We live in a global economy. It should be of no great surprise that the successful movement of goods and services across the vast distances they must travel requires a multi-modal approach. It should also be of no great surprise that focusing on fixing problems in individual sectors (i.e., highways, rails, ports, etc.), instead of revamping our thinking and actually treating this infrastructure like an interdependent system, does not constitute a long-term, viable solution.

The Interstate Highway System is congested; so are the nation’s freight rail and aviation systems. Our inland waterways are relying on locks that are, on average, more than 50 years old; our ports are facing capacity issues in light of increasing trade. The inability of these systems to interact all too often leads to a less-than-seamless movement of goods.

All modes of our freight transportation infrastructure face serious problems, and all require serious attention. The performance of these systems is key to the success of our economy. To meet the demands we place on them the surface transportation authorization must enhance and improve connectivity and the level of service to the major intermodal terminals, including seaports, airports, rail terminals, ports of entry, and inland intermodal terminals.

Equally as important, the authorization has to include a paradigm shift that focuses on the movement of people, goods and services, rather than simply cars and trucks. The volume of freight being moved on the nation’s roadways continues to increase and is expected to double by 2035. Interstate commerce remains the historic cornerstone in defining the federal role in the nation’s transportation system. The authorization of the surface transportation program needs to provide for a strong federal role in freight mobility and intermodal connectors, and it must also include the creation of a program, funded with new dedicated revenue, to provide new capacity and operational improvements focused on securing safe, efficient movement of freight.

Richard Stroot of Rail Executable Solutions in Grapevine,
Texas, offered the following response to our question:

After seeing the peak in freight movement in 2007/2008, I would be curious to see if the 1998 study was updated to reflect the peak volumes and what the increase would be between 2010 and 2020, or has the rail industry has been set back ten years from a capacity standpoint. Does this actually reset the clock making 1998 volumes equal to 2008 volumes? The Ports of Southern CA will likely never see the volumes just two years ago. With the Panama Canal project, cargo will route to the Gulf and East Coast Ports. This is a long-term drag on the container volumes for all Class I's. Autos, well, the same applies, the imports will continue to have a field day with the US consumers with ships being able to pick and choose their port of choice. Imports generate far less freight than producing 19 million vehicles in North America. Cut that in half, maybe 9 million, the optimistic view, that too frees up tremendous capacity. With the government trying to manage two out of three US car manufacturers, the numbers will most likely be even smaller.

Next, coal, which is on the front burner for everyone, as "dirty old coal plants". Well, without a base load of coal or nuke, it will difficult to survive off the wind and sun 24/7. The energy policy needs to be balanced, not pre-industrial. With that said, the growth in PRB coal and Eastern steam coal will dwindle. Lastly, Agricultural Products, with the realization finally that Ethanol has a larger carbon footprint than fossil fuel, the end is near. States cannot subsidize the plants; the price of inputs has dropped as well. Even with that, AG does have a bright spot, as the US is the most efficient at producing corn and wheat!

To sum up, rail is the most efficient way to move freight and always will be. I see growth in the lower single digits for several years to come. With comps in 2009 off close to 25%, we need to grow by 50% to get back to where we were just two years ago, so, has that "bubble" been moved out ten more years

America’s freight railroads are the best way to meet this increased demand for freight transportation. Clean and efficient, freight railroads are a key part of the solution to our nation's freight movement challenges. The next surface transportation bill provides us with the opportunity to shape transportation policy moving forward and freight mobility should be a high priority. While freight railroads are privately owned and maintained, the federal government can enhance our ability to move these goods by incorporating pro-rail policies into the bill. I fear that ignoring investment in freight mobility will handicap our nation in terms of domestic prosperity and international competitiveness.

As a member of the Freight Stakeholder's Coalition, a coalition of shippers and public and private transportation providers, I am happy to outline our recommendations for the next surface transportation reauthorization:

• Mandate the development of a National Multimodal Freight Strategic Plan;
• Provide dedicated funds for freight mobility/goods movement;
• Authorize a state-administered freight transportation program;
• If a new freight trust fund is created, it should be firewalled, with the funds fully spent on projects that facilitate freight transportation and not used for any other purpose;
• Establish a multi-modal freight office within the Office of the Secretary;
• Form a national freight industry advisory group pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide industry input to USDOT, working in conjunction with the new multi-modal freight office;
• Fund multi-state freight corridor planning organizations;
• Build on the success of existing freight programs;
• Expand freight planning expertise at the state and local levels; and
• Foster operational and environmental efficiencies in goods movement.

