Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners.
C-SPAN uses its best efforts to provide accurate transcripts of its programs, but it can not be held liable for mistakes such as omitted words, punctuation, spelling, mistakes that change meaning, etc.

C-SPAN: NEWSMAKERS

Host: Susan Swain

Guest: Mary Peters

Reporters: Christopher Conkey, Alan Levin

July 2, 2008

SUSAN SWAIN, HOST, C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”: “Newsmakers” is pleased to welcome Transportation Secretary Mary Peters for our program this week.

Ms. Peters is coming up on her second anniversary as transportation secretary, but has spent most of her professional career in transportation policy.

She oversees a budget of about $70 billion, and her various agencies have a host of new challenges on their plates with many changes in our economy.

Let me introduce our two journalists who are going to be asking questions today.

Christopher Conkey is transportation reporter for the “Wall Street Journal.” And Alan Levin is “USA Today’s” – a reporter who has been spending a lot of his time covering the airline industry.

Chris, why don’t we start with you?

CHRISTOPHER CONKEY, TRANSPORTATION REPORTER, “WALL STREET JOURNAL”: Sure.

Secretary Peters, why don’t we start with gas prices right now? We’re in a historic time. People are starting to drive less now, because gas prices are so high.

That brings certain benefits in terms of the environment and reduced oil consumption. But it also poses a big problem for the way we fund our transportation networks, which you and others have said are really vastly underfunded as it is right now.

Could you talk a little bit about how gas prices are going to impact this nation and its transportation system going forward?

MARY PETERS, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION: Chris, I’d be happy to. And I think the point you make is so important.

We depend especially on surface transportation, but also to an extent in aviation as well, on taxes that are paid on fossil-based fuels – on aviation fuel, diesel and gasoline on the highway.

And the fact that we’re using less of that is very good news. Less pollutants into the environment, less dependence on foreign countries that might not have our best interest in mind, and, of course, then, less funding into the Highway Trust Fund, though, and the Aviation Trust Fund as well are offshoots of that.

I think the fact that we have now seen, as it relates to roadway use, the sixth consecutive month of a decline in vehicle miles traveled tells me that we’re seeing not just a blip in the screen, which has been the case in the past. In the past, if gas prices went up, people would stop using for a little while, but then they would go right back to using as much as they were again.

We’re not seeing that this time. So, I think it’s a new reality that we really have to adjust to, and adjust our funding programs to, which in my opinion means less dependence on those fuel taxes in the future.

CONKEY: What do you have in mind as a replacement then for gas taxes?

PETERS: Well, Chris, I think it’s going to take some sort of a period of time to transition from where we are today to where we need to be in the future. And I think, during that time we need to diversify the revenues that are coming in.

And I’m not, by the way, saying that we should stop collecting gas taxes today. But I don’t believe we should increase them, because that then perpetuates the dependence on these, but using other methods of attracting revenues to transportation as we transition.

I think eventually we’ll pay on a pricing method that’s very much like we pay for utilities today. If I use utilities through peak periods I pay more. If I use them off-peak, I pay less. I think that type of a system where we get to in the future, and not the too far distant future, either.

But in the meantime, we can attract private sector investment. And there’s some $400 billion available today, if we’re willing to implement pricing, like on a HOT lane concept, so we can bring in additional revenues as we transition over time to a new way of paying for transportation.

SWAIN: But just to understand then, so people should expect to be paying more money as they travel the nation’s highways.

PETERS: Well, Susan, interestingly, maybe, because if we move to a pricing system where we can moderate or determine how we use it.

Right now, today, each of us pays a fuel tax when we fill up our automobiles with fuel. Or of course, with the planes, as well, we pay taxes also. But it’s kind of you pay the same no matter when and how you use the system.

If we would move to a full pricing model, two things could happen. One, we would collect – we would be able to quit collecting these peripheral taxes that don’t have anything to do with transportation. Sales taxes, property taxes, general fund taxes, things like that, could be replaced by a pricing model.

