Transportation and Public Policy

Legislative Route
Legislatures are the most formal means of policy initiation. Policy seeds are sown by the executive branch, agencies, advocates, citizens, companies and legislators. Only a few seeds germinate. Once an idea takes root, it grows through a process of drafting, hearings, lobbying and redrafting. This growth is slow and intricate, but as the bill nears maturity the intensity of activity becomes intense, eventually flowering upon adoption.

Laws express legislators' intents. Agencies affected by a law then draft the regulations needed to implement those ideas. The rulemaking process is used by agencies and lobbyists to bolster desirable ideas or smother unwanted ones.

While most laws are needed improvements, this is not always the case. A new bill often covers an issue that has already been dealt with, because legislators find passing a new law more glamorous than enforcing an old one, thus, they can tell their constituents "Look! I did something about..." Whether or not the cure in that law is a solution to the problem doesn't matter.

Agency Route
Agencies make policy every day. The least distinct means of policy creation is mission implementation: are they effective at what they are supposed to do and what issues do they give priority. More noticeable are new initiatives, regulation modifications, studies and plans.

Significant leeway exists for agencies, though if they go too far, the legislature or executive can threaten or take retribution through budget modifications or removing the commissioner. Citizens also apply pressure through direct lobbying or via the executive and legislators.

The most contentious, though vital, function of an agency is enforcement. A major purpose of government is to instil order for the public benefit. Without enforcement measures against individuals and companies not adhering to that order, the government may as well not exist. Enforcement shortfalls can stem from an agency's acquiescence or funding cuts by the legislature or executives.

Budget Route
Funding has a huge influence on policy, since money is needed to carry out programs. Budget creation is an arduous process. Agencies consider the expenses and revenue for programs they were involved in last year and would like to be in the next, then compare them to targets given by the Office of Management and Budget (Division of the Budget in NY State). Agency requests are then submitted to the budget office, which compiles and evaluates the requests. Proposals which fit the priorities of the executive are incorporated in the executive budget and submitted to the legislature. Hearings are held, where both the agency heads and public testify. The legislative branch eventually approves the appropriations with some modifications. Oversight by the budget department and comptroller takes place throughout the year to ensure things are done properly and adjust expenditures to match the latest revenue projections.

Judicial Route
The judiciary plays an indirect role in policy. Beleaguered citizens and companies can sue the government when a policy or its implementation goes astray. Such entities sometimes raise constitutional questions during enforcement cases against them. When decisions counter existing policy, the government needs to modify or abolish the policy to comply with the ruling.

America's massive highway support started with the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. Rail investment, on the other hand, was considered a private endeavor. The feds began it's modest support for mass transit infrastructure with the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, but by then it was too late.

In the early 1970's, the major railroads of the northeast went bankrupt under the weights of regulations, competition from roads and noninvestment. To prevent rail services from vanishing, Congress created Conrail, a private corporation given the assets of the northeastern railroads. Conrail, with financial assistance from the feds, ran both freight and commuter operations at it's start. Washington, via the Federal Railroad Administration, also gave states operating subsidies for small freight lines, though the policy eventually shifted to provide small sums for capital work. Now, the FRA's state programs have been defunded.

United States railroads were loosing money on their passenger operations, but the ICC refused to let them be cut. Amtrak was created by the national government in 1971 to take over the nation's intercity passenger operations. This governmental corporation was given engines, cars, terminals and some cash by the railroads that joined the bailout.

Operating practices of airlines, railroads, bus lines and some truckers used to be strictly regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Providers were forced to serve small and unprofitable markets at set rates and ICC approval was needed for any service or price modifications. President Carter's push to dramatically reduce these constraining practices came to fruition between 1978 and 1980. While these steps spurred competition and price cutting between major air markets, many peripheral areas ended up paying more or being isolated. Railroads abandoned vast quantities of unprofitable and parallel lines, spurring the doubling of shoreline railroads to keep remote customers connected to the rail freight network. Both bus and air providers have since been in major price wars, leading to many operators running up massive deficits, resulting in countless mergers and bankruptcies.

