<<  <  >  >>

says that smart-growth policies could

referred to as "new urbanism." Like the

actually lead to an increase, not a

Transportation Partners program, however,

decrease, in automobile driving. "There

the Smart Growth Network is little more

is no convincing evidence that these

than a front for agency attempts to promote

designs influence travel behavior at the

its agenda on autonomous state and local

margin," says Crane.6

governments.

· Genevieve Giuliano, planning professor

The fourth section considers how those

at the University of Southern California,

two programs distort democratic decision-

says that attempts to change people's

making at the local level, while the fifth sec-

travel behavior through land-use poli-

tion examines how EPA is inappropriately

cies are likely to fail. According to avail-

using the 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act

able evidence, she says, "land use poli-

to kill state highway expansion and divert

cies appear to have little impact on trav-

construction funds to mass transit alterna-

el outcomes."7

tives whether effective or not. The final sec-

· Charles  Lave,  economist  at  the

tion considers how Congress might go about

University of California-Irvine, notes

remedying the problem of EPA activism

that smart-growth-like policies were

where it doesn't belong.

Thanks in part to

instituted by most European countries

EPA grant mak-

after World War II. Today, however,

EPA's Legal Authority

those countries are rapidly suburbaniz-

ing, smart-growth

over Sprawl

ing, and car ownership is increasing

supporters are

three times as fast as in the United

well organized,

States. "The desire for personal mobility

EPA traces its authority over urban plan-

seems to be unstoppable," says Lave.8

ning to the Clean Air Act, which requires that

while potential

state and metropolitan transportation plans

smart-growth

be designed to bring polluted areas into com

-

It be denied that the debate is hotly polit-

pliance with federal air pollution standards.

ical and of growing importance to state and

opponents are

EPA has oversight over those plans and can

local governments. Thanks in part to EPA

not.

impose sanctions on urban areas that it clas-

grant making, however, smart-growth sup-

sifies as polluted and that have failed to

porters are well organized, while potential

implement plans to clean up that pollution.

smart-growth opponents are not.

In 1991 Congress specifically tied federal

The first section of this study considers

transportation dollars--nearly all of which

EPA's legal authority to regulate sprawl and

are generated by gasoline taxes and other

promote smart growth. The 1970 Clean Air

highway user fees--to clean air. Under the

Act as amended over the years and the 1998

law, EPA must deny federal highway funds to

Transportation Efficiency Act are the

polluted cities unless those cities have plans

agency's primary justifications for weighing

to clean up their air. A recent court case

in on the debate regarding urban sprawl.

brought by the Sierra Club against Atlanta,

The second section examines the agency's

Georgia, affirmed that cities may not spend

"Transportation Partners" program, a multi-

highway dollars, even for preapproved pro-

million-dollar annual grant program to fund

jects, unless they have an EPA-approved plan.

anti-automobile activism at the local level.

More than 113 million people live in

While EPA has promised to reform this con-

"nonattainment areas," that is, cities that

troversial program, the agency's pledges fail

EPA classifies as having air pollution prob-

to fully address the fundamental objections

lems. That includes 19 of the nation's 20

to the program.

largest urban areas (Minneapolis­St. Paul is

The third section examines the agency's

"Smart Growth Network," an initiative to

the exception), but it also includes such

fund activism to promote what is popularly

smaller cities as Baton Rouge, Louisiana;

3