November/December
2001
Creating
a Landmark: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991
by Richard F. Weingroff
PART
I
Introduction
The date is Wednesday, Dec. 18, 1991. The scene is Tarrant County,
Texas, on a State Highway 360 construction site not far from Dallas-Fort
Worth International Airport. The weather is cold and rainy - and no
one can do anything about the mud throughout the site.
|
President
George H.W. Bush signs ISTEA on Dec. 18, 1991, at a construction
site in Texas. From left, construction worker Arnold Martinez,
Rep. Bud Shuster, President Bush, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
(in hat), Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt, Rep. Robert Roe, and Rep.
Norman Mineta. |
Powerful
congressional leaders stand by as construction worker Arnold Martinez,
still wearing his hard hat, introduces the president of the United
States, George Herbert Walker Bush. Martinez reminds the president,
the members of Congress, and the crowd of 300 or so state and local
officials, national transportation leaders, and construction workers
that the recession that began in 1990 is "sometimes scary and
financially difficult."
Then,
using a large cable spool as a table, President Bush hunches over
as he signs the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA) - the landmark bill that had been nicknamed "ICE
TEA." The congressional leaders who had crafted ISTEA - Sens.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y.; Harry Reid, D-Nev.; and Lloyd Bentsen,
D-Texas, and Reps. Robert Roe, D-N.J.; Norman Mineta, D-Calif.; Bud
Shuster, R-Pa.; and John Paul Hammerschmidt, R-Ark. - leaned forward
to watch and receive, along with Martinez, the pens that the president
used in making ISTEA law. Also on the platform are former Secretary
of Transportation Samuel K. Skinner, who had just become the president's
chief of staff, Acting Secretary James Busey, and master of ceremonies
Arnold Oliver, the executive director of the Texas Department of Transportation.
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas
D. Larson, federal highway administrator. |
|
Richard
D. Carlson, executive director of the Federal Highway Administration. |
|
Eugene
McCormick, deputy administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. |
The
leadership of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), including
Administrator Thomas D. Larson, Deputy Administrator Eugene McCormick,
and Executive Director E. Dean Carlson, looks onfrom the crowd, as
does Administrator Brian Clymer of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration,
which ISTEA renames the Federal Transit Administration.
ISTEA is, the president says, "the most important transportation
bill since President Eisenhower started the Interstate System 35 years
ago." He tells the cold, wet crowd, "this bill also means
investment in America's economic future, for an efficient transportation
system is absolutely essential for a productive and efficient economy."
He adds, "The future of American transportation begins today."
But the line the media picks up on is a more direct explanation of
ISTEA for a nation worried about its economic future: "It's summed
up by three words - jobs, jobs, jobs."
Donning a hard hat emblazoned with the words "The President"
and an American flag, President Bush tours the construction site,
meets with workers, and poses for pictures with them in front of their
construction equipment. Then, in his muddy limousine, President Bush
heads to nearby Coppell, where he joins Martinez and six other constructionworkers
for lunch at Café 121. Finishing his chicken-fried steak, Bush
agrees to pick up the $48.10 tab after double-checking his wallet
and extracting several twenties. "I'm loaded!," he laughs.
He
concludes his morning with a speech at the Dallas-Fort Worth Hyatt
East before an ISTEA Implementation Conference of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) - the reason
the White House had scheduled the signing ceremony in Texas instead
of Washington as originally planned. Larson, McCormick, Carlson, and
Clymer had agreed to brief state transportation officials on the new
law.
|
In
1987, Richard D. Morgan, who was then the executive director of
the Federal Highway Administation, formed a task force to take
a strategic look at issues, trends, technologies, and programs
that would affect highways in 2005 and in 2020. |
Introducing
President Bush, AASHTO President A. Ray Chamberlain of Colorado assures
him that AASHTO members will do everything in their power "to
ensure that the benefits of the new law flow to the American people
as quickly as possible." The president responds that he had "instructed
the Department of Transportation to get the money moving now"
and challenges AASHTO members to join in "making sure this money
gets to its destination swiftly, gets used wisely, and helps Americans
build the foundations for the next American century."
Describing ISTEA as laying the foundation for the most significant
revolution in American transportation history, the president concludes
his 20-minute remarks by saying, "Today, we act. We start improving
our roads and bridges and railways, our equal opportunities to the
future. And so, when we look back years from now to this landmark
day for America's transportation, we'll be able to say mission defined,
mission accomplished."
Entering
a New Era
The Interstate Highway Program launched in 1956 has often been called
the greatest public works projects in history. It also has been one
of the country's most successful federal programs, more than fulfilling
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's prediction that it "would change
the face of America."
The Interstate era began with consensus across the spectrum of transportation
interests and political shadings about the desirability of building
the Interstate System. However, by the end of the 1980s, the Interstate
System was 97.5 percent completed, and over the 30 years of accomplishment
and controversy, that consensus had disappeared.
Transit had gone from a private industry to a public utility with
its own demands for federal funding. The environmental movement, which
had not entered the public consciousness in 1956, had created new
national commitments that challenged the builders of the Interstate
System. State and city officials had conflicting transportation goals.
And the federal government's role in transportation had been challenged
by President Ronald Reagan, who favored a New Federalism under which
activities believed to be state responsibilities under the Constitution
would be devolved to the states.
|
Anthony
R. Kane, director of the FHWA Office of Policy Development in
1987, was selected by Executive Director Morgan to lead the Futures
Group task force. |
So,
when the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance
Act of 1987 (STURAA) became law on April 2, 1987, it was widely seen
in Congress and the transportation community as the last authorization
bill of the Interstate era. It authorized $87.6 billion over five
years, including $17 billion for Interstate construction, which the
conference report said "will provide the states sufficient funds
to complete the system."
As Sen. Moynihan told the Senate during the STURAA debate, "We
are about to enter a new era." Everyone agreed that the post-Interstate
era would be established in 1991 when STURAA authorizations ended.
The mystery was what would replace it.
In early 1987, FHWA formed a task force known as the Futures Group.
The charge from Executive Director Richard D. Morgan was to take a
strategic look at the issues, trends, technologies, and program options
that would ultimately impact highways in the mid-range future (2005)
and the long-range future (2020). This would be, he said, a zero-based
review. If the conclusion was that the federal-aid highway program
was no longer needed after the completion of the Interstate System,
so be it.
Morgan asked Anthony R. Kane, director of the Office of Policy Development,
to head the Futures Group initiative. Kane divided senior managers
into 19 working groups to prepare papers as input for policy-makers.
The Futures Group created 19 unpublished papers on all aspects of
surface transportation and the role of government. In November 1988,
FHWA published a synthesis of these papers - America's Challenge
for Highway Transportation in the 21st Century: Interim Report of
the Future National Highway Program Task Force. The interim report
would turn out to be the final report.
America's
Challenge
In many respects, America's Challenge is a tentative document.
It did not recommend a future surface transportation program. Instead,
it considered options and discussed their merits, but it did not choose
among them.
To the senior FHWA managers, one thing was certain - the federal government
has an important role to play in transportation. The Futures Group
concluded that the federal role is justified by four main responsibilities:
national defense, interstate commerce, equity, and uniformity and
efficiency.
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
Anthony
Kane retired from his position as executive director of FHWA
in February 2001 and joined AASHTO as director of engineering
and technical services.
|
The
federal government's responsibility for national defense is not subject
to debate, and the role of highways in national defense is also clear.
The Department of Defense places a high priority on the Interstate
System and the non-Interstate components of the Strategic Highway
Network (STRAHNET).
Section 8 of the United States Constitution assigned to Congress the
power to "regulate Commerce," and this power had been the
primary constitutional basis for the federal-aid highway program.
The federal government has a role to play in ensuring the highway
network continues to enhance our economy, productivity, and international
competitiveness.
Developing a national program in a diverse nation poses many problems,
not the least of which is that some states are better able to contribute
to their own welfare than others. The goal should be fairness to each
state while achieving national purposes.
To achieve greater efficiency in transportation investments and meet
national objectives such as interstate commerce, national defense,
and safety, the federal government must provide a central focus on
design and operational uniformity.
The Futures Group also found that some activities, such as research
and implementation programs and dissemination of information, can
be more economically carried out by the federal government than by
each state or local government.
However, while it identified the core federal role and trends affecting
transportation, America's Challenge used vague phrases such as "may
be appropriate" in presenting the pros and cons of a wide range
of options for future directions, financial assistance, operational
alternatives, and external program controls. Still, the document made
clear that in thinking about the next 20 or so years, fundamental
change was needed. America's Challenge identified two themes that
would recur throughout the debates leading to ISTEA: the need for
a "national highway system" and increasing state and local
flexibility and authority.
The federal government is responsible for a "national highway
system" that serves federal interests. It consists of the Interstate
System and at least a portion of the larger network of which it is
a part - the federal-aid primary (FAP) system. Preserving the Interstate
System, enhancing the FAP routes of greatest federal interest - about
114,000 miles (183,000 kilometers) out of 260,000 miles (418,000 kilometers)
- and maintaining STRAHNET were essential. Some expansion of the capacity
of the existing Interstate highways "may be warranted,"
but America's Challenge barely mentioned increasing Interstate mileage.
|
Charles
L. Miller, then head of the Arizona Department of Transportation,
was selected to lead the AASHTO 2020 Consensus Transportation
Program. |
Restricting
the FAP, America's Challenge explained, "would focus federal
funds on those highways ... most likely to serve functions that conform
to federal involvement criteria. Such a program could provide many
of the benefits of a program to expand the Interstate System while
avoiding some of the potential problems, such as controversy involving
the extent of the mileage to be added." And a restricted program
could also allow the states greater flexibility than is available
on the Interstate System to establish design standards more suited
to their individual needs.
This first point would prove to be especially important in the evolution
of ISTEA. America's Challenge mentioned several options for the FAP,
such as retaining it, expanding it, or restricting it to principal
arterials not included in the Interstate System.
Other elements of the existing programs were of "a much lower
federal interest." The Futures Group explored ways of increasing
state and local flexibility and authority - an issue that reflected
the philosophy of the departing Reagan Administration and would become
the touchstone of future debates.
America's Challenge was intended to generate discussion about
the future of highway transportation in the United States. It did
not endorse the limited FAP, but simply offered it as an alternative
for consideration. In looking to legislation in 1991, the report stated
a simple goal. "A consensus about what that legislation should
contain must be achieved within the next two years. It is hoped that
this report will contribute to reaching that consensus."
AASHTO's
2020 Initiative
But where political constraints made FHWA tentative, AASHTO would
be bold.
AASHTO
had been considering future transportation needs for some years. The
pending completion of the Interstate System created "an opportunity
... to make a systematic transition and redefine the federal role
in national highway programs." So in June 1984, AASHTO established
a Task Force on Future Directions for the Federal-Aid Highway Program,
headed by Fred D. Miller, director of the Oregon Department of Transportation.
In
addition to visionary work on the federal, state, and local roles,
the task force adopted 45 recommendations on April 30, 1985. The task
force called for a "System of Highways of National Significance"
that would include the Interstate System, FAP, and bridges on all
current federal-aid systems - the highways "of truly national
importance" - and a block grant program for highways of state
and local interest.
The work by Miller's task force led AASHTO to launch the 2020 Consensus
Transportation Program. On Feb. 10, 1987, the Policy Committee approved
Administrative Resolution 1-87. It authorized AASHTO "to develop
and implement a strategy for achieving public and private sector consensus
on, and commitment to, a redirected national highway and transportation
program that will address transportation needs and federal, state,
and local roles well into the 21st century." This multiyear,
multiorganizational, multimodal effort, headed by Charles L. Miller
of the Arizona Department of Transportation, would include:
- Analysis by transportation professionals from AASHTO member departments,
FHWA, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, and organizations
representing local governments and transit agencies.
- An advisory committee to help AASHTO sponsor public outreach through
65 forums nationwide.
- A futures conference in June 1988 under the auspices of the Transportation
Research Board (TRB).
|
Connecting
the Reagan Washington National Airport to northern Virginia, southern
Maryland, and the District of Columbia via the Washington Metro
subway/light rail is an example of intermodal transportation.
Airline passengers arriving at or departing from the airport have
a convenient transition from one mode of travel to another. |
In
September 1988, AASHTO released The Bottom Line: A Summary of Surface
Transportation Investment Requirements, 1988-2020. It documented
the need for increased and continuing investment in transportation.
A companion volume by the Advisory Committee on Highway Policy, Beyond
Gridlock: The Future of Mobility as the Public Sees It, documented
the views of Americans who participated in 65 public forums.
The
task force's main product, Keeping America Moving: New Transportation
Concepts for a New Century, was released in December 1988 with
a modified final edition in October 1989. Keeping America Moving
covered the full range of transportation modes, as well as research,
development, and technology transfer, and it promoted an intermodal
approach to transportation - a transportation system in which all
modes interact efficiently with one another.
In the context of the pending 1991 reauthorization of STURAA, the
sections on highway and public transportation, called "the most
important links in the intermodal chain," were most significant.
Keeping America Moving urged the commitment of funds needed
to sustain and enhance these modes - an increase to $26 billion for
highways and $5 billion for transit in 1995.
Instead of separating highways and transit, Keeping America Moving
recommended a two-pronged approach:
- A categorical program for systems of national importance, including
a new National Highway System (NHS) consisting of the Interstate
System, selected principal arterial roads, and major transit systems.
- A flexible state and local program to address urban mobility,
suburban congestion, rural access, and modal links by granting funds
for rural and urban highway needs beyond NHS and to states and transit
agencies for public transportation.
In these and other recommendations, Keeping America Moving
fleshed out the concepts of the growing consensus. The key was to
focus federal efforts on the programs with the highest level of federal
interest, namely NHS, while leaving state and local officials to address
other highway and public transportation needs with maximum flexibility.
The Shape of Consensus
On Nov. 11, 1987, AASHTO's efforts led to creation of the Transportation
Alternatives Group (TAG) to receive and analyze information gathered
during the Transportation 2020 program and to identify alternative
national transportation strategies for the future.
Members
of the Transportation Alternatives Group Established by AASHTO
American
Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials
American Automobile Association
American Public Transit Association
American Public Works Association
American Trucking Associations Inc.
Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility
National Association of Counties
National Association of Regional Councils
National Conference of State Legislators
National Governors' Association
National League of Cities
U.S. Conference of Mayors
Chair,
Thomas W. Bradshaw Jr.
Exec. Dir., Stephen Lockwood
|
In
January 1990, after analyzing the data gathered by Miller's task force,
AASHTO's public forums, TRB's futures conference, and a two-day workshop
in October 1989, TAG released its consensus policy recommendations
for a national surface transportation program with the mission "to
maintain and improve mobility through the provision of safe, efficient,
convenient, cost-effective, and environmentally sensitive transportation.
This program should support fundamental national economic, social,
and security goals."
Flexibility was a primary feature of TAG's proposals for programs,
transportation planning, and project selection. TAG supported the
concept of a national highway system with routes to be selected collaboratively
by federal, state, and local governments to "serve multiple goals
and interests." Beyond NHS, the program should include substantial
simplification and increased flexibility and discretion to allow state,
regional, and local governments to more effectively meet specific
urban, suburban, and rural transportation needs.
TAG endorsed increasing system productivity, providing incentives
to increase use of public transportation and other forms of shared
ride services, and developing strategies to improve air quality. TAG
also promoted a scenic byway system, state-of-the-art high-speed intercity
rail service in high-density corridors, and research into a new generation
of vehicle and "guideway" technology.
On funding, TAG called on the federal government to "renew its
commitment to a strong transportation program in support of the nation's
economic health and prosperity." It supported the continuation
of the Highway Trust Fund. In one of the more difficult decisions
for the diverse membership of TAG, it recommended that federal-aid
highway funds should continue to be allocated to the states, thereby
rejecting calls from cities for direct allocation for the first time
since the federal-aid highway program was authorized in 1916.
Now it was up to the administration and Congress to create legislation
for the post-Interstate era.
PART
II
Toward
a National Transportation Policy
When President Bush took office in January 1989, he de-emphasized
the New Federalism concepts that had marked the Reagan administration's
approach to transportation. His new secretary of transportation, Samuel
K. Skinner, would confront the post-Interstate era head-on.
|
On
March 8, 1990, President Bush and Secretary of Transportation
Samuel K. Skinner Introduce Moving America: New Directions,
New Opportunities, which explained the new national transportation
policy. |
Shortly
after taking office in 1989, Skinner launched a long-term initiative
to develop a National Transportation Policy (NTP) based on a complete
assessment of the U.S. transportation system and transportation needs
through the year 2050.
To head the initiative, Skinner selected Deputy Secretary Elaine Chao
and Federal Highway Administrator Thomas D. Larson. Larson tapped
Anthony R. Kane, now FHWA's associate administrator for engineering
and program development, to be director of the NTP team.
The NTP team reviewed attempts by previous transportation secretaries
to develop a national transportation policy. Unlike those efforts,
which typically came as the secretary was leaving office, Skinner's
plan would come early in his term while he had time to implement it.
Also in contrast with the earlier plans, the NTP team would conduct
an extensive public outreach, including more than 30 public hearings
around the country. By the time the NTP team released its report in
March 1990, the members had the benefit of the Futures Group reports
and proposals by AASHTO, TAG, and other groups interested in transportation.
