Você está na página 1de 14

No.

361 November 24, 1999

Smart Growth at the Federal Trough


EPA’s Financing of the Anti-Sprawl Movement
by Peter Samuel and Randal O’Toole

Executive Summary

In January 1999, Vice President Al Gore port for the war on sprawl. With the support of
declared war on sprawl. Like many wars, this these organizations, Vice President Gore and
one has in fact been going on undeclared for EPA hope to use federal funding and regulato-
some time, with the government covertly sup- ry authority to dramatically change the
plying funds and technical support to sup- lifestyles of most Americans.
posed grassroots organizations. The federal government should not subsi-
Leading the charge in the war on sprawl is dize one side of a public policy debate; doing so
the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA’s undermines the very essence of democracy.
legal authority over urban land-use planning is Nor should government agencies fund non-
tenuous at best. Yet under two grant-making profit organizations that exist primarily to
programs—the Transportation Partners pro- lobby other government agencies. Congress
gram and the Smart Growth Network—the should shut down the federal government’s
agency has laid the groundwork for a major anti-sprawl lobbying activities and resist the
power grab by giving millions of dollars to temptation to engage in centralized social
nonprofit lobbying groups to build public sup- engineering.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Peter Samuel is the editor of Toll Roads Newsletter and has worked on EPA policies with the George C.
Marshall Institute. Randal O’Toole is the executive director of the Thoreau Institute and an adjunct scholar at the
Cato Institute.
As more people The War on the Suburbs through annexation, city-county consolida-
left the cities, tions, and most recently regional govern-
The 20th century has seen a massive ments. But except for a few places such as
especially follow- migration of Americans from the central Portland, Oregon, the suburbs have stub-
ing World War II, cities, where most Americans lived in 1900, to bornly remained outside the political reach
the suburbs, where two-thirds of urban of city governments and downtown business
interest groups Americans and nearly half of all Americans interests.
threatened by this live today. This migration was initially Enter EPA, which hopes to use its author-
migration began cheered by urban elites, who viewed the cities ity over federal spending and pollution regu-
as crowded, dirty, and responsible for the lation to transform the suburbs. Ostensibly,
to coalesce cycle of poverty that kept many people uned- EPA’s goal is to reduce air pollution by reduc-
around claims ucated and hungry.1 ing the amount of driving that people do. To
that suburbs were As more people left the cities, especially reach that goal, EPA has endorsed the plan-
following World War II, interest groups ning fad known as the “New Urbanism,” and
vacuous and threatened by this migration began to coa- more recently popularized as “smart
insipid. lesce around claims that suburbs were vacu- growth.” Smart growth proposes to accom-
ous and insipid. Suburban residential areas plish several goals:
were derided as “ticky tacky,”2 supermarkets
and other suburban shopping areas were • stop the spread of low-density subur-
termed “strip developments,” and the sub- ban development through the use of
urbs themselves were referred to as areas of urban-growth boundaries;
“blight” and “sprawl.” The automobile, • redevelop existing suburbs to higher
which brought the suburbs within reach of population densities, emphasizing
most people, received its share of abuse. The multifamily dwellings and row houses
demands of the automobile were paving over instead of single-family detached
America,3 people said, and the open road was homes;
being replaced by gridlock and four-hour • promote mixed-use developments and
commutes.4 pedestrian-friendly design so that peo-
Many of the people making these claims ple can walk rather than drive to mar-
viewed the suburbs as threats to their eco- kets;
nomic futures. • promote transit-oriented developments
so that people can take transit rather
• Central city officials considered every than drive to work;
new suburban resident to be a subtrac- • slow the construction of highways and
tion from their city’s population and spend more highway money on “traffic
tax base; calming,” meaning measures that
• Transit agency officials realized that reduce road speeds and capacities; and
people living in low-density suburbs • accelerate the construction of rail tran-
were less likely to support transit than sit systems.
people living in dense urban areas.
• Downtown businesses and property While the merits (or lack thereof) of smart
owners considered suburban shopping growth are beyond the scope of this study, it
malls to be unfair competition with should be noted that all of the above policy
their businesses. proposals are contentious matters of debate
within the urban planning, environmental,
These groups readily joined with environ- and economic professions.
mentalists worried about the loss of prime
farmland to try to curb urban sprawl.5 The • Dr. Randall Crane, planning professor
cities sought control over the suburbs at the University of California-Irvine,