Additionally, the railroad industry has advocated infrastructure tax incentives and expanded use of public-private partnerships to help increase rail capacity.

Investment in rail infrastructure has huge economic benefits. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that every $1 invested on rail infrastructure generating more than $3 back into the economy. Investing in our nation’s freight rail infrastructure now is a great investment for America’s future.

Click here for more information about the Freight Stakeholders Coalition platform.

The Freight Stakeholder Coalition, of which our CAGTC group is a member, released a reauthorization platform today that directly addresses this week's question. This consensus document is particularly notable for the array of organizations (listed at the end) endorsing the common theme of a dedicated national freight program and funding:

FREIGHT STAKEHOLDERS COALITION

2009 Surface Transportation Reauthorization Platform

The Freight Stakeholders Coalition represents shippers and public and private transportation providers working together to support policies to promote freight mobility in the United States. The Coalition believes that the next surface transportation authorization bill must maintain a strong federal role and provide for the creation of a national freight program.

We are unified in our conviction that substantial investment in the nation’s freight transportation system must be given a high priority in the next authorization. Without such investment, the performance of all modes of goods movement will continue to deteriorate and our country will pay a high price in terms of domestic prosperity and international competitiveness.

The Federal government must continue to play a strong and focused role in shaping the future of our nation’s surface transportation policy. The federal government should lead in furthering America’s competitive advantage by developing projects of regional and national significance which reduce congestion, enhance goods movement, improve the environment, and create and maintain jobs. In addition, freight mobility should be a key factor in any performance standards established by Congress or the Department of Transportation.

We are committed to working together, with the Congress, the Administration and other important interests, to develop the public-private consensus necessary to develop a freight transportation policy and program that will meet the needs of the nation.

The Freight Stakeholders Coalition has agreed to the following principles for the upcoming surface transportation authorization legislation:

1. Mandate the development of a National Multimodal Freight Strategic Plan. The next surface transportation authorization should mandate the development of a National Multimodal Freight Strategic Plan. The development of this plan should be led by the U.S. Department of Transportation, in partnership with state DOTs, cities, counties, MPOS and regional planning organizations, ports, freight shippers, freight carriers, and other stakeholders.

2. Provide dedicated funds for freight mobility/goods movement. The legislation should provide dedicated funds for freight mobility/goods movement. Dedicated funds should be provided to support capital investment in critical freight transportation infrastructure to produce major public benefits including higher productivity, enhanced global competitiveness and a higher standard of living for our nation. High priority should be given to investment in efficient goods movement on the most significant freight corridors, including investment in intermodal connectors into freight terminals and projects that support national and regional connectivity.

3. Authorize a state-administered freight transportation program. Congress should authorize a state-administered freight transportation program as a new core element of the federal highway program apportioned to states.

4. If a new freight trust fund is created, it should be firewalled, with the funds fully spent on projects that facilitate freight transportation and not used for any other purpose. Priority should be given to nationally and regionally significant infrastructure, with funds distributed through a competitive grant process using objective, merit-based criteria. Appropriate projects that are freight-related should still be eligible to compete for other federal funding sources.

5. Establish a multi-modal freight office within the Office of the Secretary. Freight mobility should be a key priority within USDOT. The Secretary’s office should have staff with freight expertise who can focus on nationally and regionally significant infrastructure.

6. Form a national freight industry advisory group pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide industry input to USDOT, working in conjunction with the new multi-modal freight office. The advisory group should befunded and staffed, and it should consist of freight transportation providers from allmodes as well as shippers and state and local planning organizations. Despite the bestefforts of the agency to function as “One DOT,” there is still not enough of a focusedvoice for freight. An Advisory Group would meet the need for regular and professionalinteraction between USDOT and the diverse freight industry, and could help identifycritical freight chokepoints in the national freight transportation system.

