Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act was a landmark piece of United States federal legislation signed into law by President George H. W. Bush in December 1991. It authorized federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for a six-year period, fundamentally reshaping national transportation policy. The law emphasized a shift from new highway construction to system preservation, intermodal freight transport, and greater flexibility for state and local governments. Its passage marked a significant departure from the traditional focus of the interstate highway era championed by figures like Francis C. Turner.

Background and legislative history

The legislative drive for a new transportation bill gained momentum in the late 1980s as the existing authorization, the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, was set to expire. Key figures in the 102nd United States Congress, including House Public Works and Transportation Committee Chairman Robert A. Roe and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan, sought to address growing concerns over infrastructure decay, urban sprawl, and air pollution. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the impending completion of the Interstate Highway System created a policy environment ripe for change. The administration of George H. W. Bush, through Department of Transportation Secretary Andrew Card, negotiated with Congress to produce a bill that balanced environmental mandates with economic development goals, culminating in its passage with broad bipartisan support.

Major provisions and programs

The act established several groundbreaking programs that devolved significant planning authority to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and state departments of transportation. A cornerstone was the creation of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), which directed funds to projects improving air quality in non-attainment areas as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency. It also mandated the development of statewide and metropolitan transportation plans, required consideration of bicycle transportation and pedestrian facilities, and established the National Scenic Byways Program. For the first time, substantial funds from the Highway Trust Fund were made flexible, allowing states to transfer certain highway dollars to support public transit projects operated by entities like the New York City Transit Authority or the Chicago Transit Authority.

Funding and fiscal impact

The legislation authorized approximately $155 billion over six years for various surface transportation programs, a significant increase from previous authorizations. Funding was distributed through traditional formula programs to states but with new categories like the Surface Transportation Program (STP), which provided flexible funding. The act maintained the federal gasoline tax as the primary revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund. This financial commitment aimed to address a backlog of bridge repairs on structures like the Brooklyn Bridge, pavement rehabilitation, and enhancements to the National Highway System as designated later in the decade. The fiscal framework set a precedent for the scale of investment seen in subsequent bills like the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

Implementation and legacy

Implementation of the law profoundly altered transportation planning, empowering local entities such as the Southern California Association of Governments and the Atlanta Regional Commission with greater control over funding decisions. It spurred the development of intermodal freight facilities and encouraged projects like the Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles. The policy shift it embodied is often called the "ISTEA revolution," influencing later legislation including the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Its emphasis on planning integration and alternatives to the single-occupancy vehicle laid groundwork for contemporary focus on transit-oriented development and projects like the Silver Line in Washington, D.C..

Criticism and controversy

The act faced criticism from various quarters, particularly from advocates of traditional highway construction who argued it stifled needed capacity expansion in growing states like Texas and Florida. Some state departments of transportation and members of Congress, including Bud Shuster, contended the enhanced planning requirements and mandates for MPOs created bureaucratic inefficiencies. Environmental groups, while supportive of its goals, often criticized the implementation as too slow to curb pollution from vehicles. The tension between funding flexibility and the preservation of dedicated highway funding streams remained a central controversy, debates which continued through the reauthorization processes of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.

Category:United States federal transportation legislation Category:1991 in American law Category:102nd United States Congress