Background

Historically, the country’s highway programs have always relied heavily on the federal government providing aid directly to the states. As a result, regional and local planning was subordinate to federal and state highway planning. In the early 1990s, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which aimed to relieve the burden on local and metropolitan areas by encouraging the development of integrated, balanced, and locally-designed transportation systems.

Under ISTEA, regional and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) were required to develop long-range plans containing the goals and objectives of transportation improvement under its jurisdiction. At the same time, federal funding for transportation projects increased. In 1998, ISTEA evolved into the Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21), further expanding the role of MPOs and regional planning organizations. Despite the changes at the federal level, states continue to lag behind in implementing necessary changes to support mass transit and other transportation alternatives and in giving more control to regional, local, and metropolitan organizations in transportation planning.

Problems in urban areas often are regional in scope and cannot be adequately met by local governments acting independently, and states have become too far removed from local communities to sufficiently address regional and local transportation problems. Eight out of ten Americans live in 300 federally designated metropolitan areas and it is these economic centers that produce the economic output of the majority of states.(1) However, they receive less than six percent of federal transportation funds allocated to the states as part of TEA-21.(2) At the same time, a large number of states have constitutional and statutory provisions that exclude state highway trust funds from being allocated to non-highway-related projects intended to reduce traffic congestion and poor air quality by promoting mass transit and other transportation alternatives. Thirty-four states currently have either constitutional or statutory earmarking provisions that allow motor fuel taxes, the cornerstone of state highway funds, to be spent only on highways.(3) These funds are earmarked for state highway maintenance and construction projects, neglecting the needs of local, metropolitan, and regional areas.

After World War II, as the nation’s highway system was first being constructed, a focus on highway construction and state control of funds made sense because local, metropolitan, and regional systems were still evolving. Today, regional and metropolitan areas increasingly face a variety of transportation-related problems, including congestion, diminishing air quality, and a disintegrating highway infrastructure, all of which hinder their ability to continue to be competitive in the evolving global economy. Despite this fact, most states still have not embraced the changes and growing trends in transportation demands. Transportation problems have evolved dramatically since the birth of the highway system, and states need to update existing laws to reflect changes and growth and to address the problems that plague local and metropolitan areas.

By reforming transportation trust funds, suballocating funds, and adopting mass transit initiatives, states can relieve the planning burden of accommodating various local, metropolitan, and regional interests by giving funds and authority to MPOs and regional planning organizations in determining future transportation projects. Local control produces a more balanced and holistic transportation network because decision makers are aware of local needs and problems and experience them on a daily basis. Additionally, local planning organizations and MPOs are more than twice as likely to spend available funds on mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure improvements and other alternative transportation projects.(2) For the first time since World War II, transit ridership has outpaced the growth in driving for 5 straight years and is at its highest level since 1960.(1) Regional planning organizations and MPOs are aware of local demand for mass transit and transportation alternatives like pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure enhancements and use available funds in promoting these projects. There is just not a sufficient supply of revenue to adequately address local, metropolitan, and regional needs for congestion relief and air pollution reduction.

Sources:
(1) Katz, Bruce, Robert Pentes and Scott Bernstein. “TEA-21 Reauthorization: Getting Transportation Right for Metropolitan America.” Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, March 2003. 14 February 2005 <http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/tea21.pdf>.
(2) Puentes, Robert and Linda Bailey. “Improving Metropolitan Decision Making in Transportation: Greater Funding and Devolution for Greater Accountability.” Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, October 2003. 14 February 2005 <http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/200310_Puentes.pdf>.
(3) Manvel, Evan. “Beyond Highways-Only: The Earmarking of State Motor Fuel Taxes for Highways and Recommendations for a Progressive Response.” Surface Transportation Policy Project. 7 April 1998.