7. Fund multi-state freight corridor planning organizations. Given that goods often move across state lines and involve multiple modes of transportation, Congress should fund multi-state, multi-modal planning organizations that will make it possible to plan and invest in projects where costs are concentrated in a single state but benefits are distributed among multiple states.

8. Build on the success of existing freight programs. There are numerous existing transportation programs that facilitate freight mobility and are demonstrably valuable. A new national freight policy should continue and strengthen these core programs or build on their principles and successes to guide freight program development if DOT is restructured and/or program areas are consolidated.

Examples of these successful core freight programs are the Projects of Regional and National Significance, National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program; Freight Planning Capacity Building Program; Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, National Cooperative Freight Transportation Research Program; Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program; Private Activity Bonds for Intermodal Facilities; Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation Projects; Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF); Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, Truck Parking Pilot Program, and Rail-Highway Crossings. Funding for discretionary programs should be awarded through a competitive grant process.

9. Expand freight planning expertise at the state and local levels. Given the importance of freight mobility to the national economy, States and MPOs should be provided additional funds for expert staff positions dedicated to freight issues (commensurate to the volumes of freight moving in and through their areas). All states should have a freight plan as a tool for planning investments and for linking to the national freight system.

10. Foster operational and environmental efficiencies in goods movement. As in other aspects of transportation, improvements designed to achieve long term sustainability in goods movement are desirable to meet both commercial objectives— economy and efficiency—and public objectives—energy security and reduced environmental impact. Federal policy should employ positive approaches to enhance freight system efficiency and throughput with the goal of reducing energy consumption and green house gas emissions.

American Association of Port Authorities

Susan Monteverde

(703) 684-5700

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Leo Penne

(202) 624-5813

American Trucking Associations

Darrin Roth

(703) 838-1900

Association of American Railroads

Jennifer Macdonald

(202) 639-2533

Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors

Leslie Blakey

(202) 828-9100

Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

Rick Blasgen

(630) 645-3458

Inland Rivers Ports and Terminals Inc.

Deidre McGowan

(601) 352-4778

Intermodal Association of North America

Joni Casey

(301) 982-3400

National Association of Manufacturers

Robyn Boerstling

(202) 637-3178

National Association of Regional Councils

Fred Abousleman

(202) 986-1032

National Association of Waterfront Employers

Paul Bea

(202) 587-4821

National Industrial Transportation League

Bruce Carlton

(703) 524-5011

National Retail Federation

Jonathan Gold

(202) 626-8193

Retail Industry Leaders Association

Kelly Kolb

(703) 600-2064

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Janet F. Kavinoky

(202) 544-0060

Waterfront Coalition

Robin Lanier

(202) 861-0825

World Shipping Council

Anne Kappel

(202) 589-1235

Already, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates the annual cost of simply maintaining our current highway system is 12 percent more than the government is actually spending. The current administration cannot afford to limit its role in transportation policy but, instead, must prioritize interstate commerce and national security.

It must develop a long-term vision, with multimodal infrastructure investments that go beyond the highway system and stretch our imaginations: an increased load of freight rail to minimize highway congestion, a national system of Critical Commerce Corridors as proposed by ARTBA that moves truck freight safely while separating it from passenger traffic, eco-friendly transit lines that ease congestion.

It's time to get creative, to reinvent our transportation system and adopt groundbreaking concepts that are part of a strategic approach framed at the federal level. Recent stimulus funding should not be confused, or substituted, for reauthorization and long-term solutions.

Discussions about funding mechanisms must be inventive and plentiful. Potential sources could include the following:

Increase the gas tax and tie it to inflation. Create state infrastructure banks. Replace or supplement the gas tax with user fees, which would be tied to vehicle miles traveled, and tolls. Allow public-private partnerships where they make sense.

The possibilities are limited only by the imagination.

By 2020, the United States will depend on trucks to deliver nearly 71 percent of overall freight tonnage, representing almost 84 percent of total U.S. freight revenue. With the overwhelming majority of freight transported on our nation’s highways, the next surface transportation bill can best serve American businesses and the economy by addressing inefficiencies in the National Highway System.