But then, by governing when and how we use the system, some people might even be able to pay less. Other people may pay a little bit more, but the gain that they would get is some sort of reliability and predictability with travel times that regrettably we don’t have today.

So, I think there could be some good aspects of moving to a pricing model, as well.

SWAIN: Alan Levin?

ALAN LEVIN, AVIATION AND TRANSPORTATION REPORTER, “USA TODAY”: To continue on this topic, is there anything your department can do about the high prices of gasoline?

PETERS: There isn’t anything we can do directly about pricing gasoline, Alan. But what we can do is try to eliminate congestion everywhere we have an opportunity to do so.

Because one of the things that waste fuel and has a negative impact on our environment, as well, of course, are cars just sitting, stuck in traffic, stuck in congestion.

So, if we can employ some near-term and long-term tools to help untie that Gordian knot that exists on too much of our system today, we can certainly help save fuel in the near term.

And then, again, I think by modeling how we pay for transportation in the future and lessening dependence on fuel, I think can help us tremendously get that price down in the future.

But I really do believe it’s a supply-and-demand equation that we’re going to be working with.

LEVIN: You mentioned some of these issues just peripherally, but the aviation industry has also been hit by these high prices. It’s prompted a number of bankruptcies, and airlines are slashing their schedules.

Is there anything the department can do to increase the efficiency in that mode?

PETERS: Well, certainly, there is.

And again, here is something that we’ve been working on in the New York region for close to a year now. Most – about three-quarters of the aviation delay and congestion emanates out of the New York region – that area of kind of JFK, Newark, LaGuardia airports. And so, what we’re trying to do up there is relieve the congestion, so that that doesn’t domino into the rest of the system.

As you’ve seen, and as I’ve seen – and it just makes me a little bit crazy, I have to say – to see a line of planes lined up at LaGuardia waiting to take off, all with their engines running out there. We want to eliminate that, so when you go out to the tarmac, you can take off relatively quickly.

In the near term, we’ve had to institute caps on these airports. And I frankly have said before, that’s the last thing that I wanted to do, was put a cap. What we want to do is get more capacity.

But if we could use some sort of pricing method, here again, price those flights that are leaving at the peak periods of time a little bit higher. Those who don’t have to be in that peak then could go to off-peak periods and pay less – perhaps significantly less. And then we’d get better use of our airspace system.

The model that I sometimes use – and it’s a highway model, but I think it has absolute applicability here – state route 91 in California has two general purpose lanes. Some people call them “free lanes.” That’s part of our problem. We should never, ever have called them “freeways,” because, of course, none of them are free to begin with. But two general purpose lanes adjacent to two HOT lanes, or high-occupancy toll lanes.

By varying the pricing, based on the demand for the use of those priced lanes, they’re able to get 40 percent greater throughput on the same lane configuration.

So, that is, I think, a telling point, that we can get better throughput, use the infrastructure that we have today much more efficiently, if we can appropriately align price, use and demand.

LEVIN: Just to follow up on that, you’ve proposed similar things for congestion in New York, which the local authorities rejected. But there was a huge outcry against the proposal in New York by airlines, by the Port Authority of New York, which runs the airports there. And it doesn’t look like, at least in the aviation sector, that those proposals are going to go through.

Is this an attempt by your administration to sort of put them out there and get people thinking about them, so they can be put in place in the long run? Or – I mean, what is the …

PETERS: Yes, Alan …

LEVIN: … long-term goal in this?

PETERS: You know, I have to say, that’s one of the frustrations that I do see, especially in this New York airspace.

We’re willing, and through a several-month-long aviation rulemaking committee said, here are our ideas. What are your ideas?

And certainly, operational improvements are some of the ideas that came back to us. And we are implementing those operational improvements – in fact, many of them will be completed before the end of this year – and other recommendations that have been made to us.

But even doing all of those things, we still have significant congestion. So, I am hoping that we can bring people around. Perhaps, if we can do some sort of a pilot program, a demonstration program, something that would demonstrate the validity of these concepts, I would hope that perhaps we could get more people on board.