Transit is being given increasing access to highway funds. Urban highway funds were opened up for busway and bus station spending in 1970. During 1973, Congress allowed states to take proposed interstate highways off the map and use the funds for transit projects. Starting that same year, urban highway funds could be spent on rail facilities. The Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund was created in 1982, providing transit a dedicated revenue stream. The wall between highway and transit funds was further removed with the advent of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1991. ISTEA reworked the project categories and opened up most of them to spending on what ever project the local government thought appropriate. The flexibility remains largely theoretical though. While transit is getting more aid, most of it comes from transit only funding sources and massive highway spending continues. Transit capital spending has not met authorized levels and operating funds have been cut since the 80's.

The influx of money has helped transit and other alternative modes, but more needs to be done. State and local governments have yet to be convinced that dramatic reductions in roadway spending are the best way to aid urban economies and the nation as a whole.

Purse strings are a means to break through reluctance. To this end, during the ISTEA creation process I proposed the Efficiency Feebate Apportionment Program. The feebate formula calculates each state's change in efficiency and then compares it to every other state's change. States that improve most, or decrease least, get extra money while states with the largest decreases in efficiency have their transportation apportionments reduced slightly.

Amtrak is getting capital assistance from Congress for major improvements on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), the heavily used line between Washington, DC and Boston. The past and future work includes tracks, signals, electrification and high speed train sets. Two main problems face Amtrak today: funding and freight conflicts. They are being forced toward a break even budget, causing service to be sparse and spartan. These financial woes also push Amtrak charge commuter railroads very high fees for using the NEC. While Amtrak owns much of the NEC, in most other areas it operates over the tracks of other railroads. This arrangement places Amtrak trains at the mercy of non-Amtrak dispatchers who are more concerned with their own company's trains, causing ontime performance to be poor.

Federal cycling and pedestrian policy has been similar to that of transit. Non-motorized modes received no attention until 1973 and is now eligible for money from most highway and transit programs.

The fate of streetcar systems has similarities also. Trolley companies were private entities. They built and maintained their own tracks and vehicles, but operated them in the middle of public thoroughfares. As motor vehicle traffic increased, it hindered the movement of the streetcars. Financial competition from the publicly built roads caused trolley operators to keep fares down and invest little in the system to keep it going. After a while, the companies figured they could cut maintenance costs by using buses on the publicly maintained streets. Competition continued though, and many companies went belly up. Some operations ceased, while many were taken over by municipalities or obtained subsidies therefrom.

Capacity Supply
The supply of transportation facilities is the major determinant of mode split. Travel time is directly affected by these facilities and most modal choices are based on time. The capacity is determined by the construction, maintenance and operations/management of the transportation systems. Tremendous effort continues to pour into increasing roadway and airport capacity while rail, cycling and pedestrian facilities receive only modest, though increasing, attention. Just building more alternative transport facilities won't generate a significant change though. No roadway and parking capacity should be added. Under such circumstances in congested corridors, a large percentage of new trips will be made by the new means. This is a long term approach. If a more immediate effect is sought, automobile capacity should be reduced.

In these times of budget and environmental constraints, technology is being used to squeeze more capacity out of our existing infrastructure. The most prevalent of these technologies is Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS), in which roadway sensors linked to computers determine how to keep cars moving by adjusting intersection signals and providing directions to the least congested route. IVHS is yet another sink hole, taking attention and funding away from alternative modes of transport. These technologies also have positive contributions. Since transportation is about movement, radio frequency card technology is a boon to the industry, allowing shippers to keep track of freight containers, trucks and rail cars as well as providing municipalities the ability to collect congestion pricing fees, all while the vehicles are traveling. Train dispatching is increasingly being done at centralized traffic control (CTC) facilities rather than decentralized towers. CTC provides more flexibility because the dispatchers know what is going on throughout the entire system so can better utilize facilities.

Telecommutation is yet another technology offering to improve transportation, though this one does so by reducing demand. Such measures are laudable and should be supported but have yet to yield major changes in travel habits.