Traffic congestion caused by freight bottlenecks poses a great threat to U.S. productivity. This is especially true in our world of sensitive just-in-time logistics systems. The Texas Transportation Institute's 2007 Urban Mobility Report indicates that congestion creates a $78 billion annual drain on the U.S. economy in the form of 4.2 billion lost hours and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel. The Federal Highway Administration fears that these problems will worsen as the economy grows and generates more demand for truck freight shipments.

The federal fuel tax remains the most sensible solution for funding crucial highway investments. While other forms of funding may be useful in the future, the federal fuel tax remains the least expensive, most efficient source of highway funding available today.

There has been a great deal of discussion about alternative funding schemes for infrastructure investment. While some of these may have merit over time, ATA believes there should be one simple test for evaluating alternatives to the fuel tax: what percentage of revenue goes toward infrastructure? At present, 99 cents out of every dollar collected in fuel tax revenue goes to building bridges and highways. Schemes like tolling, VMT taxes and various freight fees can carry as much as 25-30 percent in administrative and compliance costs. That’s money not going to building our infrastructure. It’s really quite simple: pay a dollar and get 99 cents in infrastructure benefits.

The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association represents over 550 small freight railroads that operate over 50,000 miles of track throughout the national railroad system. These railroads could be considered the most vulnerable part of the nation’s rail network because they serve tens of thousands of small towns and local businesses who would otherwise lose their connection to the main line railroad network and thus, access to global markets.

Short lines must invest heavily in repairing and maintaining track. They reinvest nearly 30% of their annual revenues in their infrastructure, a higher percentage than any other industry in the country. It is critical that we preserve the ability of small railroads to help freight move. If we do not, that traffic will divert onto other modes struggling to deal with growing demand.

The existing short line tax credit has helped these small railroads continue to aggressively invest in the nation’s rail infrastructure. Specific examples of how the tax credit has already helped freight move can be found here.

The tax credit is set to expire on December 31, 2009 and should be extended to protect the critical role played by the small railroads in our nation’s transportation network.

The United States has neither a national goods movement strategy nor a federal freight program in our surface transportation law. This omission is quite startling, given the constitutional mandate for the Congress "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states . . ." Like Mort Downey and several other bloggers, I hope this omission can be rectified in the new authorization following the expiration of SAFETEA.

As a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, I participated in the hearings we held around the country. I think the best answer we heard to the question of whether there was a continued justification for a strong federal role in surface transportation was a single word: freight. And we heard that answer repeatedly, whether we were in Los Angeles or Nashville or Minneapolis or New York.

The three key ingredients for goods movement in the next bill are: (1) a national strategy that outlines ambitious goals to speed freight travel and reduce the emissions associated with it; (2) a mode-neutral program to implement operational and infrastructure improvements; and (3) a user-based funding source to help finance the investment needed.

There are certainly plenty of issues to sort through, not least being the institutional complexity of the supply chain: municipal ownership of the ports, state ownership of the roads, and private ownership of the railroads and trucking companies. (Although traditional concerns in freight policy about investing public funds in private assets seem positively quaint in the age of TARP.) But we shouldn't let that complexity paralyze us into inaction. If we can't figure out freight in the next authorization, the whole effort will have failed.

A broad based freight advocacy group, the Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors, contends that this is one of the most critical issues in the next authorization. Without a campaign of strategic investment to expand capacity and increase efficiency, U.S. productivity and global competitiveness will weaken, costs will increase and investment will lag.

A new program should be established to address freight mobility, on all modes, by adding capacity and improving efficiency. We must focus on the system as a whole, rather than viewing the nation’s transportation infrastructure as several different systems that occasionally interact.

As it stands, passengers and freight in the U.S. compete for an inadequate supply of infrastructure capacity and financial resources. Both suffer. We should not replace or eliminate our current Federal surface transportation program. It should continue, supporting high quality transportation service for all Americans in every corner of the nation.

However, a new freight program would balance and separate these interests, especially if based on user fees and funding from outside the traditional sources. Such an approach need not be burdensome; for example, capturing a small fraction of the value of the commodities moved would generate considerable revenue.

