<<  <  >  >>

Page 2

Introduction

Both supporters and critics of the 1991 Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA, pronounced

"ice-tea"), which is due to be reauthorized in 1998, say the

conflict is between advocates of highways and advocates of

mass transit.1  That is wrong.  The conflict is between

mobility and immobility.

Two centuries ago few Americans ventured more than a

few miles from their homes.  A century ago travel of more

than a few hundred miles was rare.  Today Americans routine-

ly travel tens of thousands of miles each year.  Although

many of the longer trips are by air, most short- and medium-

length trips are by automobile.  It is this mobility that is

being attacked by proponents of ISTEA.

The automobile has created a lifestyle unheard of in

the history of the world: a lifestyle characterized by

extraordinary freedom of movement, immense trade in manufac-

tured goods and services, high employment levels and social

mobility, and unheard-of opportunities for individuals to

choose where and how they want to live.

The automobile has also created problems, including air

pollution and solid waste.  But rather than address those

particular problems, many critics, especially the New Urban-

ists, as they call themselves, attack the automobile itself.

Increased mobility is a sign that people "lack community."2

Increased trade in goods and services is a sign of a "sick

consumerism."  People's ability to live where they want to

has led to "sterile suburbs" and "sprawl."3

Given a clear choice, few Americans would be willing to

give up their cars and the lifestyles they make possible.

Yet an extreme anti-auto view has become the dominant para-

digm behind ISTEA.  That has happened because the supporters

of immobility have stolen the terms of the debate by claim-

ing to want to reduce congestion and pollution whereas, in

fact, they want to increase congestion and, in effect,

pollution.  In truth, ISTEA

· mandates for transportation a comprehensive central

planning process that has been captured by the New

Urbanists in many cities;

· gives cities huge incentives to build rail lines and

other expensive but practically useless transportation

projects;