funded through contract authority. 

It also specifies annual obligation limitations, which may be superseded each year 

by limitations set in appropriation acts. 

The largest source of revenues credited to the Highway Trust Fund is the tax of 

18.3 cents per gallon on gasoline and gasohol. Under current law, such taxes are 

scheduled to expire in 2011. The gas and gasohol tax currently produces about twothirds of the fund’s total revenues (see Table 2). The second largest source is the 

levy of 24.3 cents per gallon on diesel, which accounts for about one-quarter of the 

revenues. Thus, taxes on motor fuels generate about 90 percent of the trust fund’s 

total revenues. The rest come from a retail sales tax on certain trucks, a tax on the 

use of certain heavy vehicles, and a tax on truck tires. About 2.8 cents per gallon 

of all fuel taxes credited to the Highway Trust Fund is dedicated to the mass transit 

account, or about 13 percent of all trust fund revenues. That account received about 

$4.9 billion in 2006.


sunt1.eps
37

HISTORY OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND’S REVENUES AND SPENDING

The Highway Trust Fund was established in 1956. Since then, there have been 

several notable changes to the program, including the addition of an account dedicated to transit programs in 1983. Since 1983, many further changes have been 

made to the highway program, to the taxes dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund, 

and to trust fund operations. One of the most significant changes occurred in the 

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which increased amounts deposited into the trust fund 

by 4.3 cents per gallon of gasoline sold, in addition to the 14.0 cents per gallon previously allocated to the fund.5

Over the past 15 years, spending for programs funded through the Highway Trust 

Fund has increased as a share of nondefense spending. Over the 1992—1996 period, 

spending from the trust fund was about 1.8 percent of nondefense spending; over 

the past five years, it has increased to 2.1 percent (see Table 3). When considered 

as a percentage of GDP, spending from the trust fund has also increased.

Spending from the trust fund started increasing rapidly in 1999, resulting from 

changes enacted in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), 

which provided budget authority and contract authority of $218 billion over the 

1998—2003 period (an average of $36.3 billion per year). Consequently, annual outlays rose by 40 percent from 1999 to 2003. SAFETEA-LU, which provided contract 


sunt2.eps sunt3.eps
38

authority of $286 billion (an average of $57.2 billion per year) over the 2005—2009 

period, represented a further significant increase in funding over previous authorizations. 

Balances in the highway account were steady during the 1980s and the first half 

of the 1990s, in the vicinity of $10 billion. Receipts substantially exceeded outlays 

from 1996 to 2000, and the unexpended balance in the highway account (sometimes 

called the cash balance) grew from $10 billion in 1995 to a peak of about $23 billion 

in 2000 (see Figure 3). Revenues fell sharply in 2001, but have increased steadily 

since then—at an average rate of about 3.4 percent per year through 2007.6 Nevertheless, spending, boosted by TEA-21, has generally exceeded revenues since 2001. 

As a result, unspent balances in the highway account declined to about $8.0 billion 

by the end of 2007. In general, balances in the mass transit account also have been 

falling since 2000, although at a slower rate than those in the highway account. At 

the end of 2007, the balance in the mass transit account totaled about $7.9 billion.

APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR TRANSIT PROGRAMS AND EMERGENCY

RELIEF

A portion of transit spending is appropriated from the general fund. From 1998 

(and the enactment of TEA-21) to 2006, transit programs have received about $18 

billion in general fund appropriations, or about $2 billion per year. (Such general 

fund appropriations totaled about 30 percent of the contract authority for transit 

programs over the same time period.) By far, the largest component of such appropriations is the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, which accounted for 

about $10 billion of that spending over the 1998—2006 period. The CIG program 

provides capital assistance for certain programs to create, expand, or modernize certain rail, bus, and ferry facilities. The second largest component of such appropriations—about $7 billion—was a program of formula grants for transit operations that 

has been funded through the Highway Trust Fund since 2005. Appropriations from 

the general fund also pay for research programs and administrative expenses of 

transit programs. 

Since 2005, certain appropriations for FHWA’s Emergency Relief program have 

come from the general fund. That program provides for the reconstruction of certain 

highways and bridges that have suffered serious damage as a result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures from an external cause. Annually, $100 million is set 

aside in the Highway Trust Fund for such programs. Before 2005, additional budget 


sunf3.eps
39

authority was appropriated from the trust fund as needed. From 1999 to 2004, such 

appropriations totaled more than $3 billion. However, starting in 2005, the Congress 

has appropriated additional money for emergency relief from the general fund: 

about $4.3 billion since that year. 

PROJECTIONS OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND’S REVENUES AND SPENDING

The status of the Highway Trust Fund is generally assessed by projecting the balances in it, which indicate whether the expected revenues will be sufficient to cover 

the anticipated spending. Those balances represent the cumulative difference between revenues and outlays over the life of the fund and indicate how much the 

fund has available, at any particular time, to meet its current and future obligations. 

THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND’S BALANCES

CBO has estimated the trust fund’s future balances by projecting revenues and 

outlays independently of each other because they have different bases. Revenues depend on the collection of various taxes, and outlays depend on the obligation limitations set in appropriation acts as well as the timing of spending for obligations that 

have been made in prior years. For those projections, CBO assumes that policymakers will continue to control spending through such limitations. Further, for the 

purpose of these estimates, the agency assumes that appropriation acts will set obligation limitations equal to the amounts specified in SAFETEA-LU plus any adjustments for what is termed revenue-aligned budget authority (RABA), a funding 

mechanism contained in the 2005 law that is designed to strengthen the relationship between the highway account’s revenues and spending.7

PROJECTIONS OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND REVENUES

If the current taxes are extended beyond their 2011 expiration date, revenues 

credited to the Highway Trust Fund will rise at an average annual rate of about 

2 percent per year over the coming decade, CBO projects. Total trust fund revenues 

will grow from about $39 billion in 2006 to about $40 billion in 2009—at a slower 

rate than nominal GDP, which CBO expects to rise at an average annual rate of 

4.6 percent over the next 10 years. (In large part, the difference exists because fuel 

tax collections depend on the quantity of fuel consumed rather than on the price 

of gasoline.) As a result, trust fund revenues are projected to decline from 0.25 percent of GDP in 2007 to 0.19 percent of GDP in 2017 if the current taxes are extended. 

PROJECTIONS OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND OUTLAYS

CBO bases its estimates of trust fund outlays primarily on historical spending 

patterns, which reflect states’ multiyear projects to plan and build roads, bridges, 

and other transportation infrastructure. In the case of the fund’s highway account, 

most of the obligations involve capital projects on which money is spent over a number of years. For example, the Federal-Aid Highway program typically spends about 

27 percent of its budgetary resources in the year they are made available for spending and the rest over the next several years. Most of the highway programs’ existing 

obligations will therefore be met using future tax revenues because those obligations 

far exceed the amounts now in the account. At the end of fiscal year 2007, the balance of the highway account stood at $8.0 billion, whereas the outstanding obligations of highway programs totaled about $45 billion. 

If lawmakers set obligation limitations at the amounts authorized in SAFETEALU and add RABA adjustments (as estimated by CBO), outlays from the trust 

fund’s highway account will gradually increase from about $35.0 billion in 2007 to 

about $42 billion in 2009, CBO estimates, if amounts in the trust fund are sufficient. Those outlays would exceed revenues by $5 billion in 2008 and more than $6 

billion in 2009. In addition, CBO anticipates that about $2 billion from the highway 

account will be transferred to the mass transit account over that period.8 By CBO’s 

estimates, balances in the highway account will be exhausted during fiscal year 

2009, falling short of amounts needed to meet estimated obligations coming due in 

that year by $4 billion to $5 billion, or about 10 percent of the projected spending. 

For projections of outlays after 2009, CBO assumes that SAFETEA-LU spending 

levels grow at the rate of inflation, a practice consistent with the agency’s usual procedures for baseline projections. Under that assumption, the differential between 

revenues and projected outlays would be larger in 2010 and beyond (see Figure 4). 

Under an assumption that revenues remain at projected levels through 2017, outVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\HEARINGS\110TH\110-23\39493.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
40

lays from the highway account, if unconstrained, would exceed revenues by a total 

of about $67 billion (or 17 percent) over the 2009—2017 period.

Under SAFETEA-LU and including transfers from the highway account, the obligation limit for mass transit would grow from $8.3 billion in 2007 to $9.4 billion 

in 2009. By CBO’s estimates, outlays would exceed revenues by about $500 million 

in 2008 and by almost $2 billion in 2009. With obligation limits adjusted for inflation after 2009, the mass transit account would have sufficient resources to meet 

estimated spending until 2012, according to CBO’s estimates. Subsequently, CBO 

estimates, projected spending from the transit account would exceed estimated receipts by $3 billion to $4 billion a year. 

CBO’s projections of the rate of spending from the trust fund are based on historical averages, but those rates might vary from year to year in accordance with factors such as states’ construction schedules and plans. Also, changes in oil prices, the 

economy, and the fuel efficiency of vehicles can all cause future revenues to differ 

from CBO’s projections. Small deviations from those projections would not significantly affect the future status of the Highway Trust Fund and the expected imbalance between obligations and resources. 

OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THE DIFFERENTIAL IN THE HIGHWAY ACCOUNT BETWEEN

EXPECTED REVENUES AND PROJECTED SPENDING

If the balances in the highway account fell to zero, the Administration would have 

to take some action to constrain spending because the trust fund is not authorized 

to borrow money or to incur negative balances. 


sunf4.eps
41

POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION

Without a change to current law, CBO anticipates that by 2009 the Administration will need to act to remedy the imbalance between revenues and outlays in the 

trust fund—probably by constraining the use of contract authority. Although the Administration has not yet stated how it will address that eventuality, a variety of options exist. The Department of Transportation may have to suspend the current 

practice of immediately reimbursing states for spending on highway programs and, 

instead, require states to wait for reimbursement until additional receipts are credited to the trust fund. At that time, the Administration may choose to reimburse 

states on a ‘‘first-in, first-out’’ basis. The Administration could also use the Emergency Relief program as a model and divide the available funds among all states 

requesting reimbursement, or it could develop another way to allocate the resources 

in the trust fund. 

LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS TO REDUCE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVENUES AND

SPENDING

To balance revenues and spending, lawmakers could reduce future obligation limitations and budget authority below the levels assumed in CBO’s projections, increase revenues to accommodate future spending levels, or pursue a combination of 

the two. The examples below provide some of many alternatives available to the 

Congress. 

Reducing Outlays. One option available to lawmakers is to reduce federal spending on highway programs. To do so, the Congress would need to cut the obligation 

limitations that control spending on those programs. For example, to constrain outlays to the revenues available in 2009, lawmakers would need to reduce the obligation limitation for that year in SAFETEA-LU by about $16 billion—roughly a 40 

percent decrease. Subsequently, relative to obligation limitations growing at the rate 

of inflation, cuts in those limitations would need to average about $9 billion annually from 2010 through 2017, for a total of $79 billion over the 2009—2017 period—

a reduction of about 20 percent.9

Increasing Revenues. To maintain spending on highway programs at SAFETEALU levels, the Congress could choose to raise additional revenues through an increase in the gas tax or through other mechanisms. According to estimates from the 

Joint Committee on Taxation, a one-cent increase in the gas tax, effective October 

1, 2008, would raise slightly less than $2 billion for the trust fund annually over 

the next 10 years.10 About 87 percent of those funds accrue to the highway account. 

CBO estimates that receipts to the highway account in 2009 will total $35.3 billion. To cover all obligations that will probably come due that year if they continue 

at SAFETEA-LU levels, revenues credited to that account would have to increase 

by between $4 billion and $5 billion. A gas tax increase of about 3 cents per gallon 

of fuel sold would raise that amount for the highway account and about $600 million 

for the transit account. 

Over the 2010—2017 period, with increases in obligation rates assumed to reflect 

inflation, revenues credited to the highway account would have to be about 20 percent, or $8 billion, above current projections for each year, to meet obligations that 

would become due in each year. To generate such a sum for the highway account, 

revenues would need to increase by about $9 billion per year, requiring an increase 

in the gas tax of about 5 cents per gallon, effective October 1, 2010.11 Resulting increases in revenues to the mass transit account, about $1 billion per year, would 

maintain positive balances in that fund until 2014. 

A Combination of Reducing Outlays and Increasing Revenues. Lawmakers could 

also choose to both reduce spending and increase revenues. For example, if the Congress chose to decrease spending from the highway account by 10 percent (relative 

to SAFETEA-LU levels inflated)—about $40 billion—over the 2009—2017 period, 

revenues would also have to increase by about 10 percent compared with the level 

in CBO’s projections. Of that increase, under current law about $34 billion would 

be credited to the highway account and $5 billion to the mass transit account. A 

gas tax increase of about 2.5 cents per gallon of fuel sold, beginning in 2009, would 

generate such a revenue stream. 