Pricing and Economics
Transportation demand is inflated by the subsidies it receives. Roadway user fees don't cover the basic direct government outlays such as construction/maintenance/operations, enforcement and rescue services. State maintained roads, including federal roads, generally pay for themselves via state registration fees along with state and national gas taxes. On the other hand, local roads are paid for by property and sales taxes which don't target roadway users. The majority of user fees collected are flat ones, not based on the amount one uses transportation facilities.

Then there are the external costs, incurred indirectly by everybody. Employees, shoppers and transit patrons are often not charged for parking, a cost which now gets evenly distributed amongst all persons whether they drive there or not. Noise and air pollution are nowhere to be found in driving costs. Congestion caused by each additional driver delays deliveries and drives up costs. Environmental degradation caused by the mining, drilling, manufacture, transport and disposal of the raw materials needed for transportation, including asphalt, metal, rubber and petroleum. Time lost and human potential stymied by automobile crashes. The tough part, of course, is calculating what all those costs are. These incremental costs need to be determined and charged based the distance traveled, weight per axle and pollution per mile plus location and time of day.

Transportation generates tremendous external benefits. Both the public and private sectors gain from increased real estate values and heavier land use. Jobs are created by transportation providers. Most trips achieve an economic end, such as getting work done or making a delivery or purchase. Access to social activities is also essential to maintain our humanity.

Using inclusive cost/benefit criteria, roadway projects usually don't rank as well as transit, cycling, walking and pricing strategies. Unfortunately, a full range of alternatives is rarely considered in government planning; nor is consideration given to the breadth of costs and benefits mentioned above. A desired project is usually picked and then the review process compares it to inferior projects using skewed calculations.

There are also some general policies that affect pricing. Amtrak is being forced toward breaking even and mass transit is often thought of as a welfare queen while roadways aren't held to such standards. Employers can give employees up to $60 in tax free transit subsidies but up to $155 in parking subsidies. The land under roadways is not taxed while railroads pay property taxes, and in New York state, the Railroad Property Tax is double that of other commercial properties in the state.

Allocating funds within regions is yet another contentious issue. Suburban and city politicians continually battle it out for funds. Within the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the city transit riders pay a higher share of the operating costs than riders of the commuter rail lines. The MTA's TBTA surplus funds are split 50/50 between the city and the suburbs despite 2/3 of the TBTA revenue comes from city residents. Such discrepancies happen around the nation and some are the subject of discrimination lawsuits.

Laws and Regulation
Laws and regulations also influence our transportation system. Zoning determines building density and combinations of uses. Higher densities and mixed uses promote walking, bicycling and mass transit by bringing places closer together. Lower densities and homogeneous uses spread things farther apart, resulting in more car travel. Zoning regulations also determine if parking is required and how much. Progressive zoning laws also require provisions for bicycle commuters and patrons.

Bikes and pedestrians are banned more places than one might think. Some places are bridges that didn't include paths for non-motorists. The lack of inclusion during construction is a problem that needs to be rectified. Safety is the stated reason for most bike/pedestrian restrictions, but the concerns are rarely genuine. Interstate highways often have prohibitions on cyclists and walkers despite such roads being very safe places because of the wide shoulders and no turning movements. Some states allow cyclists on their interstates either as a right or by permit. Some cities ban bicycles from particular streets or districts rather than enforcing laws against cyclists who hit pedestrians.

Enforcement against reckless drivers is quite lax in New York. Charges of vehicular homicide or assault are rarely pressed by prosecutors. Motorists with suspended licenses are routinely on the road and few of them ever have their vehicles impounded.

The role of transportation providers grew upon passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Public transit systems now need to be made accessible to the entire public. Systems must even be extended to meet those who are completely disabled, providing door to door paratransit for trips that have both its origin and destination within .25 miles of a fixed route system. While some providers complain this is yet another unfunded federal mandate, it is something that needs to be done.

Truck weight and dimensions are regulated at both the state and federal levels. Congress put a cap on these measurements for vehicles using the interstate system, but a grandfather clause was included. Truck operations using larger vehicles when the law was enacted were allowed to continue doing so. The trucking industry has been pushing for nationwide double and triple trailers, a move to increase cost effectiveness, but safety concerns have kept that in check. Railroads played a significant lobbying role to keep the current regulations in place, fearing the increase would take away some of their work.