2
says that smart-growth policies could referred to as “new urbanism.” Like the
actually lead to an increase, not a Transportation Partners program, however,
decrease, in automobile driving. “There the Smart Growth Network is little more
is no convincing evidence that these than a front for agency attempts to promote
designs influence travel behavior at the its agenda on autonomous state and local
margin,” says Crane.6 governments.
• Genevieve Giuliano, planning professor The fourth section considers how those
at the University of Southern California, two programs distort democratic decision-
says that attempts to change people’s making at the local level, while the fifth sec-
travel behavior through land-use poli- tion examines how EPA is inappropriately
cies are likely to fail. According to avail- using the 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act
able evidence, she says, “land use poli- to kill state highway expansion and divert
cies appear to have little impact on trav- construction funds to mass transit alterna-
el outcomes.”7 tives whether effective or not. The final sec-
• Charles Lave, economist at the tion considers how Congress might go about
University of California-Irvine, notes remedying the problem of EPA activism
that smart-growth-like policies were where it doesn’t belong.
instituted by most European countries Thanks in part to
after World War II. Today, however, EPA grant mak-
those countries are rapidly suburbaniz- EPA’s Legal Authority ing, smart-growth
ing, and car ownership is increasing over Sprawl supporters are
three times as fast as in the United
States. “The desire for personal mobility EPA traces its authority over urban plan- well organized,
seems to be unstoppable,” says Lave.8 ning to the Clean Air Act, which requires that
state and metropolitan transportation plans
while potential
It be denied that the debate is hotly polit- be designed to bring polluted areas into com- smart-growth
ical and of growing importance to state and pliance with federal air pollution standards. opponents are
local governments. Thanks in part to EPA EPA has oversight over those plans and can
grant making, however, smart-growth sup- impose sanctions on urban areas that it clas- not.
porters are well organized, while potential sifies as polluted and that have failed to
smart-growth opponents are not. implement plans to clean up that pollution.
The first section of this study considers In 1991 Congress specifically tied federal
EPA’s legal authority to regulate sprawl and transportation dollars—nearly all of which
promote smart growth. The 1970 Clean Air are generated by gasoline taxes and other
Act as amended over the years and the 1998 highway user fees—to clean air. Under the
Transportation Efficiency Act are the law, EPA must deny federal highway funds to
agency’s primary justifications for weighing polluted cities unless those cities have plans
in on the debate regarding urban sprawl. to clean up their air. A recent court case
The second section examines the agency’s brought by the Sierra Club against Atlanta,
“Transportation Partners” program, a multi- Georgia, affirmed that cities may not spend
million-dollar annual grant program to fund highway dollars, even for preapproved pro-
anti-automobile activism at the local level. jects, unless they have an EPA-approved plan.
While EPA has promised to reform this con- More than 113 million people live in
troversial program, the agency’s pledges fail “nonattainment areas,” that is, cities that
to fully address the fundamental objections EPA classifies as having air pollution prob-
to the program. lems. That includes 19 of the nation’s 20
The third section examines the agency’s largest urban areas (Minneapolis–St. Paul is
“Smart Growth Network,” an initiative to the exception), but it also includes such
fund activism to promote what is popularly smaller cities as Baton Rouge, Louisiana;