FUTURE FUNDING OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

By many indications, the nation’s surface transportation system will require substantial investments in coming decades. The number of vehicle-miles traveled has 

been growing by about 2 percent a year, and trucks are carrying increasing amounts 

of freight. As a result, congestion is growing; the Department of Transportation 

projects that traffic on a substantial percentage of the Interstate Highway System 

42

will exceed its capacity by 2020. The department recently estimated that $78.8 billion per year (in 2004 dollars) will be needed over the next 20 years to maintain 

the nation’s highway system in its current condition, and another $15.8 billion will 

be needed to maintain transit systems in their current condition. 

Empirical research indicates that, as a whole, public investment in transportation 

infrastructure makes a positive contribution to the economy, but determining the 

appropriate level of government spending on that infrastructure is difficult. For example, identifying the amount of spending necessary is difficult at the aggregate 

level because individual infrastructure projects have varying costs and benefits depending upon their age, type of construction, intensity of use, and other factors. Economic returns from infrastructure will also vary significantly among projects because those returns depend upon a number of factors, including the amount of infrastructure already in place. For example, analysts have found that the initial construction of the Interstate Highway System from the late-1950s through early-1970s 

increased the productivity of those industries relying on the nation’s roadways to 

acquire materials and distribute their products. Subsequent investments to expand 

or rehabilitate the nation’s roads have apparently had a much smaller economic impact, although they provide other important benefits—such as ensuring the safety 

and reliability of existing infrastructure—that are probably not fully captured by estimates of purely economic returns. 

In assessing the future status of the Highway Trust Fund and what actions might 

be necessary to ensure a balance between its income and spending, it is useful to 

address the broader questions of what total spending ought to be and what role the 

federal government ought to play in financing that spending. Some of the relevant 

questions include: 

• Are the funds that the federal government is currently collecting and spending 

for surface transportation programs going to their best uses? Could the potential imbalance between the trust fund’s revenues and spending be remedied, at least in 

part, by better targeting spending to its most productive uses? If so, what rules or 

procedures would be most effective in that regard? 

• If more money is raised from transportation-related taxes, what steps ought to 

be taken to ensure that those funds are used to meet the highest-priority needs? 

• What is the appropriate role for the federal government in the financing of 

transportation infrastructure? If more money is needed, should the federal government raise taxes to collect it, or should states, which ultimately determine how most 

of the funds are spent, bear the responsibility for imposing and collecting the necessary taxes or fees? If the federal government collects the money, how much flexibility should states have in determining how to spend the federal dollars? 

• To what extent does federal funding substitute for spending that would otherwise be undertaken by other levels of government? 

• What is the appropriate role for the private sector in the financing of transportation infrastructure? Should the federal government facilitate a greater private-sector role, and if so, how? 

The answers to those questions are not necessarily clear or straightforward, but 

they are relevant in determining funding and financing strategies for the surface 

transportation system. 

FINANCING TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

In assessing ways to finance transportation spending—whether at the federal 

level or at the state and local levels—it is useful to consider not only how much various financing approaches might raise but also what kinds of incentives they provide 

to users of the transportation system. There is a strong rationale for charging users 

for the costs of transportation infrastructure because they reap substantial benefits 

that the system provides. Designing and implementing a financing system that 

charges users of transportation infrastructure for the costs that they impose on the 

system can encourage efficient use of existing roads, rails, and other transportation 

infrastructure. It can also help in identifying needs and paying for the construction 

of new infrastructure in the right places at the right time. The charges users pay 

for the costs that they impose on the system provide a measure of the value of investment in increased capacity. 

THE CURRENT SYSTEM

Under the current system, receipts from various excise taxes, most notably those 

on the sale of gasoline, diesel, and other motor fuels, are collected and credited to 

the Highway Trust Fund. The Congress determines how much money each state receives from the fund. Most of that determination reflects existing apportionment formulas provided in law, but some spending is based on specific allocations to states 

43

in legislation. The formulas determine which types of projects are undertaken, but 

each state determines which specific projects to undertake. The federal government 

then reimburses states from the Highway Trust Fund for the federal share of those 

projects. 

The current system for funding bridges and roads collects the funds used for that 

infrastructure from users of the system, though not always in proportion to the costs 

they impose on the system. The fuel taxes, which CBO estimates funded about 90 

percent of federal highway spending in 2006, are partially related to the wear and 

tear that driving inflicts on roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure. 

For example, vehicles that travel farther burn more fuel and pay more in taxes. 

Heavier vehicles that do more damage to pavement and bridges also burn more fuel 

and pay more in taxes, but probably not in proportion to the damage they cause. 

For example, a heavily loaded truck uses somewhat more fuel and pays somewhat 

more in taxes than a comparatively light automobile but does much greater damage 

to pavement and bridges. However, the current system is also demonstrably workable. Collection costs are low, and evading the taxes is difficult. 

The long-run economic viability of the existing financing system is in question, 

however. Existing taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, and ethanol are a fixed number of 

cents per gallon and thus do not increase with inflation. However, construction costs 

continue to rise. The Federal Highway Administration’s Composite Bid Price Index, 

which measures contract prices for goods and services commonly used in highway 

construction, increased by 74 percent since the enactment of TEA-21 in 1998.12 That 

average annual increase is over 7 percent, which is well above other broader measures of inflation, such as the change in the Consumer Price Index. The increase in 

construction prices contributes to the long-term decline in the purchasing power of 

revenues accruing to the Highway Trust Fund. For example, the 2006 revenues 

credited to the highway account are 47 percent more than the 1998 revenues in dollar terms, but those revenues provide about 15 percent less in purchasing power for 

highway construction. Policymakers could choose to restore the Highway Trust 

Fund’s purchasing power by indexing fuel taxes to account for inflation. But even 

so, increased fuel efficiency, hybrid vehicles, or alternative fuels could serve to limit 

the trust fund’s receipts in the future. 

In addition, current taxes do not account for the costs of pollution and congestion 

caused by driving. For example, a driver on a congested road uses a little more fuel 

and pays a little more in taxes than he or she would driving on an uncongested road 

but imposes much greater costs on other drivers in terms of delay. 

ALTERNATIVES BASED ON CHARGES TO USERS OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

The federal government, as well as states and localities, could choose to replace 

or supplement existing fuel taxes with taxes or user fees intended to both recover 

more of the costs imposed by users of transportation infrastructure and to charge 

specific users fees that are more directly in line with the costs of their use. A number of such fees already exist in the current financing system at the state and local 

levels. Widespread use of some such systems may not be practical in the short term, 

but they might be worth considering over the longer term, particularly if technological developments continue to make them more feasible. 

Mileage-based road use fees charge users specifically for road use. Because such 

fees can vary by location, vehicle type, and time of day, they have the capability 

to closely match the actual costs imposed by specific users. One form of such fees 

that are already commonly used on major highway facilities, tolls can be economically efficient because they can vary by vehicle type and therefore can reflect the 

costs imposed by various classes of vehicles. Many tolls vary by time of day and 

therefore can reflect the congestion costs imposed on other users. It has long been 

recognized that tolls that reflect the costs users impose on the system provide a 

measure of the value of investment in increased capacity.13 However, the administrative costs of collecting some tolls could be higher than the administrative costs 

of collecting current motor fuel taxes. Moreover, because tolls currently apply only 

to some major roads, relying solely on tolls from those roads would not be efficient, 

equitable, or adequate to pay for the entire highway system. 

In response to concerns about the long-term viability of fuel taxes, some states 

are currently studying the feasibility of mileage-based user fees that apply to all 

roads, not just major highways. For example, Oregon recently conducted a one-year 

experiment in which drivers paid a mileage-based fee instead of fuel taxes when 

they filled up at the gas station. The fee was intended to replace the fuel tax as 

the primary source of revenues for the state’s roads, as well as incorporating congestion pricing based on both location and time of travel. In addition, the state of 

Washington recently evaluated a system using global positioning system (GPS) techVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\HEARINGS\110TH\110-23\39493.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
44

nology in vehicles. Drivers were charged different prices per mile depending on both 

the location and time of travel, thereby incorporating congestion pricing. Expanded 

use of such systems would overcome some of the practical difficulties of collecting 

tolls over a broad system of roads but would require addressing other considerations—for example, many cars do not yet have GPS systems—and resolving varied 

privacy concerns about the government having access to data about who was driving 

when and where. 

Generalized mileage-based fees for the use of roads have several attractive characteristics. Because the fees can vary by vehicle type, time of day, and location, they 

have the capability to closely match the actual costs that users impose on the system. The fees are equitable for the various classes of users because revenues are 

raised in proportion to the costs imposed. They send price signals to drivers about 

the costs that they impose on the system, thus helping to reduce demand, and to 

transportation planners about the value of adding capacity, thus promoting long-run 

efficiency. However, while increasing use of electronic monitoring and payment systems has reduced transactions costs, there are still unresolved questions about the 

degree to which generalized mileage-based road-use charges are technically and administratively feasible when applied to large, complex road systems. 

Weight-distance fees charge vehicles based on their weight and configuration of 

axles and annual miles traveled. Those user fees can be economically efficient at recovering infrastructure costs because vehicles pay in direct proportion to the estimated wear and tear they cause on infrastructure. Consequently, different classes 

of vehicles are treated equitably. However, weight-distance fees do not reflect congestion costs. A heavy vehicle currently pays the same weight-distance fee whether 

it travels on a congested road or an uncongested road. Furthermore, weight-distance 

fees may be more difficult to administer and easier to evade than charges under the 

current system. While 11 states had weight-distance fees in 1989, today only four 

states (Kentucky, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon) have them. 

Congestion fees charge drivers for the delay that their choice to drive imposes on 

other drivers. Such fees are higher in times or places with heavy traffic, lower in 

times or places with light traffic. They are already used at a variety of highways, 

bridges, and tunnels throughout the United States.14 For example, on State Route 

91 in Orange County, California, congestion fees vary hour to hour in order to maintain a free flow of traffic in the priced lanes. The fees promote efficient use of existing infrastructure by allocating it those who value it most (namely, those most willing to pay the charge). They are also efficient at reducing congestion costs because 

each vehicle pays for the delay caused to other users. To the extent that some drivers choose to use other modes or routes or to travel at less congested times of the 

day rather than pay the fee, congestion is reduced. Congestion fees also send price 

signals about the need to add capacity, thus promoting long-run efficiency. Electronic technology makes the fees inexpensive to administer on the largest, most congested roads. In many recent applications of congestion pricing, such as I-394 outside Minneapolis, Minnesota, overhead sensors read electronic transponders in vehicles, eliminating the need for drivers to stop or even slow down. Moreover, London 

and Stockholm have successfully imposed charges on driving in the center of those 

cities to reduce congestion. 

Congestion fees have some drawbacks. It may not be equitable to have users of 

congested roads pay some or all of the cost of the road system while users of 

uncongested roads pay little or none. In addition, charging high tolls could raise concerns about the impact on low-income users. Last, the administrative feasibility of 

congestion fees in a broad variety of applications found throughout the highway system is not yet clear. 

ENDNOTES

1 Additional detail on infrastructure spending is available in Congressional Budget Office, 

Trends in Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 1956 to 2004 (August 

2007). Supplemental data tables and a methodological appendix include data sources and definitions. The paper addresses public spending on surface transportation and other types of infrastructure: aviation, water resources (such as dams and levees), and water supply and wastewater treatment. Public spending on all transportation and water infrastructure in 2004 was 

$312 billion, in 2006 dollars. 2State and local spending on operation and maintenance reflects in part conditions that the 

federal government places on grants and loan subsidies that it provides. Those funds often may 

not be used for those purposes. 3Those federal outlays for infrastructure do not include several types of financial support for 

infrastructure: first, the revenues forgone by the federal government through the tax exemptions 

on income from bonds issued by state and local governments to finance infrastructure and, second, sizable outlays by the Department of Homeland Security to protect infrastructure. See ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\HEARINGS\110TH\110-23\39493.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
45

gressional Budget Office, Trends in Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure. 4Other agencies within the Department of Transportation also receive funding from the Highway Trust Fund, including the Federal Motor Carriers Administration and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. In 2007, the Federal Motor Carriers Administration 

and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration received a total of about 3 percent of the budgetary resources from the Highway Trust Fund. 5The total gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Of that, 18.3 cents is deposited in the Highway 

Trust Fund, and 0.1 cents goes to the Leaking Underground Storage Trust Fund. (The 1993 Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents; the added receipts were 

not initially deposited into the trust fund, but into the general fund of the Treasury.) 6 Revenues recorded to the Highway Trust Fund were especially strong in 2005, following 

changes in the tax treatment of certain fuels. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 modified 

the subsidy for ethanol production by establishing a tax credit paid from the Treasury’s general 

fund. That credit replaced a lower tax rate for gasoline containing ethanol. The law also included other provisions to increase revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. 7That assumption differs from the one underlying CBO’s baseline budget projections, which 

are governed by the rules set forth in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. 