We certainly don’t want to take away the operation of the airports from the Port Authority. Nor do we want to dictate to airlines how and when they can fly. I think that’s the last thing government should be doing. And the first thing that the market should be doing is determining when there’s more demand.

So, perhaps if we can just get a sample of this out there, very much like we’ve done, as you said, in the urban – or on the surface side with the Urban Partnership Program – maybe we can convince people that this new way of thinking about it can actually work to give us better use of our infrastructure and solve some of the congestion that we’re dealing with today.

SWAIN: Do you think airline fuel prices might be the catalyst to move the idea along, where in the past, your good offices might not have had the impetus.

PETERS: Susan, I think it’s an important catalyst, because many industry segments are being hurt by the very high fuel prices today. But certainly, the aviation industry is really, really feeling the hit, as Alan said. Several bankruptcies of some of the smaller carriers today. They’ve told us that they’re pulling back on capacity, using the more fuel-efficient planes.

So indeed, I think it can be, because we do know that we can manage our airspace and our ground space significantly more efficiently than we’re doing today. And if we do that, we can save significant amounts of fuel.

SWAIN: Question?

CONKEY: Sure. The more fuel-efficient planes seem to be pretty far off, but more fuel-efficient cars seem like they’re pretty close to being a reality now. And your department now is working on a very important rule to dictate that fuel economy goes up to the 35 miles a gallon by 2020, up from around 25 miles a gallon for cars and trucks now.

There’s been a lot of pressure from the automakers who say this is too aggressive, from consumer groups and environmentalists who say this is too weak. And it does seem like NHTSA has some discretion to make the standards even a little bit tougher, given the way gas prices are right now.

How do you think this rule is going to play out? And do you think that we need to go even farther than we have already right now, in terms of more fuel-efficient vehicles?

PETERS: Chris, I think the rule that we have out – in fact, the comment period ended just the 1st of July on this rule – I think is aggressive, but achievable. And I believe that we have struck the appropriate balance between those two, those two pillars – being aggressive, but being achievable.

The other thing that I think is very important, and it’s something that we at the U.S. Department of Transportation and NHTSA particularly take into consideration, are several things that I think are important to consider, aside from the very important aspect of how much fuel are we saving, how much more fuel efficient are vehicles going to be in the future.

We want to make sure that those vehicles remain safe, so we don’t want to see down-sized, down-weighting that they might save more fuel, but at the end of the day, in the mix of the vehicle fleet, make those vehicles less safe for our families to be driving then. So, that’s an issue that we want to pay a lot of attention to.

And we also do want to look at the economic impact. And where is that sweet spot, if you will, that we can achieve the appropriate balance?

In this rule, we’ll save 40 percent – it’ll make our vehicles 40 percent more fuel efficient in the future, which I think is tremendous.

But let’s go back to what the market is doing right now. Because of higher fuel prices, we’re seeing people driving less. But we’re also seeing the sale of vehicles, the SUVs and the trucks, are dropping off very substantially. And more and more fuel-efficient cars are coming into the mix.

In fact, in your paper today, I just saw one of the ads that was advertising, “We have vehicles that get 30 miles to the gallon – or more.” And we’re seeing many people flock to that.

So, I think the market is going to really help a lot in this and moving us towards using more fuel-efficient vehicles and automobiles that are more fuel-efficient, and then at the same time, getting more of that fuel mix in there.

These are all good things to happen at the end of the day. Using less fuel, polluting less – all of these are very, very good things at the end of the day.

CONKEY: Can you talk a little bit about how you work with the other facets of the administration, like the EPA, the White House, to figure out what the approach is on greenhouse gases, on fuel economy? Because there’s a lot of overlap between what you can do and what the EPA can do right now. There’s a lot of questions out there.

Can you talk just about, you know, what the latest is on that?

PETERS: Yes, happy to do that. Of course, the energy act that was passed at the end of last calendar year, in December of last year – in fact, the president signed it into law just shortly before the Christmas holidays – was a very good bill. And our part of that bill, but working in consultation with EPA, was to develop this rulemaking, this proposed rulemaking, for fuel economy standards.