3
Nashville, Tennessee; and Boise, Idaho. New agenda is by funding grassroots opposition
ozone standards recently issued by EPA will to highway expansion.
significantly increase the number of nonat- EPA grants to anti-automobile, anti-sub-
tainment areas. urb groups fall into two major categories.
In 1998, Congress passed the Transpor- First, the agency’s Transportation Partners
tation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century program gives millions of dollars to at least
(TEA-21). By stopping the diversion of feder- six major organizations with the goal of help-
al highway user fees to nontransportation ing those organizations reduce vehicle travel.
projects, the act authorized a large increase in Second, EPA has given large grants to a num-
federal highway funding. Highway officials ber of national and state organizations to
and contractors in the nation’s increasingly promote smart growth.
congested cities are salivating over the possi- EPA says that “the mission of the
bility of using those increased funds to Transportation Partners program is to
expand highways and reduce congestion. reduce the growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled
But if the cities are in EPA nonattainment (VMT) throughout the U.S.”11 Note that the
areas, they will get those funds only if they emphasis has transmogrified from reducing
adopt plans approved by EPA. EPA wants to pollution to reducing travel. EPA traces the
One of the means use this power not to clean up the air but to program’s history to Vice President Gore’s
by which EPA reduce people’s mobility, and in particular Climate Change Action Plan.1 2 This plan calls
pursues its anti- their automobility. for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
Shortly after Vice President Gore to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
auto agenda is by announced his war on sprawl, for instance, The Transportation Partners program is
funding grass- the administrator of EPA’s Northeast Region, supposed to bring about nearly half of the
John DeVillars, told a Boston audience that transportation portion of that reduction.
roots opposition the agency would aggressively use its statu- That means reducing people’s driving by 20
to highway tory authority to oppose sprawl. “Poorly billion miles per year, or slightly less than 1
expansion. planned suburban growth,” claimed percent of total miles driven.
DeVillars, is “degrading our environment, it’s How is EPA working to accomplish that
fiscally inefficient, and it’s undermining our goal? It is giving millions of dollars in grants
social fabric. . . . Action to curb it is long to a consortium of anti-automobile lobby
overdue.”9 He promised to treat the prob- groups. Since 1995, EPA has given various
lem with smart growth. organizations more than $6 million:

• International Council for Local En-


EPA’s Transportation vironmental Initiatives ($2,034,216);
Partners Program • Surface Transportation Policy Project
($855,000);
EPA justifies its campaign against the • Center for Clean Air Policy ($678,939);
automobile, saying: “By relying on cars to get • Environmental Defense Fund ($650,000);
around, our roadways become congested, • Local Government Commission
adding stress to our lives. Building bigger ($500,000);
roads seems like the obvious answer, but it’s • Bicycle Federation of America ($465,000);
an expensive, short-term fix. Increasing • Association of Commuter Transporta-
capacity encourages driving, adds pollution tion ($315,000);
to the air, creates congestion, and puts pres- • Renew America ($215,000); and
sure on officials to build even bigger roads at • Public Technology Incorporated ($154,765).
taxpayer expense. Adding lanes of traffic sub-
tracts from our quality of life.”10 One of the Those figures may be low. For example,
means by which EPA pursues this anti-auto EPA’s database shows the agency granting