The federal government used to regulate automobile gas mileage through Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards. This measure reduced fuel consumption and pollution, but the auto makers fought to eliminate the program and eventually won out. The big three prefer to keep making money with things as they are rather than invest money in new technology. The publicly stated arguments are smaller cars are less safe and that there is little efficiency left to be found. Both arguments are specious. The single largest category of crashes involve one vehicle, under which circumstances smaller vehicles fare best. In two vehicle accidents, the severity of impact is directly related to the weight of the vehicles involved, so as the average weight of vehicles is reduced, the average severity of impact will also come down. New efficiency is available from existing technology that has yet to be applied, including modern engine types, mufflers and weight reductions from composite materials. I made these points to Congress and the New York Times, and they seem to have taken hold, resulting in favorable GAO and Times reports.

Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act has an effect on transportation policy. Metropolitan areas that exceed federal pollution standards must have their transportation programs (Transportation Improvement Programs, TIP's) comply with their pollution control plans (State Implementation Plans, SIP's). Vehicle technology is also affected by the CAA.

The CAA has done little to promote alternative modes. The focus has been on mandating technical improvements to cars, such as catalytic converters, improved engines and oxygenated fuel as well as inspection and maintenance. A questionable means used to comply with the law are Transportation Control Measures (TCM's), including traffic signal synchronization, turn lanes and parking enforcement. Such measures are based on the principle that the faster a vehicle travels, the less pollution per mile is emitted. While the principle is true for each vehicle, it breaks down when taking all vehicles into account. More roadway capacity induces more driving and thus more pollution. The scheme's flaw is allowed to continue only because of the VMT increases are offset by emission reductions from the vehicular technical fixes. Air quality improvements would be even larger if the VMT inducing projects didn't go through. The most dramatic air quality gains can be had by combining the technical fixes with programs to cut VMT.

VMT reducing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies were mandated by the recent CAA amendments. Employers of more than 100 people are required to improve vehicle occupancy of cars arriving at their worksites, but only during the morning peak commute hours. While this is a fantastic step to get people thinking about how they travel, the built environs often dictate which modes are. Changing investment and zoning strategies will have a greater, though not immediate, effect.

The new congress, dominated by radical rightwing nuts, aided by Regan Democrats, is likely to challenge the Clean Air Act, bowing to the lobbying and financing of major industries. These efforts are being countered by increasingly strong advocates and grassroots movements.

The administrative agencies, such as NYCDOT, county DPW's, NYSDOT and NJDOT deal with the day to day planning, construction and operations of transportation facilities. NYCDOT and some other counties also manage or fund bus operations. USDOT provides funding and regulatory oversight to state and local agencies involved with shipping, roads, airports, as well as freight and passenger trains. The Army Corp of Engineers funds and oversees the dredging and maintenance of public waterway channels.

Mayors and other high ranking officials generally come from well to do circles and obtained their positions with the support of their wealthy friends. In return, such friends get contracts, favorable decisions and favorable projects in their areas or don't get unfavorable ones.

Most plans have altruistic window dressing covering private ends and those ends are obtained by distorted and deceptive means. As if this were not enough, the developers, financial institutions and corporations are chincy to the city in return. They push for tax breaks, elimination of impact fees and absolving payments they promised to make the city. Once the officials finish their term, they walk right out the revolving door and get a job with those they let off.

A prime example of these corrupt influences in NYC planning is solid waste management and the Brooklyn Navy Yard Incinerator. Norman Steisel, a municipal finance mavin, was made Mayor Koch's sanitation commissioner. Steisel used his position to push incineration as the city's solid waste management solution. During that work, he was offered a job at Lazard Frerez. Shortly thereafter he gave them an inflated commission for selling Navy Yard Incinerator bonds and then took the Lazard job. Mayor Dinkins then brought Steisel back as First Deputy Mayor, where he further pushed for the incinerator, hindered an efficient recycling program and did nothing for source reduction. Steisel's public agenda sounds good: a solution for our garbage. Unfortunately, it is not a solution, for it makes the garbage toxic, only reduces the volume of the trash to 1/3 and hinders recycling by drastically reducing the quantity of available recyclable materials. NYC's interests, such as increased employment and lower net costs of a recycling program, are far from his mind. Basically, he is working for big financial investors looking reap the interest and commissions of the city's debt.