The Coalition has proposed the creation of a Federal Freight Trust Fund (FTF) to facilitate implementation of a new, strategic freight mobility program that incorporates:

· A national strategy which guides long term planning

· A dedicated funding mechanism(s)

· Merit-based criteria for prioritizing needs

· A partnership with the private sector

As Kurt Nagle argues, all possible funding sources should be considered. Still, the Coalition believes the FTF would be served best by a new national freight fee spread across all system users as thinly and fairly as possible. Congressman Adam Smith has proposed a waybill fee of one percent of the cost of the transportation of goods and estimates such an approach would raise between $7 billion and $9 billion annually.

Additionally, a fair contribution — such as a portion of increased fuel taxes or the freight-related fees that are currently dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund, including excise taxes on truck tires and tractors — from the Federal Highway Trust Fund could appropriately reflect benefits that accrue to the broader motoring public. Other sources, such as customs fees now going to the general fund, may also be appropriate to supplement the FTF as these fees relate directly to the infrastructure used to carry the goods against which they are assessed. While the FTF would provide a dedicated source for freight project funding, participation in this program should not preclude projects from seeking funding from existing federal, state and local sources, reflecting the multiple benefits they can provide to local communities as well as to national freight movement.

Ideas for Making and Implementing Freight Policy

We need a freight policy. If we do not have explicit agreement on what we want to do then any investments made will continue to build on what has been a disjointed and incremental federal policy that has too often ignored or marginalized freight interests.

I would argue that "spreading resources around like peanut butter" has not been a particular problem on the freight side, where mobility needs, congestion, and inefficiencies have too long been ignored. Certainly we should spend any available monies responsibly according to system needs and public goals. As the two commissions, the BPC, and others have been saying, it is vital that we get agreement on national goals and what outcomes we want to deliver, not only for freight but for the rest of the federal transportation program as well.

While I agree with Kurt and Janet othat investments to alleviate congestion in so-called "hot spots" and intermodal transfer points is important, targeting those investments properly in something that has only been done in a handful of instances and, in a networked business, one has to be careful not just to push the problem upstream or to solve yesterday's problem. While the task is complicated, federal data (commensurate with federal goals) helps as does a requirement to bring private money to the table to ensure due diligence has been accomplished on the overall market and the needs of shippers.

I also agree that better planning locally will help. We just don't do public-private, multi-jurisdiction planning well. This is a problem that goes well beyond MPOs and states to include the so-called megaregions and national corridors. An upcoming report from TRB on that subject (with good folks such as George Schoner and Matt Coogan driving it) will provide good data and ideas on the subject for the upcoming reauthorization.

Freight rail is certainly in fashion (as the ads accompanying this page attest), but I don't think the policy community is yet certain what the rail industry wants from the federal government, beyond an Investment Tax Credit and no new burdensome regulations. For its part, the USDOT has yet to make it clear what role it wants to play with freight policy and investments and what grant obligations and other expectations will come if it provides federal dollars to benefit private (as well as public) interests. Having said that, it is hard not to be optimstic when freight CEOs have been communicating that they are willing to be partners on moving goods more sustainablly and want to help to improve passenger rail service. A conversation about appropriate federal and private roles is sorely needed.

It is also true that one of the best ways to improve the movement of freight is to improve the conditions of our highways. While some long-haul traffic can be diverted, almost every rail move requires a truck move, often in very congested urban areas. Whatever calculus is used, you don't have to be Greg Cohen or Bill Graves to acknowledge that targeted highway infrastructure improvements will deliver some of the best mobility and air quality returns in any future transportation program.

And, as Jim May and Greg Principato couldl no doubt add, we should not forget about air cargo, which although small in tonnage compared to maritime or rail, provides the highest value cargo moved in the system. Its substantial value needs to be front and center in both air and highway investments.

Steve Van Beek

The thought that freight investment is something that should be a part of the next surface transportation bill is welcome news--it's what many of us have been saying for the past several years and it helps make the case that there are national interests at stake in this legislation. Now we need to be sure we do it right

The Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors, of which I'm an active member, has been preaching this issue since the beginning of the decade, but what I have to say in this post are my own views, as the Coalition continues to refine its message for the upcoming debate.

The inclusion of freight focus in the surface transportation programs needs to be an across the board committment, just has been the case in passenger transport for so many years. And it needs to come with a strong financial commitment to assure that its promise can be delivered.