So, we do. There’s a lot of give-and-take between our agencies and their agencies in terms of how to go forward with this fuel economy standard.

When we talk about the whole issue of greenhouse gases and climate change, global warming, things like that, we have discussed this. And certainly, it is our opinion at U.S. Department of Transportation, but I think others, as well, that these are important aspects, important problems that we have to face. But we should do so with tools that are meant to address these issues, working very closely with Congress, working very closely with the administration.

Some of the tools that we have in place today, the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act – and this gets into where some, I think, of EPA is coming from – are laws that were passed well before we were really tackling this issue of greenhouse gases and global warming, climate change, things like that.

I think they are imperfect tools for addressing the challenges that we have today. And I think we have to, together with Congress, find the appropriate tools to deal with global warming and greenhouse gases.

It’s very important for us to remember that, even if we did everything here in the United States at great, great economic cost to our citizens, to our businesses, to our nation, we probably couldn’t make a lot of difference, absent other countries in the world – especially developing countries in the world – participating, as well.

That’s where President Bush has really provided the leadership, I think, in working with the major economies and including developing nations in this is, let us work at this together. This is an issue that we need to work with together, and we need to find solutions where we can cooperate and get others in the world cooperating, so that we can really make a meaningful difference.

CONKEY: When do you expect your agency to finalize these rules on fuel economy?

PETERS: We hope to by the end of this year. As I mentioned, the comment period ended just earlier this week. We’re taking into consideration numerous comments that we received. And we’ll hope to move the final rule before the end of the year.

SWAIN: Ten minutes left.

LEVIN: To change the subject a little bit, the Federal Aviation Administration, which is one of the agencies you oversee, has come under scathing criticism this year for failures in the way it oversees maintenance.

We had inspectors, FAA inspectors, who were punished for raising legitimate safety concerns, airlines flying with known safety deficiencies – with the approval of FAA managers.

And just today, or just this week, there’s an inspector general report out that says that the agency is not doing enough to address this problem. Do you believe they’re doing enough? And is this problem going to recur at any time?

PETERS: Alan, let me start with what happened with Southwest, and particularly in the Dallas area.

What happened there was wrong. People were not doing their jobs, were not doing their jobs appropriately. And we’re taking action to deal with that.

One of the concerns that I have had – that Bobby Sturgell has had, that Hank Krakowski has had, and others, as we look at this – Nick Sabatini – is this an isolated case, or is this emblematic of a more systemic problem?

What I know today – and the inspector general’s report has been very instructive and the eight recommendations that he made, most of which we are in process of implementing now today, I believe deal with this issue and deal specifically with the Southwest situation. Which again, there is no excuse. Just – I cannot give you any excuse that would make that acceptable. It was unacceptable, and we’ll deal with it.

But I have asked that we look more broadly. I’ve asked the inspector general, and I’ve also asked an independent panel that I have appointed of outside aviation experts to look at this. And one of the specific questions I have asked them, and that Bobby has asked them is, is this systemic? Is this happening in other places?

We have not found evidence that that is the case. And both the OIG and the independent panel have said to me that they do not find evidence that this is systemic.

But that doesn’t mean that we sit back and be complacent.

In fact, Bobby Sturgell, just last week – I believe it was just last week – called in his managers from all over the United States in FAA, and really had a tough session with them and said, we can’t be complacent. We are today in the safest period for aviation that we’ve ever been in, but that doesn’t mean that we sit back and assume that it’s going to stay that way.

We constantly have to be on the lookout to make sure, A, the systems that we have in place today, safety management systems, are being implemented and followed up on correctly. And B, is there new information that we should be aware of, that cause us to look differently or more substantively or deeper at certain areas of aviation safety?

So, we need to play on the balls of our feet, so to speak, and stay attuned to the fact that, while we are in the safest position ever we’ve been in, we cannot be complacent. We’ve got to stay out there and keep pushing on it.

SWAIN: Secretary Peters, in about seven weeks, Republicans will be gathering in the Twin Cities for the party convention – the site of the largest bridge collapse in the United States.

