|
The following is public testimony offered in support of the existing Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, April 21, 1997.
Presented by Barry Schiller, transportation chair of the Rhode Island Chapter of the Sierra Club, the testimony gives members of the highway community and lobby a look into the logic and rationale of environmental enemies of highways. It's been edited for length, and with added interpretive subheadings, by Tom Kuennen for the Expressways Online electronic newsletter. Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works April 21, 1997 by Barry Schiller Rhode Island Chapter, Sierra Club I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify on ISTEA renewal. I have followed transportation issues in Rhode Island as a citizen activist for almost 30 years. I now serve as transportation chair for the Rhode Island Sierra Club and as its delegate to the Environment Council of Rhode Island, the "umbrella" organization for all our state's environmental groups. I am also a public member of the state's Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA). The Rhode Island Sierra Club in particular, and the environmental community generally, believes ISTEA reforms ARE starting to work effectively, and it should be reauthorized without major changes in its framework. There are however, some ways in which we believe it should be strengthened. Why have environmentalists come to care so much about transportation? We are of course concerned with our own mobility. But it has also become so evident that transportation impacts the environment in so many important ways, not just with regard to air quality, but also on noise, on energy extraction and transport, on runoff and water quality, and most profoundly, on land use. Past automobile-dominated transportation policies have promoted urban sprawl with all its implications for damaging forests, wildlife, agriculture, and also the older cities, and town centers, all the while intensifying consumption of resources. This wide variety of impacts makes almost every aspect of ISTEA a concern. Our support for "alternative" transportation is not based on some kind of nostalgia for the past but because of these impacts. [ISTEA] has made environmental protection more central to transportation planning. Indeed "environmental impact" is one of the five major screens used by our TAC or evaluating transportation proposals. It has greatly expanded the role of the MPCs and the public in this process, resulting in a much better spirit of cooperation between community groups and the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RI DOT), which previously had a long history of bitter conflicts. For example, there was a long fight over a proposed I-84 Providence-Hartford interstate, which was resolved only when the EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality finally backed the citizens. In my own town of North Providence, RI DOT proposed to speed traffic by straightening and widening Fruit Hill Avenue, eliminating all the old trees on this residential street. RI DOT traffic engineers thought only of the motorists, and not of the community living there. That no longer happens [under ISTEA]. Public participation also gives those without cars -- whether due to low incomes, disabilities, or a choice to live car-free -- an opportunity to be heard. Indeed the city of Providence reported to the TAC that 23 percent of the households in the city have no motor vehicles! Their interests need to be considered. We have more flexibility on design standards. It has become routine to consider ways to scale down proposed projects to solve problems with minimum cost, and minimum destruction. We are making a real start on fixing our highway infrastructure, especially the interstates and the bridges. We are directing resources to revitalizing older business districts where people can walk instead of having to drive to carry out even the simplest errand. We are developing the potential for a first class bicycle network. This is not a trivial issue when one considers bicycle tourism . . . Thanks to a CMAQ [ISTEA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program] grant, bicycles may soon be carried by RIPTA buses, opening up new opportunities for commuting, recreation and tourism. With a more level playing field, we have been able to maintain our transit system, which increased ridership substantially since ISTEA was passed. We have at least made a start on protecting Narragansett Bay from pollution due to runoff from the I-95 corridor. We must overcome any opposition to funding CMAQ and [ISTEA Transportation] Enhancements. I strongly commend President Clinton and our own Sen. John Chafee for their leadership in recognizing the importance [of] those programs . . . We are disappointed that many of the enhancement projects have not been implemented more rapidly. It would be helpful if Congress would find a way to cut the red tape and administrative overhead on small enhancement projects that can be administered by local governments. We need to expand the flexibility of the Surface Transportation Program to include rail. It is ironic that federal policy allows use of ISTEA funds for relatively) local commuter rail projects, but not for our intercity rail system, even if a state thinks that is the best way to solve a transportation problem. To help keep and improve our national passenger rail system we support dedication of 1/2 cent of the federal gas tax for a Rail Trust Fund to be used for Amtrak capital improvement as a most reasonable way to do this. Motorists too will benefit, from improved environmental quality, reduced congestion, and more choice as to travel modes. Freight rail too has environmental benefits so it too should be eligible for ISTEA funding. We need to reverse the years of neglect that has hurt our New England freight rail system in order to maximize our chance for environmentally responsible economic development. While we would prefer to see [mass transit] operating assistance continue, if not it is essential that language be found to make maintenance and protection of the buses that federal grants help buy be eligible for capital funding. Also, our experience here is that more must be done to level the playing field between transit and auto commuting. Congress should equalize the tax-free benefits of parking and transit, and develop at least voluntary programs to encourage "parking cashout" and alternative transportation. Congress should consider putting the power of the market to work by developing funding formulas that reward states and localities that successfully grow transit ridership and/or reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled. I urge Congress to do its part to keep this all going by renewing a strong ISTEA along its principles of environmental protection, maintenance of the infrastructure, community revitalization, flexibility, and public participation. |