The key new component in a freight program would be the ability for federal leadership in making critical and major investments that can support greater efficiency across the system. This was the hope for SAFETEA-LU's Projects of National and Regional Significance, but the inclusion of earmarks made for subobtimal results. The new guidelines for the Recovery Act TIGER Discretionary Grant Program offer the promise that merit-based decisions can be undertaken. The new legislation should follow the TIGER model with an emphasis on freight. The funding mechanisms should be very flexible to accomodate the likely public and private interests that are inherent in such major projects and to take advantage of revenue financing opportunities.

Other elements of the legislation should move freight investments into a position of parity with the traditional program components. Greater eligibility for use of formula funds will give states and localities the opportunity to make good priority choices. Freight should be given emphasis in the transportation planning process, with a requirment for formal freight plans by states and metropolitan planning organizations. Good decision making on freight will only come about when we invest in human and intellectual capital by supporting freight research and training. And the Department of Transportation should review its organization structure to assure that goods movement has a home.

FInally, and perhaps most importantly, there needs to be a solid plan of finance for this new area. You can make the case for revenues coming from freight movement, in a variety of possible ways, reflecting the benefits that will accrue. But we need to assure that these revenues are used appropriately, by dedicating them to a Freight Trust Fund or a special account within a broader transportation trust fund.

The quality of our transportation system is an important component in our national competitive position. Other nations are making clear their intention to challenge our economy. A solid investment as part of the surface transportation bill will signal our commitment to meet the challenge.

The Railroad and Public Transportation Advisory Council of ARTBA , of which I serve as Chair,has recently adopted a Policy position that advocates the following:

US DOT shopuld regularly assess passenger and freight rail infrastructiure investment needs

Abandoned rail ROW should be protected or recaptured for rail and transportation purposes.

Federal tax incentives should be enacted to encourage private investment in rail improvements

Federal innovative financing assistance programs-TIFIA and RRIF- should be expanded

Public Private partnerships should be created with contributions commensurate with benefits received

A dedicated funding mechanism-user fees paid by railroads and shippers should be enacted to ensure adequate freight rail capital investment

A federal program utilizing a tax exempt or tax credit bond mechanism should be created to provide public sector contribution to freight rail improvements.

The key to reducing congestion and improving the movement of freight lies with expanding and improving our rail system. As my colleague Phillip Longman wrote in an article for Washington Monthly last February:

"In a study recently presented to the National Academy of Engineering, the Millennium Institute, a nonprofit known for its expertise in energy and environmental modeling, calculated the likely benefits of an expenditure of $250 billion to $500 billion on improved rail infrastructure. It found that such an investment would get 83 percent of all long-haul trucks off the nation’s highways by 2030, while also delivering ample capacity for high-speed passenger rail. If high-traffic rail lines were also electrified and powered in part by renewable energy sources, that investment would reduce the nation’s carbon emission by 39 percent and oil consumption by 15 percent. By moderating the growing cost of logistics, it would also leave the nation’s economy 10 percent larger by 2030 than it would otherwise be."

Obviously, $250 billion to $500 billion over ten years is a significant investment, especially when you consider other federal priorities such as health care and energy efficiency. But because such an investment would create jobs, and could be done in partnership with states and private entitities such as the railroad companies, the federal share would be considerably less. In addition, the improved track could also be used to expand passenger rail service. Finally, since this plan would reduce carbon emissions by as much as 39 percent, directing some of the revenues from a cap and trade system could help finance the investment in rail on a pay as you go basis, thus making the investment deficit neutral.

The successor to SAFETEA-LU is only one piece of a complex set of laws and regulations that have to be coordinated with one another in order to accommodate future freight transportation demand.

Strictly speaking, the principal role of the next surface transportation bill with regard to freight is setting the goals, establishing the programs and providing adequate funding for the maintenance, modernization and expansion of the Interstate and National Highway Systems, and the roads that connect to border crossings, ports (sea, inland waterway, Great Lakes, and air) and distribution facilities across the country.