4
$625,000 to the Surface Transportation gram, which encourages cities to adopt Most of the EPA
Policy Project before 1999. But documents smart-growth policies and plans. grants went to
obtained from EPA in a freedom of informa- • The Local Government Commission is
tion request indicate that EPA paid $775,000 a nonprofit association of “forward- organizations
to the project. A more recent grant to the proj- thinking public officials.”17 EPA fund- whose sole pur-
ect, $230,000 awarded on April 9, 1999, is not ing goes to the commission’s “livable
included in either of those figures. communities” program to promote
pose is to lobby
A few of the grants went for what might be smart growth in local transportation federal, state, or
considered legitimate work to solve conges- planning. local govern-
tion and air pollution problems. For example, • Despite its name, Public Technology,
the Association of Commuter Transportation Inc., is a nonprofit group affiliated with ments or to pro-
promotes alternatives to commuting in single- the National League of Cities and the vide assistance to
occupancy vehicles. The organization focuses National Association of Counties.18 EPA other groups
on “transportation demand management,” funding is used to promote smart-
meaning that it works with large businesses to growth planning at the local level. doing such lobby-
promote employee vanpooling and transit rid- ing.
ership.1 5 The grant to the Environmental Three other recipients are strictly non-
Defense Fund was aimed at market-based profit lobby groups:
transportation reforms in California and New
York. The organization employs Michael • The Bicycle Federation of America
Replogle, who popularized the term “smart helps cyclists work on local transporta-
growth” when he worked for the state of tion planning to promote bicycle and
Maryland. Replogle supports market tools pedestrian facilities.1 9Often this means
such as congestion pricing of roads but also reducing road capacities even though
endorses smart-growth plans such as those many roads are already at capacity and
being adopted in Maryland and Oregon. bicycling and walking typically make
Most of the EPA grants went to organiza- up a tiny percentage of all commuting.
tions whose sole purpose is to lobby federal, • Renew America’s main purpose is to
state, or local governments or to provide present awards to groups for their sus-
assistance to other groups doing such lobby- tainability projects. 20 EPA funding sup-
ing. Four of the groups claim to be associa- ports about eight awards per year to
tions of state or local governments or govern- groups working on sustainable trans-
ment officials. portation—meaning nonautomotive
transportation. One 1998 award, for
• The Center for Clean Air Policy is an example, lauded Metro, the regional
association formed by state governors to planning agency for Portland, Oregon,
promote innovative approaches to pol- for “developing innovative street design
lution. EPA funding supports the orga- policies intended to reduce auto
nization’s “Collaboration to Improve usage.”
Transportation, Land Use, and Air • The Surface Transportation Policy Project
Quality,” meaning smart growth. was created in 1989 to promote diversions
• The International Council for Local of federal highway user fees to nonhighway
Government Initiatives describes itself transportation. The group was largely
as “an association of local governments responsible for passage of the Intermodal
dedicated to the prevention and solu- Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
tion of local, regional, and global envi- (ISTEA) in 1991 that increased EPA’s
ronmental problems through local authority over transportation planning.
action.”1 6 EPA funding is directed to its According to an EPA memo supporting
“Cities for Climate Protection” pro- this grant, “STPP has nurtured a network

5
of local transportation activists, its ‘grass- environmental groups.
roots Network,’ and provided Network Most of the organizations do not get any
members and the public at large with the direct funding from EPA, but some do. For
TransAct electronic information service.”2 1 example, the Greenbelt Alliance promotes
urban-growth boundaries around cities in
Although not the largest recipient of Contra Costa County, California. EPA gave it
grants, the Surface Transportation Policy a $60,000 grant “for a forum on transporta-
Project is in many ways the super-principal tion choices.”
Transportation Partner. The group has a
Transportation Action Network Web site that The Failed Promise of Planned
strongly promotes smart growth and claims Congestion
that the Network is “sponsored in part by If EPA’s goal is to reduce automobile trav-
USEPA’s Transportation Partners Program.”22 el, there is little evidence that it is succeeding.
Transcripts of EPA’s monthly telephone con- The 1997 Transportation Partners annual
ference calls with transportation partners are report claims that the program led
at least 50 percent conversations with Surface Americans to drive 1.25 billion fewer miles in
Transportation Policy Project staff. 1997 than they might have driven without
If EPA’s goal is STPP is one of the most vigorous and con- it.2 4That claim is difficult to believe. With the
to reduce auto- sistent critics of new roads and recently possible exception of the Association of
mobile travel, announced that it is opening regional offices Commuter Transportation, it is hard to find
in the West and Southwest to oppose highway anything that the funded Transportation
there is little evi- projects in those regions. The STPP Web site Partners did after September 1996 (when
dence that it is includes a “Directory of Transportation most funds were first granted) that would
Reform Resources” that lists the Transporta- have caused people to drive less in 1997.
succeeding. tion Partners and the highway projects that The largest grant, to the Local Environ-
each partner is working to block.23 This and mental Initiatives Council, was spent encour-
other project publications and Web pages aging cities to resolve to reduce their green-
focus on and exaggerate the costs of cars and house gas emissions by 10 to 20 percent by
roads, and almost entirely neglect the benefits. the year 2010. A resolution is far different
The above EPA grant totals include only from an actual reduction, and what may hap-
those grants dedicated explicitly for trans- pen in 2010 is far different from what did
portation programs. Many of the above happen in 1997.
groups get additional EPA funding for a vari- The 1.25-billion-mile estimate seems to be
ety of other issues. based more on what the unfunded partners
In addition to these large grants, EPA did. Here EPA made several dubious esti-
promises technical assistance to hundreds of mates:
other Transportation Partners. Any group
that wants to discourage automobile travel • Installing a bicycle facility would
can become a Transportation Partner, and reduce driving by 75,000 to 275,000
EPA has so far recruited more than 300 such miles per year. In fact, bicycling, which
groups located in 44 states and the District of accounts for less than 0.4 percent of all
Columbia. About a third of the partners are commuting, is mainly recreational, not
local governments; some are corporations a substitute for driving;2 5
such as the Bank of America; but most are • Improving a transit system would
nonprofits with names like Alliance for a reduce driving by 2.5 to 20.0 million
Paving Moratorium, Citizens for Balanced miles per year. Yet America’s transit sys-
Transportation, and Sensible Transportation tems are steadily losing market share to
Options for People. Also included are various automobiles despite billions of dollars
chapters of the Sierra Club and other major of government spending;26

