The higher funding levels of the federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) -- signed into law last year -- have stirred environmentalists and the Environmental Protection Agency to redouble efforts to scuttle expanded highway construction. TEA-21 represents a 44 percent increase in federal surface transportation funding over six years from the program that preceded it.

The attacks are varied and are coming on many fronts.

o Using existing clean air legislation, the EPA is posing new challenges to highway capacity improvements funded by the new surface transportation law, which authorized an astonishing $218 billion for surface transportation through FY 2003.

o EPA itself late in 1998 was attempting to reposition itself to embrace a more interventionist approach to halting road construction by boosting pro-environment activism at the local and regional levels, according to an internal EPA document obtained by transportation journalist Peter Samuel, and published in his Toll Roads newsletter. Samuel's widely circulated report jolted the highway lobby out of its post-TEA-21 reverie and is setting the stage for a new round of activity on the highways lobbying front.

o In November 1998, on the eve of the annual meeting of the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) -- a consortium of anti-highway groups funded in part by the EPA and the U.S. DOT -- accused the nation's state DOTs of emphasizing new construction while permitting existing roads to deteriorate. STPP infuriated the DOT officers, who publicly observed that STPP had misused data and distorted reality (see related article).

o In mid-January, amid President Clinton's impeachment trial,
Vice President Al Gore unveiled a package of grants and tax exempt loans worth hundreds of millions of dollars in the name of "livable communities", that are meant to encourage less reliance on roads and autos. And in March 1999 he rolled out still more anti-highway and anti-growth initiatives, to be funded in the administration's FY 2000  budget.

"What a great idea!" chided American Highway Users Alliance president Bill Fay in March. "Americans are driving more cars, more miles than ever before, there are more trucks on the road to meet ever-burgeoning consumer demand, the death toll caused by bad highways remains stubbornly high, transit use is either flat or declining, congestion is growing everywhere, and Vice President Gore and STPP want to build more sidewalks, bicycle paths and transit lines with the same motorist taxes that could make our roads safer and less congested."

o Because TEA-21 requires gas tax revenue that exceeds original
projections to be made available to increase highway obligation limitations and authorizations -- instead of being squirreled away to benefit the government's cash flow -- it appeared in early 1999 that states may enjoy an additional $1.45 billion windfall in authorizations for road construction in FY 2000.

But the Clinton administration wants to spend this money on mass transit and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and other such projects, and in December 1998 the administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) told the administration that the lion's share of that money could be authorized as the administration wished, instead of being credited directly to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund for highway construction purposes.

One lobbying group, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association  (ARTBA), has been responding forcefully to OMB's reading.

But even as anti-highway groups marshal their forces, the industry is responding. In late 1998 TRIP, The Road Information Program, was laying the groundwork for a new public outreach program -- TRUTHS-21, Truths About Transportation -- that would address the new era of road building presented by TEA-21. And ARTBA was contemplating a similar program.
 

Explosion in spending

If highways are the enemy, the environmental movement has reason  to reconsider its strategy, because TEA-21 will cause an explosion in highway spending and construction.

"TEA-21 means big increases in spending that will go for environmentally damaging, and sprawl-inducing new beltways and bypasses," said Hank Dittmar, former STPP executive director. "STPP will focus its future efforts on public education and organizing ... to ensure that the transportation institutions
implement TEA-21 in the public interest, rather than the special interest of the road building and development communities."

"[TEA-21] virtually guarantees strong growth of highway and mass transit construction through 2003, with the largest increases occurring in 2000 and 2001," said Bill Buechner, director of economics and research for ARTBA, at the CMD Group North American Construction Forecast (NACF) held in Washington
fall of 1998. "We're talking about a major increase in highway work over the six-year period."

This equates to yearly increases in highway construction, beginning with a 4.04 percent increase for FY 1998, dropping to a 3.11 percent increase in 1999, but skyrocketing to 6.1 percent increase in 2000, with slower rates of increase following 2000.

The delayed, big impact of TEA-21 in 2000 results from the lag between the time projects are authorized and the time projects are begun. "Even though the big increases in funding are coming in 1998 and 1999, the roadwork itself will take a big leap upward in the year 2000, and 2001, and then level off into a more stable growth pattern. Highway construction tends to ramp up, rather than jump up, when federal funding increases," Buechner said.

Buechner noted that the federal funding boost also will spur highway funding increases at the state level. To participate in most federal highway programs, states are required to provide matching funds, on average, 20 percent to a federal 80 percent share. The higher levels of federal funding means that states will have to come up with much more matching funds to claim their rightful share.

Historically, under the predecessor Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), federal funding only accounted for 22 percent of total annual U.S. road and highway spending. Typically states contributed half and city and county governments the remaining 28 percent. TEA-21 can be
expected to alter that ratio considerably.

