<<  <  >  >>

Nashville, Tennessee; and Boise, Idaho. New

agenda is by funding grassroots opposition

ozone standards recently issued by EPA will

to highway expansion.

significantly increase the number of nonat-

EPA grants to anti-automobile, anti-sub-

tainment areas.

urb groups fall into two major categories.

In 1998, Congress passed the Transpor-

First, the agency's Transportation Partners

tation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century

program gives millions of dollars to at least

(TEA-21). By stopping the diversion of feder-

six major organizations with the goal of help-

al highway user fees to nontransportation

ing those organizations reduce vehicle travel.

projects, the act authorized a large increase in

Second, EPA has given large grants to a num

-

federal highway funding. Highway officials

ber of national and state organizations to

and contractors in the nation's increasingly

promote smart growth.

congested cities are salivating over the possi-

EPA says that "the mission of the

bility of using those increased funds to

Transportation Partners program is to

expand highways and reduce congestion.

reduce the growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled

(VMT) throughout the U.S."11 Note that the

But if the cities are in EPA nonattainment

areas, they will get those funds only if they

emphasis has transmogrified from reducing

adopt plans approved by EPA. EPA wants to

pollution to reducing travel. EPA traces the

One of the means

use this power not to clean up the air but to

program's history to Vice President Gore's

by which EPA

Climate Change Action Plan.1 2 This plan calls

reduce people's mobility, and in particular

their automobility.

for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions

pursues its anti-

Shortly after Vice President Gore

to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

auto agenda is by

announced his war on sprawl, for instance,

The Transportation Partners program is

funding grass-

the administrator of EPA's Northeast Region,

supposed to bring about nearly half of the

John DeVillars, told a Boston audience that

transportation portion of that reduction.

roots opposition

the agency would aggressively use its statu-

That means reducing people's driving by 20

to highway

tory authority to oppose sprawl. "Poorly

billion miles per year, or slightly less than 1

planned  suburban  growth,"  claimed

percent of total miles driven.

expansion.

DeVillars, is "degrading our environment, it's

How is EPA working to accomplish that

fiscally inefficient, and it's undermining our

goal? It is giving millions of dollars in grants

social fabric. . . . Action to curb it is long

to a consortium of anti-automobile lobby

overdue."9 He promised to treat the prob-

groups. Since 1995, EPA has given various

organizations more than $6 million:

lem with smart growth.

· International Council for Local En-

EPA's Transportation

vironmental Initiatives ($2,034,216);

· Surface Transportation Policy Project

Partners Program

($855,000);

· Center for Clean Air Policy ($678,939);

EPA justifies its campaign against the

· Environmental Defense Fund ($650,000);

automobile, saying: "By relying on cars to get

· Local  Government  Commission

around, our roadways become congested,

adding stress to our lives. Building bigger

($500,000);

· Bicycle Federation of America ($465,000);

roads seems like the obvious answer, but it's

· Association of Commuter Transporta-

an expensive, short-term fix. Increasing

capacity encourages driving, adds pollution

tion ($315,000);

· Renew America ($215,000); and

to the air, creates congestion, and puts pres-

· Public Technology Incorporated ($154,765).

sure on officials to build even bigger roads at

taxpayer expense. Adding lanes of traffic sub-

tracts from our quality of life."10 One of the

Those figures may be low. For example,

EPA's database shows the agency granting

means by which EPA pursues this anti-auto

4