Instead of simply spreading around money like peanut butter, the SAFETEA-LU successor should aim to get the most “bang for the buck” by targeting the congestion hot spots that slow or stop traffic; raise costs for businesses and consumers; make the just-in-time delivery system of the nation less reliable; and threaten energy security and environmental quality. In some cases the solutions will be to make existing infrastructure smarter and more efficient, and in some there will have to be more physical capacity. I like the FHWA white paper “An Initial Assessment of Freight Bottlenecks on Highways” as a framework for thinking about these priorities. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/bottlenecks/index.htm)

Title 23 articulates state and metropolitan planning requirements/ SAFETEA-LU reauthorization should ensure that planning, especially in urban areas, considers freight needs. This means that even transit plays a role in facilitating freight transportation in urban areas by reducing congestion so trucks can move to their destinations more efficiently. After all, there is not much of an alternative for the produce, packages and products consumed by the majority of Americans to reach their final destinations.

In addition, two commissions, plus several other studies, recommend that the next highway and transit bill create a way to identify, prioritize and provide resources to projects that have national benefits and facilitate multi-state and multi-agency coordination. The questions when it comes to a “projects of national and regional significance” program will be who makes the decisions and what are the funding sources and the financing tools.

Now, let me point out what SAFETEA-LU reauthorization won’t do.

The next “surface transportation bill” generally doesn’t address one of the major surface transportation modes, freight rail, although it is likely to continue support for rail-highway grade crossings. How will Congress and the Obama Administration factor freight rail into the nation’s transportation plan? Freight rail is one mode of transportation where private capital is the source of infrastructure maintenance, modernization and capacity expansion, and the federal government provides credit support and could allow an investment tax credit to support capacity enhancements.

SAFETEA-LU reauthorization won’t address the backlog of maintenance for the locks, dams, levees, and dredging projects that are critical for the reliability and efficiency of our inland waterways and ports. Waterways transport more than 60% of the nation’s grain exports, about 22% of domestic petroleum, and 20% of the coal used in electricity generation. But those improvements will have to wait for the Water Resources Development Act – and whether the Army Corps on Engineers transportation mission is coordinated with surface transportation policy remains to be seen.

Finally, any company using the nation’s transportation system to move goods will tell you that the productivity of the supply chain is related to the operation of infrastructure and not just the physical infrastructure itself. The efficiency, reliability and productivity of transportation systems can be affected – negatively or positively – by Congressional and Administration actions regarding security, safety, environment, energy, labor, anti-trust, and industry operations. State requirements and local ordinances can hamper freight movements. So governments and the private sector can pour billions into infrastructure maintenance, modernization and expansion, but the system still can be strangled.

In short, freight stakeholders and Congressional and Administration leaders must recognize that the next surface transportation bill is only one necessary, but not even close to sufficient, aspect of addressing freight transportation needs in this country.

Modern, navigable seaports are vital to America's economic recovery. In order to help ensure the country's farmers and non-farm businesses remain competitive in the global marketplace, our nation’s seaports and their connecting infrastructure need higher levels of federal attention and investment to create jobs, alleviate freight congestion, reduce pollution and deliver prosperity.  
 
Although seaport authorities and their business partners invest large sums into maritime facilities, investments into waterway navigation and connecting landside infrastructure (such as roads, rails, bridges and tunnels) is generally outside their domain and ability to pay.  Ports are finding the weakest link in the logistics chain is often at their back door…beyond their jurisdiction…where shallow and/or narrow navigation channels, congested roads or inadequate rail connections are causing delays and increasing costs. 

AAPA believes that the surface transportation reauthorization bill should: (1) include funding for projects and corridors of national and regional economic significance, based on a cost/benefit analysis which considers externalities (including environmental impact) and encompasses all modes and existing corridors as well as new ones; (2) include funding for intermodal freight connectors (highway, maritime, rail) which are vital to port efficiency and cargo mobility; (3) include investments in rail and the development of marine highways, and; (4) require expertise at the state/MPO level on marine highway alternatives/benefits as well as dedicated freight offices with coordinators, programs and funds that support what is devolved down from the federal level.
 
To properly address freight mobility needs in the U.S., AAPA believes that a combination of funding mechanisms will be necessary.  While there are a number of possible funding sources that could potentially be tapped--ranging from devoting a share of Customs duty revenues to fund freight mobility infrastructure improvements to collecting private sector payments in proportion to the benefits they derive from the capacity generated by the infrastructure--we believe none of the mechanisms should disadvantage U.S. exporters nor our ports in their ability to remain competitive.