In its most recent baseline, CBO projected highway spending over the next decade by assuming 

that the budget authority and obligation limitations in future years would equal those enacted 

in the 2007 appropriation act for the Department of Transportation, adjusted for inflation. With 

that projection method, baseline funding levels for highways are lower than the levels specified 

in SAFETEA-LU. 8 Under SAFETEA-LU, states are allowed to use some of their highway funds for transit 

projects; funds are transferred from the highway account to the transit account when states 

choose to use such flexibility. 9 Because the spending that is estimated to occur each year is only partly from new spending 

authority, that authority would need to be reduced substantially in 2009 to ensure a sufficient 

reduction in spending in that year. 10 Because excise taxes reduce the tax base of income and payroll taxes, higher excise taxes 

would lead to reductions in income and payroll tax revenues. The estimates shown here do not 

reflect those reductions. Those reductions would amount to an estimated 25 percent of the estimated increase in excise tax receipts. 11 All revenue estimates are provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation. 12Federal Highway Administration, Price Trends for Highway Construction, Fourth Quarter, 

2006. 13See William S. Vickery, ‘‘Congestion Theory and Transport Investment,’’ American Economic Review, vol. 59, no. 2, (May 1969), pp. 259—260. 14For a list of current and planned congestion-pricing projects, see Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Management, Value Pricing Project Quarterly Reports, available at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling—pricing/value—pricing/quarterlyreport/index.htm.

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Sunshine. 

Ms. Kavinoky. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Kavinoky, sir. 

Chairman SPRATT. Kavinoky. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Yes. 

Chairman SPRATT. Ms. Kavinoky, thank you for coming. Thank 

you for your participation and we welcome you to make your statement at this point. 

STATEMENT OF JANET F. KAVINOKY 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Blumenauer, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on 

the investments needed in our nation’s transportation system. 

My name is Janet Kavinoky. I am the Director of Transportation 

Infrastructure at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

And over the past several months, the nation has seen abundant 

evidence that America’s infrastructure is not only showing its age 

but showing that it lacks capacity to handle the volume of people 

and goods moving today. 

Now is the time to move on a robust, thoughtful, and comprehensive plan to build, maintain, and fund a world- class, 21st century 

infrastructure. We cannot afford to delay. What is at stake is simple and stark. 

If we fail to address our challenges, we will lose jobs and industries to other nations. If we fail to act, we will pollute our air and 

46

destroy the free mobile way of life we cherish. And, ultimately, if 

we fail to increase investment, we will see more senseless deaths 

on our bridges and roads, not to mention our rails and waterways. 

And it is all likely to get much worse. We have a system that 

is overworked, underfunded, increasingly unsafe, and without a 

strategic vision. 

While the events of August shone a spotlight on the state of the 

nation’s bridges, it is important to recognize that we have a much 

larger infrastructure problem in this country. And so it is time to 

create a new era in transportation. 

This country’s current approach to delivering transportation infrastructure is not set up for today’s robust economy or the economy of the future. We need a national plan. 

As Congressman Mica aptly articulated this year, the federal 

government must take a lead role in developing a national strategic 

transportation plan for the next 50 years that makes the most efficient use of every transportation mode and incorporates the expertise and resources of both private and public sectors. 

Although every level of government must step up to the plate, 

the federal government must bear a significant part of the responsibility to ensure that national needs are met, legacy assets are 

maintained and improved guaranteeing continued nationwide 

connectivity, and infrastructure investment is aligned with the 

needs that arise from the global economy, trade policies, and the 

flow of interstate commerce. 

When it comes to funding and financing, every option must be 

considered to address both the enormous problems of inadequate 

capacity and aging transportation infrastructure. 

The Chamber looks forward to the evaluation of needs, policies, 

and funding and financing alternatives in the report that will be 

released this winter of the National Surface Transportation Policy 

and Revenue Study Commission. 

In addition, we believe that the findings of the National Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission could also add to 

the debate on the federal role in the future of surface transportation program and project delivery in this country. 

But even without the findings of these commissions, the Chamber is confident in saying that there is the need to increase the systemic funding available for investment in infrastructure. 

And although it is clear that chronic underinvestment is a major 

contributing factor to problems across all modes of transportation, 

we must also address the misuse of funding, lack of resource 

prioritization, and poor comprehensive planning that marks current federal transportation programs. 

As we all prepare for SAFETEA-LU reauthorization, the Chamber encourages Congress to examine ways to spend infrastructure 

dollars more wisely, to ensure that states do not divert their transportation funding away from intended uses in the name of flexibility, to invest in new technologies, to attract more private investment for projects, and to encourage public-private partnerships at 

the state and local levels. 

However, before we get to SAFETEA-LU reauthorization, Congress has another urgent issue to address, the Highway Trust 

Fund shortfall that is expected in 2009. The Bush Administration 

47

and the Congressional Budget Office forecast that revenues for the 

highway account will fall short of meeting these SAFETEA-LU 

guaranteed commitments by between 4.3 and $5 billion during fiscal year 2009. 

As a result of the multi-year outlay pattern of the Highway Trust 

Fund, the resulting cut in the 2009 Federal Aid Highway Program 

would be much larger than this shortfall, approximately four times 

larger. 

State Departments of Transportation and metropolitan planning 

organizations have developed long-term investment plans based on 

anticipated SAFETEA-LU guaranteed funding levels and a reduction in funds would disrupt projects already underway. 

Therefore, we strongly encourage Congress to ensure that the 

Highway Trust Fund revenues are sufficient to support the guaranteed funding levels in SAFETEA-LU and we believe that Congress 

should not ensure the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund by cutting the obligation limitation for the Federal Aid Highway Program. 

The Chamber is committed to lead the way in tackling our nation’s infrastructure challenges. We have launched a major multimillion dollar initiative called Let us Rebuild American that has 

four goals. 

First, to document the problem with solid research; second, to 

educate the public, the business community, and policy makers; 

third, to spur private investment in critical infrastructure of all 

types; and, finally and perhaps most importantly, to foster an honest dialogue on how to find the public money to meet critical infrastructure needs. 

And, again, let me emphasize that there is no single answer to 

that question which means all of the funding and financing options 

must be on the table. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Blumenauer, the question facing 

America is this: Are we still a nation of builders, are we still a cando society, are we still the kind of people who can rally to a great 

cause with a shared sense of mission and national purpose? 

To succeed, we need all transportation and infrastructure stakeholders at the table, all modes, all industries, builders, carriers, 

users, and shippers alike. It is time for us all to roll up our sleeves 

and go to work. 

Surely we ought to be able to create the vision, forge the consensus, secure the resources, and find the political courage to make 

this happen. I believe that we can and I believe that we will and 

business will lead the way. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today and 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Janet Kavinoky follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET F. KAVINOKY, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICANS FOR TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY COALITION

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and distinguished members of the House 

Committee on Budget, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify from the 

perspective of the business community on the investments required to meet the 

48

needs of our nation’s transportation system and specifically, highway and public 

transportation infrastructure. 

My name is Janet Kavinoky, and I am the Director of Transportation Infrastructure at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Executive Director of the Americans 

for Transportation Mobility Coalition. The U.S. Chamber is the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations 

of every size, sector, and region. 

Over the past several months the nation has seen abundant evidence that America’s infrastructure is not only showing its age, but showing that it lacks capacity 

to handle the volume of people and goods moving today. From exploding steam pipes 

under New York streets, to record level flight delays in the skies across the country, 

it is evident that now is the time to move on a robust, thoughtful, and comprehensive plan to build, maintain, and fund a world-class 21’’ century infrastructure. 

There can be no more delay. 

We—Congress, state and local governments, and the private sector—cannot treat 

infrastructure like other problems or programs where you can wait until the very 

last minute and then write a big check. Infrastructure projects require foresight and 

years of careful planning. 

The Chamber appreciates the opportunity to provide the ‘‘user’s perspective’’ and 

will emphasize just how critical America’s transportation infrastructure is to the 

businesses that rely on fast, cost effective, and reliable transportation of goods and 

people. 

This testimony covers three topics: 

1. The role of transportation in our economy; 

2. What is at stake from the business community’s perspective; and 

3. What can be done in the short term and our recommendations for addressing 

long term issues. 

THE ROLE OF TRANSPORTATION IN OUR ECONOMY FREIGHT AND GOODS MOVEMENT

Manufactured goods and cargo move through the United States on a system primarily consisting of ports, roads, rail and inland waterways. Bridges serve as critical links in the system. The supply chain is viewed from initial point of origin to 

the final destination, with frequent junctures in between. To keep competitive domestically and internationally, many U.S. businesses have developed complex logistics systems to minimize inventory and ensure maximum efficiency of their supply 

chains. However, as congestion increases throughout the U.S. transportation system, these supply chains and cargo shipments are frequently disrupted and the cost 

of doing business increases. 

The growth in international trade is overwhelming U.S. intermodal freight capacity. Over the next 30 years, domestic freight volume is forecast to double and international freight volume entering U.S. ports may quadruple, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 

According to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) recent report, An Initial Assessment of Freight Bottlenecks on Highways, ‘‘If the U.S. economy grows at 

a conservative annual rate of 2.5 to 3 % over the next 20 years, domestic freight 

tonnage will almost double and the volume of freight moving through the largest 

international gateways may triple or quadruple. * * * Without new strategies to increase capacity, congestion * * * may impose an unacceptably high cost on the nation’s economy and productivity.’’

Labor shortages and increased security requirements born from 9/11 are 

compounding these capacity constraints and increasing congestion at key entry, exit, 

and throughput points throughout the country. 

In Memphis, TN, at a hearing of the National Surface Transportation Policy and 

Revenue Study Commission, on November 15, 2006, Doug Duncan, CEO of FedEx 

Freight and a Chamber member, summed up the freight community’s acute interest 

in infrastructure: ‘‘I’m afraid if things don’t turn around soon, we’ll begin turning 

the clock back on many of the improvements that these supply chains have made 

and begin to restrain commerce instead of support commerce.’’

PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION AND PERSONAL MOBILITY

Employers rely on transportation systems to connect them to their workforce, and 

to connect that workforce with suppliers and customers around the country and the 

world. Unfortunately, increasing congestion is disrupting these important connections and imposing additional costs on the workforce and employers alike. 

Public transportation, such as buses, rapid transit, and commuter rail systems, 

are important solutions to the growing congestion crisis in the United States, but 

chronic underinvestment is leaving these systems strained under increasing use. 

49

Americans took 10.1 billion trips on local public transportation in 2006. From 1995 

through 2006, public transportation ridership increased by 30 %, a growth rate 

higher than the 12 % increase in U.S. population and higher than the 24 % growth 

in use of the nation’s highways over the same period. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) estimates $14.8 billion is needed annually to maintain current conditions, while $20.6 billion is needed to improve to ‘‘good’’ conditions. 

WHAT IS AT STAKE

What’s at stake is simple and stark: 

As Caterpillar Group President, and former Chamber Chairman, Gerry Shaheen, 

stated at the New York field hearing of the National Surface Transportation Policy 

and Revenue Study Commission on November 15, 2006: ‘‘Transportation in this 

country is breaking down.’’

If we fail to address our transportation infrastructure challenges, we will lose jobs 

and industries to other nations. Our global competitors are building and rebuilding 

while America is standing still. China, India, and the developing world are building 

at a staggering pace. China spends 9% of its GDP on infrastructure; India, 5% and 

rising. While they started well behind us, they are catching up fast. The United 

States has spent less than 2% on average as a percentage of GDP since 1980. We 

cannot expect to remain competitive with that level of investment. 

If we fail to act, we will pollute our air and destroy the free, mobile way of life 

we cherish. Thirty-six percent of America’s major urban highways are congested. 

Congestion costs drivers $63 billion a year in wasted time and fuel costs. Americans 

spend 3.7 billion hours a year stuck in traffic. And while their car engines are 

idling, they are pumping thousands of tons of pollution into the air every day. 

If we fail to increase investment, we will see more senseless deaths on our bridges 

and roads, not to mention on our rails and waterways. Americans need to know that 

33% of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Shoddy road conditions 

result in $67 billion in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs per year. More important, poorly maintained roads contribute to a third of all highway fatalities. 

That’s more than 14,000 deaths every year—a national disgrace. 

It is all likely to get much worse. We have a system that is overworked, underfunded, increasingly unsafe, and without a strategic vision. 

According to TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP) 

study Future Financing Options to Meet Highway and Transit Needs, there is an 

average annual gap of over $50 billion in capital, operations and maintenance funding to maintain the nation’s highway and transit systems from 2007 to 2017, and 

an average annual gap of over $100 billion to ‘‘improve’’ these systems. 

The cost of materials used to fix pavements has increased 33% in the past three 

years. Steel, oil, and concrete are all more expensive. 

Yet despite these growing needs and costs, the Highway Trust Fund will be $4 

billion in the hole in just two years, and the user fees on fuels that are the primary 

source of resources at the federal level have not been increased since 1993. 