What specific things can you point to that the administration has done, and your department has done, to ensure the nation’s infrastructure since that collapse?

PETERS: Susan, that’s a great question. And as we approach the August 1st anniversary of that tragedy, we want to make sure that we are assuring the public that our transportation system is safe – in particular, in the bridges that we’re looking at, the similar bridges to the type that collapsed there in Minneapolis.

We have asked that those bridges be inspected, that particular design type, almost immediately, in fact, after the tragic collapse of that bridge, and working very closely with NTSB. They ultimately will tell us what happened there. And that, of course, is their job, and they will do that independently.

But Mark Rosenker and the NTSB have been very good, that as they have uncovered evidence that perhaps there might be something that contributed to that collapse, so we can make sure that that isn’t somewhere else in our system. So, first the re-inspection of all similar bridges.

Second, a more robust look at our bridge inspection program nationwide, to make sure not just that type of bridge, but all types of bridges are being inspected regularly.

And importantly, that we’re taking the information that we get from those inspections and using it to prioritize when and how we repair or replace bridges. That’s another very, very important aspect of what we’re doing today.

And then third, making sure that the money that is allocated for bridges is being used. If we have deficient bridges or bridges that are functionally obsolete, we need to be putting that money to work on those bridges, not using that money somewhere else on the system.

SWAIN: And does that suggest that it’s being diverted in the wrong ways right now?

PETERS: Susan, we didn’t find evidence that it was. One of the things we found, for example, if you’re improving a section of roadway and it has a bridge in it, maybe bridge money per se wasn’t being used to repair or replace that bridge, but it was being repaired or replaced. So, we found some evidence of that.

We don’t see that the money’s been diverted. But states have the option to basically reallocated that money, if they certify to us that their bridges are in good condition. And so, there’s an increased emphasis on making sure that that is happening before that money is diverted to some other use, that it is being used where it’s intended to be.

CONKEY: I’d like to just return to the FAA real quick if we can.

PETERS: Sure.

CONKEY: We’ve had a lot of people in Congress the main union that represents inspectors, suggesting that the FAA cannot really make the changes it needs to make with its current leadership.

Are you confident that you have the right leaders in place? And do you foresee any changes in that way?

PETERS: Chris, I really appreciate you giving me the opportunity to answer this question, because I think it’s very important.

Bobby Sturgell, of course, is the president’s nominee to head the Federal Aviation Administration, and he has been deputy administrator for a number of years now. I think Bobby Sturgell is eminently qualified to do that job.

He is a graduate of the Naval Academy, a top ground (ph) flight instructor, a former commercial pilot with the airlines. He worked with the NTSB, and now at FAA. And I would – I think we’d be hard-pressed to find anyone better qualified. And I’m very disappointed that we haven’t yet been able to get him confirmed.

That said, I would say to those people who don’t think that we’re doing everything we can today with the current leadership, that they really need to look at what Bobby Sturgell has been doing, and Hank Krakowski, and Nick Sabatini and others, who are really doing a call to action throughout the agency, that didn’t just start when these reports from Southwest and other places came about, but even before that, to make sure that we have a very robust system and that we’re making the changes we need to make.

I highly value our inspectors, our air traffic controllers or others who work with us at the FAA, to make sure that we have a system that is safe and efficient and is giving Americans what they need out of it. And I believe we can work together cooperatively under current leadership to make that happen.

And I have the highest confidence in Bobby Sturgell.

CONKEY: And – I’m sorry. Go ahead.

LEVIN: Oh, I just wanted to ask a very quick question about safety.

There are a number of – there are several important aviation safety measures that have languished under this administration, primarily rules to prevent fuel tank explosions like occurred on TWA 800.

Why has it taken so long to get these rules out? And do you expect them before you leave office?

PETERS: Alan, we do. And in fact, you wrote a very good story recently about those rules and the fact that some of them have taken too long.

LEVIN: I believe it was my co-pilot (ph).

PETERS: I apologize. I do apologize.

LEVIN: It’s quite all right.

PETERS: But you’ve written very good stories, as well.

