By Lisa Caruso
Mary Peters served as President George W. Bush's secretary of Transportation from 2006 to 2008 and as the head of the Federal Highway Administration from 2001 to 2005. During her tenure she proved an advocate of market-based approaches to transportation problems. An Arizona native, Peters returned to her home state in 2008 and is currently consulting for Zachry American Infrastructure, which promotes private investment in infrastructure projects, and the engineering firm HDR. She spoke this week with National Journal about how best to pay for the infrastructure improvements the country needs.
NJ: The surface transportation law expired at the end of last month, and Congress only extended it for 30 days. How much longer should it be extended in order to complete reauthorization -- until the end of the year, as House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., has urged, or 18 months, which the administration and the Senate favor?
Peters: I would endorse where the administration and the Senate have been. If this is really important, we need to get it right, as opposed to rushing something through. We need to focus a little further out into the future so that we can get widespread agreement on what we need to do with the next program.
NJ: What do you think the priorities for reauthorization should be?
Peters: One of the things that I'm advocating for is a billion dollars a year for technology. We can use technology significantly better than we are today to improve what I call the "through-put" of our transportation system, to get it to operate better in places where we can't build fast enough and where we can't build any more. We need to look at performance-based systems, key performance measures and what we are trying to accomplish with the money we spend.
NJ: What sorts of performance measures?
Peters: Two main ones. One is congestion -- how can we reduce congestion and improve the reliability and predictability of our commutes. The second is dealing with logistics costs, which just in the past four years have gone up more than $400 billion. Safety is important as well.
NJ: How should we pay for the next surface transportation bill? Increase the gas tax?
Peters: I'm not necessarily a fan of doing that because it perpetuates our dependence on the gas tax. I would prefer to see the program more narrowly tailored to those things that are truly in the federal interest. So focus clearly on what the federal role should be, spend the gas tax money that's coming in from there and lift the restrictions on private investment, on tolling, on pricing and other things so that state and local governments can take advantage of private sector money that is out there and is available to be spent on transportation.
NJ: So if there were any new revenue sources for the program, it would come from the private sector?
Peters: Yes, more money from the private sector and an evolution to a vehicle-miles-traveled methodology for paying for transportation at some point in the not-too-distant future.
NJ: Congress just extended the existing FAA authorization for the eighth time in two years rather that tackle the funding issue. Is that irresponsible, to leave the agency and its programs in limbo for so long?
Peters: I'm not going to use the work "irresponsible" but certainly we do need to come to terms with aviation funding and give ourselves more surety about what's going to happen with those programs and how those programs are going to be regulated in the future. One of the things that we absolutely have to do is move into the NextGen air traffic control system and to the satellite-based system and begin to manage air traffic that way. Why are we still managing air traffic with ground-based radar that was put in place after World War II.?
NJ: What's holding us back?
Peters: It's who pays, how much and how we pay for it. We had advocated, in the Bush administration, a user fee. I also believe that some of the tools that we're seeing work so well in surface transportation, enabled by technology, like variable pricing and demand pricing, which get us up to 40 percent greater through-put with the same configuration of infrastructure, can work in the skies as well.
NJ: In both aviation and surface transportation, policy-makers are struggling with how to pay for necessary improvements to those systems. What's the answer, in your view?
Peters: People should think differently about how they pay for transportation. The more directly the user fee relates to use of the system, the more closely we can relate what we pay with how we use the system, and we're going to be able to manage the system significantly better because people can adjust their use of the system.
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Insider Interviews does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
Responded on October 8, 2009 11:13 AM
Kenneth Orski
Former Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters was, in my judgment, one of the most creative and visionary transportation secretaries the nation has ever had. It behooves us, therefore, to pay close attention to what she has to say about the future directions of the nation’s transportation program. She wisely points out that the time may have come to limit the scope of the federal aid program to activities and investments that are truly in the federal interest. To pay for the program she recommends maintaining the current gas tax –expected to generate roughly $40 billion/year— and supplement it with tolling and private investment. Her approach reflects closely the thinking of the nation’s governors who recently passed a resolution opposing any federal restrictions on states’ ability to pursue public-private partnership arrangements, and supporting the removal of federal restrictions on states’ authority to toll federally-aided highways. In the event these revenue sources prove to be inadequate to meet the nation’s growing transportation inves...