But despite its traditionally smaller percentage of total funding, federal participation is very important because it has driven most of the new construction and capacity, while much of the state and local funding goes to maintenance and lower volume facilities.
 

Building firewalls

Keeping the pot boiling is the fact that TEA-21 protects surface
transportation funding in ways only dreamed of a few years ago. TEA-21 didn't take highway spending "off budget", that is, out of the federal Unified Budget where its funds were mingled with all other discretionary expenditures. But its spending firewalls are the next best thing.

"TEA-21 makes some historic changes in the way highway construction is funded," Buechner said at his forecast presentation. "Not only is there a major increase in the amount of federal funds available, most of the funding is guaranteed and protected from cuts by firewalls."

TEA-21 also sought to protect highway and mass transit funding from budgetary pressures by taking the programs out of the domestic discretionary category -- where they had to compete with other programs like education and veterans benefits -- and creating new highway and mass transit categories that are separate from the rest of the budget, he said.

The Southeast -- hotbed of anti-ISTEA sentiment in the recent
reauthorization struggle -- came out the big winner in TEA-21. New England will actually lose a little total money, compared to ISTEA, as the Central Artery project in Boston winds down, Buechner said.

California will receive almost $2.5 billion per year from the federal government for highways under TEA-21, while four other states will receive more than $1 billion annually: Texas, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania. South Carolina, which was worst off under ISTEA -- will receive the largest percentage increase, almost 80 percent, while a number of other southeastern states will
receive increases of 60 percent or more.

Bridge construction will benefit from a significant increase in funding for the bridge program in TEA-21, with most of the money going into replacement and repair.

Separately, Buechner estimated that TEA-21 alone could boost annual sales of construction equipment from $2.5 billion to $3 billion each year by 2003 over pre-TEA-21 levels in 1997.

In 1999, Congress should act on a multi-year reauthorization of the airport improvement program, which should boost federal investment in airports. Railways, waterways and transit facilities will also receive recognition in the years ahead. Mass transit will undergo major gains as TEA-21 permits development of
light rail systems in urban areas.

In total, all U.S. transportation infrastructure spending may hit $167 billion in FY 1999, and grow to nearly $200 billion in 2003, much of it driven by TEA-21 and a strong economy.
 

The onslaught begins

Against this strong backdrop of funding and development, the new attack on highway funding is coming in Byzantine ways and will utilize existing laws and regulations to throttle road construction.

For example, in November the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against EPA Administrator Carol Browner, disputing her ability to delay implementation of portions of the Clean Air Act in St. Louis.

The club is demanding that highway funds be withheld from work in St. Louis and the Missouri Department of Transportation because St. Louis is a clean air nonattainment area. In a carryover from ISTEA, TEA-21 permits withholding of funds for capacity improvements in nonattainment areas.

But suits like these typically are a sham, because EPA often acts as
though it's being moderate in administering the letter of the law -- in this example, delaying implementation of the Clean Air Act -- knowing full well it will be sued by environmental groups. The courts then force EPA to administer the law, and both the EPA and the environmental groups look good to respective stakeholders. Some critics allege that EPA overtly encourages environmental
groups to sue it in this fashion.

But in late winter 1999 Sen. Kit Bond (R.-Mo.) -- a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee -- introduced S. 495, which would eliminate the linkage between highway improvements and air quality requirements. The bill would repeal provisions of the Clean Air Aict that allow a state's federal highway funds to be withheld if the state is not in attainment with federal air quality standards, ARTBA reported in March 1999.

In Georgia, a coalition of environmental groups -- including the Sierra Club and Georgia Conservancy -- filed suit in November to stop 61 highway projects in Atlanta, citing noncompliance with the Clean Air Act.

And in Texas, EPA was considering whether Houston's pollution controls and plan would be adequate to meet federal standards by the 2007 deadline. Formal disapproval would lead to economic sanctions, including loss of federal highway funds.

"In the future, the highway industry will encounter a variety of
organizations advocating anti-highway messages as part of their campaign to promote significant changes in the country's development patterns," said Rocky Moretti, TRIP director of research. "The anti-highway forces have a vision of the
future that appeals to the public, until people look past the surface. The highway industry must craft an alternate vision of the future, that says that livable communities concepts can coexist with suburban development."
 

EPA's chilling plan

A September EPA memorandum obtained by journalist Peter Samuel outlines the EPA's chilling new plan to be more aggressive in fighting highways than under ISTEA.

Under ISTEA and despite the Clean Air Act, regional and state
governments have been able to boost local road building in response to local and regional needs, TRIP reported. Now EPA vows to aggressively use planning provisions in TEA-21 to block highway projects and reduce "auto dependency".