Even as NTP was getting underway, FHWA concluded its Futures Group
initiative by announcing its ideas to AASHTO's Policy Committee in
July 1989. They included a major consolidation of categories. The
System of Highways of National Significance would include the Interstate
System, selected principal arterial highways, and STRAHNET. The federal
share of costs would vary - 90 percent for Interstate 3R work (resurfacing,
restoration, and rehabilitation), 60 percent for construction of new
facilities and improvement of NHS routes, and 50 percent for new toll
road construction.
All roads not in NHS - except local roads - would be eligible under
a Rural and Urban Block Grant with a federal matching share of 50
percent. Transit programs might be eligible as well. FHWA proposed
to eliminate many federal requirements on such projects, including
project approval, agreements and inspections, sanctions, and maintenance
requirements. Other elements of the programs included a high-cost
discretionary bridge program, federal lands funds, and an expanded
research initiative.
Other groups, including the Highway Users Federation for Safety and
Mobility and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association,
also made proposals.
Unveiling
the National Transportation Policy
In a ceremony at the Old Executive Office Building on March 8, 1990,
President Bush and Secretary Skinner released Moving America: New
Directions, New Opportunities, which explained the new national transportation
policy. Moving America called for a shift in focus "from building
the nation's basic transportation system to adapting and modernizing
transportation facilities and services to support economic growth,
meet the competitive demands of the international marketplace, contribute
to our national security, and improve the quality of life for all
Americans."
NTP presented 169 guidelines and 65 legislative, regulatory, budget,
and program initiatives. The directions for future transportation
policy were summarized under six major themes:
- Maintain and expand the nation's transportation system.
- Foster a sound financial base for transportation.
- Keep the transportation industry strong and competitive.
- Ensure that the transportation system supports public safety and
national security.
- Protect the environment and quality of life.
- Advance U.S. transportation technology and expertise.
The
National Transportation Policy Team U.S. Department of Transportation
Anthony
R. Kane, director, National Transportation Policy Team, and
Federal Highway Administration associate administrator for right-of-way
and environment
Patrick Murphy, deputy assistant secretary for policy and international
affairs
Galen Reser, assistant secretary for governmental affairs
David Prosperi, assistant secretary for public affairs
Dale McDaniel, Federal Aviation Administration acting associate
administrator for policy
Bill Watt, Federal Railroad Administration associate administrator
for policy
Arnold Levine, director, Office of the Secretary, Office of
International Transportation
John Cline, Urban Mass Transportation Administration associate
administrator for budget and policy
Joe Rhodes, FHWA director of policy development
Mark Dowis, Research and Special Programs Administration executive
assistant to the administrator
|
The
emphasis was on preserving our infrastructure and managing it better,
providing a "level playing field" for officials trying to
decide between highway and transit options, enhancing operations through
management systems and operational and technological advances, and
implementing transportation demand management and pricing strategies
to address congestion by diverting motorists to other modes. NTP also
emphasized using incentives to increase private sector involvement
in the funding of infrastructure improvements, providing intermodal
and rural connections, and ensuring that new capacity is provided
in transportation systems of national significance.
Although NTP did not propose or directly comment on NHS, one of NTP's
strategies for action was to focus on systems and projects of national
significance. For other purposes, transportation programs should move
from categorical grants to broader, more flexible federal assistance
while eliminating rigid standards and requirements. Recipients of
federal aid should pay more of the cost, while state and local governments
should also increase flexibility in their use of resources across
modal choices. The role of metropolitan planning organizations should
be strengthened.
For highways, Moving America's strategies for action included providing
incentives to preserve highways and requiring the use of sound infrastructure
management programs as a condition of aid. The state and local shares
would be increased. Other strategies involved improving highway and
motor carrier safety and adding resources for research and development.
For transit, Moving America called for restructuring mass transportation
programs to reduce reliance on general fund revenues, eliminating
barriers to private sector participation in mass transportation systems,
and reducing federal operating assistance for urban transit.
While Moving America made a strong commitment to financing the federal
role in transportation by spending transportation trust fund balances
over time in a fiscally responsible way, it also sought to foster
state and local funding initiatives. Aside from proposing to increase
state and local matching shares, Moving America favored relaxation
of federal restrictions on the ability of state and local governments
to raise funds - for example, through tolls. State and local governments
would be encouraged to make use of innovative financing options, such
as joint public-private initiatives and benefit assessments on property
owners. The private sector was seen as a vast untapped resource that
must be stimulated to invest in transportation as well.
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
Elaine
Chao, former deputy secretary of transportation, was president
and CEO of the United Way of America and a distinguished fellow
at The Heritage Foundation before being nominated by President
George W. Bush to become the secretary of labor. The Senate
confirmed her for the post on Jan. 29, 2001.
|
Beyond
program issues, Moving America made a strong commitment to protect
the environment and quality of life. The issue was stated bluntly:
"Many aspects of transportation have adverse effects on the environment."
Across the spectrum of modal activities, the U.S. Department of Transportation
must minimize the negative effects. Suggested measures included supporting
the updating of the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA); encouraging the development
of transportation facilities that fit harmoniously into communities
and the natural environment; preserving scenic and historic sites;
developing cleaner, more efficient motor vehicle systems as well as
a new generation of transportation for high-density intercity travel;
and extending access and mobility improvements to all Americans.
During
the ceremony introducing Moving America, President Bush referred to
it as "our blueprint ... for this new world." Most of all,
he said, it was "a strategy to unleash the creative genius of
American technology." He called on the private sector to join
federal, state, and local officials in the effort to improve transportation.
"Such a partnership has already built a transportation system
that is the envy of the world. And if we work together in this joint
venture, America can continue to be the world leader in transportation,"
the president said.
Reaction
to Moving America
Moving America was a challenging document that addressed many
complex issues, and the NTP team under Chao, Larson, and Kane wanted
their efforts to be judged on the basis of the policy principles.
These elements of the plan were received positively. AASHTO President
Kermit Justice of Delaware applauded President Bush and Secretary
Skinner "for this important initiative." He agreed with
the document's emphasis on such policies as a balanced and safe transportation
system and greater flexibility in the use of federal funds. The
Wall Street Journal praised the plan for making U.S. transportation
policy "more local, more private, and less regulated." And
there was general agreement that Moving America addressed vital
issues in a comprehensive way.
|
This
is the cover of Moving America |
However,
the focus of the reaction was on the funding elements of the proposal,
particularly the idea that the states should contribute more in the
form of higher matching shares. In the same statement in which he
praised the initiative, Justice noted that "the road to a sound
transportation future cannot be paved with good intentions. It will
also take dollars." He rejected any notion that the states weren't
doing their share, and he said that AASHTO would work with the Bush
administration and Congress "to ensure that the needed investment
is made at all levels."
As Justice's statement on behalf of AASHTO suggested, reaction within
the transportation community depended on how each interest was treated.
While the International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association,
a national advocate for toll financing, described Moving America
as "an excellent and forthright document," the American
Trucking Associations and the Highway Users Federation for Safety
and Mobility objected to the increased reliance on toll roads. The
American Public Transportation Association (APTA) thought that the
new policy was "long on advice and short on help." According
to APTA, Moving America would decrease federal support for
mass transit, put people out of work, and make it impossible for others
to get to their jobs.
As for the media, some issues are more easily explained to readers
than others. On the day after the ceremony and in the weeks ahead,
the focus was on money. The headline in the Chicago Tribune
on March 9 — "Plan Shifts More Costs to Users, States"
— focused on the one point that everyone took from Moving
America.
Reaction in Congress, where both houses were controlled by the Democrats,
was equally unenthusiastic. Rep. Mineta, chairman of the House Public
Works Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, said that NTP gives
states "the shift and the shaft." Sen. Bentsen, chairman
of the Senate Finance Committee, said the policy "sounds like
they're trying to pour five pounds of sugar in a two-pound sack."
Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., a member of the Committee on Environment
and Public Works, acknowledged that in the "push-pull" between
the federal and state governments, "Congress is going to have
to sit and referee that battle."
Editorial cartoonists across the country had a field day.
Auth, the editorial cartoonist for The Philadelphia Inquirer,
epitomized NTP in a two-panel cartoon. In the first panel, a smiling
President Bush says, "I have a vision! I see a clean environment!
I see well-educated citizens! I see a transportation system the envy
of the world!!" In the second panel, he looks over a group of
street beggars labeled "states," "cities," and
"burbs," and exclaims, "I also see you fellas paying
for it."
On March 16, The Washington Post's Herblock summarized NTP
in one panel. A dump truck carrying loads with such labels as "$
for New Missiles Aimed at Poland" and "$ for Star Wars"
is on a crumbling Interstate highway bridge. The caption reads, "I
hope the states hurry up and fix these roads for us."
In The Kansas City Star, Schorr depicted the "Bush Infrastructure
Plan" in a sketch of the Brooklyn Bridge with a sign that says,
"For Sale."
The reaction was summed up by Associated Press, which quoted an unnamed
critic who described NTP as "all flash and no cash."
The
Clean Air Act Amendments
One of the most important events in the history of ISTEA occurred
on Nov. 15, 1990. On that day, President Bush signed the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). Although CAAA, like all bills, was
a collaboration, it was chiefly the product of the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works and especially Sen. Moynihan, chairman
of the Water Resources, Transportation, and Infrastructure Subcommittee.
CAAA established criteria for attaining and maintaining National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Transportation plans, programs, and projects
must conform with a "State Implementation Plan" for attaining
the NAAQS. Areas that had not attained the NAAQS must act within a
set time frame to reduce emissions. EPA was given the authority to
impose sanctions, including the loss of federal-aid highway funds,
to force compliance with requirements to attain the NAAQS.
CAAA established strong requirements, but it provided no funds to
state and local governments to help them comply. Moreover, CAAA reflected
the growing sentiment that the automobile was at the center of the
air quality problem as well as many other problems.
This new law, which placed surface transportation at the center of
the fight for cleaner air, was a landmark product of the same committee
that would develop ISTEA. The committee, and especially Moynihan,
would see ISTEA as an opportunity to provide the funds and flexibility
that were lacking in CAAA. Moynihan had long believed that the Interstate
System had "destroyed our urban society," and now he was
in a position to do something about it.
NTP
Becomes STAA
On Feb. 13, 1991, President Bush unveiled the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1991 (STAA) in a White House press conference. It
was the main legislative product of NTP.
The president said, "It's time to take the first step on the
long road that lies ahead, and the status quo will simply not get
us there." He emphasized the increased funding in the bill -
highway investment up 39 percent to $20 billion by 1996, capital investment
in transit up 25 percent, plus a 14 percent increase in funding for
highway safety programs.
|
The
proposed Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1991 permitted
the use of the funds for transit capital costs and capital projects
to improve intercity bus service. |
Before
completing STAA, Secretary Skinner had to clear it through the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), which shaped its content, particularly
with regard to revenue issues. This was a sensitive issue for the
White House. On Aug. 18, 1988, while accepting the presidential nomination
of the Republican Party, Bush had emphasized his determination to
resist all pressure to raise federal taxes with a vivid phrase concocted
by speechwriter Peggy Noonan in the spirit of tough-guy actor Clint
Eastwood: "Read my lips - no new taxes." Since October 1990,
when he reached a budget accord with Congress that included a tax
increase as a way of reducing the deficit, he had been battered politically
for breaking his "no new taxes" pledge. His decision on
the budget may have been statesman-like, but it eroded his support
and credibility within the Republican Party and had not yet had any
discernible impact on the deficit or the economy.
The accord was embodied in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990, approved by President Bush on Nov. 6, 1990. It included a 5
cents per gallon gas tax increase that would expire on Oct. 30, 1995.
Of the 5-cent increase, 2.5 cents went to budget reduction, and the
other 2.5 cents went to the Highway Trust Fund.
With the president still feeling the sting from his own political
party for violating the pledge that he made at the convention, OMB
was not about to see any more tax increases, whether disguised as
user fees or investments.
STAA, which proposed authorization of $105.4 billion over five years,
would support this funding level by extending the Highway Trust Fund
and the taxes supporting it through FY1998. However, the 5 cents per
gallon gas tax increase enacted as part of the October 1990 budget
accord would not be extended beyond its current expiration date of
Oct. 30, 1995. The tax would be reduced from 14.1 cents per gallon
to 9.1 cents. Obligation limits would continue on the federal-aid
highway program through the life of STAA.
The centerpiece of the proposal was NHS, the concept that had emerged
from the FHWA Futures Group and AASHTO's Transportation 2020 initiatives.
Federal investment would be focused on maintaining and improving a
national highway system that would serve interstate and interregional
transportation. State and local officials would be consulted on which
arterial roads would be included in addition to the Interstate System
and STRAHNET; however, their selection was subject to approval by
the secretary of transportation. Projects on the Interstate System
would retain a federal share of 90 percent, but for other NHS projects,
the federal share would be 75 percent.
A second key component of STAA, the Urban/Rural Program, reflected
the call from all parties for increased flexibility on programs of
lesser federal interest. The program would replace the federal-aid
primary, secondary, and urban systems that had evolved since creation
of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in 1916. Any public road - except
those on NHS and those functionally classified as rural minor collectors
or local roads - would be eligible. Traditional road improvements
would be eligible, but officials would have the option of using the
funds for transit capital costs and capital projects to improve intercity
and rural bus service. Similarly, transit formula funds could be used
for highways. The federal share would be 60 percent across the board
to provide a new "level playing field" for modal choices.
To attract private investment, the proposal also would eliminate longstanding
restrictions on the use of federal-aid funds for toll roads. Federal-aid
highway funds would be available to improve existing toll facilities,
construct new toll facilities, and convert existing non-Interstate
toll-free facilities to toll facilities. In an important departure
from existing statute, the new toll facilities would not have to end
toll collection when initial construction costs were recovered as
long as excess revenue was used for other highway or transit projects.
The maximum federal share for such projects would be 35 percent. Toll-free
segments of the Interstate System were exempt from conversion.
Another state/local revenue option was "congestion pricing."
STAA called for demonstration projects under which rush-hour fees
would be imposed on drivers in cities with serious air quality problems.
The goal was to motivate peak period drivers to car pool, use transit,
or shift to less congested times. The fees could be collected through
higher parking prices or, as suggested by the International Bridge,
Tunnel, and Turnpike Association, by electronic toll metering. Tolls
could be imposed on Interstate highways as part of a congestion pricing
demonstration project.
Transportation planning would be strengthened. All urbanized areas
must have a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and produce a
transportation improvement program of all projects to be funded under
NHS, the Urban/Rural Program, and the expanded Bridge Program. In
areas with a population greater than 200,000, the transportation improvement
program must be developed through a new technical process emphasizing
multimodal consideration, coordination with land-use planning, and
mitigation of transportation-related air quality problems. STAA called
for congestion management systems as well as cooperation with the
states in developing pavement management, bridge management, and safety
management systems. Projects to increase the vehicle-carrying capacity
of a transportation corridor could not be approved unless they were
consistent with the congestion management system.
Flexibility under the Urban/Rural Program was a key component of STAA's
transit proposals. Since the early 1970s, transit advocates had achieved
increased access to highway user revenues, with the greatest previous
success occurring when the STAA of 1982 had increased the gas tax
by 5 cents per gallon, of which 1 cent was credited to a new Transit
Account in the Highway Trust Fund to finance capital expenditures.
In addition to the $16.3 billion included in the new STAA proposal
for mass transit, a major portion of the highway funds in STAA could
be transferred to transit projects (and vice versa, although officials
expected transfers to favor transit).
This was a major change. Coupled with the new multimodal planning
requirements and the equal matching shares, the new flexibility would
allow state and local officials to decide the most effective transportation
projects for each area, rather than have their choices driven by the
larger amounts and lower state/local matching shares for highway projects.
STAA increased the Urban Mass Transportation Administration's (UMTA's)
formula distribution to cover 80 percent of funding (up from 52 percent)
and to extend funds to a larger number of cities. However, the funds
would be restricted to capital needs instead of operating expenses
in areas with a population of more than 1 million. Funding for "New
Start" fixed guideway systems would continue at increasing levels,
but only for new systems that are cost-effective and supported by
a significant source of local funding.
Right-of-way on NHS could be made available without charge to a publicly
or privately owned mass transportation authority for rail systems,
including high-speed and maglev (magnetic levitation) facilities.
Under STAA, UMTA would also gain a new name - the Mass Transportation
Administration. This proposal recognized the agency's growing role
in providing service in rural as well as urban areas.
Environmental initiatives, including provisions addressing the new
CAAA requirements, were an important element of STAA. Aside from the
planning requirements, STAA proposed eligibility for traffic management
and control, a higher federal share for demand management strategies
for the Interstate System (90 percent instead of 75 percent), and
100 percent funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Areas having
difficulty meeting the NAAQS would be permitted to experiment with
congestion-pricing strategies that could make alternative work schedules,
public transportation, ride-sharing, and other demand management strategies
more appealing.
STAA also called for delegation of project reviews under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) so that FHWA would yield its primary
role in approvals upon submission by a state of an annual certification
describing the procedures that would ensure full compliance. Future
payments to the state would be withheld if a recipient failed to comply
substantially. Furthermore, states could develop NHS and bridge projects
costing less than $1 million without federal oversight upon certification
that the projects would be developed as were other projects involving
federal oversight.
STAA also recommended reauthorization of FHWA's safety grant program
and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's)
highway safety, motor vehicle, and consumer protection programs. However,
in keeping with the NTP principle that transportation programs should
be supported by those who benefit from them, STAA proposed funding
all NHTSA programs from the Highway Trust Fund. STAA also proposed
increased funding for truck safety inspections to improve efficiency
and effectiveness, but it prohibited the states from interfering with
the non-safety-related business operations of interstate motor carriers.