(LAUGHTER)

But I think it has taken too long. And on the fuel tank inerting issue.

We have talked about that issue substantively for the past month, and we were very, very close to issuing that final rule. We want to make sure that we are moving these rulemakings through in a very timely manner.

We’re following a process that allows the public to comment on proposed rules and make sure that we’re looking at it from a comprehensive manner in the way that everyone else is looking at it, but still a sense of urgency to get these important rulemakings through.

Mark Rosenker – again, to go back to the chairman of the NTSB – told me very early on when I met with him after I’d been confirmed as secretary, that his was basically a number one issue for him – that and potential incursions. And I have focused attention on that, as has Bobby and others in FAA – a call to action on the incursions to push hard to get this inerting rule out and get it out in a final form just as quickly as we can.

SWAIN: Last question from each.

CONKEY: I’d like to talk about rail with my last question, if I can.

Everyone is turning to rail and saying, this is something we really need to improve in this country. They look at Europe or Japan or China and see what the systems they have there.

There is a bill that has gotten through both houses of Congress that would provide record levels of funding for Amtrak and providing a new program to let states roll out expanded passenger rail service. Yet the administration currently has threatened to veto that.

Tell me why and what your view is on that bill.

PETERS: Yes, Chris, I absolutely can. We think Amtrak, passenger rail, intercity passenger rail, is a very important part of the transportation solutions in America today.

But we want a business model that invests the money, the public’s money, in capital improvements where it makes the best sense to do so, where we get the highest increases in ridership.

You mentioned state partnerships. When we have state partnerships working with Amtrak investment, we see significant increases in ridership, increases of up to 70 percent. When we don’t have that state partnership and we don’t have that very active, this is a solution that works in this area type of a business model, we see very small increases in ridership.

So, the objection that the administration has is not subsidizing routes that have been, are and will in the future continue to lose substantial amounts of money, but focusing the investment where the demand exists and where we can make it work, and where we can see the increases in ridership – like on the Northeast Corridor, like in the Northwest.

SWAIN: Final question?

LEVIN: I wanted to talk a little bit about the future of the air traffic system. The system currently is very much under stress, as we’ve seen last summer with record delays.

But the proposals on the books now won’t really have much of an impact for 10, 12, 15 years.

Are we doing enough in that department to improve air traffic?

PETERS: Alan, here again, I do think we have an opportunity to improve. We, a year ago last February, sent to Congress a bill that would substantially reform the FAA in terms of how we fund and how we get projects and set up the air traffic control system that we need in the future.

And regrettably, although the Senate did act on that, we – an the House started to act on that – we have not been able to get that bill through and are operating now on a series of extensions. But we can, we must migrate to the next generation air traffic control system.

I mean, to think about that we today are using a relic of World War II, the type of technology that was used in World War II, to manage air traffic in our nation is absurd. And it places limitations on the number of planes that we can have safely in the sky, instead of moving to a satellite-based system.

Some have said that it’s going to take 10, 15 years to fully implement the system. Something that I have worked on, along with Acting Administrator Sturgell, is, instead of doing what I call the peanut approach – which is taking a small amount of resources and spreading it out over a very large base, such that you really don’t see any difference in the short term, and it takes a long time – instead, we want to target those resources to a couple of pilot areas where we can demonstrate the validity of this system.

And then, we hope if we’re able to do that, we can get the full system implemented much more quickly. So, that’s where we’re focusing today.

SWAIN: We’re out of time. Thank you so much, Secretary Peters, for being with us this week. And thank you for your questions.

PETERS: Thank you so much.

(BREAK)

SWAIN: Our newsmaker this week was Transportation Secretary Mary Peters. And our questioners, Christopher Conkey of the “Wall Street Journal,” and Alan Levin of “USA Today.”

Alan, you’ve been spending a lot of time covering the airline industry. Let me ask you. We’ve had discussions with the secretary on areas such as congestion at airports, costs for consumers, and also safety.

Did you hear anything there that suggests that there will be some alleviation of these concerns for the public here in the last six months of the administration?