These figures do not even address other critical elements of our transportation infrastructure, freight and passenger rail, inland waterways, ports and other maritime 

needs, and, of course, aviation. The American Society of Civil Engineers says that 

our civil infrastructure needs add up to some $1.6 trillion over the next five years 

including transportation systems, clean water and wastewater facilities, schools and 

recreational facilities. 

How did we arrive at the situation we face today? 

Decades ago we built the best infrastructure system the world has ever known 

and then proceeded to take it for granted. As a nation, we’ve allowed governments 

at all levels to pile on complex and overlapping regulations. It takes years, even decades, to bring projects on line. Red tape and lawsuits can bring the most common 

sense improvements to a grinding halt. 

Decision-makers have refused to make tough choices or set common sense priorities. We have failed to plan, failed to innovate, and failed to invest. We’ve allowed 

money to be wasted and have permitted federal and state lawmakers to divert infrastructure dollars to other purposes. We’ve seen construction and land costs go up 

while letting revenue sources stagnate and decline. 

WHERE WE GO FROM HERE

It is time to address these issues and create a new era in transportation. 

The Next Era in Transportation 

This country’s current approach to delivering transportation infrastructure is not 

set up for today’s robust economy or the economy of the future. 

50

In spite of the multi-modal and intermodal needs of transportation system users, 

the planning, construction, and financing of infrastructure has been separated by 

public and private entities and has focused on individual locations and modal stovepipes. 

The Chamber believes that this next era in surface transportation requires a 

multi-modal and intermodal vision that supports competition in the global economy 

and emphasizes the important role of the federal government. 

We need a national plan. As House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Republican Member John Mica aptly articulated in an Op-Ed in The 

Hill earlier this year, ‘‘[T]he federal government must take a lead role in developing 

a national strategic transportation plan for the next 50 years that makes the most 

efficient use of every transportation mode and incorporates the expertise and resources of both private and public sectors.’’ The Chamber appreciates Ranking Member Mica’s continued vision and leadership on this issue. 

Every level of government must step up to the plate and make commitments to 

expand capacity through better utilization of existing infrastructure and creation of 

additional infrastructure. The federal government, however, bears a significant part 

of the responsibility when ensuring that: 

• National needs are met; 

• Legacy assets, including the Interstate Highway System, are maintained and 

improved to guarantee continued nationwide connectivity; 

• Utilization of existing networks is maximized; and 

• Infrastructure investment is aligned with the needs that arise from the global 

economy, trade policies, and the flow of interstate commerce. There is a federal role 

in prioritizing investment in new capacity and operational improvements in global 

gateways and trade corridors. 

The federal government must perform a critical role: 

• Working through difficult intergovernmental relationships; 

• Providing resources for complex, multi-state or multi jurisdictional projects; and 

• Encouraging the public and private sectors to pursue innovations that improve 

infrastructure performance, financing or development. 

NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH

The I-35W bridge collapse in August shone a spotlight on the state of the nation’s 

bridges, which are critical components of the nation’s transportation network. For 

example, South Carolina alone has a $2.9 billion bridge-repair backlog. It is important to recognize that the nation has a much larger infrastructure problem. The 

poor condition of the nation’s infrastructure is not confined to bridges alone. As I 

outlined earlier, the business community looks holistically at transportation infrastructure. So, in addition to bridges we must address: 

• Road traffic has already shot up 40% between 1990 and 2005 and is expected 

to skyrocket in coming years while capacity has increased just 2%. 

• Our transit systems earned a D+ rating from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Transit investment is falling even as transit use increased faster than any 

other mode of transportation—up 21%—between 1993 and 2002. As the Committee 

discusses bridge needs, it is important to note that according to the 2006 Conditions 

and Performance Report issued by USDOT the percentage of elevated transit structures in adequate or better condition decreased from 91 % in 2002 to 84 % in 2004, 

and the percentage in substandard or worse condition increased from 9 to 16 %. 

• The antiquated air traffic control system that is a contributing factor to a third 

of all U.S. flights being cancelled or delayed in July this year. U.S. airlines could 

have one billion customers by 2015 and more passengers mean more planes. The 

use of smaller regional jets and the growth in business and general aviation are also 

factors in congestion. The costs of inaction are steep—aviation delays cost $9 billion 

in 2000 and are on target to hit more than $30 billion by 2015. There is also the 

cost no one likes to talk about—the potential for significant loss of life in midair 

or on overcrowded runways. 

• Ports that are straining under the weight of cargo volumes that are doubling 

or tripling. By 2020, every major U.S. container port is projected to at least double 

the volume of cargo it was designed to handle. Select East Coast ports will triple 

in volume, and some West Coast ports will quadruple. 

• Rail infrastructure requires nearly $200 billion over the next 20 years to maintain existing infrastructure and to accommodate freight growth. 

• Our inland waterways need serious attention—removing obstructions, widening 

channels, and replacing locks. The number of dams deemed unsafe by our civil engineers has risen 33% to more than 3,500 since 1998. 

51

• AASHTO has estimated that intercity passenger rail corridors will require $60 

billion in capital investment over the next 20 years to maintain existing infrastructure and to expand capacity. 

What can the federal government do specifically with regard to the freight transportation system? 

• Improve road connections between ports and intermodal freight facilities and 

the national highway system; 

• Improve connectivity and capacity so that railroads can efficiently and reliably 

move cargo between ports and inland points; 

• Develop a national intermodal transportation network so that cargo can flow at 

speed among multiple alternative routes; and 

• Help prioritize infrastructure improvements of long-term network plans and 

projects of national significance and then reserve funding for such projects. 

When it comes to funding and financing, every option must be considered to address the enormous problems of the aging transportation infrastructure. At the federal level, user fees on fuel and truck sales and use are the principal sources of revenue for the Highway Trust Fund. Public transportation is funded on a pay-as-yougo basis with a combination of user fees and general funds. At the state and local 

levels, a myriad of funding sources are used, and sometimes those revenue streams 

are leveraged through fmancing structures that include both public and private debt 

and equity investment. The NCHRP report Future Financing Options to Meet Highway and Transit Needs effectively summarizes revenue sources used across the 

country and is a good resource for the Committee. 

The Chamber looks forward to the evaluation of needs, policies and funding and 

financing options in the report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and 

Revenue Study Commission this winter. In addition, we believe that the fmdings of 

the National Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission could also add to 

the debate on the federal role in the future of surface transportation program and 

project delivery in this country. Even without the findings of these Commissions, 

the Chamber is confident in saying that there is a need to increase the systemic 

funding available for capital investment in infrastructure. In 2005 a National 

Chamber Foundation report titled Future Highway and Public Transportation Financing Study concluded as much, and several subsequent studies including U.S. 

DOT’s own Conditions and Performance Report quantify the significant gap between 

needs and available resources. 

It is clear that chronic underinvestment is a major contributing factor to the problems across all modes of transportation; however, misuse of funding, a lack of resource prioritization, and poor comprehensive planning must also be addressed. As 

Congress prepares for SAFETEALU reauthorization, the Chamber encourages Congress to spend infrastructure dollars more wisely, ensure that states do not divert 

their transportation funding away from its intended use in the name of ‘‘flexibility,’’ 

invest in new technologies, attract more private investment for projects, and encourage public-private partnerships at the state and local levels. 

HIGHWAY TRUST FUND SHORTFALL

I would be remiss if I did not mention to this Committee the urgency of addressing the Highway Trust Fund shortfall that is expected in 2009. SAFETEA-LU guaranteed at least $223 billion for federal highway program investments through 

FY2009. This investment level was predicated on a forecast of anticipated revenues 

collected for the Highway Trust Fund’s Highway Account over the life of SAFETEALU. 

The Bush administration and the Congressional Budget Office now forecast that 

revenues for the Highway Account will fall short of meeting these commitments by 

between $4.3 and $5.0 billion during FY2009, the last year of SAFETEA-LU authorizations. As a result of the multi-year outlay pattern of the Highway Trust Fund, 

the resulting cut in the 2009 Federal-aid Highway Program would be much larger 

than this shortfall—approximately four times larger. 

The nation’s highway system has significant capital, operating and maintenance 

needs and state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations have developed long term transportation investment plans based on anticipated SAFETEA-LU guaranteed funding levels and a reduction in funds would disrupt projects already underway. 

Therefore, as a result, we strongly encourage Congress to ensure that Highway 

Trust Fund revenues are sufficient to support the guaranteed funding levels in 

SAFETEA-LU. Congress should not ensure the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund 

by cutting obligation limitation for the Federal-aid Highway Program. 

52

THE CHAMBER’S COMMITMENT: LET’S REBUILD AMERICA

Permit me to address briefly what the nation must do to meet the enormous and 

urgent challenge that I have just outlined and tell you what the Chamber intends 

to do. 

Those of us who have worked on infrastructure for many years have learned that 

on this issue, public attention spans are short. Government decision making is slow 

and diffuse. Politicians rarely look beyond the needs of their own states and districts. The news media mostly yawn unless there is a tragedy. 

If we really want to move this country off the dime and build a modern and safe 

infrastructure, then the business community must step up to the plate and lead. 

The Chamber will organize, fund, and lead this critical effort. We already 

launched a major, multimillion dollar initiative called ‘‘Let’s Rebuild America.’’

We will put money, people, research, programs, and strong political action around 

a sustained, long-term campaign to rebuild the economic platform of our nation. We 

will employ every resource at our disposal—our policy expertise, our lobbying clout, 

our grassroots capabilities, and our communications channels. We will appeal to all 

Americans who are sick of pollution, tired of congestion, fed up with rising costs, 

and concerned about their own safety. 

To succeed, we need all transportation and infrastructure stakeholders at the 

table—all modes, all industries, builders, carriers, users, and shippers alike. It is 

time for us all to roll up our sleeves and go to work. The business community will 

lead this effort, but to do so all of the infrastructure providers, passenger and 

freight carriers, and the traveling public and shippers must be united. We must put 

an end to the intramural squabbles that have divided stakeholders—mode versus 

mode, shipper versus carrier, urban versus rural, and region versus region. We will 

all lose unless we rally and unite around an urgent and compelling mission—to rebuild America. 

Four key goals will define the mission and underpin the work of our Let’s Rebuild 

America initiative. 

DOCUMENTING THE PROBLEM WITH SOLID, INDISPUTABLE RESEARCH

First, we will document in a factual and comprehensive way the totality of America’s infrastructure needs—not just what is required to patch things up, but what 

we must do to move our country and economy forward in a competitive world. 

Our experience tells us that putting a credible body of facts on the table and gaining widespread agreement on those facts are critical first steps to forging consensus 

and forcing action. 

We have joined with others in asking the RAND Corporation to prepare a definitive report that documents the current state of our infrastructure and outlines the 

future needs of a $13 trillion economy that will grow to $20 trillion by 2020, given 

a 3% growth rate. Researchers will also break out their findings state-by-state so 

that we can put an infrastructure report card in front of every governor and state 

legislature in the country. Perhaps, then, they will see the light—and feel the heat! 

EDUCATING AMERICANS ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE COST OF

FAILURE

Our second goal is to educate the public, the business community, policymakers, 

and government at all levels about the benefits of investing in infrastructure and 

the cost of failure. 

Using the RAND study and other research—and backed by an aggressive communications program—we will widely disseminate a series of compelling messages to 

build grassroots support for infrastructure. 

The people of our country must know, and be reminded again and again, that we 

can create good American jobs, clean the air, succeed in a global economy, preserve 

a good quality of life, and save innocent lives by investing in our infrastructure. 

SPURRING PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE

Our third goal is to unleash and unlock the potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment just waiting to be spent on critically needed power plants, 

pipelines, refineries, transmission lines, broadband lines, port facilities, railroads, 

airports, and privately constructed roadways. 

The money is there—ready, willing, and able—if government and regulators 

would just get out of the way. 

No one objects to timely environmental reviews, and we all support strong health 

and safety protections. But the red tape, lawsuits, and mind-numbing regulations 

53

we have imposed on our infrastructure systems and transportation modes defy common sense. 

The Chamber’s Let’s Rebuild America initiative will identify and seek to reform 

those rules and policies that threaten the efficiency of our logistics system and obstruct positive investments in our nation’s future. 

FOSTERING AN HONEST DIALOGUE ON PUBLIC FINANCING

Yet even with these approaches, there is no question that as a nation, we are 

going to have to fmd and invest more public dollars in our infrastructure. 

Our fourth goal is to foster an honest national dialogue on how and where we are 

going to find the public money to meet critical infrastructure needs. There is no single answer to that question—and that’s good. It means we have options, but all the 

options must be on the table. 

First, we must do more to ensure that public dollars are spent wisely. That means 

ending waste and targeting the highest priority projects. It means a sensible mix 

of projects based on actual needs and not on politics or ideologies—for example, 

more road construction in some communities, more investment in mass transit in 

others. 