At the White House on Feb. 13, Secretary Skinner called STAA "a
good bill - one that is balanced, comprehensive, and tailored to the
unique needs of a growing America." He considered it "a
new vision for the 21st century," and it was, indeed, revolutionary.
Still, the program details were in many respects consistent with the
concepts that emerged from the Futures Group, TAG, and other efforts
to shape the post-Interstate future. Although the bill was consistent
with the NTP principles, it was received more favorably within the
transportation community than the more comprehensive NTP had been
a year earlier. Still, the reception was mixed, with the bottom-line
funding aspects causing the most problems.
Highway
Robbery
An editorial in The Washington Post complimented the Bush administration
for "some sensible thinking about ... the necessity of setting
highway and transit priorities as America's great age of the Interstate
Highway System winds down."
AASHTO President Hal Rives, commissioner of the Georgia Department
of Transportation, praised the proposal for recognizing "the
urgency of our national transportation needs." On a scale of
1 to 10, he gave the STAA a 6. "The concept is good. It streamlines
the entire program," he said.
The
increased funding for highways was praised, as was the NHS concept.
Kirk Fordice, president of the Associated General Contractors of America,
congratulated President Bush "for making surface transportation
a top national priority and for highlighting the important role that
it plays in our nation's economy."
Nevertheless, the reaction overwhelmingly focused on the bottom line.
Commentators were quick to link the funding aspect of the plan to
the president's political difficulties since reaching the budget accord
with Congress in October 1990.
Despite the editorial praise in The Washington Post, the headline
on its feature article read: "Highway Plans Shift Costs to States."
Nationally, many headlines shared a theme with The Oregonian,
which headlined its STAA article: "Bush Plan Bad News for Oregon."
An editorial in The Tampa Tribune echoed the theme: "Florida
Must Act to Stop Washington's Highway Robbery."
The Washington Times urged opposition to STAA "before
we're all herded into HOV [high-occupancy-vehicle express] lanes like
the sheep who run this city." According to the Times, the big
winners in the proposal ranged from "bureaucrats from city and
county transit authorities to federal highway administrators."
AASHTO's Rives described the funding as "clearly inadequate to
meet our national transportation needs, and what money is there is
not fairly distributed."
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association agreed that
STAA was "a good start for dialogue," but said "it
falls way short of providing the level of funding that is necessary
to meet America's highway and bridge needs."
The National Governors Association praised many aspects of the plan.
"Unfortunately," said Gov. Wallace Wilkinson of Kentucky,
"it also shifts added costs to states" that were already
paying "the lion's share of surface transportation costs."
|
|
|
|
|
As
chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Sen. Quentin Burdick, D-N.D., had a great deal of influence on
highway-related legislation. |
|
Sen.
Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., was chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies. |
|
Sen.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., was a primary player in the development
of ISTEA. |
Transit
interests were particularly concerned about funding. The American
Public Transportation Association said STAA "truly lacks balance
in terms of the total transportation system." It added the ultimate
insult from a transit perspective: "It's really a highway bill."
Congressman William Lipinski, D-Ill., who represented a Chicago district,
said the STAA was "totally unacceptable to the mass transit community."
Executive Director Mortimer L. Downey of New York City's Metropolitan
Transportation Authority said the loss of operating subsidies sent
a "bad message for urban America." In a New York Post article
with the headline "Subway Fare Could Soar to $1.75," Downey
was quoted as saying, "This is the federal government —
vintage 1950s —build more roads, guzzle more gas."
In response to concerns about transit funding, UMTA Administrator
Clymer joined FHWA Administrator Larson in a letter to The Washington
Post that explained the proposal:
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
Quentin
N. Burdick, who was chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works, passed away on Sept. 8, 1992, of a heart condition.
He served 32 years in the Senate.
|
"Critics
charge that in dedicating funds for the NHS, the administration has
ignored the important role transit plays in surface transportation.
Transit does play a key role; under the administration's proposal,
more than $28 billion —about one—third of the funds that
would be authorized for highways and bridges —could be used for
transit, if state and local transportation officials so choose.
"The administration's plan proposes a series of funding formulas
that are fair to the subway rider in New York and the farmer in Idaho."
Although congressional reaction was not all negative, many members
of Congress did not accept the view that the funding formulas were
fair to all.
Sen. Quentin Burdick, D-N.D., chairman of the Committee on Environment
and Public Works, was concerned the proposal was "unfairly weighted
against North Dakota and other rural states." He was particularly
concerned about the 75-percent federal matching share for NHS, a concept
that implied rural roads (matching share: 60 percent) were less important.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., chairman of the Appropriations Committee's
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, said, "This
bill is not a plan for the future," and indicated he would ensure
"the federal government pulls its own weight."
Sen. Moynihan, whose subcommittee would consider STAA, objected to
"the proposal's manifest discrimination against New York."
He called it "an energy policy rather than a transportation policy"
because 70 percent of the NHS apportionments would be based on fuel
consumption, thus encouraging states to support driving instead of
transit and other alternatives that would cost them federal dollars.
The NHS proposal "appears to anticipate more lanes and yet more
lanes and little else."
Rep. Roe, chairman of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation,
praised many elements of STAA, such as its intermodal basis, but he
was concerned that "in some cases, they are masking reduced funding
with philosophy and rhetoric." He also wanted to reduce the balance
growing in the Highway Trust Fund. "Let's invest the money in
highways and transit and stop fooling the American people."
Rep. Mineta, chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee,
objected to STAA for "critical shortsightedness" in funding.
He said that he would strongly support state and local flexibility
"without stripping away federal funding today or making it needlessly
tougher to get federal funding tomorrow."
The
administration could appreciate the fact that the broad outlines of
STAA were widely accepted, especially the focus on the NHS and the
flexibility for other programs. Still, at best, the reception had
been, as AASHTO put it, "cautious" on Capitol Hill. The
fate of the proposal was uncertain.
Environmentalists
Coalesce in Opposition
Pro-environment, pro-transit advocates had long opposed highway development
and the way it had transformed the country, especially the urban areas.
They had been influential, especially in affecting federal legislation
and individual project decisions. However, passage of CAAA and the
pending post-Interstate reauthorization gave them renewed incentive
to seek ways to increase their influence at this critical time in
surface transportation history.
The opportunity was seized the same week that Congress completed work
on CAAA. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute convened a meeting
on Oct. 26, 1990, to "put all these quality of life issues on
an equal footing with those of the traditional transportation lobby."
An umbrella coalition called the Surface Transportation Policy Project
(STPP) emerged from this meeting.
|
Rep.
Robert Roe, D-N.J., as chairman of the House Committee on Public
Works and Transportation, was very influential in the development
of highway bills. |
STPP
consisted of organizations, coalitions, and grassroots groups that
supported a comprehensive transportation policy that "serves
environmental, social, and economic interests." STPP members
felt that as a united group, hosted by the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, they would have more influence with Congress than they
would have individually.
STPP explained its mission: "STPP's primary objective is to ensure
that federal support for transportation promotes clear national mandates
for environmental quality, a strong economy, energy and resource conservation,
and enhances the quality of life in neighborhoods and communities."
Unlike TAG, which included diverse groups with sometimes conflicting
agendas, STPP was unified in its goals, thus increasing its ability
to advocate strong, even radical positions. Because STPP was formed
late in the development of post-Interstate transportation policy,
it would not release its proposals until President Bush and Secretary
Skinner had unveiled STAA. Despite this late arrival on the scene,
STPP would be influential in the public debates of 1991 and behind
the scenes. They found Sen. Moynihan and his top aide, Roy W. Kienitz,
supportive of STPP's goals. Kienitz, who was Moynihan's link to STPP,
would join the umbrella group in 1996 and become its executive director
in 1998.
On the same day that the president released STAA, representatives
of STPP denounced it. Project director Sarah Campbell called it "so
highway-oriented" and "short on provisions that would advance
the national goals of energy conservation, air quality, efficient
movement of people and goods, and a sound economy."
|
|
|
|
|
Rep.
Norman Mineta, D-Calif., chairman of the House Surface Transportation
Subcommittee, strongly supported increasing the flexibility of
state and local authorities to determine the most appropriate
way to spend federal surface transportation money. |
|
Louis
J. Gambaccini, general manager of the Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority, said, "It's time to focus our transportation on
the safe and efficient movement of people, not just of vehicles." |
|
Wayne
Muri, chief highway engineer in Missouri, expressed his concern
that increased federal gas taxes would require the states to increase
their funding for matching shares while simultaneously restricting
the states' means to raise funds. |
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
Robert
A. Roe announced in March 1992 that he would not seek reelection,
indicating he wanted to pursue other interests. He remains involved
in New Jersey transportation issues.
|
This
initial reaction was followed on April 9 by STPP's surface transportation
proposal, Acting in the National Interest: The Transportation Agenda.
In explaining STPP's proposal, Louis J. Gambaccini, general manager
of the Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, said, "Many
of our problems — rising congestion and air pollution, increasing
dependence on foreign oil, decaying communities, and a stagnating
economy —are the direct result of government policies favoring
the car. It is time to focus our transportation on the safe and efficient
movement of people, not just of vehicles."
In announcing its proposals, STPP highlighted increased funding to
preserve Interstate highways ($14.2 billion over five years), highway
bridges ($12.2 billion), and transit systems ($26.2 billion). Unlike
the STAA proposal, STPP called for uniform federal shares across the
spectrum of options. New development for all modes would be funded
at a federal share of 75 percent, while the share would be 90 percent
for preservation and management of existing systems for non-capital
projects that promote national interests such as clean air and energy
efficiency. The funding increase for transit would help implement
national mandates, in particular CAAA and the Americans with Disabilities
Act (signed by President Bush on July 26, 1990). Funding for transit
operating assistance would be retained.
Original
Steering Committee of the Surface Transportation Policy Project,
October 1990
America's
Coalition for Transit Now!
American Institute of Architects
American Planning Association
Bicycle Federation of America
Campaign for New Transportation Priorities
Center for Neighborhood Technology
Energy Conservation Coalition
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Environmental Consortium for Minority Outreach
Environmental Defense Fund
Friends of the Earth
National Association of Regional Councils
National Growth Management Leadership Project
National Trust for Historic Preservation
National Wildlife Federation
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
Scenic America
Surdina Foundation Inc.
|
STPP
separated its urban and rural proposals. A Metropolitan Mobility Program
($34.5 billion) would give local officials full flexibility to invest
in all modes and for all types of projects, including the development
of additional capacity. The Rural Access Program ($15.5 billion) would
have the same flexibility and eligibility requirements.
Acting in the National Interest also proposed a multimodal
long-range state transportation plan and a shorter range transportation
improvement program that includes strategies to achieve specific objectives,
such as relieving urban congestion, attaining CAAA requirements, avoiding
effects on water quality and aquatic resources, promoting energy conservation,
and providing needed transit and road facilities in rural areas. The
state transportation departments would be required to establish reasonable
mechanisms for public involvement in the planning process. They also
must coordinate with state agencies concerned with environmental,
energy, planning, and CAAA issues and with rural organizations. The
planning would cover all transportation systems, including federal
and non-federal systems and highway and non-highway transportation.
Metropolitan transportation planning would be altered. Acting in
the National Interest proposed increased funding for MPOs, each
of which must prepare a long-range transportation plan covering all
transportation systems, reflecting state and local land-use plans,
and demonstrating consistency with objectives in the state plan. For
MPOs serving areas of more than 200,000 in population, officials must
also prepare an annual transportation improvement program, which could
include only projects that have realistic funding sources.
STPP opposed delegation of NEPA responsibility. Although supportive
of reducing unnecessary paperwork and delays, STPP considered the
proposed delegation in STAA "too broad and poorly defined."
Acting in the National Interest called for involvement of key
transportation and environmental interest groups in defining the problem.
The deliberations should consider design standards, "which have
their own environmental and economic consequences," as well as
environmental laws and regulations.
In some ways, Acting in the National Interest took concepts
that FHWA's Futures Group, TAG, NTP, and STAA had advocated, and it
pushed them to the next level. It was the difference between seeing
transportation as a goal and seeing transportation as a means to other
goals. As Acting in the National Interest put it, "It
is now time to help ourselves by setting goals that both strengthen
our economy and lessen the burden that surface transportation is placing
on our communities, environment, and national security.
A
Challenge From the President
Since Aug. 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, President Bush had led
a worldwide coalition under the United Nations (U.N.) aimed at forcing
Iraq back within its borders. On Feb. 24, 1991, after months of regional
hostilities, American and U.N. forces under Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
launched a ground assault on Iraqi forces. The assault ended with
a swift, decisive victory on Feb. 28 when Iraq surrendered. Operation
Desert Storm was over.
Less than a week later, on March 6, President Bush addressed a joint
session of Congress on the cessation of the Persian Gulf Conflict.
"Tonight, we meet in a world blessed by the promise of peace,"
he said.
Near the conclusion of the speech, the president said that with the
war ended, "Our first priority is to get this economy rolling
again ... [and] enact the legislation that is key to building a better
America." He challenged Congress on two bills that "we should
be able to agree on quickly: transportation and crime."
"If
our forces could win the ground war in 100 hours, then surely the
Congress can pass this legislation in 100 days. Let that be a promise
we make tonight to the American people," said the president.
His target date was June 14, 1991, and Congress appeared determined
to meet that goal although not necessarily to pass all provisions
of STAA. By the time Sen. Burdick began his committee's hearings on
March 5, Secretary Skinner admitted that, "We do not believe
this bill is anywhere close to its final form."
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
Daniel
Patrick Moynihan retired at the end of the 106th Congress in
2000. He remains active in public issues. He is co-chair of
President George W. Bush's 16-member Commission to Strengthen
Social Security, a subject of longstanding interest to the former
senator.
|
His
recognition of political reality was confirmed by a statement released
by Sen. Moynihan that day. "We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity
to redefine federal transportation policy," Moynihan said. Although
he questioned STAA's funding levels and use of fuel consumption as
a factor in apportionment formulas, he had a broader concern: "An
absolutely central point we must face is that no amount of new highways
will relieve congestion. As long as there is open road to drive on,
people will use their cars. Once you own one, driving a modern high-mileage
car is essentially a free activity."
Noting that 57 percent of Interstate construction funds had been spent
in urban areas, he said: "Almost without exception, these behemoths
have simply choked the inner city they surround. The problems of urban
areas — congestion, air pollution, sprawl, and general disrepair
— are national problems. These are the failure in highway policy
that most people see every day."
Integrated planning must be another principle in the new legislation,
he said. Because integrated planning was not part of the Interstate
program at the start, "we have damaged neighborhoods and closed-off
urban waterfronts to show for it."
His statement concluded: "More than any other thing, I fear that
we will have learned nothing from the past. We must not end up with
more of what Professor Kain [Prof. John Kain, chairman of the Department
of Economics at Harvard University] has called a 'mindless, massive'
program of highway construction."
Moynihan
was not jumping on any bandwagon; he was expressing a long-held perspective.
Thirty-one years earlier, in 1960, he had written an article for The
Reporter magazine called "New Roads and Urban Chaos" in
which he criticized the Interstate Highway Program, especially for
its damaging effect on the American city. It "seemed lunatic,"
he wrote, to undertake such a vast program with no thought for other
forms of transportation or for metropolitan planning. "Almost
any effort to think a bit about what we are doing would help."
And the damage wasn't limited to the cities, Moynihan said in his
1960 article. Government "can no longer ignore what is happening
as the suburbs eat endlessly into the countryside."
Moving
Away From STAA
As the hearings in the House and Senate continued, STAA hit a "pothole
of criticism," as the Marin Independent Journal put it
in a March 7 headline.
"While Eisenhower looked forward, Bush looks backward" to
policies that would increase reliance on foreign oil, complained Rep.
Lipinski. Mass transit increases were essential, he said, "based
on where most Americans now live and work."
|
The
establishment of a National Scenic and Historic Highway Program,
which was first included in the earlier bill proposals, survived
to be included in ISTEA. This photo shows part of the San Juan
Skyway in Colorado. |
Commissioner
Thomas Downs of the New Jersey Department of Transportation supported
increased transit funding. Even after years of highway investment,
"our highways are more congested, our air more polluted and our
dependence on foreign oil greater than ever," Downs said.
Chairman Roe offered one of the sharpest criticisms, calling the administration's
transit proposals "fraudulent." Shifting costs from the
federal government to state and local governments was "a piece
of sleight of hand [like] the old pea under the net scheme."
Many states were concerned that increased federal funding would require
increased state funding for matching shares. Missouri's governor,
John Ashcroft, and chief engineer, Wayne Muri, expressed similar concerns,
especially if federal gasoline taxes jumped, thus limiting state taxing
options.
"If the federal government requires more state funds and then
takes away the method of raising those funds, we would be left holding
the bag," Muri said.
The $11 billion balance in the Highway Trust Fund was a particular
target during the hearings. The balance was partly a product of the
reimbursement nature of the federal-aid highway program, under which
funds are committed ("obligated") to projects but remain
in the account until state expenditures are reimbursed during multiyear
construction periods. The balance was needed to meet these commitments
as they came due. However, the balance was widely perceived as a product
of budget trickery in the form of annual obligation limitations that
reduced expenditures below authorized levels to make the federal deficit
look smaller.
|
Sen.
