Transportation Law Tripped By Bad Politics

Neal Peirce

Congress just struck out on the biggest jobs/environment/infrastructure bill before it -- TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

Instead of a full five-year reauthorization, committing $375 billion to build and repair critical highway, bridge and public transit facilities, the lawmakers came up with a lame five-month extension of the expiring 1998 statute. Next spring, in the heat of a contentious presidential election year, they're unlikely to do much better.

With 3 million jobs lost since winter 2001, the congressional paralysis seems puzzling. Why not create 90,000 new jobs short-term, 1.3 million long-term, putting people to work building and repairing infrastructure that undergirds a strong economy?

One reason is obvious: the Bush administration is viscerally opposed to an increase in the gas tax -- up to 5 cents a gallon -- that virtually every transportation expert says is necessary for an adequate national program.

Apparently it's OK to pour billions into Iraq, running up the national debt, but not to increase a user tax to pay for what we need here.

So could Congress develop a veto-proof majority for a new and appropriately funded TEA-21? Maybe, but here's where the plot thickens.

TEA-21 and its predecessor, the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, only made it through Congress because a new coalition of environmentalists and urban advocates, organized as the Surface Transportation Planning Project (STPP), coalesced to break asphalt-happy state highway departments' historic hammerlock on all transportation spending.

Metropolitan planning organizations, in touch with business and citizens, were given power to switch substantial highway monies to public transit. Funds were set aside for transportation enhancements such as greenways and bikeways. Bottom line: community welfare, not just the interests of autos and trucks, would be served.

But this year, the highway lobby -- road construction contractors and their homebuilder allies -- figured they could stiff the environmental camp. Having spent more than $41 million over six years to influence congressional campaigns, and with an ideologically rigid Republican House leadership, the road crew figured it could gut provisions it didn't like.

Onto the chopping block went rules protecting historic properties from being demolished for transportation projects. Ditto Clean Air Act rules requiring that highway projects conform to clean air goals. Plus, TEA-21 reviews would be "streamlined" to stop environmental agencies from asking about the "purpose or need" of highway projects.

This summer the highway lobby tried an end-run, getting the House Appropriations Committee to strip enhancements from fiscal year 2004 appropriations ("times are tough, we don't have money for bike trails and scenic byways," went the argument). The move succeeded in committee, where the highway lobby's political contributions were targeted. But on the House floor, a motion to restore enhancement funds got a thumping 327-90 majority, including every Democrat and a majority of Republicans.

"It was the easiest environmental vote of the session," says Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., claiming an immense coalition now favors balanced transportation law. It ranges, he says, from public transit and "smart growth" groups to land trusts and Scenic America, cyclists and trail enthusiasts, chambers of commerce, Main Street groups, city and county organizations, historic preservationists, significant chunks of organized labor, even sophisticated contractors who see opportunity in building bridges, putting down rail or constructing bike paths.

If the highway lobby used its noggin and made a deal with this coalition, it's possible a renewed TEA-21, including a 5-cent gas tax hike, could pass -- even over a Bush veto. President Ronald Reagan approved a 5-cent gas hike in 1980, and now -- notes Blumenauer -- we're seeing "spikes in gas prices, up to 50 cents a month, with no identifiable benefit to the public."

But to make peace with the environmentalists, says David Burwell, former STPP president, the highway lobby has to recognize "the time's long past when it can hold the public treasury hostage by pointing to increased congestion and demanding more money to 'build our way out."'

One is reminded of how big transportation-funding initiatives, heavily focused on roads and shortchanging transit, went down in flames last November in Northern Virginia and Washington state. Endorsed by road builders and local business coalitions, the measures were too pro-sprawl to avoid environmentalists' opposition.

There's a new national politics at work. It's not anti-highway -- we're an auto-oriented land, and people recognize that repairing the roads and bridges we have, plus selected expansions, makes sense and does cost money.

But they want some proof that congestion will actually be relieved. They oppose spending just to increase sprawl. They support alternatives, especially public transit. And they want to be confident that transportation law respects clean air standards, supports alternatives like walking and cycling, and undergirds our communities.

It's a straightforward deal. But it probably can't move into gear until the highway lobby and its political buddies agree to clear the road.

Neal Peirce's e-mail address is nrp@citistates.com.