It also means ending the practice of diverting money intended for infrastructure 

to other programs. Politicians should start paying a price when they skim money 

from dedicated transportation funds to pay for projects of their own choosing. It 

breaks trust with the taxpayers who expect their user fees to go toward their intended purposes. 

Both the federal and state governments are guilty of this practice. U.S. Secretary 

of Transportation Mary Peters says that only 60% of federal highway funds actually 

are spent on ‘‘core’’ needs—highways and bridges. In Texas, the legislature’s budget 

for the next two fiscal years will divert $1.6 billion in infrastructure funding to 

other needs. That amount is up 15% from the previous budget cycle and a major 

step in the wrong direction. And Texas is hardly alone among the states. 

The Federal Aviation Administration is even poaching its capital budget to pay 

for operations. That’s shortsighted, dangerous, and wrong. 

In addition to cutting waste and ensuring that infrastructure dollars are spent as 

promised, we can also stretch public dollars by tapping the growing interest in public-private partnerships and other innovative fmancing arrangements. 

Then, we are going to have to face this fundamental fact we are a growing people 

and a growing country with aging infrastructure. We have to fix what we have, and 

then, if we want a new road, a new runway, or a new transit system, we’ve got to 

buy it. No one is giving them away for free. 

Therefore, along with other options, we are going to have to consider an increase 

in the federal gasoline user fee. This could take the form of a straightforward increase in a fee that hasn’t been raised in 14 years—as long as the proceeds are dedicated to transportation. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, I hope each 

of you will closely follow the announcements we will make in the coming weeks as 

we roll out our Let’s Rebuild America initiative. We welcome your ideas, your expertise, and your criticisms. We will do the critical research, build an irrefutable case, 

and educate and mobilize the American people. We will tell a compelling story so 

that policy makers spur private investment by removing regulatory roadblocks, embracing innovation and technology, and supporting increases of public investment in 

infrastructure along with measures to ensure that the money is spent wisely and 

efficiently. 

The question facing America is this: Are we still a nation of builders? Are we still 

a can-do society? Are we still the kind of people who can rally to a great cause with 

a shared sense of mission and national purpose? 

It’s worth recalling that after the great wars of the last century, the challenge facing America was to rebuild other countries, countries that were in ruins—even our 

former enemies. And we did it. Our challenge today is to rebuild our own country—

a country that is hardly in ruins, but which has serious unmet needs. 

Surely we ought to be able to create the vision, forge the consensus, secure the 

resources, and find the political courage to make this happen. 

I believe that we can, and I believe that we will. And business must lead the way. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. I’ll be happy to answer 

any questions you may have.

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you very much. 

54

Before asking questions, let us now complete our panel with a 

presentation from Mr. Puentes, who has submitted a statement 

which is entitled Not So Fast: Key Policy Consideration for Surface 

Transportation Investment Needs. 

Mr. Puentes, thank you for coming. Thank you for submitting 

your statement and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PUENTES 

Mr. PUENTES. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Blumenauer, Congressman Ryan, I am pleased to appear 

before you this morning and I very much appreciate the invitation. 

As we have heard today, we know that the fact is around the federal program is that now the interstate highway system is completed, but there is no coherent national vision for addressing a 

complex and conflicting set of transportation challenges. 

The fuel taxes which feed the highway account of the transportation trust fund are distributed to states without any kind of purpose, oversight, or accountability nor are those funds tied to any 

kind of goals such as keeping bridges in good repair, mitigating the 

rise in congestion, improving air quality, or connecting workers to 

jobs and education. 

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe that additional transportation 

investments are desperately needed to bring the nation’s infrastructure up to date for the 21st century. But my overall theme is 

that the discussion about surface transportation needs and the 

budget should start first with a clear articulation of the goals and 

objectives of the federal program and the desired outcomes. 

The program should be structured to get to those outcomes and 

only then should additional revenues be considered. This is consistent, I think, with the goals for fiscal discipline and responsibility that have been expressed by the Committee. 

The problem is that while there is a clearly pervasive desire to 

invest, there is little precision about what the national needs are. 

There are two oft-cited sources for transportation investment needs 

as you have heard today, the American Society of Civil Engineers 

Infrastructure Report Card and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Conditions and Performance Report. 

Estimates for roadways suggest that between $79 and $132 billion are needed each year. For transit, the figures are between $24 

and $50 billion annually in investments. Numbers like these are 

frequently cited because while they are compelling and because the 

task of assessing national investments is a very difficult job for 

anyone other than the U.S. DOT, so there are few sources and 

original numbers to reference. 

However, as a tool for determining the national needs, these 

analyses by their own admonition really are limiting. For one 

thing, they only include bridges, highways, and transit. They ignore intermetropolitan modes, freight and passenger rail, and 

intermodal transportation facilities. 

Further, the analysis focuses on capital expenditures and excludes the cost for maintaining and operating the new facilities 

once they are in place. 

But they also do not take into consideration investments that 

could obviate the need for future investments. They do not consider 

55

land use impacts or effects. By separating highways and transit investments, the potential for the modes to work together is missed. 

The analyses also ignore other national concerns around transportation investments such as environmental, equity, and economic 

development impacts. 

Simply put, the limited focus on the condition of infrastructure 

without regard to the desired outcomes is the wrong approach to 

determining national investment needs. Without a clear definition 

of what the federal role should be and what it should endeavor to 

do, a true determination of the optimal level of investment will remain elusive for us. 

Now, as the Committee has heard, driving the conversation 

about transportation today is the current predicament with the federal transportation trust fund and the broad understanding that 

the outlays are estimated to continue to outpace the revenues flowing into the account. You have heard the details. I do not need to 

reiterate those. 

But the critical subset of that problem, of course, is that since 

the federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, even to keep 

pace with inflation, it is having less of an impact as it could. 

In fiscal year 2005, nearly 90 percent of the federal revenue that 

went into the federal transportation trust fund was derived from 

fuel taxes. So as the rate effectively declines, there clearly is an impact. 

Related to the concerns about the effectiveness of the fuel taxes 

as a revenue source is the increasing fuel efficiency of the vehicle 

fleet. Less gas consumed means less gas tax paid. Now, while 

American cars are being driven further and further and more often 

than ever, the long-term impacts really are unclear. 

In recent years, the increase in vehicle miles traveled for the 

country as a whole has actually begun to level off. While VMT does 

continue to increase nationally, it is slowing down considerably. 

In fact, recent metro level data shows that 20 of the 50 largest 

metro areas saw VMT declines between 2000 and 2002. Metro 

areas such as Charlotte, Portland, Dallas, Los Angeles, and Milwaukee saw some of the largest drops. 

What is often lost in this discussion, especially around finance 

and the budget, is that these trends are extremely positive for the 

nation as a whole. Lower fuel consumption is vital to our energy 

security which coupled with the leveling off of VMT is important 

for the health of our metropolitan areas and for mitigating the 

challenges associated with climate change. 

Indeed, VMT reduction should be an integral part of the conversation around investment needs. Yet, all this has not changed 

the fact that the gas tax is a critically important revenue source 

and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. 

Between 2001 and 2005, only tolls and bond revenues grew at a 

faster rate than fuel taxes in terms of all funds used for highways. 

However, these other sources still make up a very small share of 

total revenues. Fuel taxes still dominate at nearly 40 percent of the 

total. Revenues from fuel taxes also rose faster than any other 

source since 2001 and in nominal terms, they are still rising as a 

share of national total. 

56

No doubt there are many excellent reasons to move aggressively 

to expand tolling and to explore revenue sources such as mileagebased fees, but they are clearly less effective as solutions for funding challenges in the short term. 

So my message here is that these ideas should not be motivated 

by the desire to avoid the necessary task of a more comprehensive 

and inclusive discussion around transportation, a discussion that 

includes accountability, overall intent, and connection to broader 

goals of economic growth and personal mobility. This is of critical 

importance today. 

The Federal Transportation Program provides little in the way of 

oversight and no accountability for how federal funds are spent. As 

a result, the GAO recently found that it is functioning to some extent as a cash transfer, general purpose grant program. 

In addition to this laxity, there are three other critical problems. 

First, as we have heard, spending is not targeted to achieve certain 

outcomes. The federal government takes an almost agnostic approach to where funds are spent and as a result, analysis shows 

a disproportionate amount of investment is happening away from 

the places that matter most for the prosperity of the nation. The 

emphasis is on consensus building where funds are distributed 

broadly and thinly rather than on fixing national problems. 

Second, there is little attention to reducing the demand for 

spending. The formulas for allocating the federal Highway Trust 

Fund dollars are largely made on the basis of roadway mileage and 

use which sets up an insatiable desire for more funding as the 

roadway networks expand. 

There is no reward for reducing consumption in any of these formulas. Thus, any investment in transit or promotion of land use 

strategies to reduce VMT, reduce fuel consumption, or to be a substitute for lane miles is antithetical for how states continue to receive funds. 

Third, as we have heard, the system is not priced correctly. 

Economists have long criticized the current system of roadway pricing. They contend user fees should be structured such as those levied on different classes of vehicles, reflect the cost borne by governments, and provide those vehicles with an opportunity to travel. 

So what can be done? One thing is certain. Billions and billions 

of dollars of additional federal investments without significant reform will do precious little to fix our rusting bridges, expand our 

overcrowded transit systems, or unclog our ports. 

There are three critical areas that demand federal attention. 

First, we really need to rebuild the public trust. To regain credibility and open the door to proposals for increased funding, the federal government must make sure the transportation program is 

transparent, that spending is accountable and subject to performance measures, and that we are learning and improving on past 

mistakes. 

Secondly, we need to develop a coherent national purpose in target spending. We need to update our 1950s era transportation program to the realities of the 21st century. As such, the federal program needs a true national priority program that focuses on congested areas, on gateways and corridors, and on freight hubs. 

57

But in addition to just focusing on increasing revenues for transportation, the nation deserves a real conversation about cutting the 

demand for spending. States could be rewarded for increase in 

their own funding or for meeting performance goals. 

And, third, we need to unleash the market dynamics to address 

finance demand and operational efficiencies. The federal government should augment efforts to use state-of- the-art technology and 

communications to encourage market responses such as road pricing and where appropriate should provide oversight and advice on 

the monetization of infrastructure assets like toll roads. The pervasive market demands for development around rail stations also 

should be exploited. 

In conclusion, history has shown us that to be effective, significant increases in revenue should be tied to meaningful updates and 

upgrades to the federal program. During their times, President 

Dwight Eisenhower and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan both 

had bold new visions for transportation as well as a revenue 

stream for implementation. Significant gas tax increases accompanied the major reforms in both 1956 and 1991. 

Looking at it another way, no major federal transportation reform has ever occurred without a major increase in revenues. Mr. 

Chairman, I believe this should be one of those times. 

Congress should seize the opportunity provided by the finance 

and funding discussion to put forth a bold new vision for transportation that truly puts America on the path to competitive, sustainable, and inclusive growth in the 21st century. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. I will be happy to take questions. 

[The prepared statement of Robert Puentes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT PUENTES, FELLOW, METROPOLITAN POLICY

PROGRAM, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you 

this morning and very much appreciate your invitation. 

The purpose of my testimony today is to provide some context to the conversation 

on surface transportation investment needs and the current conversations around 

finance and funding. 

I. INTRODUCTION

There is no question that in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, reports 

of ever-increasing congestion, and new concerns around climate change, our nation’s 

transportation policy has suddenly been thrust into the national spotlight. This infrastructure epiphany is long overdue. 

The United States is currently undergoing a transformation of dramatic scale and 

complexity comparable to what it experienced at the beginning of the last century—

another period characterized by the radical reshaping of the American landscape. 

Massive demographic, economic, and social changes are already having major spatial effects on the nation. But rather than dispersing randomly all this population 

and economic activity is shifting and re-aggregating in major metropolitan areas, 

both domestically and internationally. These forces are restructuring the American 

economy and are revaluing the assets of the cities and urban cores within metropolitan areas. 

In short, we are a metropolitan nation. Supplier networks and customer relationships are regional rather than local in nature. Labor markets and commuting patterns cross jurisdictional and state lines. Firms make decisions on location and expansion based on regional advantages and amenities. Metropolitan areas are where 

most Americans live, work, and produce the majority of the nation’s economic output. The services and revenues they generate drive state economies.1

58

Just the 100 largest metropolitan areas claim more than 65 percent of our population, 75 percent of our most educated citizens, and 75 percent of our national economic output, driving and dominating the leading edges of our economy: technology, 

business, finance, and professional services. They are also our immigrant gateways, 

our ports of trade—truly our centers of knowledge and innovation. 

Unfortunately, our nation’s transportation policy does not recognize the primacy 

of metropolitan areas and—I would argue—on net actually undermines these vital 

places. Yet for the nation to thrive, our largest metropolitan areas must thrive. This 

is a lesson long understood by foreign competitors in Western Europe, South America, and now in Asia. The rest of the world understands these assets but in the U.S. 

metropolitan areas remain hidden in plain sight. 