John Chafee, R-R.I., proposed the Visual Pollution Control Act
of 1990 |
In
calling for higher funding levels, the House Public Works and Transportation
Committee stated that 100 percent of the higher levels for highways
and 67 percent of higher transit funding levels could be supported
by current highway user tax revenues. Rep. Hammerschmidt, the committee's
ranking Republican member, explained that using the balance "keeps
faith with the American taxpayer by returning trust to the trust fund
and by supporting a surface transportation program that will meet
our needs for the 21st century."
The role of MPOs was also debated. Local officials sought more funding
for MPOs and control over the programming of all highway and transit
funds - a long-sought goal that would reduce the power of state transportation
departments. The states opposed the concept. The "level playing
field" concept, reflected in STAA by equal matching shares for
most highway and transit projects, was widely endorsed. The National
Association of Regional Councils endorsed proposals to "strengthen
and build cooperative planning efforts by balancing rural, urban and
suburban interests, environmental interests, and highways and transit
interests."
NHS, as endorsed by AASHTO and proposed in STAA, attracted criticism
from local officials and pro-transit, pro-environmental groups. The
funds, they felt, could be better used for transit and other metropolitan
needs.
Soon,
bills began to emerge. In March, a new bill was introduced, the Transportation
for Livable Communities Act of 1991. Developed by members of the STPP
coalition, the bill proposed to strengthen the planning process, establish
a National Scenic and Historic Highway System, and impose new controls
on outdoor advertising (adopting provisions of the Visual Pollution
Control Act of 1990 proposed by Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I.). In addition,
the bill would create a new funding category called "Transportation
Enhancement Activities" to fund activities such as scenic enhancement,
design excellence in transportation facilities, rehabilitation of
historic transportation structures, "rails to trails" conversions,
bicycle and pedestrian ways, and the control and removal of billboards.
The states would be required to spend 8 percent of apportioned funds
on these activities.
On April 16, Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Harry Reid
of Nevada introduced the Transportation Improvement Act of 1991. It
retained the basic structure of the existing Federal-Aid Highway Program,
but with apportionment bonuses that would increase funding for rural
areas (based on factors such as level of effort based on per capita
spending on highways, adverse weather, nontaxable federal lands, and
low population density). Thirty percent of non-Interstate funding
could be transferred among categories. Explaining the reliance on
the existing program structure, Reid cited the axiom, "If it
ain't broke, don't fix it." There was nothing wrong, he said,
"that spending the money in the Highway Trust Fund can't cure."
Sen.
Christopher Bond, R-Mo., transformed his state's concerns about its
share of Highway Trust Fund revenues into a reauthorization bill that
he introduced on April 23. His bill would revamp the Federal-Aid Highway
Program "to reflect modern day priorities." Although the
program elements of the proposal closely followed AASHTO's Keeping
America Moving: New Transportation Concepts for a New Century,
he proposed the following formula for the distribution of funds: 70
percent based on gallons of gasoline purchased in each state, 15 percent
based on state land area, and 15 percent based on public road miles
in each state. Bond indicated that his bill would give Missouri an
additional $1.4 billion in road money over five years.
What Bond and other bill sponsors did not know is that Moynihan was
about to fire a shot across the bow that would transform the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Sen.
Christopher Bond, R-Mo., introduced a bill that he said would
revamp the Federal-Aid Highway Program "to reflect modern
day priorities." |
|
Sen.
Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., proposed the
Transportation Improvement Act of 1991. |
|
PART
III
1991: The Forces Come Together
Chairman Burdick, in failing health, decided not to take the lead
role in the reauthorization effort. Instead, he agreed to let Sen.
Moynihan, the subcommittee chairman, take the lead on one condition:
that Moynihan would take care of North Dakota. Moynihan was ready
for this opportunity to put all his longstanding concerns about the
highway program into a legislative framework.
On April 25, Moynihan took to the floor of the Senate to introduce
S. 965, the Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (STEA).
According to a news analysis in the trucking industry's newspaper,
Transport Topics, Moynihan's proposal "hit the highway
community like a ton of bricks."
In a "Declaration of Policy," STEA stated that the principal
purpose of federal highway assistance "shall henceforth be to
improve the efficiency of the existing surface transportation system."
The declaration added: "It is the policy of the United States
to facilitate innovation and competition in transportation modes ...
and increase productivity ... through systematic attention to costs
and benefits, pursuing the most efficient allocation of costs and
the widest distribution of benefits."
To
accomplish this policy, STEA transformed the federal-aid highway and
transit programs in a variety of ways.
Interstate construction would be continued through 1996 at a total
cost of $7.2 billion, primarily to complete the Central Artery/Tunnel
Project in Boston.
The Surface Transportation Program (STP) would be the largest funding
category at nearly $50 billion through fiscal year (FY) 1996. Highway
and bridge projects would be eligible for STP funds, as would costs
associated with mass transit, rail, and magnetic levitation systems;
carpool projects and fringe and corridor parking; and safety improvements.
The federal share would be 80 percent. Funding left over from the
defunct federal-aid primary, secondary, and urban systems could be
spent in the STP category. Eight percent of STP funds must be used
for transportation enhancement activities. In a change known as "program
efficiencies," projects were to be designed in accordance with
state laws, regulations, directives, safety standards, design standards,
and construction standards. Any state could notify the secretary of
transportation that it no longer wishes to have federal project review
of any STP project (other than projects on Interstate highways or
other multilane, limited-access highways).
The Interstate Maintenance Program for restoring and rehabilitating
the Interstate System would be funded at $14.2 billion. The federal
share would be 80 percent. Projects primarily designed to add capacity
for single-occupant vehicles would not be eligible for funding.
The Bridge Program would be continued at a total of $13.3 billion,
minus the discretionary portion. The federal share would be 80 percent,
but it would be reduced to 75 percent for projects that added capacity
for single-occupant vehicles.
Federal-aid funds could be used for construction of new toll facilities
(up to 35 percent of cost), rehabilitation of existing toll facilities,
or conversion of toll-free facilities to toll facilities (80 percent).
Only interstate highways were exempt from conversion. STEA also modified
law on toll agreements, which allowed federal participation in costs
with the understanding that tolls would eventually be discontinued.
At the request of the non-federal partner, the agreements would be
renegotiated to allow continuance of tolls. The transportation secretary
would also establish a Congestion Pricing Pilot Program to initiate
projects in up to five states.
Metropolitan planning requirements were strengthened to require a
long-range transportation plan and a transportation improvement program.
MPOs were to consider such factors as preservation of existing transportation
facilities and using them more efficiently; energy conservation; relieving
congestion; effects on land use; use of innovative financing, such
as value capture, tolls, and congestion pricing; the overall social,
economic, and environmental effects of all transportation projects;
and transportation enhancement projects. The MPO, in cooperation with
the state and transit operators, would develop the transportation
improvement program, which may include projects only if funding can
reasonably be anticipated to be available.
At the request of a governor, the secretary of transportation may
work directly with the highway or transportation department of a municipality
of greater than 1 million population in lieu of the state transportation
department for purposes of project review.
Statewide planning would be required as well. The starting point would
be a series of management systems for bridges, pavements, safety,
and congestion. Funds could be withheld unless a state has approved
systems. In addition to considering the results of the management
systems, the state planning process should consider energy use goals;
development or land-use plans; border crossings; access to intermodal
facilities, recreational areas, monuments, historic sites, and military
installations; and coordination with clean air goals.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program would
provide $1 billion a year to help achieve the mandates of CAAA. Any
project would be eligible if it would contribute to achieving NAAQS,
is listed in an approved SIP, and is likely to have air quality benefits.
The funds may not be used to add capacity for single-occupant vehicles.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics would be created within the
Department of Transportation to conduct a comprehensive, long-term
program for the collection and analysis of data related to the performance
of the national transportation system.
The secretary of transportation and assistant secretary of the Army
for civil works would manage a National Magnetic Levitation Design
Program. After an aggressive program to produce a prototype, the program
would award a construction grant to build a maglev system on Interstate
highway right of way.
Where
sufficient right of way exists on roads constructed with federal-aid
funds, the secretary shall authorize the state to make it available
for high-speed ground transportation systems, including maglev systems,
buses, and nonhighway public mass transit facilities.
The secretary shall update a report required by the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1956 on the amount the United States would have to pay the
states to reimburse them for segments incorporated into the Interstate
System but built at non-federal expense, such as toll turnpikes.
Projects affecting a historic facility or an area of historic or scenic
value may be approved only if the project is designed to preserve
these values.
To encourage safety belt use in automobiles as well as helmets for
motorcyclists, STEA called for a program of incentives - grants totaling
$100 million to states with appropriate laws - and disincentives -
states that did not mandate usage by FY 1995 would be required to
use 1.5 percent of their apportioned funds for safety projects.
A functional reclassification of all public roads shall be undertaken
for purpose of classifying them as an arterial, collector, etc..
A National Recreational Trails Trust Fund would be established for
revenue from nonhighway recreational fuel taxes. The funds would finance
the National Recreational Trails Program to provide for and maintain
recreational trails.
A number of existing programs would be continued, including the Interstate
Substitution Program (for states that had canceled Interstate projects
and were entitled to equal funding for other purposes), the Federal
Lands Highway Program, and the Territorial Highway Program.
Although the bill had bipartisan leadership support from Sens. Burdick,
Chafee, Lautenberg, and Steve Symms , R-Idaho, STEA was clearly Moynihan's
initiative. It incorporated many ideas from STPP, which helped draft
the bill, eliminated much of FHWA's work (confining it largely to
concern about the Interstate System and roads on federal land), and
made no mention of a national highway system.
STEA also incorporated some of Moynihan's pet goals, including a study
of reimbursing states, such as New York, that had built turnpikes
before the 1956 highway act authorized significant federal funding
for the Interstate System; congestion pricing to alter modal use patterns;
and promotion of maglev. Regarding maglev, Moynihan had long considered
the U.S. Department of Transportation "brain dead" for its
failure to promote this innovative technology that, as he often noted,
had been invented in New York by scientists at Brookhaven National
Laboratory.
Reaction
to STEA
In
introducing STEA, Moynihan said that the post-Interstate era should
be based on three principles that were embodied in STEA:
- Our
primary object must be to improve the efficiency of the system we
now have.
-
Second, the time has come to turn the initiative in transportation
matters back to states and cities.
- Third,
transit should be an option for cities. Which is to say that "highway"
money should be fungible.
In addition to sending bureaucrats scrambling to the dictionary —"fungible"
means "freely interchangeable or replaceable for another of like
nature or kind" — Moynihan's statement and STEA sent shockwaves
through the highway community.
Secretary Skinner's official response was restrained. He applauded
the senators for moving the process forward and for "serious
effort." He added, however, "We are seriously concerned
that the Senate bill omits what we believe is a key element of the
president's bill, namely the National Highway System. We also believe
it imperative that all levels of government and the private sector
increase their investment in surface transportation."
|
Les
Lamm, president of the Highway Users Federation for Safety and
Mobility at the time of the development of ISTEA, was a legend
in highway transportation community. He began a career in FHWA
as a highway engineer trainee in 1955 and rose through the ranks
to serve as executive director from 1973 to 1982 and deputy administrator
from 1982 to 1986. Later, he also served as the president of the
Intelligent Transportation Society of America. |
The
interests with a stake in highway transportation were less cautious.
AASHTO executive director Frank Francois described the bill as "beyond
any kind that anyone had ever envisioned until this point." AASHTO
supported increased flexibility, but he described the Senate proposal
as "flexibility run amok." Les Lamm, president of the Highway
Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, said that the proposal reminded
him of "the very early years of the Federal-Aid Program [1916-1920]
when limited federal funding was too widely dispersed" before
the system concept was introduced in 1921.
The Journal of Commerce reported that motor carrier interests
"are livid over the measure." Thomas Donohue, president
of the American Trucking Associations (ATA), said, "It is a no-growth
bill and fails to promote productivity." The bill, he said, was
designed to benefit big cities with transit systems, and New York
was the big winner. It provides just enough maintenance for the Interstate
System to "embalm" it. ATA also released a news advisory
on behalf of highway-user organizations calling for hearings on "a
bill that, in its present form, threatens the future of America's
highways." An attached memo explained, "S. 965 squanders
a legacy that the nation was given in 1956." It concluded: "Highways,
not rhetoric, provide personal mobility, move America's goods, create
jobs and help us compete in international markets. This country needs
to improve its highway infrastructure — not mothball it."
A Journal of Commerce editorial was equally caustic. Under
the STEA, national transportation policy is placed "in the hands
of city and county bureaucrats." The bill was "a recipe
for a disjointed transportation system that would make travel more
difficult and erode business productivity."
In a USA Today op-ed piece, the American Automobile Association
(AAA) expressed its views on Moynihan's proposal: "His bill would
impose driving restrictions in many areas, price poor people off many
roads by imposing new toll charges, and even penalize states with
the temerity to use highway funds derived from highway users to expand
highway capacity."
Many state and local officials, as well as transit and environmental
interests, supported the Moynihan bill. At the California Department
of Transportation, spokesman Jim Drago reported that the initial reaction
was "very positive." He added that STEA "is an encouraging
sign." Gov. James Florio of New Jersey said, "This will
mean that New Jersey will decide what New Jersey needs to keep our
state on the move." Rebecca Brady of the National Conference
of State Legislatures said, "The prospect of having more flexibility
at the state level ... will meet with a great deal of attraction."
The American Public Transportation Association endorsed the proposal
and lobbied for its passage.
|
In
1991, Christine Johnson was the assistant commissioner of the
New Jersey Department of Transportation. She is now the program
manager for operations in FHWA and the director of DOT's Intelligent
Transportation Systems Joint Program Office. |
The clean air measures were also viewed positively by those concerned
about the CAAA mandates. As Assistant Commissioner Christine Johnson
of the New Jersey Department of Transportation explained, "The
Clean Air Act really puts transportation on the line." STEA,
she indicated, would help New Jersey and the other states address
CAAA's mandates.
In Moynihan's home state, an editorial in The New York Times
suggested that he and his colleagues were "plotting a revolution."
Although doubtful they would succeed, the editorial stated that in
"welcome contrast" contrast to the administration proposal,
"the senators offer new thinking."
Summarizing the views of those who supported STEA, Neil Grey of the
Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility said, "The attitude
is that we've been wrong for 30 years."
Moynihan's
reaction to all the fuss was simple: "The Interstate era is over.
I don't blame them if they think we should go on in that way, but
we're not and we just can't."
"There's a Civil War Brewing"
If the Interstate era was coming to an end, many states thought the
donor-donee relationship that came with it should end, too. A key
premise of the 1956 act was that some states (donors) would contribute
more user tax revenue to the Highway Trust Fund than they received
in highway funds. In turn, less populated states and those with large
amounts of nontaxable public land (donees) would receive more highway
funds than they contributed and, thereby, would have the resources
to build their segments of the national system.
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
After
serving as governor of Missouri (1985-1993), John Ashcroft was
elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994. After his 2000 reelection
bid was not successful, Ashcroft was appointed U.S. attorney
general by President George W. Bush.
|
As
long as the national goal of the Interstate System remained in place,
the donor states simmered with resentment, but could do little about
it. Now, with that goal essentially achieved, they were convinced
that in arguing for an end to the donor-donee relationship, justice
was finally on their side.
Missouri was one of the donor states that had long felt it was not
getting its fair share of the highway user tax revenue. "Our
state currently receives only 85 cents in federal highway funds for
every Missouri highway tax dollar sent to Washington," said Gov.
Ashcroft. Referring to the additional $220 million that Missouri would
receive over the life of STAA, he added, "Fortunately, there
are auspicious prospects for greater fairness in the future."
On the eve of Senate hearings on reauthorization, 35 senators from
donor states addressed a letter to the Committee on Environmental
and Public Works. Noting that from 1956 to 1989, their states had
contributed $5 billion more than they received, the senators wrote,
"During this period, we watched our roads and bridges deteriorate
while our constituents paid for the construction of new facilities
in other areas." While conceding that some imbalance was likely
in a national program, "we seek to insure that such contributions
are not unreasonable." They opposed Moynihan's bill, which would
"lock our states into an untenable situation for another five-year
period."
|
Sen.
John Warner, R-Va., warned a Senate subcommittee, "There's
a civil war brewing," if the concerns of some states that
felt shortchanged in the allocations of the Highway Trust Fund
were not addressed. |
When
Sens. Bond and Warner testified before Moynihan's subcommittee, they
emphasized the point by indicating they would soon introduce their
FAST bill (Federal-Aid Surface Transportation Act). FAST, which had
been developed by the Crescent Coalition of States led by John G.
Milliken, Virginia's secretary of transportation, would base formulas
on such factors as lane miles, vehicle-miles traveled, and fuel consumption,
thus providing a fairer balance for donor states. In addition, FAST
would adjust each state's apportionment to ensure it received a minimum
allocation of at least 90 percent of the tax revenue contributed to
the Highway Trust Fund - an increase from the 85 percent assured when
the concept of minimum allocation was introduced in the STAA of 1982.
"There's a civil war brewing" among the donor states that
felt shortchanged, Warner warned the panel. And Sen. Howard Metzenbaum,
D-Ohio, predicted "one hell of a floor battle" unless their
concerns were addressed.