Its TEA-21 Workgroup Report outlines EPA's goals. "We need to
encourage consideration of demand management [so-called congestion or road pricing] and other innovative strategies that produce less congestion, cleaner air and water, improved accessibility, reduced local economic costs, and increased
consideration of environmental justice concerns," the cover memo states.

"Current strategies are leading to very rapid increases in driving and sprawl with escalating environmental damage," the memo states. "Reducing driving and sprawl will have many benefits for EPA, DOT and others: less congestion, greater social equity with improved accessibility ... and enhanced communities," whatever the heck those are.

To achieve these goals -- and using our tax dollars -- EPA staffers
propose to transcend the national scene and get involved at the local planning level agencies that call the shots on how surface transportation funds are allocated in urban areas, as prescribed in ISTEA and continued in TEA-21.

"Working with Metropolitan Planning Organizations and State DOTs to ensure full consideration of comprehensive environmental objectives within long-range regional plans would be the ideal outcome," the memo states. 

"EPA is confident that they know what transportation investments are best for the country and their goal is to put themselves in a position of making those decisions," TRIP's Moretti said.

And in coming years, newly promulgated regulations on ultrafine
particulate matter (PM 2.5), ozone transport (NOx) and regional haze will give EPA added ammunition to fight highways and other economic development.

Each of these criteria are under litigation, some of which has been brought about by ARTBA.
 

$1.45 billion question

In early 1999 ARTBA was making sure there were no misunderstandings at OMB or the Clinton administration about the highway lobby's position on the $1,45 billion question.

In December, FHWA said some $900 million in additional funds would be available for highway investment beyond the amount projected last summer under TEA-21. That's because TEA-21 links the level of federal assistance to the states to incoming revenues from the user-supported Highway Trust Fund. As trust fund revenues increase, so does federal aid to the states.

And due to low gas prices, a strong economy and more drivers than every before, that "found" money had risen to some $1.45 billion by March 1999.

Reports circulating in Washington suggested the Clinton administration may want to use the new funds for its priorities, not those spelled out in the new law.

ARTBA sent a letter Dec. 11 letter to OMB expressing its concerns on the president's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget. "We are disturbed to hear that OMB may believe the President has wide discretion in how these additional resources should be distributed to the states and may contemplate using revenue that is specifically earmarked for highway capital investments to expand the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) program and mass transit funding," wrote ARTBA president Pete Ruane.

"Any attempts to bolster CMAQ and mass transit funding at the expense of TEA-21 highway capital investment programs would be contrary to the spirit and letter of the law and would be vigorously challenged by the transportation construction industry," Ruane added.

And in March 1999, Clinton's climate-change foe Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) -- ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee -- voiced his opposition to the administration's use of those funds for non-highway purposes.
 

Gore's Livable Communities

Gore's Livable Communities initiative is thought to enhance his reputation as an environmental advocate as he readies his presidential bid for the year 2000.

Livable communities has three parts, each intended to stop sburban
sprawl and discourage new suburban development, including:

o At least $100 million a year in grants to states and lower governments to establish parks and greenways, and preserve environmentally compromised areas

o Between $500 million and $1 billion over five years to acquire or create green spaces and preserve farmland, and

o Regulatory and administrative changes, perhaps including mortgage benefits for individuals purchasing homes in densely populated areas near public transit.

Gore's proposals were further refined in March 1999.
 

The attack on sprawl

Gore's Livable Communities offensive is a smaller part of an overall attack on "suburban sprawl", which has become the post-TEA-21 rallying cry of those who oppose market-driven road construction and urban development.

The topic of suburban sprawl has achieved a tremendous amount of
press ink in 1998 and is being echoed in local debates coast-to-coast.

Emblematic of this debate is the Stopping Sprawl Campaign of the Sierra Club. "Stopping Sprawl will focus on the local level, but will also develop strategies to help stop sprawl through action at the state, regional, national and (if appropriate) international levels," the Sierra Club plans. "The campaign will also work on takings, land-use planning and transportation issues."

Sierra Club links its campaign with Gore's initiative. "In light of the Clinton Administration's anticipated announcement of initiatives to curb urban sprawl, Sierra Club experts will conduct a press conference via telephone to comment on the details of the plan and provide background information to reporters covering the announcements," the club said.

Sierra Club encourages visitors to its "Stopping Sprawl" web site to stay tuned for more. "If you have watched the growth of highways, congestion and pollution in horror, or new suburbs springing up left and right, eating up wild areas, you have come to the right place. This web site is designed to educate and inform on the dangers of uncontrolled suburban sprawl and highway 
construction, and to put you in touch with people who can help you fight it in your area,” the Sierra Club states.