Another planning pitfall opens when those affected by a proposed plan don't take part in its creation. Such exclusion arises because planners think they know what's best and it's easier to get things done when less people are involved. This isolated method produces dissatisfied communities and places where people don't want to live. The single largest gripe Community Boards tell agencies is "you should have come to us first, not now that the planning is done."

Ideally, planners should be involved with the community from the initial scoping stages. Such efforts seek both statements of problems and potential solutions. As planning progresses, those effected are updated and feedback sought from them.. Unfortunately, many community involvement programs are just publicity campaigns used to push the agency's agenda. While such programs don't invite involvement, they can spur activists who are willing to fight later.

Activists work to generate and channel community power. In some cases letter writing and petitioning is enough to resolve things, while in some instances activists end up suing. While some community opposition stems from the NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard), others have a stronger moral position as NABBY's (Not in Any-Body's Back Yard). Community fights are increasingly involving race and class issues. Undesirable facilities are often placed in poor minority communities while beneficial ones are in wealthier sections.

In NYC, the Borough Presidents often act as an advocate and insider for community activists. Progressive staff members support movements with small discretionary grants, meting space, holding community forums, research, advocacy, and inside information and advice.

There is basically one way for activists to ensure they have meaningful input: get to know the government staffers dealing in their field of interest. These friendships reveal knowledge of ideas floating around the bureaucracy before work begins on them. A suggestion given in the early stages of the planning process are easy to incorporate, while the later into the process things proceed, the harder they are to modify. If the bureaucrats are unwilling to modify their design, finding out early means there's more time to organize resistance.

Despite the prevalence of bad planning, good plans do exist. New Jersey's Development and Redevelopment Plan is one of the best plans to date. The state created this plan by working closely with county and municipal governments, business interests, land owners and social advocates. The plan was voluntarily created and accepted by all levels of government because it will preserve open space and farmland and reduce massive infrastructure investments associated with the sprawling and unplanned developments occurring in recent history.

Table of Acronyms

DOT:      Department of Transportation
DEC:      Department of Environmental Conservation
EPA:      Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA:     Federal Highway Administration
FTA:      Federal Transit Administration
GAO:      US General Accounting Office
NJ:       New Jersey
NJTEC:    New Jersey Transportation Executive Council
NJTPA:    North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
               formerly North Jersey Transportation Coordinating Council.
NYC:      New York City
NYMTC:    New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
NYS:      New York State
PANY&NJ:  Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
US:       United States
UMTA:     Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Bibliography

21st Century Mobility: Moving People and Goods. The Transportation Plan for the Hudson Valley, Region 8, NYSDOT; 1991.

Aschauer, David. Transportation Spending and Economic Growth: The Effects of Transit and Highway Expenditures. American Public Transit Association, 1991.

Base Year Trans-Hudson Market Profile and Working Series 3.1 (E) Journey to Work Forecasts. PANY&NJ, 1990.

Bicycle Transportation for Energy Conservation. USDOT, 1980.

Boonton Line-Montclair Branch Corridor Study, Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. UMTA and NJ Transit, 1989.

Building Code of the City of New York. NYC Dept of Buildings.

Burke-Gilman Trail's Effects on Property Value and Crime. Seattle Engineering Dept, 1987.

Communities of Place: The Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan for the State of New Jersey. NJ State Planning Commission, 1991.

The City of New York Fire Code. NYC Dept of General Services.

A Comparative Analysis of Future Transportation Fuels. DeLuchi, Mark; Sperling, Daniel and Johnston, Robert. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley; 1987.

Compendium of Technical Papers: 61st Annual Meeting, September 22-25, 1991. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991.

The Decision-making Framework for Transportation in the 1990s. NJTEC, 1990.