Of the many issues covered during the subcommittee's initial two days
of hearings, none was more important to the administration than the
fate of the national highway system. In 1989 and 1990, FHWA and AASHTO
had tried to identify components of the national highway system. The
process involved state submissions to AASHTO and cooperative reviews
with the FHWA. However, AASHTO, a voluntary association of the state
transportation departments, lacked the authority to resolve the many
differences that existed at this stage among the states about the
concept. Some states were lukewarm or opposed to the NHS concept because
they saw it as an attempt to continue federal control over highway
development, and they wanted little mileage within their states included
in the system, thereby restricting federal oversight. Other states,
particularly those with sparse populations, wanted as much mileage
as they could get on the theory that apportionments might be based
on lane miles. The conflicts left the process floundering.
After becoming aware of these early efforts, the leadership of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives
and its Subcommittee on Surface Transportation had written to Administrator
Larson on May 23, 1990, asking him to work with AASHTO, the states,
local governments, MPOs, and rural agencies to prepare a map identifying
a preliminary NHS. The committee noted that a map would be helpful
to the committee as future program options are deliberated.
Accepting the challenge, an FHWA team headed by planning director
Kevin E. Heanue joined with an AASHTO team headed by Clyde E. Pyers
of Maryland (chairman of AASHTO's Task Force on a Highway System of
National Significance), the National Association of Regional Councils,
and individual states and MPOs to develop a map showing what the NHS
might look like.
Dr. Larson transmitted the illustrative NHS map to the committee on
Feb. 19, 1991. He described NHS as "a way of focusing federal-aid
highway funding on highways of national significance, including the
Interstate System, for the remainder of this decade and into the 21st
century." The exercise identified "many of the problems
involved in designating an NHS in a country as diverse as ours."
While not all concerns were resolved, they would, he believed, diminish
"as decisions are made on apportionment formulas, transferability
and the funding split between the proposed NHS and the rural/urban
program, and other program details."
NHS was the centerpiece of Larson's testimony on May 17, 1991, to
the Moynihan subcommittee. Larson expressed his view that while some
elements of STAA were open to compromise, NHS was not one of them.
|
FHWA
Administrator Larson, in this photo from 2000, had academic roots
and was able to forge a close professor-to-professor relationship
with Sen. Moynihan. |
"To
improve national productivity and make most efficient use of the limited
resources available, and given that 98 percent of all surface passenger
movement and 75 percent of all freight value today moves on highways,
federal surface transportation strategy and investment must focus
on a select, but integrated, network of principal highways. ... While
we are moving to the post-Interstate construction era, we are not
yet ready for a post-highway transportation economy," Larson
testified.
He praised some of the innovative elements of STEA but informed the
subcommittee that the White House "cannot support legislation
that does not include a designation of such a national highway network."
Larson, with his academic and intellectual roots, was not a "highway
man." He had been able to build a close, professor-to-professor
relationship with Moynihan based on shared interests and a visionary
sense of what the administrator called "a paradigm shift"
for transportation. They met dozens of times, often on a personal
level outside the context of their official duties. Larson, who sent
all FHWA employees a weekly "Administrator's Note" containing
a wide range of theoretical, practical, historical, and personal thoughts,
routinely provided copies to Moynihan. The notes, particularly those
that reflected on the great 19th century debates on the role of the
federal government in internal improvements, helped establish a rapport
between the two men.
Nevertheless, Moynihan remained opposed to NHS. During Larson's testimony,
the two tried to find common ground. The senator assured the administrator
that the committee was not anti-highway, as some had said, and that
by holding off endorsing NHS, the committee was not rejecting the
idea. Perhaps, he suggested, the committee would be willing to consider
the concept if an actual proposal, not just an illustrative map, were
developed over two years. As Moynihan told The New York Times,
he wanted to see "exactly what it is, precisely, mile by mile."
As the hearings ended, President Bush took the opportunity of a White
House signing ceremony to renew his challenge to Congress. Signing
three transportation proclamations (National Transportation Week,
Maritime Day, and Defense Transportation Day) on May 17, the president
noted that there is "still a long way to go to get a satisfactory
bill." He urged Congress to rise to his 100-day challenge. "Now
is the time to move a transportation bill out of the Congress and
on to my desk."
To emphasize the administration's concerns, Secretary Skinner reemphasized
the threat of a veto in a letter to the committee on May 22, the day
the committee planned to act on STEA. Exclusion of NHS was the deal
breaker, but the secretary emphasized the administration's concerns
about such issues as matching ratios, funding levels, flexibility,
clean air conformity, and the proposed new Recreational Trails Program.
Later that day, the committee approved a modified version of STEA.
The resulting bill retained most features of Moynihan's proposal,
but with some important modifications. The NHS compromise that Moynihan
had discussed during Larson's testimony was included. The committee's
bill called on the secretary to submit a proposal to Congress in two
years for a national highway system that would include the Interstate
System and selected urban and rural principal arterials, including
toll facilities. However, the bill did not include the administration's
proposal to immediately establish an NHS funding category.
Other changes since the original bill included:
- Under
the STP, 75 percent of funding would be divided among metropolitan
areas with more than 250,000 people, non-attainment areas, and other
areas according to population with the amount varying in some states.
-
The provision giving MPOs programming responsibility was deleted.
- Although
states could still opt out of FHWA project reviews on many projects,
FHWA review would be required for projects on principal arterials.
-
An amendment by Sen. Chafee was adopted requiring that within four
years, each state must certify that at least 10 percent of the asphalt
used on federal-aid projects includes an additive made from used
tires, now known as crumb rubber modifier (CRM). The requirement
could be waived if the secretary finds that the additive constitutes
a health risk, is unsuitable for recycling, or does not perform
satisfactorily.
-
A "visual pollution control" provision, also submitted
by Chafee, required an annual inventory of billboards, prohibited
clear cutting of vegetation to make billboards more visible, and
allowed the use of federal funds for billboard acquisition and removal.
- A
National Scenic and Historic Byways Program funded at $5 million
a year for the planning, design, and development of state scenic
highway programs was included.
-
An amendment by Sen. Lautenberg provided $150 million a year to
incorporate IVHS (Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems) technology
in up to 10 congested corridors. It also called on the secretary
to coordinate a national IVHS program.
-
Lautenberg's amendment banning longer combination vehicles also
was included. Combinations of two or more trailers, with a gross
weight of more than 40 tons, would be allowed only in the 20 states
in which they were currently permitted.
- The
revised bill called for a study by the departments of Transportation
and the Interior regarding alternative forms of transportation in
national parks.
|
Sen.
Bob Graham, D-Fla., resented Florida's status as donor state and
ultimately voted against ISTEA. |
As
expected, the donor-donee relationship was hotly debated. Sen. Bob
Graham, D-Fla., representing a fast-growing state that had long nursed
resentment of its donor status, introduced an amendment to substitute
the FAST proposal. Sen. Symms, in opposing the amendment, spoke for
donee states, arguing that some states still need help from the other
states to maintain the nation's highways. Sen. Baucus pointed out
that states are often asked to pitch in to help other states, as in
the 1989 legislation bailing out failed savings and loan institutions.
Sen. Moynihan, opposing the amendment, pointed out that, "Any
federal activity, by definition, is unequal in its impact." He
asked, "Is life fair?" Graham's amendment failed by a vote
of 4 to 11, but supporters of the amendment assured the committee
that the debate would not end there.
The committee vote approving the bill was 13 to 1. Sen. Warner cast
the dissenting vote.
In the Senate, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
initiates transit legislation. At the end of May, Sen. Alan Cranston,
D-Calif., chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs,
introduced S. 1194, which included funding for the transit formula
and discretionary programs, as well as a doubling of funds for rural
transit, from the Transit Account and general revenue sources. Total
funding would increase from present authorization levels ($3.2 billion)
to $4.7 billion in FY 1996. The bill also allowed for the use of Highway
Trust Fund revenues for transit-related and multimodal projects. As
in Moynihan's bill, S. 1194 contained matching ratios of 75-25 for
new capacity projects, and 80-20 for maintenance activities and projects
to improve system efficiency.
On June 6, Secretary Skinner advised Committee Chairman Donald W.
Riegle Jr., D-Mich., that while the transit bill was similar to the
administration bill in many respects and contained other positive
features, a veto would be possible unless other concerns were addressed.
The secretary emphasized the importance of lowering the federal matching
share to encourage greater local and private sector investment in
transportation. He sought greater flexibility for transfer of transit
funds for highway projects because flexibility was essential to developing
"the most efficient and cost effective systems to meet their
local transportation needs."
|
|
|
|
Sen.
Steve Symms of Idaho argued in favor of less populated states
that needed help from other states to maintain their part of the
nation's highways |
|
Sen.
John Breaux, D-La., and Sen. David Durenberger, R-Minn., introduced
an amendment that would establish an interim national highway
system and would require the Department of Transportation to complete
the designation of the National Highway System in two years. |
The
secretary also warned that the higher funding levels jeopardized other
funding categories that would have to be reduced for the government
to stay within budgetary limits agreed to by the administration and
Congress. Skinner also recommended against continuing transit operating
assistance and the bill's "contingent commitment," which
would allow financing commitments for new rail and bus fixed guideway
systems in excess of authorization levels in the bill.
The committee completed work on its bill the same day. Although the
approved bill contained some modifications, the committee did not
address Skinner's concerns and sent the bill to the Senate floor where
it would be combined with the highway portion, becoming Title 4 of
the Committee on Environment and Public Works' bill, now known as
S. 1204.
|
Sen.
Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., was chairman of the powerful Senate Committee
on Appropriations. |
As
the full Senate turned to S. 1204 on June 6, problems were already
evident. The administration restated its intention to recommend a
veto of any bill that did not contain "dedicated funding for
the National Highway System and an adequate increase in state and
local matching shares." Although NHS had considerable support,
the administration's fight for higher state and local matching shares
had become a lonely crusade. The concept was opposed by AASHTO, the
National Governors Association, and others and was not included in
any bill except the administration's proposal. No group had come forward
to support it.
What the Journal of Commerce called a "Highway Showdown"
began on June 6 when Moynihan attempted to begin the debate on S.
1204. Warner informed him that the senators in the FAST coalition
would fight in every way they could until their concerns were resolved.
The initial delaying tactic was a call for a cloture vote. (Under
cloture, instead of blocking debate by launching a filibuster, a senator
could halt debate on a bill unless two thirds of the senators voted
to continue.) Warner called off the vote when he realized he did not
have enough votes to block debate.
However, as debate finally began on June 11, negotiations continued
behind the scenes among the Senate leadership and the FAST coalition
over allocation formulas.
|
Sen.
George Mitchell, D-Maine, was the Senate majority leader. |
As
the first week of debate continued, the administration finally made
progress on NHS in the Senate. Sens. John Breaux, D-La., and David
Durenberger, R-Minn., introduced a compromise amendment that would
establish an interim NHS based on the illustrative map. A portion
of STP funds would be earmarked for projects on routes in the interim
NHS. The original amendment sought a 30-percent earmark, but the amount
was eventually reduced to 17.5 percent ($1.4 billion a year). In addition,
the Breaux-Durenberger amendment called on the Department of Transportation
to complete the designation of NHS in two years to include the 42,800-mile
(68,500-kilometer) Interstate System and 140,000 miles (224,000 kilometers)
of other principal arterial highways. The amendment was adopted.
The
"fairness" issue remained the only stumbling block to passage
until June 18 when Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations, announced a breakthrough. He had found an additional
$8.2 billion in budget authority in the Highway Trust Fund account.
It was available for surface transportation because, he said, "What
we are talking about right now is investing in ourselves."
Warner
and Byrd joined in negotiations with Senate Majority Leader George
Mitchell, D-Maine, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bentsen to
allocate the new funding. Their compromise split the funds. Beginning
in FY 1993, half would go to donor states and half to states with
relatively high gas taxes (a "level of effort" bonus) and
low per capita income. Some donor states would receive a portion of
the $4.1 billion set aside as a "level of effort" bonus
to supplement the minimum allocation, which remained 85 percent.
Most states received additional funds from one or the other half of
the "Byrd Formula." For example, Byrd's West Virginia, a
donee state, received zero in donor funds but $225.5 million extra
in the second category. California received the largest amount, $959.4
million, of any donor state but zero for level of effort. Some states
received funding from both halves, including Virginia - $220.2 million
in donor funds and $14.5 million in level of effort funds. But a few
states, including Kansas and New York, received nothing under the
Byrd Formula.
|
President
Bush (center) encourages Congress to pass a transportation bill.
Standing with the president (from left) are Transportation Secretary
Sam Skinner, AASHTO President Hal Rives, AASHTO Vice President
Ray Chamberlain, and AASHTO Executive Director Frank Francois |
The
compromise, which involved new money without altering other elements
of the bill, moved the bill to passage. It authorized $123 billion
for FY's 1992 through 1996. This amount included $37.2 billion for
the flexible STP, $21 billion for mass transit, $14 billion for Interstate
maintenance, $13.3 billion for bridges, and $7.8 billion for a 185,000-mile
(292,500-kilometer) NHS. The federal-state matching ratio remained
90-10 for Interstate projects, 80-20 for other projects, except for
projects that added capacity for single-occupant vehicles (75-25).
On the evening of June 19, by a vote of 91 to 7, the Senate approved
S. 1204, the Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
On the morning of June 21, even as the transportation community, environmental
activists, and state and local officials reacted to the bill based
on how it helped or hurt them, President Bush let his views be known.
In an unprecedented presentation to AASHTO's Policy Committee, the
president spoke in the White House Rose Garden. Surrounded by the
flags of the 50 states, he told the Policy Committee that he had the
flags placed in the Rose Garden "to symbolize our commitment
to a new partnership in creating a truly national highway system."
No transportation partnership, he said, had endured as long as the
75-year-old federal-state partnership under the Federal-Aid Highway
Program.
"We've
helped turn a sprawling land knitted together by dusty back roads
into a nation linked together by high-performance roads and highways,"
said the president. The Interstate System, launched by President Eisenhower,
"laid the groundwork for unprecedented movement, unprecedented
access all across America." Still, now was the time for significant
transportation investment in the future. Although he praised STEA
for some features, such as its flexibility provisions, he criticized
it for not focusing on national needs.
He called for action in the House. His message to Congress was simple:
Pass our transportation bill. He added, "With the right tools
and the right investment and the right incentives, we're going to
move this nation into the next American century."
"We didn't come to the ball game to sit on the sidelines. We
came to get a hit, and we want a home run. Right now we're on first
base. With your leadership, we can load the bases and hit a home run.
We can win one for America," Bush said.
The metaphor may have been strained, but the sentiment was widely
shared.
Attention
Turns to the House
As the Senate completed debate on STEA, Sen. Moynihan used a phrase
that put the bill in perspective: "We have poured enough concrete."
It was time, he said, "to get more transportation out of the
roads we have already built." Highway supporters hoped for a
better deal from the House.
Early indications were positive. Addressing the Transportation Committee
of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in late January 1991, Rep. Roe, chairman
of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, indicated that
with the nation in a recession, he and Speaker of the House Thomas
S. Foley, D-Wash., saw the transportation bill as an opportunity for
a "countercyclical" stimulus to the lagging economy. While
the committee might not support all elements of the anticipated administration
bill, he expected it would endorse NHS and increase flexibility for
urban, rural, and other programs. He added that "demonstration
project" earmarking for specific projects was likely to increase.
|
|
|
|
|
Rep.
Thomas S. Foley, D-Wash., was the speaker of the House. |
|
Rep.
Bud Shuster, R-Pa., was the top ranking Republican on the House
Budget Committee. |
|
Rep.
Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., called increased gas taxes to provide
extra revenue for social and other initiatives. |
On
Feb. 20, Roe convened his committee for the first hearing on the bill.
He began by stating he supported an intermodal approach to stimulate
economic growth but worried that a decrease in public works investment
had spawned a decline in productivity that must be reversed.
During the initial hearing, Secretary Skinner called STAA a "breakthrough
bill," but he faced skeptical questioning from committee members.
As The Washington Post put it the next day, he "got an
earful of criticism from members of both parties." With the economy
struggling and more than 30 states operating under deficit budgets,
federal-state funding contributions were a primary focus. The secretary
tried to deflect the criticism by pointing out that while these are
difficult times, STAA proposed a program that will be extended into
the next century.
On behalf of the National Governors Association, Kentucky Gov. Wilkinson
responded that if the states were expected to contribute larger amounts,
many states would have to divert money from maintenance or ask taxpayers
to pay more. "If it comes down to that," he said, "a
lot of highway needs are going to be neglected." Roe worried
that states would be "chasing money rather than solutions."
By mid-March, the committee's Democratic leadership and its top ranking
Republican, Rep. Shuster, would ask the House Budget Committee, which
was preparing the FY 1992 budget resolution, to allow room for a five-year
$153 billion program — almost 50 percent greater than the president's
proposal. Highways would receive $119 billion, while transit would
be budgeted at $34.5 billion. The revenue would come from extension
of the 14-cent motor fuels tax through 1998, including revenue from
the 2.5-cent gas tax increase that had been dedicated in 1990 for
deficit reduction. Rep. Mineta explained, "The federal government
cannot be allowed to dodge its responsibility."
Increased highway-user taxes were not out of the question in the House
Committee. Ever since the cost of gasoline had come down after rising
to record levels during the 1970s oil shortages, some members of Congress
had wanted to take advantage of motorists' willingness to pay the
higher price. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., for example, had often
called for increasing gasoline taxes so the overall price equaled
the inflated 1970s price and using the extra revenue for social and
other initiatives, such as federal programs for children.