6
• Getting a metropolitan area to endorse pollution from vehicles.”29
vanpooling (as 18 metro regions did) or
telecommuting (as 5 did) would reduce While a step in the right direction, these
driving by 1 to 17 million miles per procedural changes do not guarantee any
year. substantive changes in the program. EPA did
not promise to stop funding the nine organi-
Despite all of EPA’s fine calculations, in zations that have received the bulk of the pro-
reality Americans drove 3 percent more in gram’s money to date, only to stop funding
1997 than they did in 1996, the largest the “network.” The TransAct Web site is
increase in five years.2 7 That suggests that already in place and maintenance costs can
EPA’s programs probably had little effect on be far lower than start-up costs. And chang-
driving. Although EPA’s claimed 1.25 billion ing the grant-making process does not neces-
miles sounds like a lot, it is in fact only 0.05 sarily change who gets the money. For exam-
percent of the total miles driven by ple, a nonprofit organization whose goal is to
Americans in 1997, according to the Federal reduce air pollution by reducing congestion
Highway Administration.2 8 In fact, 1.25 bil- through highway capacity increases probably
lion miles is only 1.7 percent of 1997’s annu- will not be funded since the goal of the
al growth in driving. Transportation Partners program is to
reduce driving, not pollution.
EPA’s Promises of Reform The authors expect to closely monitor the
In response to congressional criticism of program to see if these procedural changes
the Transportation Partners program, EPA translate into any substantive changes.
Administrator Carol Browner sent a letter to Meanwhile, Browner’s letter says nothing at
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) promising all about EPA’s other grant-making program
“changes that will substantially improve the to urban nonprofits: the Smart Growth
program’s accountability and balance.” Some Network program.
of the changes are these:

• “EPA will no longer fund the nine EPA’s Smart Growth


Principal Partners to maintain a net- Network Program Procedural
work” of 340 other organizations. changes do not
• EPA funds will no longer support the If the main goal of the Transportation
TransAct Web site, an STPP site that Partners program is to reduce automobile guarantee any
says it was funded by EPA. driving, the goal of smart growth is more par- substantive
• EPA is replacing the noncompetitive ticularly to redesign cities and suburbs to dis- changes in the
grant process used to fund the nine courage driving and force people to consume
Principal Partners with a competitive less land. Smart growth itself is a populariza- program. EPA did
bidding (RfP) process “open to all tion of ideas that planners call the “New not promise to
transportation and environmental Urbanism.” These ideas include compact
organizations.” urban development; mixtures of residential, stop funding the
• EPA “will initiate a dialogue” with a commercial, and retail development; heavy nine organiza-
new group “called the Transportation reliance on mass transit and pedestrianism; tions that have
and Environmental Network.” This and traffic “calming” to discourage automo-
network will review projects funded bile usage. These policies were pioneered in received the bulk
under the RfP process. Highway groups Portland, Oregon, but the term “smart of the program’s
will be invited to be a part of the net- growth” was first used in Maryland.
work, which will also “provide an EPA has endorsed smart growth by form-
money to date,
opportunity to discuss and undertake ing a Smart Growth Network partners pro- only to stop fund-
cooperative activities to help reduce gram that parallels the Transportation ing the “network.”

