Jim Burnley, a partner in the Washington office of Venable LLP, is widely recognized as one of the nation's foremost authorities on transportation law and policy. He served as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (1987-1989) and as Deputy Secretary of Transportation (1983-1987) under President Ronald Reagan. He also served as General Counsel of the Department.
Burnley maintains a visible presence in the transportation community and is engaged in the continuing debate over transportation policy issues. He has served as an advisor to Republican Presidential candidates in five of the last six campaigns. He was Chairman of the Port Study Panel of the National Chamber of Commerce Foundation. He is also a member of the Business Advisory Committee of the Transportation Center at Northwestern University. Additionally, he served for five years as Vice Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Virginia Port Authority.
In private practice for the last twenty years, his clients have covered the entire spectrum of transportation issues and interests. For example, he played a key role on behalf of the airline industry in the successful effort immediately after 9/11 to have legislation enacted to save it from completely collapsing.
He received his B.A. from Yale University and his J.D. from Harvard Law School.
I have watched with great interest the opposing opinions posted in response to the question of “Should Heavier Trucks Be Allowed On Interstate Highways?” This is not a new question so, not surprisingly, many of the responses are simply old answers that have been endlessly recycled. With the exception of Bob Poole's posting, they do little to encourage the examination of a broad range of possible solutions, thereby doing a disservice to all surface transportation stakeholders and, for that matter, the entire nation. The challenges facing our transportation system are complex. The ability to move people and goods in a safe and efficient manner… Read more
Ms. Caruso's question this week is a much needed reality check. Both those who have responded thus far and she have done an excellent job of outlining the arguments in support of more spending on transportation infrastructure and more revenues through increased fuel taxes. I don't need to rehash those arguments or the facts cited in support of them. But I do have some additional questions and reflections: 1. Every federal policy flag points toward new regulations (i.e., much higher fuel economy standards) and legislation (i.e., cap and trade, and various so called "livability" schemes) intended to incentivise and coerce… Read more
This question is both extremely timely and important. It also has a clear, simple answer: the goals cannot both be achieved within the present structure of the Highway Trust Fund ("HTF"). AASHTO's new report, "Real Transportation Solutions for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions", notes that for the twenty years prior to the recession, vehicle miles traveled grew by more than two percent per year. The report calls for cutting that growth rate in half. It also endorses the recent Obama Administration announcement that it will issue regulations that require new cars sold in 2016 and thereafter to average 39 miles per… Read more
Cap and trade, as envisioned by the Obama Administration and Congressmen Waxman and Markey, will do grave damage to all transportation sectors. While the Administration proposed a 14% reduction in greenhouse gas levels by 2020 from 2005, the Waxman/Markey draft bill mandates a 20% reduction, going to a 42% reduction by 2030. Cap and trade really is cap and tax, and, yes, it's a floating carbon tax. Since the emissions caps are hard, the psuedo market created by government edict has to yield prices that force various sectors of our economy to reduce emissions by the required amount. Transportation is accused of being… Read more
Biography provided by participant