Speaker Foley had been calling for an increase of 5 cents a gallon
since February, the first in a concerted campaign that would continue
over the next few months. "I think it is ridiculous we don't
have a higher gasoline tax." In April, he faulted other lawmakers
for "political cowardice" in rejecting a 10-cent increase
during the 1990 budget talks.
By the end of March, Roe was referring to the increase as a "Nickel
for America."
On April 18, the committee held its final Washington hearing on reauthorization.
Transport Topics referred to the hearing as "one of the
hottest draws in Washington." With testimony scheduled from dozens
of interest groups, "The spacious committee room was crowded
to overflowing."
Although the committee heard from a wide range of highway interests
during the hearings, Chairman Roe told reporters that "we are
not writing a highway bill." He added that the committee "is
not married" to NHS, but rather is married to "intermodality,"
which he said is his favorite word.
But the committee did not release a bill as the initiative shifted
to the Senate with introduction of the Reid-Baucus bill and then,
on April 25, the bombshell STEA proposal by Moynihan and his colleagues.
The House bill was being drafted, but the committee had not yet found
support within the House for the desired funding levels, which had
been rejected by the Budget Committee, or drawing down the balance
in the Highway Trust Fund. They also had been unable to gain support
for crediting the Highway Trust Fund for the 2.5-cent gas tax devoted
to deficit reduction under the 1990 budget accord or increasing the
gas tax by another 5 cents.
In support of increased funding, Roe convened a hearing on May 16
to review the role of infrastructure in enhancing productivity and
global competitiveness. The outcome of the hearing and the reauthorization
process "will determine the prosperity and quality of life in
this nation for years to come," said Roe. Witnesses agreed about
the need for increased investment in infrastructure.
As May ended, Rep. Leon Panetta, D-Calif., chairman of the House Budget
Committee began hearings to gather information that would help prepare
the budget resolution for the following year. One of the witnesses
was Roe, who told the committee that "the more we invest in the
infrastructure, the greater economic return we get, the higher our
productivity growth, and the more competitive our industry will be
in the global marketplace."
Although nothing was settled, Speaker Foley still supported a 5-cent
gas tax increase. In early June, he told the House Ways and Means
Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax changes, that the nation's
productivity was directly linked to a decline in infrastructure investment.
"Simply put, infrastructure investment has been all talk and
no action."
"America
Needs Nothing Less"
By the time Mineta addressed the American Road and Transportation
Builders Association's Government Affairs Conference on June 27, the
details of the House bill had been worked out. He explained that his
vision, as reflected in the pending bill, was not more of the same.
"America needs more of a transportation vision for the future
than endless ribbons of asphalt, overpasses, and off ramps."
As for the administration's plan, "I will not stand by and allow
Washington to chip away at the foundation of fairness and hurt every
city and state in the union," Mineta said.
|
Variable
message signs are a tool to help manage traffic. |
While
increasing funds for highways, transit, and safety, the pending House
bill would "increase intermodality and bring together our highways
and mass transit systems." Metropolitan planning would be strengthened,
with MPOs charged with managing traffic congestion, modernizing roads
and bridges, seeking transit options, and meeting CAAA requirements.
And management of transportation facilities would be increased. States
would be required to implement management systems to protect the federal
investment in pavement, bridges, congestion management, and safety
programs.
Mineta supported the "Nickel for America," but only if every
penny collected is guaranteed to be spent on transportation. "Anything
less will be an outright fraud perpetrated against the American people."
He concluded his description of the bill by saying, "America
needs nothing less."
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
Robert
C. Byrd continues to serve West Virginia in the Senate. When
the Democrats regained control of the Senate in June 2001, Byrd
resumed his former position as chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
|
As
for Sen. Byrd's discovery of $8.2 billion to break the Senate logjam,
Mineta and Roe told reporters the same day they were skeptical that
the funds exist. They were linking their bill to the gas tax increase.
"To the extent that we don't get the nickel, we'll have to scale
back the entire program," Mineta said.
The Nickel for America would be at the heart of the debate for the
next two months.
For President Bush, another tax increase was a political impossibility
the year before he ran for reelection. Still, supporters of the Nickel
for America whispered that he just might support the increase. To
end any doubt on the point, the White House issued a series of statements,
each blunter than the last, to end the whispers.
Michael Boskin, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers,
told the American Enterprise Institute that the economy was not strong
enough to support another tax increase.
On July 16, White House Chief of Staff John Sununu wrote to Rep. Bob
Michel, R-Ill., minority leader of the House, to clear up any speculation
in the press resulting from the whisper campaign. The president opposed
the new tax because it "would jeopardize the economic recovery
that is now underway and would undermine our continued efforts to
adhere to the principles of last year's budget agreement." Just
in case that wasn't clear enough, he concluded, "Let there be
no misunderstanding, he will veto any legislation that includes a
gas tax increase."
This warning did not deter the "Big Four" — Roe, Mineta,
Shuster, and Hammerschmidt — from releasing the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Infrastructure Act of 1991 (H.R. 2950) on July 18.
The bill, Roe explained, was not about "highway transportation."
It would provide "an intermodal system for the next 10 years
and the 21st century."
With revenue from the Nickel for America (about $6.6 billion a year)
and the Highway Trust Fund balances, H.R. 2950 promised a $153 million
program over five years for highways and transit. As for Sununu's
letter, Hammerschmidt hoped the president "keeps his powder dry
until he sees the final product." Speaker Foley was even stronger,
saying Sununu's veto threat was "ridiculous" and criticizing
the president for "mindlessly" opposing the nickel.
In addition to $8.1 billion to complete the Interstate System, the
bill replaced six existing programs (Interstate 4R, primary, secondary,
urban, rail-highway crossings, and hazard elimination) with a $79.2-billion
Flexible Highway Program that covered several new programs (NHS, Urban
Mobility, Rural Mobility, State Flexible, and Safety). Up to two-thirds
of the funds for the new program could be transferred to mass transit;
states with serious clean air problems could transfer 100 percent.
H.R. 2950 called on the secretary to coordinate with the states to
identify routes to be included in NHS up to 155,000 miles (250,000
kilometers), plus/minus 15 percent. The proposal was to be submitted
by Sept. 30, 1993, for congressional approval. Prior to approval,
any route classified on the basis of function as a principal arterial
would be eligible for NHS funds (a total of $38.8 billion).
A related provision called on the secretary to prepare long-range
plans and feasibility studies for NHS "High Priority Corridors,"
to require the states to give priority to their construction, and
to provide increased funding for them. According to The Washington
Post, "The 16-project list includes a number of highways that
have failed to gain funding in the past, some of which have been around
long enough to acquire names." The corridors included the Hoosier
Heartland (Lafayette, Ind., to Toledo, Ohio), the Heartland Expressway
(Denver, Colo., to Rapid City, S.D.), the Avenue of the Saints (St.
Louis, Mo., to St. Paul, Minn.), the Economic Lifeline Corridor (Las
Vegas, Nev., to I-10 in California), the Kansas City-to-Shreveport
Corridor, and the Transamerica Corridor (Virginia to California).
Highways not included in NHS were eligible under the Urban Mobility
Program ($13.4 billion). However, local officials would decide whether
to use the funds for highway or transit capital projects, and they
would designate routes on an "urban mobility system." Similarly,
funding under the Rural Mobility Program ($10.3 billion) could be
used for highway or transit capital projects.
The State Flexible Program ($79.2 billion) made funds available to
the states for use on any highway or transit capital project. A percentage
of the funds must be used in clean air nonattainment areas, with the
amount being equal to the percentage of the state's population living
in those areas.
The Combined Safety Program ($3.1 billion) replaced the hazard elimination
and rail-highway grade-crossing programs with one flexible safety
program.
The bill retained 90-10 as the matching ratio for the Interstate System
(completion and resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitation), but set
80-20 as the matching ratio for other projects (including Interstate
reconstruction to add capacity). The existing bridge program was continued
along with its discretionary component. The bill strengthened the
metropolitan transportation planning process by calling for a cooperative
process by the States and MPOs to develop long-range transportation
plans and short-range transportation improvement programs for all
urban areas. A National Advisory Committee would be established to
review the planning process. A comparable statewide transportation
planning process was required for all other areas of the state.
Transit funding would increase significantly to a total of $32 billion,
with considerable latitude to transfer highway funds to transit and
vice versa. Despite pressure from transit advocates for a 50-50 split
of the Nickel for America between highways and transit, the bill stuck
to the 4-to-1 ratio established when the STAA of 1982 increased the
gas tax by a nickel (4 cents for the Highway Account, 1 cent for the
Transit Account). The transit title of H.R. 2950 included a Major
Capital Investment Program ($2.43 billion a year) and Formula Grants
($3.67 billion a year). Up to $309 million could be used for operating
expenses.
The minimum allocation would be increased from 85 percent to 90 percent
and would not count allocated funds, such as earmarked or discretionary
funds, in calculating return. The concept that states receiving allocated
funds should not be penalized was important; H.R. 2950 included $6.2
billion in demonstration projects. Because that term had been so widely
derided, the committee referred to them now as "Congressional
Projects of National Significance." Roe defended them by saying
members of Congress know the needs of their congressional districts
and have a right to submit needed projects.
Derailing the Fast Track
The new bill was placed on a "fast track" to be approved
by the House before a month-long recess began on Aug. 2. After the
recess, Congress would have time to complete the reauthorization bill
by Sept. 30, when the existing program came to an end.
The bill sailed through the Surface Transportation Subcommittee on
July 23 and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation on July
25 with relatively few amendments. Roe urged the committee to be "courageous
and daring" in meeting the nation's transportation needs. "This
$153.5 billion bill is our opportunity" to have "a major
impact on the quality of life of all Americans."
Despite this call to boldness, many of the measures added during committee
action involved the priorities of committee members. They included
a set-aside of $10 billion for rail-highway crossing hazard elimination
in five high-speed rail corridors; grants for specific transit projects;
exemption of toll projects in Orange County, Calif., from certain
environmental requirements; a study to determine the feasibility of
a border highway infrastructure discretionary program; and details
on where the Congressional Projects of National Significance would
be located. They covered 18 high-cost bridges, 37 congestion-relief
projects, 25 high-priority corridors, 126 rural access projects, 74
urban mobility and access projects, 121 "state-of-the-art technology"
projects, and 47 intermodal projects.
In addition, the amended bill restricted bicycle projects to those
determined to be principally for transportation, rather than recreation;
a study of the disadvantaged business enterprise program; and a technical
amendment that added allocations, such as earmarked funding, to the
amount used in calculating the minimum allocation. The subcommittee
and the committee, in turn, rejected a proposal to increase the disadvantaged
business enterprise (DBE) goal from 10 percent to 15 percent.
Although H.R. 2950 had cleared the authorizing committee, Rostenkowski
made clear that the bill would also have to clear his Ways and Means
Committee because of its tax provisions. And he also made clear that
he intended to look at the details in the context of the 1990 budget
agreement and that he was concerned about the President's veto threat.
The Senate bill had earned respectful consideration in the media,
but that would not be the case for the House version. The media has
always found the details of transportation bills hard to put in context,
and the fights among interests groups surrounding the bills were of
little interest outside the transportation community. But the media
always loves talking about political battles over tax increases and
pork, and that's what the House gave them.
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
When
the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives
in 1995, Bud Shuster became chairman of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure (formerly Public Works and Transportation).
In that position, he played a key role in the passage of the
National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 and the 1998
reauthorization of ISTEA programs (the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century). Because of term limits on chairmanships
imposed by the Republicans, Shuster lost his position as chairman,
and he decided to retire from the Congress in February 2001.
His son, William, was elected to represent his district.
|
The
theme was aptly described in Transport Topics: "Prepare
for a Washington slugfest over America's nickel." Many pointed
out that, as The Los Angeles Times put it, the administration
was "still smarting from harsh criticism over its handling of
last fall's budget agreement." The Chicago Tribune quoted
Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., who had been "critical of Bush last
year when the president broke his pledge not to raise taxes,"
as saying the plan has "no gas."
The fight over the gas tax increase was the lead angle. Headline writers
had a field day: "Road Bill Critics See $153 Billion in Pork"
(Austin American-Statesman in the president's home state),
"House's Roads Bill Paved with Goodies" (San Jose Mercury
News from Mineta's hometown), and "A Dream Bill: Billions for
Pet Projects" (The New York Times). USA Today objected
to extra funding for "Road Hogs" who just wanted the nickel
to get "themselves re-elected."
On the plus side, much of the newspaper coverage around the country
spoke positively of the earmarks that would benefit local readers.
While the media reaction was predictable, the bill had the unique
consequence of splitting its most logical supporters over the gas
tax increase. Even before the committee released its bill, AAA announced
its opposition. For AAA, it was hard to tell which bill was worst.
The Senate bill would penalize states that needed to expand highway
capacity and impose tolls on toll-free roads, while the House proposal
would increase highway-user costs.
"If legislation similar to the Senate bill is the best Congress
can do," a simple two-year extension of the existing program
was preferable, postponing the reauthorizing legislation until after
the 1992 presidential election, said AAA's John Archer.
An
opposition group called FUEL (Fuel Users for Equitable Levies) was
formed by representatives of motorists (AAA) and agricultural, trucking,
state government, travel and tourism, and other industry groups. The
fuel tax increase was "unnecessary and misguided" and was
"merely a vehicle for additional fuel tax proposals" under
consideration in the House Ways and Means Committee.
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA),
which favored a $40 billion a year program, formed its own coalition
called CENTS (Coalition for an Efficient National Transportation System)
and adopted the motto "It Makes Sense. It Takes Five Cents."
In a letter to President Bush, ARTBA President Peter Ruane said the
increase "is truly a user fee to meet an important national need."
|
Photo
and caption shown above came from AAA brochure. |
The
Surface Transportation Policy Project coalition, although not a member
of CENTS, supported the 5-cent increase if it would be used for more
transit and more flexible urban programs. As for the House bill, STPP's
David Burwell of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy said, "That's
not the nickel we're looking for."
With its supporters (and even opponents) divided by the gas tax, the
committee ran into another obstacle that undermined its calculations.
Although the Ways and Means Committee approved the 5-cent tax increase
for gas and diesel fuel, it pointed out that the tax would not go
into effect until Jan. 1, 1992, and would produce only nine months
of revenue in the first fiscal year, not the 12-month total counted
by the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Even worse, Rostenkowski
argued that under the 1990 budget agreement, pay-as-you-go programs
must be based on net revenue (money actually available) instead of
gross revenue. As a result, he wanted to deduct 25 percent (1.25 cents)
from Nickel for America revenue and credit it to the general fund.
Although
Roe disagreed with the interpretation, this accounting glitch, combined
with the backlash against the gas tax increase, caused the momentum
for the bill to collapse. It was pulled from the House floor on Aug.
1 and would have to await consideration when Congress returned on
Sept. 11. That would allow the committee to try to resolve the accounting
dispute and rally support around the country for the tax increase.
On Aug. 1, even as the bill was pulled from consideration, the odds
against it were building. The president wrote to Speaker Foley to
say that "at a time when it appears a healthy recovery has just
begun," if the bill he receives from Congress includes the tax
increase, "I will veto it."
That
same day, Secretary Skinner made the connection that, from a public
relations standpoint, would turn the battle against the Nickel for
America. In a statement, he linked the increased revenue from the
nickel to the "demonstration projects" in the bill by saying,
"We do not need to pluck another nickel from our pockets to pave
America with pork."
Many House members agreed. Rep. Timothy J. Penney, D-Minn., told The
Washington Post, "Raising taxes to spend on pork is the worst
thing Democrats can do." The House Republican Policy Committee
joined the attack. Congress should be seeking "incentives for
economic growth, not legislation that chokes growth off, costs men
and women their jobs, and jeopardizes the economic recovery."
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
Lester
P. Lamm was a former FHWA executive director, and he served
as president of the Highway Users Federation from 1986 until
retiring on Jan. 16, 1995. He also was a founder of ITS America
and its first president. He passed away on Nov. 1, 1995, following
a heart attack.
|
Perhaps
the committee had not given up, but the National Journal pointed
out that the bill had reached the critical moment: "It's finger
pointing time. ... The chorus of Bronx cheers [a contemptuous sound]
that greeted [the bill] is growing louder by the day."
On Aug. 2, Senator Moynihan issued another warning to the highway
lobbyists in the wake of the House decision to postpone consideration
of the bill: "Try to grasp this heretofore unthinkable fact.
The entire highway program is in jeopardy. There is little possibility
that a surface transportation bill will have been enacted by Sept.
30 [when FY 1991 ended]. That means the federal highway program stops.
Period. ... The choice is up to the industry. Get your lobbyists to
listen."
By the time the National Governors Association met in Seattle on Aug.
18, Speaker Foley and Rep. Roe were in attendance, scrambling for
support that was not emerging. While they were making their pitch,
the president was reiterating to the governors via satellite hookup
from his vacation home in Kennebunkport, Maine, that he would veto
any bill that includes an increase in the gasoline tax.
Even
as CENTS and FUEL issued dueling press releases, the states, AASHTO,
and FHWA debated the effect on state programs when the new fiscal
year began on Oct. 1 without new funding. Because most federal-aid
highway funding was available for four years (the year of authorization
plus three years), the program would not come to a complete halt.
The effect would vary from state to state depending on what funding
had not yet been committed. Nevertheless, assuming that about $6.9
billion in "leftover" funds would still be available, AASHTO
issued a report indicating that 87,400 jobs and $5.9 billion in output
would be lost.