This blunt criticism stems from the fact that our national government takes a 

bloated and outmoded approach to the realities and challenges of the modern metropolis and, by extension, to the economic competitiveness of the nation. Today the 

major transportation debates are all around money: spending more and more on the 

same product rather than where, on what, and how to spend that money better. 

The sad fact is that now that the Interstate Highway System is completed there 

is no coherent national vision for addressing a complex and conflicting set of transportation challenges. As a result, America’s transportation policy is adrift with no 

clear goals, purpose, or ability to meet these challenges. 

The federal government appears to lack a theory of its role and is absent or agnostic when it comes to where highway funds are spent. Fuel taxes feed the highway 

account of the transportation trust fund which is distributed to states without any 

kind of purpose, oversight or accountability. Nor are the funds tied to any goals 

such as keeping bridges in good repair, mitigating the rise in congestion, improving 

air quality, or connecting workers to jobs and education. 

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe additional transportation investments are needed to bring the nation’s infrastructure up to date for the 21st century. But my overall theme is that the discussion about surface transportation needs and the budget 

should start first with a clear articulation of the goals and objectives of the federal 

program, and the desired outcomes. The program should then be structured to get 

to those outcomes. Only then should additional revenues be considered. This is consistent with the goals for fiscal discipline and responsibility expressed by this committee. 

II. DETERMINING NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT NEEDS

Whether raising new revenues, borrowing, or fighting over the existing pot of 

funds, paying for transportation—both in the short and long term—has emerged as 

a major concern among policy makers. These concerns are so prevalent today that 

they spawned two national commissions, and the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office recently added transportation financing to its annual list of high-risk areas 

suggested for oversight by the current Congress.2

The problem is that while there is a pervasive desire to invest there is little precision about national needs. 

There are several oft-cited sources for transportation investment needs: the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Report Card for America’s Infrastructure and the 

U.S. Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) Status of the Nation’s Highways, 

Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance Report to Congress (C&P report). 

The latter is commonly referred to as the national ‘‘needs’’ statement by many constituency groups. Analysts from the U.S. DOT testify and update these figures regularly—but with caveats as described below. 

For roadways, the U.S. DOT estimates that the maximum investment level required to eliminate the project backlog for bridges and to implement all proposed 

highway improvements is $131.7 billion per year for the next 20 years. Analysts at 

the department report that this figure represents the ‘‘investment ceiling’’ and that 

spending should not exceed this level, even assuming unlimited funding availability. 

The cost per year just to maintain current highway and bridge conditions is estimated to be about $78.8 billion.3 Between $2.6 and $1.6 trillion is needed over 20 

years based on these estimates. 

The investment needs projected for transit are substantial as well. The estimated 

average annual investment required to maintain the same physical conditions and 

operating performance of the nation’s transit systems by replacing and rehabilitating deteriorated assets and expanding capacity to accommodate expected transit 

passenger growth is $15.3 billion. The cost to improve conditions and performance 

is estimated to be $24.0 billion. The overwhelming majority of these needs (85 percent) are estimated to be in urbanized places of over 1 million people—essentially 

referring to the 50 largest metropolitan areas.4

59

Numbers such as these are frequently cited because they are compelling and because the task of assessing national investments is a very difficult job for anyone 

other than the U.S. DOT so there are few sources and original numbers to reference. 

The basis for the C&P report is the Highway Economic Requirements System 

(HERS) which is an engineering model used to suggest improvements to a particular 

stretch of highway. The Federal Transit Administration uses the Transit Economic 

Requirements Model (TERM) to estimate future transit capital investment needs. 

However, as a tool for determining the level of national ‘‘needs’’ these analyses, 

by their own admonition, are limiting. 

For one thing, they only include highways, bridges and public transit, and ignore 

intermetropolitan modes, freight and passenger rail, and intermodal transportation 

facilities. Further, the analyses focus on capital expenditures and exclude the costs 

for maintaining and operating the new facilities once they are in place. 

But they also do not take into consideration investments that could obviate the 

need for future investments. They do not consider land use impacts or effects. By 

separating highway and transit investments the potential for the modes to work together is missed and, indeed, often these modes represent alternative investments 

in the same corridor. The analyses also ignore other national concerns regarding 

transportation investments such as some environmental, equity, and economic development impacts. 

Simply put, the limited focus on the condition of infrastructure without regard to 

desired outcomes is the wrong approach to determining national investment needs. 

The U.S. DOT recognizes these shortcomings and clearly states that linking investment needs analysis to federal funding alternatives requires an intermediate 

step to, as I suggested, define the federal role and responsibilities.5 Currently there 

is no effort to do that. As such the C&P report itself states in no uncertain terms 

that it ‘‘makes no recommendations concerning future levels of federal investment.’’ 6

Yet that is precisely what many groups and advocates for a larger federal program 

do. 

My central point is that without a clear definition of what the federal role should 

be and what it should endeavor to do, a true determination of the optimal level investment will remain elusive. 

III. CURRENT STATE OF THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND

Driving the conversation about transportation spending today is the current predicament with the federal transportation trust fund and the broad understanding 

that the outlays are estimated to continue to outpace the revenues flowing into the 

account. While this situation has been going on since 2001 the problem now is that 

the reserves, or balance, of funds in the account are close to being spent down. Yet 

this does not mean the fund is insolvent. It simply means the federal government 

has committed to disburse too much money to states and localities.7

A recent report from the GAO illustrates this problem by examining the estimates 

in receipts and outlays from both the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the 

U.S. DOT. They estimate that receipts into the highway account of the transportation trust fund will continue to increase by 13.8 and 10.3 percent, respectively 

from 2006 through 2011.8 Figure 1 below shows that revenues have remained consistently steady since the fund was split into highway and transit accounts in 1983. 

What has clearly changed is that outlays have increased at a rapid rate. As a result, 

whenever outlays outpace revenues it drains the reserves in the account. Since 2001 

the reserves have dropped precipitously. The transit program is projected to be oversubscribed to where revenues available reach a zero balance in 2011.9

60

The critical subset of that problem, of course, is that since the federal gas tax has 

not been raised since 1993 even to keep pace with inflation it is having less of an 

effect as it could. In FY 2005, nearly 90 percent of the federal revenue that went 

into the federal transportation trust fund was derived from fuel taxes so as the rate 

effectively declines, there is clearly an impact.10 As reflected in Figure 2 below, the 

real gas tax rate and the real revenues have fallen together since 1993. (It is worth 

noting that receipts from the federal gas tax leaped by $5.5 billion between 2004 

and 2005.) 

Related to the concerns about the effectiveness of fuel taxes as a revenue source 

is the increasing fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet. The fuel economy for cars and 

light trucks has not been this high since 1991.11 As Figure 3 shows, gasoline consumption dropped by about 20 billion gallons per year from 2002 to 2004.12 And 

while American cars are being driven further and more often than ever the long 

term trends are unclear. In recent years, the increase in vehicles miles traveled 

(VMT) for the country as a whole has begun to level off. The average yearly increase 

in VMT during the 1960s was 4.4 percent. During the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s it 

was 4.3, 3.2, and 2.5 percent respectively. So far in the 2000s the average yearly 

increase is only 1.8 percent. While VMT does continue to increase it is slowing down 

considerably. In fact, recent data shows that 20 of the 50 largest metropolitan areas 

saw VMT declines between 2000 and 2002.13 Metropolitan areas such as Charlotte, 

Portland (OR), Dallas, Los Angeles, and Milwaukee saw some of the largest declines.


puen-1.eps
61

But what is often lost in this discussion—especially around finance—is that these 

trends are extremely positive for the nation as a whole. Lower fuel consumption is 

vital to our energy security which, coupled with the leveling off of VMT, is important for the health of our metropolitan areas and for mitigating the challenges associated with climate change. Indeed VMT reduction should be an integral part of the 

conversation around investment needs. 

Yet this does not change the fact that the gas tax is a critically important revenue 

source and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Between 2001 and 2005 

only tolls and bond ‘‘revenues’’ grew at a faster rate than fuel taxes in terms of all 

funds used for highways (Figure 4). However, these other sources still made up a 

very small share of total revenues—fuel taxes still dominate at nearly 40 percent 

of the total. Revenues from fuel taxes also rose faster than any other source since 

2001 in nominal terms and are still rising as a share of the national total.


puen-2.eps puen-3.eps
62

There are many excellent reasons to move aggressively to expand tolling and to 

explore revenue sources such as mileage-based fees. For example, the expanded use 

of these mechanisms is an effective and practical solution for mitigating the growth 

in congestion. But they are clearly less effective as solutions to the funding challenges in the short term. 

Three other items warrant discussion here because they are citied as a primary 

cause of, and the potential solution to, our transportation finance and funding predicament. 

One is the issue of the transportation earmarks. The current federal law is infamously known for the 6,300 priority projects identified in the legislation. Analysts 

have been quick to pounce on projects like the ‘‘bridge to nowhere’’ as the root of 

the nation’s transportation woes. Now without a doubt it is difficult to argue that 

the entropic nature of these thousands of projects add up to any coherent national 

program. However, this misses the bigger picture. Even though the $20 billion that 

comes from the thousands and thousands of earmark projects is a lot of money by 

any measure, this is only about 5 percent of the overall federal transportation program. While some of the earmarked projects are wasteful and inefficient they probably have a relatively small impact compared to the major structural flaws articulated above. 

Another issue is that of governments leasing or selling their infrastructure assets 

to private investors. Two specific deals at the south end of Lake Michigan—in Chicago and Illinois—have sparked this movement. Such arrangements have the potential to raise a considerable amount of additional investment capital (not always 

linked to transportation). But this is not a silver bullet and, in the end, it is only 

a small sliver of a comprehensive conversation we should be having about transportation in America today.14

The third issue is that of establishing a national capital budget. This is an idea 

that has been raised many times in the past and continues to receive its share of 

attention. Without a doubt discussing this option for transportation is important for 

Congress and the nation to consider. But to paraphrase the 1999 Report of the 

President’s Commission to Study Capital Budgeting: there are critical components 

of the process that should be considered first. They include setting priorities, reporting and evaluating decisions, and providing appropriate information in order to 1) 

spend money better and 2) be held accountable for those decisions.15 As I’ve maintained, this is a far cry from how we approach transportation decision making 

today. 

So my message here is that these ideas should not be motivated by the desire to 

avoid the necessary task of a more comprehensive and inclusive discussion about 


puen-4.eps
63

transportation—a discussion that includes accountability, overall intent, and connection to broader goals of economic growth and personal mobility. 

IV. POLICY PROBLEMS

The federal transportation program allows the states to define their own priorities 

and prioritizations and provides little in the way of oversight and no accountability 

for how federal funds are spent. As a result, the GAO found that it is functioning 

to some extent as a ‘‘cash transfer, general purpose grant program.’’ 16

Despite separate bureaucratic programs that lay out a framework for funding different activities, the federal government has virtually no discretion (other than the 

questionable earmark process) in determining which transportation projects get 

built or how states spend their transportation dollars. In fact, the U.S. code neuters 

the federal role and states specifically that the appropriation of highway funds 

‘‘shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine which 

projects shall be federally financed.’’ 17

This program’s laxity is astonishing for several reasons. One is due to the sheer 

size of the program: nearly $50 billion federal dollars every year. Another is the inconsistency with other recently reformed federal programs such as welfare and education. Congress established a management assessment system for public housing 

agencies and created a performance measurement and reward system in the 1996 

welfare reform law. The transportation system of governance and finance shares 

many similarities with these other areas of domestic policy. 

In addition, the U.S. DOT outlined appropriate performance measures as required 

by the Government Performance Results Act, yet the department does not hold the 

recipients of federal highway funding accountable for their performance nor is funding linked to success. 

Unfortunately, the breakdown in transportation politics comes at the precise time 

when discipline and accountability and focus are most needed. There are three critical problems: 

1. Spending is not targeted to achieve certain outcomes. Instead of focusing on 

how much money it should spend, Washington should focus instead on how that 

money will be spent and how that spending affects our nation and its metropolitan 

areas. Unlike many other nations in Western Europe and parts of Asia, the U.S. 

is continuing to grow. Most of this growth will be accommodated in the nation’s 50 

largest metropolitan areas. Yet funds are not targeted to these growing and complex 

places. Rather, the federal government takes an almost agnostic approach to where 

funds are spent and as a result analysis shows a disproportionate amount of investment is happening away from the places that matter most to the prosperity of the 

nation.18 The emphasis is on consensus building through logrolling where funds are 

distributed broadly and thinly rather than on fixing national problems. 

