<<  <  >  >>

Page 10

· Central city officials who are eager to maintain the

prominence of their cities over the suburbs and resent

the mobility that has allowed suburbanites to escape

city taxes and regulation;

· Downtown interests that desire to reverse the "de-

clines" of downtowns relative to suburban "edge cities"

and tend to resent the mobility that has created subur-

ban shopping and business competitors;

· New Urbanist planners who believe everyone would be

better off if people spend more time within "their

communities";

· Urban environmentalists who view the automobile as a

great evil and thus oppose more freeways; and

· Engineering and construction firms and unions looking

for federal dollars to spend on urban public works

projects.

The main battle in Congress has been between the "do-

nor" states and highway interests on one side, who want to

renew ISTEA, with more funds for themselves, and the "recip-

ient" states and transit interests on the other, who tend to

support the status quo.  A bill marked up by Shuster's

committee, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation

Equity Act of 1997, authorizes $218 billion in total spend-

ing over six years and provides for a more balanced distri-

bution of funds among the states.  Unfortunately, there is

little discussion of the adverse effects of ISTEA over the

past six years and the likely effects in the future.  A

renewed ISTEA's built-in planning provisions and incentives

all tend to reduce, not increase, America's mobility and the

efficiency of the transportation system.

The Perverse Incentives of Flexible Funding

In passing ISTEA in 1991, Congress declared that it is

the policy of the United States to have a "transportation

system that is economically efficient and environmentally

sound."  The good intentions behind ISTEA were to create a

balanced transportation system that is not based exclusively

on a single mode or technology.

It might seem reasonable to suppose that the proportion

of funds spent on various modes of transportation should

reflect the public's demand for those modes.  For example,

if Americans want to make 10 percent of their trips on mass