When
Congress returned to Washington on Sept. 11, the House leaders still
wanted the Nickel for America, but efforts to drum up grass-roots
support for it had been unsuccessful. Opposition was growing even
among traditional highway supporters.
Richard
D. Morgan, the former FHWA executive director who was now with the
National Asphalt Pavement Association, announced that his group supported
a tax increase, but not the one in H.R. 2950. Noting that only half
of the 1990 gas tax increase was going into the Highway Trust Fund
and only a portion of the proposed new increase would be used for
transportation, Morgan said, "That simply is not acceptable."
Knowing the increase could not survive politically, Speaker Foley
still wanted the nickel in the House bill and thought the House Democrats
should pass it anyway just to make a point to the president. He soon
found that the Democrats were reluctant to vote for a doomed tax increase
to make a point that their Republican opponents would use against
them in the 1992 elections.
|
Sen.
Robert Dole, R-Kan., said that the lack of a highway bill passed
by the House of Representatives meant that "the Democrat-controlled
Congress is forcing thousands of Americans off the wage rolls
and onto the unemployment rolls." |
Speaker
Foley and the Big Four reluctantly gave up the Nickel for America
on Sept. 18. In return, Rostenkowski agreed to extend the 2.5 cents
of gas tax that had been part of the 1990 budget agreement but had
been credited to the Highway Trust Fund. Putting as positive a spin
as possible on the defeat of the Nickel for America, Roe said the
additional revenue, plus spending down the Trust Fund balances, was
"an important step forward for the transportation system of the
nation and our economic goals." The agreement, he said, would
allow extension of the surface transportation program through 1997,
instead of 1996 as in the original bill.
A
day after this breakthrough, the president was visiting the I-105
construction site in Los Angeles. He reminded the crowd of construction
workers, business executives, and government officials that he had
challenged Congress to pass a bill in 100 days. "It's now 197
days and counting." But he cautioned, "What we want is a
bill that works. What we don't want is a bill that paves America with
pork."
The committee's challenge was to revise its bill based on the new
income flow. In the meantime, the administration had no intention
of letting up the pressure. In a Sept. 24 news conference, Secretary
Skinner said, "The bill even without the gas tax was unacceptable."
He cited the billions of dollars for "demonstration projects"
as just one of the problems.
The
Train Wreck
Revising the House bill proved more difficult than expected. As a
result, the train wreck, widely predicted and feared, occurred on
Oct. 1 when Congress failed to reauthorize the highway and transit
programs by the start of FY 1992. Neither FHWA nor UMTA could apportion
additional funds.
Having
experienced similar delays with past reauthorizations, the highway
interests knew the problem would worsen with time, "This time
around, I can assure you the impact is going to be more severe and
more immediate," said Les Lamm, president of the Highway Users
Federation for Safety and Mobility.
In
early October, Roe addressed a letter to his House colleagues informing
them that the bill would be revised as quickly "as humanly possible."
He assured the members, "Few, if any, states will face an immediate
crisis" in the absence of new funding. The letter was partly
in response to a "FAST" bill proposed by Reps. Charles Bennett,
D-Fla., and David Dreier, R-Calif. Their bill, which would guarantee
a 90-percent return on contributions to the Highway Trust Fund, had
gained 133 cosponsors.
The
significance of the absence of a House bill was not lost on the Senate
or the Republicans. Sen. Moynihan again warned the highway lobby that
"everything is up for grabs, including the Highway Trust Fund."
Sen. Robert Dole, R-Kan., pointed out that the Democrats had been
accusing the president of not being sympathetic to the plight of the
unemployed and yet "the Democrat-controlled Congress is forcing
thousands of Americans off the wage rolls and onto the unemployment
rolls." In the House, Republican Minority Leader Michel urged
the Democrats to get moving. "Mr. Speaker," he said, "put
the pedal to the metal and speedily bring forth the job-creating highway
bill."
On
Oct. 2, transportation officials from the 13-state Southeastern Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials came to Washington to
highlight the problem. In a joint statement, AASHTO President Hal
Rives of Georgia and former AASHTO President Kermit Justice told the
group that it was "a matter of urgency to the entire country"
that "something get done and get done now." Perry Hand of
Alabama was blunter. "Congress," he said, "has left
the states holding the bag."
Pressure
quickly mounted for a stopgap bill to keep federal-aid funds flowing
until Congress could complete action on reauthorization. Counter-pressure
came from Sens. Burdick, Chafee, Lautenberg, Moynihan, and Symms,
who wanted to keep the pressure on for their reauthorization bill.
In a letter to colleagues, they concluded, "The way to complete
action on a long-term reauthorization bill is to oppose any short-term
reauthorization."
The
House Committee on Public Works and Transportation unveiled the new
six-year bill on Oct. 10. Funding for highways ($119 billion) and
transit ($32 billion) totaled $151 billion. The "guts" of
the bill, Roe said, were basically unchanged. For states that had
exhausted their federal-aid funds, the bill permitted reimbursement
for advance construction work done with state funds between Oct. 1,
1991, and the date of enactment of H.R. 2950. In addition, the new
bill, in a move to block the FAST initiative, increased the minimum
allocation to 90 percent and expanded the base by counting apportioned
funds, discretionary funds, and newly allocated programs (except for
special projects).
As
for the Congressional Projects of National Significance, which everyone
still called "demonstration projects," the committee carefully
examined the entire list. As a result, the number increased from 452
to 455, but the cost dropped from $6.8 billion to $5 billion.
Addressing
AASHTO's Annual Meeting in Milwaukee on Oct. 14, Secretary Skinner
made clear the administration did not support the bill. It did not
have enough funding for NHS, was inadequate on matching shares, and
continued operating subsidies for transit. The administration opposed
extension of the 2.5-cent gas tax to pay for the program, and he noted
that even with a reduction of $1 billion in demonstration projects,
the bill "still leaves about $5 billion in pork." The road
to a final bill, he told AASHTO, would be "long and bumpy."
He followed up with a letter to Roe on Oct. 15, outlining the administration's
concerns and stating that if the bill passed Congress in its current
form, he would recommend a veto.
Nevertheless,
action in the House was swift. The committee approved the bill on
Oct. 15. The Ways and Means Committee cleared the bill the following
day. Rep. Bennett announced he would not offer the FAST bill as a
substitute for H.R. 2950. "I believe I have done as much as I
can do and feel we can claim victory," Bennett said.
On
Oct. 23, following a debate that The New York Times described
as "perfunctory," the House finally completed work on the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Infrastructure Act of 1991 by a
veto-proof vote of 343 to 83.
Around
the country, newspapers described the bill in positive tones. The
Los Angeles Times called it "landmark" while USA
Today referred to it "as the most sweeping redirection of
transportation policy in 35 years."
The
coverage generally emphasized two points. Many articles reported on
what The Philadelphia Inquirer described as the states' "unprecedented
authority to spend federal highway aid on mass transit projects."
The other theme was predictable: pork! Many quoted Rep. Dan Burton,
R-Ind., who said that the country has a $400 billion budget deficit
"staring us in the face and yet we still allow many, many pork
barrel projects." In defense, Rep. Ben Jones, D-Ga., repeated
what many House members thought about the subject: "This bill
puts America first. It is not pork. It is roads, it is bridges, and
it is jobs."
While
the House completed work on its bill, the Senate was getting increasingly
restless. Sen. Bond entered into the Congressional Record a
list of Missouri projects that had been delayed since the start of
the fiscal year. "At this rate,' he said, "we may see the
cherry blossoms before we see a highway bill." (The cherry blossoms
around the Tidal Basin in Washington bloom once a year, usually in
April.) He added, "This highway bill holdup is a sleeper candidate
for worst congressional failure of the year."
The Final Challenge
Having failed to meet the president's 100-day challenge, Speaker Foley
issued his own challenge by saying he and Roe had agreed "the
highway bill will be done by Thanksgiving." Thanksgiving fell
on Nov. 26, and Congress was scheduled to recess for the year on Nov.
22.
The
next step for Congress was to convene a Senate-House Conference Committee
to resolve differences in the two surface transportation reauthorization
bills. Even this process was delayed in the Senate when the appointment
of conferees was blocked by senators who saw the bill as a vehicle
for unrelated tax measures sought by the Senate Finance Committee.
Finally, on Oct. 31, the Senate conferees were selected, and a request
was sent to the House for a conference.
|
Rep.
John Paul Hammerschmidt, R-Ark., described the National Highway
System as the "centerpiece of the restructured highway program
that is being proposed for the post-Interstate era." |
The
conference convened on Nov. 7, with Rep. Roe as chairman and Sen.
Moynihan as vice-chairman. The House had identified 66 conferees,
many of them with responsibility for selected provisions under the
jurisdiction of committees other than Public Works and Transportation.
The Senate contingent totaled 26 members from five committees.
The
halt in funding was on the mind of many conferees. Rep. Roe stated
that "we can afford no delays in the completion of this legislation."
Rep. Hammerschmidt added, "America is counting on us to conclude
this conference as quickly as possible." Both sides, House and
Senate, criticized the administration. Rep. Shuster urged the administration
to "cool it" in their attacks on the bill, while Sen. Moynihan
called Secretary Skinner's "scathing" criticisms "hard
to understand" and "unwelcome."
Opening
statements aside, it was going to be a difficult conference. One potential
problem was summarized by Transport Topics: "Many observers
believe the tone and duration of the conference, if not the actual
shape of the final legislation, will be determined by the interaction
of these two strong, contrasting personalities." Moynihan and
Roe could not have been more different. Moynihan was a widely respected
intellectual. Roe was a little-known engineer. By temperament and
long habit, Moynihan was a visionary who always saw the big picture.
Roe was a detail man who preferred hands-on fine tuning. Somehow,
they had to lead the conference to agreement on the bill.
The
administration kept the pressure on the conferees to produce a bill.
On Nov. 8, during a press conference in Rome, President Bush, in response
to a question about how he was going to boost the economy, called
for passage of the transportation bill. Two days later on the CBS
television program "Face the Nation," Chief of Staff Sununu
reminded viewers that 240 days had passed since the president issued
his 100-day challenge. Meanwhile, Secretary Skinner was quoted in
USA Today, saying that the House plan focused on jobs and congestion,
but not on traffic congestion or construction jobs. "Rather,
job security for congressional incumbents, thanks to a plan congested
with pork."
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
At
the start of the 103rd Congress in 1993, Norman Y. Mineta became
chairman of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
He resigned from Congress on Oct. 10, 1995, to become a senior
vice president of Lockheed Martin Corporation where he headed
the Transportation Systems and Services Division, which was
involved in intelligent transportation systems, electronic toll
collection, weigh-in-motion technology, and automated commercial
vehicle registration. He also chaired the National Civil Aviation
Review Commission, which in 1997 issued recommendations on reducing
traffic congestion and reducing the aviation accident rate.
Mineta became secretary of commerce on July 21, 2000, in the
Clinton administration, and on Jan. 25, 2001, he became secretary
of transportation for President George W. Bush.
|
Rhetoric
aside, Skinner and Federal Highway Administrator Larson met individually
with the conferees. Sen. Symms arranged temporary office space near
his own office for Larson, who practically moved into the office throughout
the conference so he could be available as the details were debated.
Rep. Shuster said, "While the administration continues to bash
us publicly, privately we're getting very strong signals that they
are beginning to see the light."
On
Nov. 8, just a day after the first meeting, the House passed a motion,
394 to 3, directing the House conferees to insist upon the House provisions
for NHS, which Rep. Hammerschmidt described as "the centerpiece
of the restructured highway program that is being proposed for the
post-Interstate era." Senators from donee states circulated a
letter for signature urging the Senate conferees to strongly oppose
the FAST formula in the House bill. And groups representing the entire
spectrum of views were letting their positions be known, publicly
and in private Capitol Hill meetings.
The
pressure and the challenges were symbolized during the first day of
the conference when the initial action - agreement on "items
in agreement" between the two bills - was not approved. The
Washington Letter on Transportation reported, "The conference
had begun with the legislators taking one step backward."
Despite
weekend and late night sessions, progress was slow. Roe, described
by the Journal of Commerce as being in a "testy"
mood, complained, "We don't have time to go over every period."
With
both sides unwilling to agree on the major issues, Speaker Foley and
Senate Majority Leader Mitchell summoned all the Democratic conferees
to a meeting on Nov. 13 and directed them to produce a final bill
promptly. Until then, the conferees could expect late night and weekend
work with no adjournment until a day or two before Thanksgiving. The
Washington Letter on Transportation described the meeting as an
attempt "to flog the highway and transit conferees across the
finish line."
The
"flogging" appeared to work. Conferees began making progress
on items where both bills were in agreement, such as matching ratios
and transit operating subsidies, and in areas where they differed,
such as the length of the bill (six years) and total funding ($151
billion, split $119 billion for highways and $32 billion for transit).
But as the second week came to an end, many issues were undecided,
including structural issues such as how to treat NHS and whether project
approval authority would be given to MPOs. Apportionment issues, where
the donor-donee split was so controversial, also were deferred.
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
In
March 1992, John Paul Hammerschmidt announced he would not seek
reelection. Section 1084 of ISTEA designated U.S. 71 through
Arkansas as the John Paul Hammerschmidt Highway. Since retiring
from the House of Representatives, he has remained active in
Arkansas civic organizations and on boards of directors of several
Arkansas companies and the University of the Ozarks at Clarksville.
|
The
administration was also finally lowering the rhetoric. Having won
some battles and lost others, it was now focused on finding compromises
that would allow it to back off its veto threats. Because neither
the Senate nor the House bill had backed some key administration proposals,
they were essentially off the table.
Meanwhile,
Sen. Moynihan had unveiled a $4 billion plan to reimburse states,
such as New York, that had used their own funds to build highways
that were incorporated into the Interstate System. Although the reimbursement
program, which Moynihan had been thinking about for at least 30 years,
had not been considered by either house, he had made it appealing
by providing that every state would receive at least $20 million,
regardless of their effort prior to the enactment of the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1956. States that had been aggressive in freeway/turnpike
construction prior to 1956 would receive much more. New York would
receive $675 million under the provision as conceived.
By
Nov. 19, the end was in sight. As Sen. Lautenberg told a reporter,
"I am determined not to have turkey at Big Boys [restaurant]
in Washington on Thanksgiving."
ISTEA
Is Unveiled
The breakthroughs came in intense, closed door sessions that ended
on Nov. 24, when the conference leaders held a press conference to
announce agreement on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991. Sen. Moynihan and Rep. Roe had compromised to ensure
their favorite words survived in the new title. Moynihan insisted
on "Surface Transportation Efficiency," especially his favorite
word, "efficiency." Roe insisted on his favorite word, "intermodal."
|
ISTEA
authorized bridge painting as an activity that could be funded
through money allocated to the Bridge Program. The drapes over
the Chesapeake Bay Bridge contain the dust of the lead-based paint
being sandblasted from the bridge in preparation for repainting. |
It
was, Roe told reporters, "a great victory for the American economy,
for our nation's productivity, and for the American people."
Rep. Mineta predicted it would generate 2 million jobs over six years
"at a time the nation needs that kind of economic boost and leadership."
"We
are about to enter a new, post-Interstate era that will emphasize
system performance rather thansystem building," said Moynihan.
With the Interstate System finished, the time had come to "turn
the initiative in transportation matters back to the states and cities."
Immediately
after the congressional press conference, Secretary Skinner met with
reporters to praise the bill. It was, he said, "all in all, a
good bill, a visionary bill" that "completes one of the
president's major domestic agendas." He claimed victory in achieving
12 of the administration's 16 goals, including creation of the national
highway system, increased spending, and greater flexibility for state
and local governments. The administration lost on provisions for selecting
cost-effective new transit projects, full finding of transit and safety
programs from the Highway Trust Fund, elimination of transit operating
assistance, and state matching shares.
On
matching shares, which had been one of the administration's signature
issues, Skinner conceded that if the administration had known the
difficult fiscal condition the states would be in at this point in
the recession, so great a change in matching shares would not have
been promoted.
The
Conference Committee's bill was, as AASHTO Journal put it,
a "New Order of Business." Its provisions included:
- National
Highway System - A final NHS proposal, prepared in consultation
with the states, would be submitted within two years for congressional
designation. Funding totaled $38 billion over six years, including
the funds available for use on the routes included in the preliminary
NHS submitted to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation
in February 1991.
- Interstate
System - The $7.2 billion authorized for Interstate construction
through FY 1996 would be, as the legislation stated, "the final
authorizations of appropriations and apportionments for completion
of construction of such system." The funds were essentially
for the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston. The bill also authorized
$17 billion for the Interstate Maintenance Program, the new name
for the "Interstate 4R" category. Under the fourth "R"
(reconstruction) projects could be funded only if they did not add
capacity (except for auxiliary or HOV lanes).
- Surface
Transportation Program - STP was the broad, flexible program
sought by all sides. Its $23.9 billion - the most funds for any
category - could be used for a broad range of highway or transit
projects, but 10 percent of the funding was restricted to transportation
enhancement activities.
-
Bridge Program - Retained basically unchanged with total funding
of $16.1 billion. Newly eligible activities
are bridge painting, seismic retrofit, and application of calcium
magnesium.
- Transit
- Total funding amounted to $31.5 billion, with 58 percent from
the Mass Transit Account and the remainder from the general fund.