2. There is little attention to reducing demand for spending. While additional 

sources are important, little attention is being given to managing the demand for 

revenues, how existing funds are spent and for what purpose, or how these spending 

decisions affect cities, suburbs, and metropolitan areas. The formulas for allocating 

federal highway trust fund dollars are largely made on the basis of roadway mileage 

and use. While this may seem intuitive on some level, it also presents obvious problems in that it sets up an insatiable desire for more funding as the roadway networks expand. There is no reward for reducing consumption in any of these formulas. Thus, any investment in transit or promotion of land use strategies to reduce 

VMT, reduce fuel consumption, or to be a substitute for lane miles is antithetical 

to how states receive funds. Within many metropolitan planning organizations, 

transportation plans are based on centrifugal growth projections that many consider 

to be unsustainable and undesirable. 

3. The system is not priced correctly. Economists have long criticized the current 

system of roadway pricing. They contend user fees should be structured such that 

those levied on different classes of vehicles reflect the costs borne by governments 

to provide those vehicles with the opportunity to travel.19 One such study found that 

single-unit trucks weighing more than 50,000 pounds contribute in user fees only 

40 percent of the estimated costs of their use. Autos contribute 70 percent of their 

costs; pickup trucks and vans, 90 percent; and single-unit trucks weighing less than 

25,000 pounds contribute 150 percent of their costs through the taxes and fees that 

they pay.20 If charges were levied fairly in proportion to the costs imposed by vehicle type and those charges vigorously enforced, and if roads were constructed to 

more demanding standards, savings in road maintenance and replacement costs 

over time would be great enough to permit lower user fees for all classes of vehicles. 

But getting the prices right also means taking into account the range of impacts 

such as social costs and environmental impacts on climate change, for example. 

64

V. POLICY RECOMMEDNATIONS

So what can be done? One thing is certain: billions and billions of dollars of additional federal investments, without significant reform, will do precious little to fix 

our rusting bridges, expand our overcrowded transit systems, or unclog our ports. 

The bottom line is that—with very little to show for the largest public works investment in our nation’s history—the nation can no longer afford a hands-off federal 

program. The federal government needs to make the preservation, maintenance, and 

modernization of the existing system a national priority and it needs to take a lead 

role in holding the states accountable for doing so. Objectives like safety should be 

assumed, not hoped for. 

There are three critical areas that demand federal attention: 

1. Rebuild the public trust before raising taxes. To regain credibility and open the 

door to proposals for increased funding, the federal government must make sure the 

transportation program is transparent, that spending is accountable and subject to 

performance measures, and that we are learning and improving on past experiences. 

Rather than writing blank checks, the federal government should restore fiscal discipline and responsibility and should have some say in how federal transportation 

funds are spent. Aside from considering environmental impacts all projects that involve new capacity must be reviewed for their impacts on outcomes such as employment, operating efficiency, cost effectiveness, land use policies, and level of local 

funding commitment. 

2. Develop a coherent national purpose and target spending. This is not about 

picking winners or losers. It is about updating the 1950’s era transportation program to the realities of the 21st century. As such the federal program needs a true 

national priority program that focuses on congested areas, gateways and corridors, 

and freight hubs. But in addition to just focusing on increasing revenues for transportation the nation deserves a real conversation about curbing the demand for 

spending. The federal government could, for example, reduce the federal matching 

requirements for highway projects to 50 percent like it is for new transit projects 

to promote better project selection. States could also be rewarded for increasing 

their own funding and for meeting performance goals.21 At the same time, the federal government should help states and metropolitan areas fund nationally significant projects by acting as a guarantor of debt through a national transportation infrastructure bank similar to the European Investment Bank. In addition to addressing the financing issue such an effort could, if carefully constructed to ensure transparency and accountability, help prioritize projects that are critical to the nation’s 

competitiveness. If nothing else, this idea needs to be amplified and aired in the 

halls of transportation power and research. 

3. Unleash market dynamics to address finance, demand, and operational efficiencies. The mounting transportation pressures on metropolitan areas occur at a 

time of severe fiscal constraint, pervasive frustration with congestion, and increasing opposition to road expansion. This demands a firm national commitment to 

make maximum use of existing road capacity and expand transportation alternatives. The federal government should, therefore, augment efforts to use state-ofthe-art technology and communications to encourage market responses such as road 

pricing and provide oversight and advice, where appropriate, on the monetization 

of infrastructure assets like toll roads. The pervasive market demands for development around rail stations should be exploited. 

The conversation about transportation’s impact on the nation must go beyond the 

current narrow debate about spending levels. The simplistic ‘‘transportation spending = economic growth’’ calculation does not fit the complexities of metropolitan 

America today. From a public policy perspective we also need to know where, on 

what, and how to invest that dollar.22

VI. CONCLUSION

History has shown that, to be effective, significant increases in revenue should be 

tied to meaningful updates and upgrades of the federal program. During their times, 

President Dwight Eisenhower and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan had both bold 

new visions for transportation as well as a revenue stream for implementation. Significant gas tax increases accompanied major transportation reforms in both 1956 

and 1991. Looking at it another way: no major federal transportation reform has 

ever occurred without a major increase in revenues.23

Mr. Chairman I believe that this should be one of those times: Congress should 

seize the opportunity provided by the finance and funding discussion to put forth 

a bold new vision for transportation that truly puts America on the path to competitive, sustainable, and inclusive growth in the 21st century.

65

The views expressed in this testimony are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent those of the staff, officers, or trustees of The Brookings Institution. 

ENDNOTES

1 Alan Berube, ‘‘MetroNation: How U.S. Metropolitan Areas Fuel American Prosperity,’’ Brookings, November 2007. 2Two other new high risk areas are national security and food safety. See: U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, ‘‘High-Risk Series: An Update,’’ GAO-07-310, 2007. 3 Ross Crichton, ‘‘Highway Investment Scenario Estimates: Impacts of Analytical Assumptions,’’ Briefing for the National Surface Transportation Revenue and Policy Study Commission, 

July 2006. 4 U.S. Department of Transportation, ‘‘Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 

Conditions and Performance Report to Congress,’’ 2006, exhibit 7-10. 5Susan Binder, ‘‘Limitations of the USDOT Investment Analysis,’’ Briefing for the National 

Surface Transportation Revenue and Policy Study Commission, July 2006. 6 U.S. DOT, 2006, exhibit ES-13. 

7Laura Ziff, ‘‘Highway Trust Fund Cash Balances,’’ Briefing for the National Surface Transportation Revenue and Policy Study Commission, March 2007. 8 U.S. Government Accountability Office, ‘‘Overview of Highway Trust Fund Estimates,’’ GAO06-572T, 2006. 9Gary Maring, ‘‘Future Financing Options to Meet Highway and Transit Needs,’’ Prepared for 

the Regional Plan Association National Roundtable on Surface Transportation, Tarrytown, New 

York, February 20-22, 2007. 10Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2005, table FE-10. 11The Car Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) estimate for cars and light trucks combined was 25.4 miles per gallon in 2006. Stacy Davis and Susan Diegel, Transportation Energy 

Data Book, 26th ed. (Oak Ridge: Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2007), table 4.17. 12Davis and Diegel, table 2.11. 13That is the most recent year for which VMT data is available. It is available since then 

for urbanized areas but the data used here is county level data aggregated up to current metropolitan areas definitions. 14 Robert Puentes, ‘‘Cashing in on the BP Beltway,’’ Hartford Courant, March 1, 2007. 15 Report of the President’s Commission to Study Capital Budgeting, Washington, 1999. 16 U.S. Government Accountability Office, ‘‘Federal-Ad Highways: Trends, Effect on State 

Spending, and Options for Future Program Design,’’ GAO-04-802, 2004. 17 Code of Federal Regulations 23, sec. 145(a). 18 Robert Puentes and Linda Bailey, ‘‘ Improving Metropolitan Decision Making in Transportation: Greater Funding and Devolution for Greater Accountability,’’ in Taking the High Road: 

A Metropolitan Agenda for Transportation Reform, B. Katz and R. Puentes, eds., Brookings, 

2005. 19See e.g., Kenneth Small, Clifford Winston, and Carol A. Evans, Road Work: A New Highway 

Pricing and Investment Policy Brookings, 1989. 20Martin Wachs, ‘‘Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance,’’ in Taking the 

High Road: A Metropolitan Agenda for Transportation Reform, B. Katz and R. Puentes, eds., 

Brookings, 2005. 21The GAO recently pointed out that states simply substitute federal funds for spending they 

would have otherwise had to generate themselves. In other words, instead of funding transportation projects the federal money is, in effect, paying for state tax relief or general state spending. U.S. GAO, ‘‘Federal-Ad Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and Options for Future 

Program Design,’’ GAO-04-802, 2004. 22 ‘‘Key Transportation Indicators: Summary of a Workshop,’’ Janet Norwood and Jamie 

Casey, eds. National Research Council, 2002. 23Mortimer Downey, ‘‘Legislative Considerations for Long Term Policy Change,’’ Prepared for 

the Regional Plan Association National Roundtable on Surface Transportation, Tarrytown, New 

York, February 20-22, 2007.

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you for your presentation. 

I yield my time to Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. 

And again, I appreciate the panel’s patience in sticking with us. 

And I just thought that the testimony here was spectacular. 

I wish that our colleagues could have this tattooed not indelibly 

but just for a while on their forearms because what we have heard 

in terms of the assessment of the problem, what we have heard 

that there is a consensus coming from the business community of 

the need to forge a coalition to deal meaningfully with the competitiveness, efficiency, Mr. Puentes talking about some of the policy 

problems, I truly believe, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ryan, that there 

is an opportunity here. 

66

We get into lots of partisan unpleasantness here in part because 

it is our job and there is a role for that. But the testimony we are 

hearing here does not need to be partisan. It is not. And what we 

heard was I thought very balanced in terms of here is the problem, 

here are legitimate areas that need to be explored in terms of 

squeezing more value out of the system, but that we do not want 

to get hung up in ideology and we do not want to ignore the problems. 

And I am hopeful that, Mr. Chairman, with you and the Ranking 

Member that there is actually a possibility for us to explore this 

further because I think this is a very powerful concept. It has absolutely got to happen in a very short time frame because as Janet 

pointed out, because of the vagaries of what is going to happen 

with the federal funding rules, we are going to be doing some pretty draconian stuff if the trust fund is exhausted and it is going to 

magnify the downside, while it is going to make it harder to get 

these big issues before us. 

And I am hopeful. You know, I would love to take both of you 

to dinner and just talk about whether this could be one of the areas 

that we can fashion, that we can fashion a way to talk about it——

Chairman SPRATT. For the record, we decline the dinner on the 

basis it may violate the ‘‘Ethics Act,’’ but go ahead. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. No. We can do that. We can do that. 

Chairman SPRATT. Okay. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Yeah. Anyway, I want to put three things on 

the table and invite reactions, but I do want to come back. I mean, 

I really appreciate this hearing. I think it is important and I think 

it is something that can get us past the politics in a way that is 

unique around here. And I think it will help us with other stuff. 

One, Mr. Puentes, there are a couple of things you did not say 

that was in your testimony about issues of a capital budget, the 

failure of privatization to be a magic silver bullet, and the fact that 

for all the hoopla about earmarks, and we do beat up on our Republican friends for having given us those, it is a relatively minor 

portion of the overall problem and it does not have that much distortion in terms of the end of the day. 

So we can talk about reform, but that is not going to get us to 

what we are talking about here. I would just note and invite attention to page eight of your testimony. 

Three things that I am interested in comments. One is the focus 

of federal investment in metropolitan areas to deal with where 

most of the problem is in terms of congestion, economic activity, 

and freight difficulty. 

The second is a point that I raised with Secretary Peters about 

whether part of a new vision for transportation is that we have 

uniform match requirements and we have the same standard of accountability for any transportation project, that we are not going 

to pick winners and losers, we are not going to have some people 

jump through big hoops, some people jump through little hoops, 

some people do not jump through hoops at all. 

And the third notion here is the extent to which we can merge 

this discussion with what we are going to be doing in a carbon constrained economy. 

67

If any of you three care to comment on a metropolitan focus 

where the problem is, leveling the playing field right now, and the 

impact of this other larger conversation that we are having. 

Mr. PUENTES. Thank you, Congressman Blumenauer. I will jump 

in. Just quickly, I appreciate your framing. I think that you are exactly right. 

And the reality is that now here in the 21st century that we are 

a metropolitan nation, that metropolitan areas are where the bulk 

of our economic activity are. They are where most of our population 

lives. They are hubs for immigration. They are where all transit activity is. It is where freight is being moved. So the focus on the 

metropolitan level is absolutely critical to the nation going forward. 

The Federal Transportation Program back in 1991 actually was 

very innovative in this regard by holding up metropolitan areas, 

giving more authority to MPOs, metropolitan playing organizations, to do more things, gave them more funding, but it also dealt 

them a rather weak hand. 

We made some nods to metropolitan decision making, but we still 

have the same structure in place that was designed to build the 

interstates. We really need to shift the program so it really does 

invest in those places that matter most to the national economy 

which is our metropolitan areas. 

We know from some analysis that we have done that when it is 

left up the states that they actually disproportionately spend 

money away from metropolitan areas. These studies are very difficult to do because we do not know exactly where states are spending for the most part. But in the states where we have done this 

analysis, we see that most of the spending is going away from 

these metros. 

