Missouri Bicycle News Article

However, in repeated slips that can only be described as unmistakably Freudian, two members of the Transportation and Infrastructure referred to the bill in yesterday's press conference as "the Highway Bill".

Newsflash to Congress: It hasn't been call "The Highway Bill" since at least 1991.

But based on the initial descriptions of the legislation released Thursday, "Highway Bill" is not a bad summary.

It has a long way to go before it becomes a true Transportation Bill.

Among the missing items:

* A national vision of our transportation system; specific national goals such as those proposed in Rep. Carnahan's National Transportation Objectives Act of 2009

* Any mention of the proposed 2010 Campaign for Active Transportation--to follow up on the major success in the four nonmotorized pilot projects from the previous transportation bill, which have shown that spending a small percentage of transportation dollars to create complete, comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian networks and programs really does work and is the most cost-effective approach to solving the nation's transportation problems and solving the difficult problems of congestion and pollution.

* Complete Streets language--it is included but the language seems to be weak ("shall consider" rather than "shall include").

* Clarity on livability issues: The status of cost-effective community livability programs like Safe Routes to School is still unclear.

* Land use: The bill does not seem to address the problem of land use--a very important consideration, because federal transportation policy has been the prime factor driving America's ever-increasing amount of sprawl--building cities where driving becomes the only reasonable way to get anywhere.

* Health impacts: The bill does not seem to address health impacts--though current federal transportation policy is one of the major reasons our cities have been built over the past 50 years to exclude active living as part of daily life, and the pollution caused by motor vehicles is a major health problem.

* Clarity in general: Although many good programs and priorities are outlined--such as the proposal to gather a large number of existing initiatives under the overall umbrella of "Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality"--exact funding levels have not yet been set. So it remains to be seen if Congress will have the guts to embrace concepts like Active Transportation that have the potential to transform American cities in positive ways--or if the state DOTs will have their way and the main emphasis will continue to be more, bigger, and faster highway systems.

Even the main improvements seem incremental rather than transformational:

* A slight increase in the amount of funding for transit nationwide.

* Transportation Enhancements funding--the main source of funding for bicycling and walking improvements--is included with some slight but important changes.

* A new office of livability is created in the Federal Highway Administration--it would gather together many existing programs like Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and others.

* Metropolitan Planning Organizations would have representation according to the population of members cities. This solves a major problem under the current system, where smaller cities have (in aggregate) more votes, leading to an emphasis in many metro areas on building the outlying areas of the metro rather than strengthening the core.

* Language on greenhouse gas limits (similar to the language in the currently proposed Waxman/Markey bill) has been included. With transportation contributing over 1/3 of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions it could hardly be omitted--yet it remains to be seen whether any proposed goals will have any teeth behind them.