Originally written for the Joyce Foundation Newsletter, 2001.
Transportation standards are currently set at the federal level. Joyce grantees have a problem with that.
Until 1990, the primary focus of federal transportation spending was to build a national highway system. In 1991, with the system nearly complete, public interest groups and some members of Congress pushed for a review of federal transportation policy. They asked policy makers to consider the impacts of highways on air quality, community livability, historic preservation, and highway beautification and to recognize that trains, local transit, bicycles and even pedestrian paths were all a part of our national system for getting people and goods from one place to another. This assessment produced the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which took a dramatically different approach to transportation by expanding public participation in decision-making and establishing funding that could be used to test new approaches to managing congestion, improving air quality and alleviating the negative effects of transportation infrastructure on communities. Its successor, the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), did more of the same.
TEA-21 expires in September 2003, presenting Congress with the opportunity to re-examine and clearly define the federal government’s approach to U.S. transportation policy. Currently, transportation standards are set at the federal level while the responsibility for meeting these national objectives falls on the shoulders of local, regional, and state authorities. This division of labor has its flaws: state governments don’t always take full advantage of the tools and funding available for developing creative transportation solutions, while local governments, financially responsible for meeting local transportation needs, are often strapped for resources.
“A basic problem with how we do transportation in America is that the primary relationship between the
federal and state governments excludes metro areas where most of our population lives and where economic activity, pollution and congestion occur,” says David Burwell, president of the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP). “This was reasonable when the goal was building a national highway system. Now the priority is to maintain and operate it so it benefits our citizens in the best possible ways. This requires greater local control in decisions regarding operations and new capital investments.”
STPP is an alliance of environmental, housing, biking, and other public interest groups that seek to ensure transportation policy reflects and responds to the needs and interests of communities. With the help of a oneyear, $200,000 Joyce grant, the organization will research and develop policy recommendations designed to meet the transportation needs of local communities. State and local governments currently control 6-percent of federal transportation funding, which they typically spend on highway maintenance, mass transit improvements, bike facilities, and other investments that improve communities as well as transport people and goods. In the long run, these decisions improve local air and water quality, since they tend to reduce the need for motor vehicle travel. As part of its project, STPP will research how local decision-making under ISTEA and TEA-21 has led to cleaner environments. STPP hopes to make the case that increased local control of federal transportation funds result in better transportation decisions and environmental improvements.
Increased control should enable local and regional governments to develop solutions to transportation problems unique to their areas. Take Chicago, for instance. Although the city has a reasonably accessible mass transit system, it has, arguably, some of the worst traffic in the country. According to MarySue Barrett, president of the Metropolitan Planning Council, a major cause of Chicago’s congestion is an outdated freight transportation system whose antiquated switching yards are unable to handle current freight traffic; slow turnaround times for trains means idling cars and trucks at grade crossings and traffic delays on roads and commuter trains that share the same tracks. Because the train system in Chicago is so inefficient, more and more companies are shipping goods via truck, increasing truck traffic and diesel emissions.
The Planning Council, an organization that promotes cooperation among business, civic and government leaders throughout northeastern Illinois, hopes the next version of TEA-21 will give state and local governments more authority to address their individual transportation needs, such as Chicago’s outdated freight rail system. With the aid of a one-year, $150,000 Joyce grant, the Planning Council will work with Business Leaders for Transportation, a coalition that advocates for transportation alternatives in northeastern Illinois, to promote freight rail improvements and encourage government leaders to view transportation as a solution to local problems.
“Boiled down, this is really about strengthening communities,” Barrett says. “The biggest hammer we have is the federal bill. Once it’s passed, we can then work at the state and local levels to make changes in our communities.”
Burwell agrees. “What we want is for transportation to play a greater role in solving community problems, not cause them.” he says. “The decision-making process has to come together and be informed at the regional level.”
Barrett says that government officials must also examine the relationship between transportation and other social issues, such as housing and jobs.
“There’s something called the jobs-housing mismatch,” says Barrett. “Meaning there is job growth in the suburbs but lower income individuals cannot afford to live there. What happens? People have to commute, traffic increases, gridlock occurs, and air quality declines.”
Burwell and Barrett agree that an ideal federal transportation policy would encourage and allow change to take place at the state and local levels. “Our research and policy tools are designed to empower local efforts, not replace them,” Burwell says. “We will only get a transportation system that serves community goals if we insist on this result through advocacy.”
With the proper legislation in place, leaders and organizations at the local level can concentrate on providing communities with information about how they can meet their goals for a cleaner environment through their transportation decision-making. Barrett adds, “The legislation can be designed to empower local governments to do the work organizations like ours advocate for.”