Read More
Former Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters was, in my judgment, one of the most creative and visionary transportation secretaries the nation has ever had. It behooves us, therefore, to pay close attention to what she has to say about the future directions of the nation’s transportation program. She wisely points out that the time may have come to limit the scope of the federal aid program to activities and investments that are truly in the federal interest. To pay for the program she recommends maintaining the current gas tax –expected to generate roughly $40 billion/year— and supplement it with tolling and private investment. Her approach reflects closely the thinking of the nation’s governors who recently passed a resolution opposing any federal restrictions on states’ ability to pursue public-private partnership arrangements, and supporting the removal of federal restrictions on states’ authority to toll federally-aided highways.
In the event these revenue sources prove to be inadequate to meet the nation’s growing transportation investment needs (and they well may fall short), we should embrace the concept of a federal capital budget dedicated to transportation or a National Infrastructure Bank — ideas vigorously promoted by Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and former U.S. House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and prominently discussed at the recent National Transportation Policy Conference sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.
Collapse
Responded on October 8, 2009 6:53 PM
John
We need multi-modal mobility plus smart city design. This means a mix of transit modes, including trains (local and long-distance), buses, trolleys, and alternative forms of transit other than cars. We need intelligently designed cities where the majority of people in them can easily live without a car. We need complete streets, pedestrian protection, bicycle advocacy, and an entire way of life that is no longer focused on automobile-only travel. This woman seems clueless about these concepts, and I am glad she is no longer in office.
Responded on October 9, 2009 11:18 AM
Mike Siffer
A toll is a tax. People are against tolls.
The private money is fine for corridors where it works, but too many needs exist that private dollars are not going to be interested in.
Tolls also will lead drivers off of the freeways and on to two lane roads that are illequipped for the additional traffic. Ohio ended up rolling back a toll increase for just that reason, safety on parrallel roads.
The gas tax needs to be raised, but the 535 in Washington served to legistalate are choosing to pass our problems on to future generations with empty promises
Responded on October 11, 2009 11:55 PM
Dave Moe
It's time for a reality check. Yes, people don't like tolls and they don't like taxes. But they do like PAYGO and therein lies the problem -- people don't connect the two. I have to respectively disagree with former Secretary Peters. There should be a gas tax increase AND a phased in mileage tax. We cannot ignore our success in developing higher MPG's cars & trucks that has had the effect of reducing income to the Federal Transportation Trust Fund. There should be an off-setting gasoline tax credit for citizens who reside in rural areas where no significant mass transit facilities exist. As our engineering and technology successes in developing vehicles with higher mpg’s and utilizing alternative fuels such as natural gas and electricity there needs to be a complete utilization of the mileage tax for such vehicles. A separate mass transit transportation trust fund would also be appropriate but the courage to create it appears to be lacking at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. To do so would recognize rural areas have significant highway safety and tr...
Read More
It's time for a reality check.
Yes, people don't like tolls and they don't like taxes. But they do like PAYGO and therein lies the problem -- people don't connect the two.
I have to respectively disagree with former Secretary Peters. There should be a gas tax increase AND a phased in mileage tax. We cannot ignore our success in developing higher MPG's cars & trucks that has had the effect of reducing income to the Federal Transportation Trust Fund. There should be an off-setting gasoline tax credit for citizens who reside in rural areas where no significant mass transit facilities exist.
As our engineering and technology successes in developing vehicles with higher mpg’s and utilizing alternative fuels such as natural gas and electricity there needs to be a complete utilization of the mileage tax for such vehicles.
A separate mass transit transportation trust fund would also be appropriate but the courage to create it appears to be lacking at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. To do so would recognize rural areas have significant highway safety and transportation efficiency needs. The saying, “One size does not fit all” comes to mind.
It the gas tax is a user fee then the same is true for a mileage tax and a mass transit tax.
Recognizing this and implementing them takes political courage, education and leadership from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
I’m waiting.
Collapse
Responded on October 12, 2009 4:13 PM
Jack Kinstlinger
Much as i admire Mary Peters, I cannot agree with some of her positions. Private investment and tolls are fine and should be used wherever possible but they work primarily for a limited number of high density corridors.Tolling existing Interstates is an intriguing idea but is likely to face opposition from those who feel they have already paid.The unavoidable truth is that we need significantly increased user fees-gas taxes at present, VMT charges in a decade or two, to correct massive problems of congestion, deterioration and unsafe conditions on our roads and transit. The impetus must come from the federal government to solve what is essentially a national problem.