We have the donor donee debate on the federal level. It is surprising that we do not have that on the state level. I do not think 

we necessarily should, but I think if metro areas knew that the 

same issue was going on within their states, we would have a very 

different conversation. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Your analysis, I think it was Brookings that 

did the analysis of the donor donee regions, I thought was great 

fun. We had difficulty engaging people in the Transportation Committee about that donor donee. 

Ms. Kavinoky, I guess we are getting where we are winding 

down, but do you have any comment on leveling the playing field, 

the focus? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Sure. Let me make a comment on the focus of 

federal investment in metro areas because clearly that is where 

business is concentrated. 

But in addition to focusing on investment, perhaps we are talking primarily about highways and transit, we have to remember 

that the transportation system connects the nation. And in doing 

that connection, some of those connections go through places like 

my home state of Wyoming where, in fact, I am not sure there are 

metro areas, at least above 50,000 people. 

So I think you are right in pointing out that we need to pay attention especially to congestion issues and where these are really 

the hubs of the economy but continue to ensure connectivity nationwide while we are doing that. 

68

I think that the extent to which we merge the discussion in 

terms of carbon constrained economy is a broader discussion that 

the entire community needs to have about the interplay between 

transportation, energy, and the environment. 

And certainly with the U.S. Chamber, we are exploring that discussion now of how we have consistent policies to expand our energy production, to expand our transportation system, but to do so 

in a way that is very conscious of the awareness we now have of 

carbon issues. And I think there will be more coming out in that 

area. 

You specifically ask about the uniform match requirements and 

I think you make an interesting point. I am not sure without really 

being able to think it through where the Chamber would come 

down on this, but, in fact, I think in general, the process should 

not favor one over the other, that if you have got to have a level 

playing field in decision making, if you are going to have true alternatives, it would be logical to say what do we do about things like 

match requirements. But that is certainly something we will have 

to explore a little further. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

Mr. Sunshine, anything? 

Mr. SUNSHINE. I think the theme that has been resonating 

around the room here about having people pay the full cost of what 

they impose on society by driving or whatever it is that they are 

doing is similar in the carbon charge situation as it is in the transportation situation. 

And the question a number of people have raised is are people 

making the right decisions from an economic and efficiency point 

of view in their transportation choices if we do not charge them 

somehow or other the full cost of what they are doing which is really the same thing that carbon charges are aimed at doing. And the 

philosophy of the two is the same thing. 

And the broad economic cost of people’s transportation choices 

are very significant and having them bear those costs or at least 

understand what those costs are can affect their behavior just as 

the carbon charges do. 

In terms of the investment in metropolitan areas, the political 

process as it works tends to sort of spread money around to all 

kinds of places. I think it is hard to focus and say, all right, the 

most important national priority in terms of the economy and the 

well-being of our people is to focus on this particular area or these 

particular types of areas and we have to dedicate substantial sums 

of money to those. 

And it would be nice if we as a nation could say to focus our investment on the most important areas. We tend to spread stuff 

around a lot and we tend to have trouble making those judgments. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And I would just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by 

saying I think that is a product which our other witnesses have alluded to of not having a valid, functioning national vision now. In 

the absence of something that we are for, then we have a reflex towards the way we have always done it. We have a reflex to enable 

people to get in because there is no rational way on the State Departments of Transportation or the other actors and actresses in 

the system to be able to make decisions. 

69

My experience in having these transportation conversations 

around the country in a wide variety of different communities is 

that actually the public is pretty much in accord. The public does 

believe in connectivity. They understand that. The public has a 

tendency towards fixing it first, not have bridges collapse before 

you start doing exotic expansions to the infrastructure that you do 

not have money to support in terms of operations and maintenance. 

My experience is that when people get in that framework, they 

actually find a great deal of common ground and it is not as fractured. It is the political process that does not have the guidance of 

the overarching concept. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude by saying how much 

I appreciate this discussion, your patience and that of the people 

who have testified today. I would like to work with you to see if 

there is a way that we can provide a framework, work with our 

friends, Ranking Member, and others on the Minority side to see 

if there is a way to expand while we focus this decision because I 

think the things that we heard from the Chamber, what we heard 

from our friends at Brookings on the policy side, we could get the 

same thing from the American Enterprise Institute and the Truckers Association and a half dozen unions and environmentalists. 

I think there is an emerging consensus, and our Committee, I 

think, is strategically placed to be able to get into the big picture 

because we are facing a crisis and there is a huge, I think, federal 

opportunity. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude by thanking you for allowing this hearing to proceed and hope that there is a way that 

we might fine tune some of this discussion and put it on the agenda before we move into the next budget cycle which is going to 

bring this to a head. 

Chairman SPRATT. Well, clearly for us, our Committee, this discussion has just begun. We have limited jurisdiction, but we can 

at least propose ideas to the primary Committee of jurisdiction. 

And I think given your lead, that is something we should be giving 

serious consideration to. 

Whenever you see the Chamber of Commerce come here and testify and say, number one, we have chronic underinvestment that 

is contributing to problems across all modes of transportation; 

number two, to ensure the Highway Trust Fund is sufficient to 

support the guaranteed funding levels in SAFETEA-LU, Congress 

should not ensure the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund by cutting obligation limits for the federal highway department, that 

means you are for sustaining existing spending if not more. 

And then on page ten, yet, even with these approaches, there is 

no question as a nation, we are going to have to find and invest 

more public dollars in our public infrastructure. 

You all said that, but to have the Chamber say that and sort of 

unabashedly recognize the need for robust funding as part of the 

solution, I know you are saying different ways of funding, different 

ways of rationalizing the problem, but nevertheless you are not 

backing away from the need to have adequate funding and to avoid 

cuts, spending cuts. 

Now, the Secretary would not give us an answer to the question, 

and I can understand why. Both of us being politicians, we do not 

70

always want to give the hard answer, but she was rather disparaging of gasoline taxes in her testimony. When I asked is there any 

reasonable substitute in the near term, I think the answer was implicitly no. 

Do you feel the same way, that primarily we are going to have 

to rely upon gasoline taxes for the lion’s share of our transportation 

funding for some time into the future? All three of you, the panel. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will start, and thank you 

for your kind words towards the Chamber. 

We fully believe that infrastructure investment is not a matter 

of tax and spend as it has been characterized at times during this 

hearing, but it is about investing and growing in the economy. This 

is one area where the government does bear responsibility. 

To answer your direct question, the gas tax which is really the 

closest approximation we have to a user fee is not dead. The encouragement of hybrid vehicles or increased fuel efficient vehicles 

is not expected for quite some time. And currently user fees on fuel 

are the simplest, fairest, most understandable way to collect revenues. 

And as they do produce about 90 percent of the revenue into the 

Highway Trust Fund, I think at least for the next surface transportation authorization bill, that is where we have to look for the principal source of funding. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Puentes. 

Mr. PUENTES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also agree. I think that in the short term, the gas tax is still 

the dominant source of revenues that go into the federal transportation trust fund. It is still rising. There is no question about it. 

It is still generating more and more revenue each year. 

We do know that in the future, as more fuel efficient vehicles 

take hold and as vehicle miles traveled begins to plateau and level 

off and decline in some cases, that there is a long-term challenge 

that we are facing. And I think that as a nation, we have already 

begun that discussion, which is very positive, to look at other 

sources in the long term. 

But for the short term, I do not think there is any question that 

the gas tax is going to remain the dominant revenue source not 

just on the federal level but within states all across the country. 

It is the dominant source in most states. 

Some states do have tolls as the dominant source or some states 

have federal revenues as the dominant sources, but the gas tax is 

ubiquitous all across the country. And I do not think there is any 

doubt that it will continue to play a role. 

The interesting thing about the gas tax is that as was mentioned, 

it also has other benefits as well, that when we have conversations 

around climate change and living in a carbon constrained world, 

the gas tax could have a profound impact on that in terms of reducing the amount of driving, perhaps changing travel patterns a little 

bit, and strengthening the metropolitan areas by helping to stem 

the tide of massive decentralization that exists all across the country. 

So it is not hyperbole to say the gas tax is going to be the source 

of funding for the near future and it is going to be a long time before it is replaced. 

71

Chairman SPRATT. Director Sunshine. 

Mr. SUNSHINE. I agree with the general responses. I mean, the 

problem is that the gas tax at its current amount is not going to 

be sufficient to even pay for the level of spending that we are already at, much less any increase, so that if you want to go with 

the gas tax as the primary funding mechanism, it has got to 

change. 

I think these other techniques offer some promise in the future 

and I think it is useful for the government to think of ways to encourage experiments in these areas to see what kinds of things 

work and what kinds of things do not work in various places in the 

country so that when we get to the point a decade or more into the 

future, perhaps where we as a nation want to go to one of these 

different kinds of systems, we have had some experimentation 

going on to see how they work. 

Chairman SPRATT. It is hard to believe you can do even in the 

foreseeable future differential pricing of all the major transportation nexuses and systems in this country. It is just hard to believe that you could put that in place. You could do it in the center 

of London. You could do it in the center of Manhattan. But it would 

be hard to do in 50 different states in numerous different ways. 

Down to practical details. What happens when the trust fund is 

short of funding to meet its obligation limits? Legally what happens if the trust fund, if there is a deficit in the Highway Trust 

Fund? 

Mr. SUNSHINE. I believe that the Department of Transportation 

would have to stop reimbursing states for the funds that they have 

spent. The trust fund does not have the authority to borrow. There 

are no other resources available to it. 

So obligations would have to be constrained and the federal government would not have the resources, the legal authority to reimburse the states which lay out the money initially for the various 

projects. 

Chairman SPRATT. Does that mean to avoid that problem, we 

have to rescind contract authority or outstanding contract authority which has not been used up or change the obligation limits? 

Mr. SUNSHINE. The most immediate tool in terms of affecting the 

cash flow are the obligation limits. But the money in the fund 

spends out pretty slowly. If you reduce an obligation in 2009, it is 

going to save you very little in outlays in 2009. 

These are capital projects, a lot of them, and less than 20, maybe 

20 percent or so, depending on whether it is transit or highway, 

you would actually save in outlays in the first year. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. One of you said 40 percent? 

Mr. SUNSHINE. Yeah. You have to have a big cut, 40 percent or 

so, in 2009 in order to save actually even a relatively small amount 

of outlays. And so that is the other problem. And we are already 

into 2008. 

Chairman SPRATT. Ms. Kavinoky, one of the biggest opponents of 

tolls has been the trucking and transportation industry, the surface 

transportation industry. Am I correct? How does the Chamber 

stand on tolls of existing roads or tolls of new roads that would be 

partially funded by financing based upon the toll revenue? 

72

Ms. KAVINOKY. Mr. Chairman, we have run into an interesting 

fact as we look at our own policies within the Chamber and that 

is that they have not been updated for several years. So our official 

policy positions do not even address tolling. 

I will tell you that we are engaged in a conversation with all of 

our members and that includes the American Trucking Associations and our members there, the business community, the shippers, and Chambers of Commerce to decide what exactly we do 

need to say about tolling. 

We do have some principles, however, in our policies that I think 

will stand which is that revenues that are collected from the use 

of infrastructure need to go back to benefit the use of that infrastructure. So you should not be collecting tolls and then sending 

that money off to some other program in a community or in a state. 

And I believe we will also encourage that if tolls are collected at 

some point that those who are paying tolls actually see the benefits 

of them and not just a promise of benefits, but true benefits. 

In my conversations with our colleagues in the trucking community, they have said, you know, we can understand tolls, but we 

want to make sure that we actually get something out of what we 

are paying, not that we are being punished for driving. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Puentes. 

Mr. PUENTES. I cannot speak to the reactions from the trucking 

community, but I will say that the interesting thing, again tying 

it to the conversation around the gas tax, is a lot of the interest 

in tolling nowadays in Manhattan and some other places has been 

not to raise revenues but has been to get to some other goals and 

objectives. 

I was surprised the Secretary did not talk about the congestion 

program that they have now at the DOT where they are awarding 

funds to certain metropolitan areas that are trying to look at some 

of these market mechanisms to mitigate the growth in traffic congestion and trying to get some other challenges as well. 

So how tolling intersects with, again, time of day travel, with 

congestion relief, with the climate change, and carbon issues as we 

talked about earlier, these are really where some of the more powerful benefits for tolling are. And we just in this country really 

have not exploited them as much as we can. 

Your example of London is a good one. There are dozens of places 

that are experimenting with this across the country and the U.S. 

is really far behind in that regard. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Blumenauer, have you any further questions? 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. No. 

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you once again for your testimony, for 

your presentations. We look forward to working with you. 

I ask unanimous consent that all members who did not have the 

opportunity to put questions to our witnesses have seven days to 

submit questions for the record. 

Thank you very much for coming. 

The Committee is now adjourned. 

73

[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