<<  <  >  >>

do if they were rated by the Environmental

any of those roads. With respect to urban

Protection Agency as out of compliance with

areas, Congress specified that a large portion

air pollution rules. Even though congestion

of funds previously dedicated to highways was

was a major cause of air pollution, the CAAA

now "flexible," that is, MPOs could spend the

money on either highways or transit.29

discouraged regions with severe pollution

problems from building more roads to relieve

ISTEA also created a new pool of money

congestion, and instead encouraged them to

called New Starts that would be used for new

use behavioral tools to discourage driving.

rail transit lines and other transit capital pro-

When combined with the Clean Air Act

jects. Unlike highway money, which was dis-

Amendments, ISTEA contrasted strongly with

tributed to states based on a strict formula,

the planning process developed by the Bureau

New Starts money was offered to urban areas

of Public Roads in the 1960s. The BPR process

on a first-come, first-served basis. This meant

considered land uses, regional growth, and

that MPOs that proposed expensive rail pro-

personal travel preferences to be outside of

jects would get more federal funds per capita

transportation planning. ISTEA regards all of

than MPOs that were satisfied with bus ser-

those things as variables that the planners can

vice. Under ISTEA, 40 percent of federal tran-

manipulate: planners can restrict develop-

sit grants were distributed in this way.

Even though

ment over here, force increased growth over

Naturally, the number of regions proposing

congestion is a

there, and redesign cities to shape people's

rail lines grew rapidly.

future travel decisions. While the BPR goal

ISTEA also made long-range transporta-

major cause of

was to provide a safe and efficient transporta-

tion planning far more important, and the

air pollution,

tion system, ISTEA's goal is to promote the

requirements for it more elaborate, than ever

Congress

general welfare by reducing pollution, saving

before. Metropolitan planners were required

energy, improving the efficiency of land use,

to consider air pollution, the connections

discouraged

and taking other steps to make cities more

between land use and transportation, and

regions from

"sustainable."

quality of life issues.

In a 1950 conference organized by the

Historically, transportation engineers had

trying to reduce

Bureau of Public Roads, economist Shorey

handled the highly quantitative issues involved

pollution by

Peterson noted that, "It is in character for the

in planning: safety, efficiency of movement,

relieving

engineer to be mainly concerned, not with

and so forth. But the broader issues raised by

broad matters of public interest, but with spe-

ISTEA were beyond the engineers' training or

congestion.

cific relations between road types and traffic

abilities. In fact, they were beyond anyone's

conditions." Peterson specifically warned

training or abilities, but members of the urban

against trying to account for the "public inter-

planning profession believed they could han-

est" when planning roads. "Control of road

dle such questions.

improvement through judging its relation to

In short, ISTEA did two things. First, it

the general welfare is as debatable, as devoid of

freed up the use of federal highway user fees

dependable benchmarks as deciding the prop-

so that urban areas could spend them on a

er peacetime expenditure for national defense

wide variety of activities, not just interstates.

or the right quantity and quality of public

Second, it imposed a broad planning process

education," said Peterson. "Controlled in this

that relied on both qualitative values, such as

way, highway projects are peculiarly subject to

"quality of life," and long-range unknowns,

`pork barrel' political grabbing."30

such as future oil prices and American's

responses to those prices.

Federal transportation funding since the

Planning under ISTEA was made even

passage of ISTEA has proven Peterson correct.

more complicated by the Clean Air Act

Federal transportation earmarks, unheard of

Amendments that Congress passed in 1990,

before 1980, have exploded from 10 in 1982 to

the year before ISTEA. The CAAA placed

about 500 in 1991 to more than 6,000 in

2005.31 Cities are competing to outdo one

severe constraints on what urban areas could

6