Senate transportation bill: More bland than bold

The $109 billion, two-year transportation bill approved last week by the US Senate has garnered praise from as diverse as the Transportation for America, AASHTO (The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), the Sierra Club, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the

When a bill is popular from so many diverse interest groups, it is likely to be more bland than bold. That’s MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century), a mostly status-quo transportation bill — which nevertheless includes an important shift in policy that would make a difference if departments of transportation (DOTs) take it seriously.

That shift would require all transportation modes be accommodated in open-access thoroughfares in urban areas, according to David Goldberg, communications director of Transportation for America. This amounts to a “complete streets” provision, but the term "complete streets" is never mentioned — and that is indicative of MAP-21’s careful calibration to appease a wide range of political interests. There are powerful politicians who apparently object to the term “complete streets” because it represents “wasteful” spending for bicyclists and pedestrians rather than for automobiles.

Complete streets policies nevertheless are popular — the public understands that providing for all users, including children and non-drivers and those who prefer to walk, bicycle and ride public transit, is both fair and practical. This complete streets policy, however carefully worded, could mean an important shift in transportation spending if strictly enforced. 

MAP-21 also includes a provision that at least 60 percent of highway expenditures are required to go toward repair of roads and bridges. Some states are already meeting that standard, Goldberg says. In other states, this bill would make it more difficult for lawmakers to fund ill-considered, politically driven new highways when current maintenance is neglected, he notes.

In its broad fiscal outlines, MAP-21 maintains the status quo, which is why AASHTO and the Chamber of Commerce are on board. It keeps the three-decade-long policy of an 80-20 spending split between roads and public transit. And it continues the approximately 1.5 percent of spending for “transportation enhancements,” which can include bicycle lanes, facilities for wildlife protection, and wetlands mitigation.

The dedicated transit funding and the funds for enhancements are under threat in the House — even the Senate had considered getting rid of the enhancements — which is why the environmental and smart growth constituencies have declared MAP-21 a victory.

For supporters of genuine transportation reform, the victory is meager. We need more than a complete streets policy. A fundamental shift in thinking and culture at state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations toward the concept of livability is needed. That means a transportation system that fully supports mixed-use, compact, development patterns that make automobile travel less necessary.

The Obama administration’s DOT, under the leadership of feisty former Republican congressman Ray LaHood, has pioneered an effective way to enable that change through the competitive, multimodal TIGER grant program. Rather than the current system of doling out money for the same old asphalt spreading, the DOT has challenged transportation planners and engineers to come up with better ideas.

Now DOT, in its 2013 budget, wants to take livability mainstream, backed up by substantial spending. DOT has proposed, over six years, $48 billion for livability programs and $20 billion more for “leadership awards” grants that could spur a much-needed renaissance in transportation and land use in the US. The DOT also wants to spend $47 billion for inter-city rail over this time period, and to combine that with a strong transit-oriented development (TOD) program. All of this provides financial and competitive muscle behind the DOT’s own proposed “complete streets” policy.

DOT has a genuine strategy for transportation reform in the US — one that could help to jump-start the US economy and lay the foundation for a sustainable future.

MAP-21, for its part, includes a $20 million pilot program for TOD planning, and no funds specifically for TIGER — although Transportation for America holds out hope for a continuation of the TIGER program. MAP-21 is light-years behind the administration's proposal.

The bike-ped and smart growth lobbies in Washington are pleased with MAP-21 because they are justifiably dismayed by House efforts to strip transportation funding of anything but asphalt for automobiles. With that as an alternative, the status quo with a complete streets policy looks pretty good. But these constituencies should pay more attention to what LaHood is proposing — that's the direction we should be heading.

MAP-21 may be a step in the right direction over two years. In the long run, the nation needs more fundamental reform.