The total included $17.4 billion for formula grants, $12.4 billion
split among new starts, rail modernization, and bus and other projects,
and $944 million for transit planning and research. Much of the
funding in highway categories could be transferred to transit categories
and vice versa. The new name for UMTA would be the Federal Transit
Administration.
- Federal
Lands Highway Program - Authorizations totaling $2.6 billion,
previously available in four categories, are now available in three:
Indian Reservation Roads, Parkways and Park Roads, and Public Lands
Highways (which incorporated the Forest Highway category).
- Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program - Emerging from
STPP and the initial Senate bill, the category authorized $6 billion
for transportation projects and programs to help state and local
governments improve air quality.
- Equity
Adjustments - The bill addressed the complaints of the donor
states with a series of adjustments.
- Minimum
allocation was set at 90 percent based on the total apportionments
from the base programs (Interstate Construction, NHS, STP, etc.)
and the discretionary fund allocations from the base programs
for the previous year, excluding earmarked projects. Any project
eligible under the base programs could be developed with minimum
allocation funds.
- Donor
states received a bonus from a fund totaling $3 billion based
on estimates of all payments into the Highway Trust Fund and
the amount received in federal-aid apportionments. The bonus
amounts were treated as STP funds and could be used as such.
- A
90-percent of payments guarantee was based on all highway funds
in the bill except special projects.
- A
"hold harmless" provision was designed to ensure fairness.
Each state must receive an amount of funding over six years
that is consistent with its historical experience under STURAA.
- The
Equity Adjustments were applied sequentially with the result
of each adjustment affecting the outcome of the next one.
- Matching
Shares - The federal matching share would be 80 percent in most
cases, establishing a "level playing field" for modal
choice. The federal matching share for Interstate projects would
remain 90 percent.
- Planning
- The metropolitan transportation planning process was strengthened
to give additional authority to local officials in developing the
best mix of projects to meet their transportation needs. Programming
authority remained with the states. A comparable statewide transportation
planning process involving long-term transportation plans and short-term
transportation improvement programs was required.
- Management
Systems - The states must develop six management systems: highway
pavement, bridge, highway safety, traffic congestion, public transportation
facilities and equipment, and intermodal transportation facilities
and systems.
- Toll
Roads - Federal-aid highway funds could be used for projects
on toll facilities to a much greater degree than in the past and
without the requirement that the facility cease toll collection
when bonds are repaid.
-
Program Efficiencies - Non-NHS projects and low-cost NHS projects
were to be developed in accordance with standards established under
state law. FHWA's review was limited to non-Title 23 responsibilities,
such as NEPA. Federally adopted standards, such as AASHTO's A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, would apply
only to higher cost NHS projects, including Interstate projects.
-
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
Steven
Symms announced in August 1991 that he would not seek reelection,
indicating he wanted to pursue a new career in private life.
He is a partner in the firm of Parry, Romani, DeConcini,
and Symms in Washington, D.C.
|
National
Scenic Byways Program - A total of $80 million was available
for discretionary scenic byway grants. The program would include
designation of All-American Roads and National Scenic Byways.
- Intelligent
Vehicle/Highway Systems -
An IVHS Program was established with
about $660 million over six years. The funding is for promotion
of compatible standards and protocols, establishment of evaluation
guidelines, and creation of an information clearinghouse. The Department
of Transportation was to submit a strategic plan to Congress that
would establish goals, milestones, and objectives for the program.
In addition, a completely automated highway and vehicle system would
be developed as a prototype for future fully automated IVHS systems.
- Recreational
Trails Program - The provision authorizing the program was renamed
the Symms National Recreational Trails Act of 1991 in honor of Sen.
Symms, who announced in August that he would retire at the end of
the 102nd Congress.
- Magnetic
Levitation - A maglev program was authorized at $725 million
to develop one prototype project from applicants across the country.
- Asphalt
Pavements - States were required to meet minimum requirements
for the use of crumb rubber modifiers in asphalt pavements (gradually
increasing to 20 percent after FY 1996). Failure to achieve the
goal would result in loss of federal-aid funds in an amount equal
to that year's minimum usage requirement.
- Congestion
Pricing - A pilot program consisting of up to five projects
would test methods, such as imposition of tolls, to increase the
cost of driving as a way of convincing motorists to try other modes.
Up to three of the projects could be on the Interstate System.
As for the "demonstration projects," the Conference Committee
included more than 450 "special projects" at a cost of about
$6.5 billion in several groupings: High-Cost Bridge Projects, Congestion-Relief
Projects, High-Priority Corridor of NHS, Rural and Urban Access Projects,
Innovative Projects, and Priority Intermodal Projects. In the spirit
of compromise, the House reduced its project list to $4.4 billion,
and the Senate added $1.1 billion in 16 states. An additional $1 billion
in "equity" funding was made available to the states to
spend as they wish.
Saying
that about 60 percent of the projects would probably have been built
under the formula categories anyway, Skinner described the result
as "controlled pork" that the administration could accept.
Nothing
Comes Easy
With the conference agreement, representatives and senators looked
forward to wrapping up business quickly and heading home. The House
hoped to complete action on ISTEA, and several other bills on Tuesday
night, Nov. 24, but wrangling on the other bills delayed action on
ISTEA. The House was in for an all-nighter.
|
Transportation
Secretary Skinner described the more than 450 "special projects"
included in ISTEA as "controlled pork" that the Bush
administration could accept. |
When the House finally began considering ISTEA, only two copies of the
final bill were available. One was on a table in front of the House
chamber. Few members had read it; there was no time to read the mammoth
bill that would fill nearly 300 pages in the Conference Report. They
would trust their leadership to tell them what was in the bill - with
one exception.
The
other copy was in the hands of the FHWA's Susan Binder, who was on
loan to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation for the reauthorization
period. Committee staff told Binder to stand in the back of the chamber
with the other copy. She also had the only copy of the index, which
she used throughout the night and into Wednesday morning as representatives
came up toher for one reason - to ensure his or her project was in
the bill. When Binder pointed to the project in her copy, the member
went back to the floor, prepared to vote for ISTEA.
Around
5:30 a.m. on Nov. 25, the bill passed - 372 to 47. Binder was exhausted,
but she had played her part in securing passage of the bill, creating
the post-Interstate era.
The
Senate had waited for the House bill until 1 a.m. before adjourning
in the absence of items to act on. With exhausted House staffers heading
home immediately after the pre-dawn vote, only one certified accurate
copy of the final bill was available as the Senate convened on Wednesday
morning. Many senators had already headed home for Thanksgiving, and
others, particularly from the West, expressed concern about getting
home before their family began serving the holiday turkey. The
Washington Post noted that many of the senators arrived for work
on the Senate floor "looking baggy-eyed, disheveled, and cranky."
Still,
some senators, particularly from donor states, wanted to be heard.
Sen. Graham, for example, took an hour of debate time. He felt that
the inequities in past bills had not been corrected, noting that Florida
had passed Pennsylvania as the fourth largest state in population
but would receive $1 billion less than Pennsylvania under ISTEA. He
also thought the focus on long-term projects limited the bill's ability
to provide an immediate economic boost. His fellow Florida senator,
Connie Mack, a Republican, claimed that lawmakers from states such
as New York and New Jersey, that were experiencing limited population
growth had based funding levels on out-of-date census data.
"The
bill's supporters - through bogus accounting and 11th hour tomfoolery
- pushed through a funding package that doesn't take Florida's growth
into account," Mack said.
Finally,
on Wednesday afternoon, Nov. 25, the Senate voted 79 to 8 in favor
of ISTEA. Sens. Graham and Mack were among those who cast "nay"
votes.
Summing
up, Rep. Roe told reporters, "This will touch the lives of everyone.
With this vote, we are rebuilding America."
In
an Administrator's Note to all employees (and Sen. Moynihan), Dr.
Larson used a football metaphor to describe the experience of creating
ISTEA. "Rushes, passes, gains and losses, penalties, touchdowns,
field goals, blocked punts, a few on-side kicks, an occasional Hail
Mary pass, and a two-minute drill at the end, narrowly averting a
sudden death overtime." The game featured blitzes by Moynihan
with S. 1204 and Roe with his proposals for a Nickel for America and
hundreds of earmarked projects.
On
FHWA's part, it was a team effort. It went far beyond testimony during
hearings in the Senate and the House. Each associate administrator
and many staff members from the headquarters in Washington were called
on to provide information and technical assistance; to clarify information;
and, most often, to crunch the numbers and to provide computer-based
tables that would allow each member of Congress to see how a change
here and a change there would affect his or her state.
Of
the Conference Committee that he had observed first hand from his
temporary office on Capital Hill, Larson said: "Sometimes, optimism
prevailed - we would have a bill. Sometimes, pessimism was in order
- we wouldn't have a bill. Other times, frustration left one wondering
who invented this crazy legislative system of ours. The injunction
not to watch sausage and laws being made seemed fully validated."
He
added, "Many long nights were spent here in headquarters with
the Domino's pizza delivery about the only bright spot." Larson
quoted "Coach Skinner" in his "post-game press conference"
saying, "I never thought that sausage and pork put together would
equal jobs."
Success
Has Many Fathers
When the senators and representatives reached home for Thanksgiving,
they could be happy about media coverage of ISTEA. Unlike Moving
America, STAA, and other interim bills, the final version was
widely praised as, in the words of a Chicago Tribune editorial
headline, "A Happy Highway Compromise." The post-Interstate
restructuring in ISTEA was favorably received across the country.
The New York Times stated that, "The bill dramatically,
and for the most part sensibly, refocuses national transportation
policy."
|
ISTEA
was described as a spectacular boost to rail transit. |
The
primary focus of newspaper coverage was ISTEA's impact on home-state
issues. Many articles focused on the economic impact. The Philadelphia
Inquirer was among the newspapers that quoted Hubert Beatty, executive
vice president of the Associated General Contractors of America, who
said, "This bill is going to put people back to work, and that's
going to have a ripple effect throughout the rest of the economy."
The New York Times quoted Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut:
"It's big money in tough times. It will produce lots of jobs.
It's good medicine."
Not
all the press coverage was positive. Just beforepassage, the Florida
Times Union said, "Federal Highway Bill Justifies Tea Party
Somewhere in Florida." The Milwaukee Sentinel cautioned
that ISTEA "looks good on paper" but would be "a test
of whether the local and state decision-makers will take steps to
cool the country's so-called love affair with the automobile and start
encouraging use of public transportation facilities."
As
for the earmarking, ISTEA was criticized on television news programs
and in magazines and newspapers. The ISTEA article in Knight-Ridder
newspapers quoted David Mason of the Heritage Foundation, who complained,
"The pork-mongering has reached the point of self-caricature.
It's hard to imagine going much further." As balance, the article
also quoted University of Minnesota political scientist Steve Smith,
who said, "It always irritates me when people pick on Congress
for living up to their constituents' expectations."
Smith's
view was reflected in most of the coverage, which emphasized local
benefits over political theory. The Des Moines Register printed
two articles on Nov. 27 about how last-minute maneuvering by Iowa's
congressional delegation saved the Avenue of the Saints (St. Paul
to St. Louis through Iowa) as an NHS High-Priority Corridor. The
Baltimore Sun and many other newspapers listed the earmarks as
a way of giving readers a sample of the good news in the bill for
them.
All
in all, with ISTEA under their belts, the senators and representatives
could enjoy their Thanksgiving dinners.
A
proverb has it that success has many fathers (while failure is an
orphan). In this respect, ISTEA was clearly a success. The Senate
and House committee leadership that had drafted the bill felt understandable
pride in their accomplishment. But the real measure of success could
be found on the modal fault line (between traditional highway interests
and transit and other interests) that often characterized the policy
debate since 1987. On both sides, the bill was widely praised.
Even
as Secretary Skinner counted 12 of the administration's 16 goals as
achieved in ISTEA, other groups were taking a similar approach. The
American Road and Transportation Builders Association, which had focused
on a significant increase in federal surface transportation investment,
reported that "most of our legislative objectives were met."
AASHTO president A. Ray Chamberlain issued a statement indicating
"the bill follows the goals and recommendations adopted by AASHTO
after hearings in every state, involving thousands of Americans from
both the public and private sector." Transport Topics
acknowledged that "the final bill turned out to be a good deal
for trucking."
|
With
the change in presidential administrations in 1993, the responsibility
to implement many of the provisions of ISTEA fell to Transportation
Secretary Frederico Peña (left) and Federal Highway Administrator
Rodney Slater (center). |
On
the other side of the fault line, the Surface Transportation Policy
Project coalition referred to ISTEA as a major reform and highlighted
13 important provisions of the bill, beginning with "substantial
flexibility" and ending with "support for widespread development"
of bicycle and walking facilities. Neil Peterson of the Los Angeles
County Transportation Commission was quoted in the Los Angeles
Times as saying ISTEA gave a "spectacular" boost to
the area's ambitious rail transit plans. Bruce Fried, executive director
of America's Coalition for Transit NOW congratulated congressional
leaders "for their foresight and dogged determination to deliver
this landmark bill to the president." He added that ISTEA "sets
the nation on a course toward renewal, expansion, and integration
of our transportation systems."
While
the lists may not have been identical on both sides of the fault line,
the concurrence across modal interests reflected more than just the
broad scope of ISTEA. It also demonstrated the common ground that
existed before 1991, such as agreement on the end of the Interstate
era, increased flexibility for state and local officials, the need
to preserve and increase the efficiency of the existing network, the
importance of intermodal links, and increased funding. Even more,
ISTEA was a mirror in which each group could see its own image - the
highway groups saw more money for highways, the transit groups saw
more money for transit, the planning organizations saw a strengthened
planning process, historic preservationists saw a new source of funding
for preservation, and so on.
Success
Is Never Final
WHERE
ARE THEY NOW?
Samuel
K. Skinner left his post as secretary of transportation in December
1991 to became chief of staff for President George H.W. Bush.
After President Bush left office in January 1993, Skinner became
president of Commonwealth Edison Company. In July 2000, he became
president and CEO of USFreightways Corp.
|
One
thing is certain. By the time President Bush hunched over that large
cable spool in a drizzle to signthe bill he had spent so much of his
political capital to create, ISTEA was widely recognized as a landmark
bill. It would help America take the first steps toward the National
Intermodal Transportation System mentioned in the "Declaration
of Policy" that Sen. Moynihan included as Section 2 of ISTEA.
The system, the policy said, would be "economically efficient
and environmentally sound, [provide] the foundation for the Nation
to compete in the global economy, and will move people and goods in
an energy efficient manner."
Most
people had figured out how to pronounce "ICE TEA," although
some still insisted on a short i and three syllables (is TEA uh).
Secretary
Skinner had become so well known during creation of the landmark bill
that he had even been the subject of a mocking "Top Ten List"
by comedian David Letterman on his "Late Show". "The
number one sign that you're in love with Secretary of Transportation
Skinner: You come to after being hit by a two-by-four and say, 'Forget
about me, how's Samuel K. Skinner?'"
President
Bush rewarded Skinner by naming him White House chief of staff, effective
Dec. 16, 1991.
"[ISTEA]
represents the most revolutionary approach to thinking about
transportation systems since the creation of the Interstate
Highway System. It offers a holistic approach to transportation
problems that breaks with all precedent."
Robert
E. Martinez
Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation and Director, Office
of Intermodalism (created by ISTEA)
(Quoted in Journal of Commerce, Jan. 8, 1993)
|
In
his Administrator's Note on passage of ISTEA, Larson quoted Winston
Churchill as saying, "Success is never final." That has
been true of ISTEA. Some provisions didn't work and were dropped in
later legislation. The mandates for management systems and the use
of crumb rubber modifiers are two examples. Overall, however, ISTEA
has lived up to its promise. So much so that its 1998 successor, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), retained
the program structure put in place by ISTEA, and TEA-21 provided historic
funding levels now exceeding $30 billion. In fact, the Clinton administration
and Congress made a conscious effort to retain "TEA" in
the bill's nickname to link it to ISTEA.
Ten
years later, the most important feature of ISTEA may well be the very
thing that every initiative - the FHWA Futures Group, AASHTO's 2020
Consensus Transportation Initiative, the National Transportation Policy,
and Surface Transportation Policy Project - had identified before
Congress began working on the bill: flexibility. At heart, ISTEA is
about giving state and local officials the authority to make the best
choices to meet each area's unique transportation needs.
President
Bush, who put more effort into a surface transportation bill than
any president since President Eisenhower in 1956, issued a new challenge
during his Dec. 18 speech to AASHTO: "I'd like to challenge you
all to look past the old ways of doing business and dare to innovate,
to create new ways of moving America forward."
ISTEA gave state and local officials the tools to do just that.
Richard
F. Weingroff is an information liaison specialist in FHWA's Office
of Infrastructure.
This
article was based mainly on contemporary office files. However, the
author wishes to acknowledge two additional sources. The weekly AASHTO
Journal (editor: Sunny Mays Schust) is an invaluable record of the
ebb and flow of ISTEA-related issues through the period. In addition,
he gained insights from Ron Fraser's Policy Subsystems and the Idea
Whose Time Has Come, a dissertation based on interviews with dozens
of participants in the ISTEA story and submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for a doctorate at George Mason University in
fall 1996. The author also wishes to thank current and former FHWA
employees who reviewed this article and provided needed corrections
and insights.
Other
Articles in this Issue:
Legacy
of a Landmark: ISTEA After 10 Years
Creating
a Landmark: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991
"Put
the Brakes on Fatalities" Day