zation of old thinking.
ARight. The House in its wisdom has really picked up on that, and Jim Oberstar [chairman of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee] refers to it
as an authorization bill, not a reauthorization. He has very
significantly changed the way programs will be delivered.
He hasn’t come up with a secret formula for paying for it
yet. That remains an open issue, but he has really begun to
change things around and he has created within the program structure a nationwide freight program operated
through the states. He has also opened the door to federal
support for important intermodal improvement projects in
the freight arena.
QHow can the freight community be confident that money appropriated for freight will be spent on
freight-only projects?
AI think the discussion about freight fees as well as a freight trust fund, which is not currently in Oberstar’s
legislation because that is not his jurisdiction, is an effort to
assure the freight community that if they agree that
improvements are needed and if they pay in, the funds will
be segregated and used for that purpose.
The thinking is that if there is an outreach to that source
of money, the funds will not simply be another bucket in
the highway trust fund but instead be dedicated to good
solid freight projects. Now you get into some nuances there.
The truckers, for example, are very strong advocates for
investment that would improve trucking. They actually are
supportive right now of a diesel fuel tax increase. Not very
many people in Washington are.
QAt a recent conference, you noted the need for the nation to align its trade and transportation policies,
but you added that while our trade policy is aimed at 2009,
our transportation policy is vintage 1956. Can you elaborate?
AThat comes from thinking about how U.S. trade poli- cy has developed, the fact that we are now much more
involved in foreign commerce, both oceangoing commerce
with the other continents and NAFTA-related trade. It is a
very different world from where the United States was
when the last significant investments were made—
basically, the establishment of the Eisenhower interstate highway
system.
But we haven’t caught up. We don’t necessarily frame the
debate in the right terms when we make judgments. For
example, we agreed that NAFTA should go forward, but we
didn’t really debate how to make that work. So here we are,
still fighting over access for Mexican trucks to U.S. highways. There are good arguments on both sides, but we really should have thought that through.
What strikes me, and it is brought home every time I hear
about it, is that our neighbor to the north gets it. In
Canada, matters relating to foreign trade and the handling
of import and export shipments are an important part of
national policy discussions. If you look at the steps the
Canadians have taken to beef up the capability of [the Port
of] Prince Rupert and to beef up the capability of Halifax,
they are doing things that we have yet to really contemplate,
and we are going to be handed our lunch.
QWouldn’t it be interesting if the two primary mar- itime gateways to North America were not in the
United States?
AYes, or the three primary gateways. The Mexicans are looking to develop their facilities as well. I think much
of the thinking both from Canada and Mexico is driven by
how they handle their imports. I think we also have to figure out how we keep ourselves in the export business with
something other than scrap paper.
QAny closing thoughts?
AThere are some important issues here. I believe we will see in the next six to 18 months a piece of legislation
that shapes what goes on for probably the next 20 years.
That is usually the pattern when one of these bills passes—
it stays in place for a long time. This is an important round
of policy discussions. I hope those who care about freight
issues will find a way to be participants in that discussion.
