Your “Everyday Low Prices” Require “Just-In-Time” Freight Delivery - continued...
2. Congress should fund Multi-state Freight Corridor Planning Organizations
Freight trips often involve several states and multiple modes of transportation: ports, rail lines, and highways. To move efficiently, freight movement—regional, national, and global—must cross many jurisdictions along multi-state corridors. Congress should authorize funding to support state-driven, multistate, multimodal corridor planning and investment organizations. The I-95 Corridor Coalition, which includes the states from Maine to Florida along the East Coast, is an example of the type of organization envisioned.
3. State Freight Transportation Program
Congress should authorize a state-administered freight transportation program as a new core element of the federal highway program. $3 billion per year should be apportioned to the states with the funding provided through growth in Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues. The types of improvements to be funded through this program would include fixing freight bottlenecks and improving access to ports, airports, and distribution centers. This program would provide a focus for state freight transportation investments and a means for linking state freight systems to the national freight system.
4. National Freight Corridors Investment Fund
AASHTO recommends that a National Freight Corridors Investment Fund be created to complement the state freight program. The proposed funding level is $42 billion over six years which should be provided from resources outside the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). Of this, $3.5 billion annually should be apportioned to the states, and an additional $3.5 billion should be distributed by the Secretary of Transportation, based on a systematic assessment of national needs.
Eligibilities include such freight system multimodal investments as the following:
- Fix bottlenecks;
- Improve access, including but not limited to intermodal access, to ports and distribution centers;
- Improve freight transportation to or from international and national gateways (ports, airport, and border crossings);
- Improve routes that provide for interregional, interstate, or international freight movement, including but not limited to trade corridors; and,
- Where appropriate, develop truck-only lanes or invest in freight rail.
5. New Sources of Revenue
From resources outside the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), Congress should authorize new sources of revenue for investment in freight transportation infrastructure. While existing authorizations that support financing for freight transportation projects should be preserved and expanded, financing for the National Freight Corridors Investment Fund should be drawn from newly authorized sources related to freight transportation. Possibilities include customs revenues, container fees, and bill of lading fees. This new revenue is not intended to supplant other federal agencies’ investment in freight-related infrastructure.
Most investment in freight transportation—including, for example, port terminals, rail mainline improvements, and truck terminals is made by private companies. Government should encourage maximum private investment, and public investment should be undertaken only where justified by public benefits. Decisions regarding revenue sources drawn directly or indirectly from the freight industry must be made with concern for impacts on modes of transportation, types of freight, industries, and geographic locations.
6. Other Recommendations
Congress should reauthorize existing freight programs including the following: Freight Planning Capacity Building Program; the National Cooperative Freight Transportation Research Program; the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program; Private Activity Bonds for Intermodal Facilities; Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation Projects; Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF); and Rail-Highway Crossings.
Congress should also authorize: a highway-rail sealed corridor program; a freight rail investment tax credit program where public benefit has been defined; and a National Rail Policy.
Institutional Reform
A new vision for freight transportation cannot be realized without governmental and institutional change. Such change must address the following: the lack of national leadership and a weak federal role; a fragmented Congressional committee structure; stovepipes within U.S. DOT’s modal structure; a lack of staff with freight expertise within U.S. DOT; a business-government disconnect; the need for multi-state collaboration; the disconnect between costs occurring locally and benefits accruing regionally and nationally; and local fragmentation and parochialism.
While the United States is stymied for lack of a coherent national strategy, our major competitors are investing aggressively. America must meet the challenge.