LEVIN: That’s an excellent question, but I think we need to see a few more months of data before we can really say for sure.

SWAIN: Why is that?

LEVIN: For example, we are just into the peak delay period, particularly – and delays were particularly problematic last year in New York. But we don’t have any data yet to show whether the administration’s measures are making a measureable difference or not. And we probably won’t know until fall, really, how effective they’ve been.

And furthermore, a lot of the proposals by the administration have yet to go into effect. They, as the secretary mentioned, they want to put in effect very complicated economic systems that will induce airlines to change their behavior. For example, by changing the fee structure, they want them to fly bigger planes so they can get more people per precious landing.

But these are very controversial programs. They haven’t been tried at a big airport yet. So, it’s really very unclear how they’ll work. They also face tremendous opposition, so it’s also unclear whether they’ll even go into effect.

So, there’s an awful lot up in the air on that issue.

SWAIN: And how much leverage does an administration in its last six months really have? Are people essentially likely to just try and wait it out until the next administration comes along?

LEVIN: I believe that a number of the stakeholders, such as the airlines, are clearly trying to wait the administration out. We’ll see.

But the other issue, too, is Congress is now in the hands of the Democrats, and they’ve made it very clear that they do not like these proposals. So, they have significantly reduced leverage, I would say.

SWAIN: Chris Conkey, your reporting has covered many of the different policy areas that are under the purview of the transportation secretary. Let me ask the broader question.

What kind of legacy will the Bush administration, in general, and Secretary Peters leave behind in the areas of transportation, as complex and as varied as they are?

CONKEY: Yes. Well, you know, some things they do like other transportation departments have done in the past. Like congestion is so bad now, we need to cap the number of planes coming into an airport – you know, sort of basic stuff.

But I think the legacy of this Department of Transportation, this administration, is going to be that they tried to fight a fight that they believed on ideological grounds.

They wanted to inject sort of free market principles into a transportation system that’s really getting kind of old and outdated and isn’t very smart anymore. We just kind of pour money into highway projects that maybe don’t make sense.

So, they want to charge us more to drive on a highway a certain period of time, or to fly into an airport at a certain period of time. They want the system to think a little bit smarter than it does right now. And I think there’s a lot to be said for that battle, for that position.

But the reality is that they’re not winning, they’re not getting their way. And we’re going to have to see into the next administration if really any big, major change happens. I think at this point, we’re kind of at stalemate with the Congress and the White House.

SWAIN: Well, subway and bus riders have been used to paying higher fees during rush hours for a long time. So, why the resistance in the other transportation modes?

CONKEY: That’s a good question. You see a little less resistance on the state level. You see some states and some cities – Denver, L.A. she mentioned – who are happy to put down some new lanes of highway and charge more to go on it, because it’s new capacity.

But you get different battles when it comes to taking an existing highway and whether you’re going to toll it more, you’re going to make that more expensive, or to fly into New York. And now, that’s going to get more expense to fly in at rush hour when everybody wants to go there. That’s when you run into the kind of opposition that they’re seeing now.

LEVIN: One thing I’d like to mention on the legacy, this is quite complicated, but very interesting.

During the Bush administration, we have seen a dramatic decrease in the amount and severity of airline accidents. You know, you went from TWA and ValuJet, and on and on in the ‘90s, to probably only, you know, one or two large jet crashes since 2000. That’s significant.

Now, on the other hand, we also have had this brewing scandal at the FAA, and so, that will taint the legacy to some extent. But I do think, in fairness, that it has been a significant change.

And I would also add, quite a number of the technologies and programs that caused this went into effect in the previous administration. But they do deserve some credit, clearly.

SWAIN: Well, we’re out of time.

I guess in closing, what’s really interesting is that for – it’s another example with gas prices of a democracy responding best to crises, because many of the things we have discussed and have stood (ph) for a long time are finally getting the impetus to be pushed along, as the gas prices affect so many of these transportation industries.

Thanks to both of you for sharing your reporting with our viewing audience this week. We’re pleased to have you here.

CONKEY: Thanks, Susan.

LEVIN: Thank you.

END