7
The smart- Partners program in many ways. A smart- were posted on the site from the start.”
growth.org Web growth Web site, www.smartgrowth.org, lists Branagan states that “the idea was to neu-
about 20 partners. According to the Web site, trally encourage dialog in the ideas on the
site claims to be the Smart Growth Network partners pro- site,” but the site is far from neutral. A large
run by one of the gram consists of “outreach programs, techni- portion is devoted to pushing the “Clinton-
cal assistance, research, publications, and Gore Livability Agenda,” and the site includes
partners, the other collaborative projects.” many speeches by Vice President Gore and
Sustainable The Smart Growth Network partners are the EPA officials. A typical quotation from the
Communities American Farmland Trust, American Planning site states that “Advertisers have been saying
Association Center for Neighborhood Technolo- for years that automobiles signify freedom
Network. In reali- gy, Congress for New Urbanism, Conservation and social acceptability. Many Americans are
ty, it is a front for Fund, International City/County Management discovering that automobiles also mean pol-
EPA. Association, Joint Center for Sustainable lution, congestion, increased commuting
Communities, Local Government Commission, time, frustration and road rage.” In other
National Association of Counties, National words, people drive only because they have
Association of Local Government Environmental been manipulated by advertisers.
Professionals, National Growth Management The director of EPA’s Urban and
Leadership Project, National Neighborhood Economic Development Division, Helen
Coalition, National Trust for Historic Tregoning, has an article posted on the Web
Preservation, Natural Resources Defense Council, page that carries that theme further. People
Northeast-Midwest Institute, Scenic America, only live in low-density suburbs, she says,
State of Maryland, Surface Transportation Policy because the federal government has subsi-
Project, Sustainable Communities Network, Trust dized highways—ignoring the fact that those
for Public Land, and Urban Land Institute. “subsidies” have come entirely from gas taxes
Normally a Web site with an address of and other highway user fees.
“.org” would be run by a nonprofit, while a The smart-growth Web site is managed by
government Web address would end “.gov.” the Sustainable Communities Network,
The smartgrowth.org Web site claims to be while other partners take on other responsi-
run by one of the partners, the Sustainable bilities:
Communities Network. In reality, it is a
front for EPA. On one page, the site says, • The American Planning Association
“For more information, please contact the publishes a legislative guidebook on
UEDD at (202) 260-2750.” UEDD is the smart growth.
Urban and Economic Development Division • The Congress for New Urbanism pro-
of EPA. vides (with EPA funding) “technical
The site also invites inquiries to assistance to local governments.”
info@smartgrowth.org. When asked, “Who • The International City/County Manage-
controls the content of this Web site?” the ment Association runs (with EPA fund-
e-mail response on September 8, 1998, came ing) the Smart Growth Network and
from Branagan.Michael@epamail.epa.gov, an publishes a smart-growth newsletter.
EPA employee. Branagan’s response affirmed • The National Association of Counties
that the Smart Growth Network “is an EPA “publishes a primer on sprawl.”
initiative” and that the smartgrowth.org • The National Association of Local
“Web page is written and funded by EPA.” Government Environmental Profes-
Branagan admitted that the information was sionals is finding ways to use “existing
not placed on EPA’s Web site (www.epa.gov) and potential federal regulatory incen-
because “the association with EPA may have tives to encourage smart growth.”
discouraged/alienated potential users from • The National Trust for Historic
even entertaining any ideas, articles, etc. that Preservation promotes “main streets” as

8
alternatives to conventional shopping As with the Transportation Partners
malls as well as infill development. grants, some of the grants may be larger
• The Urban Land Institute holds (with than indicated here. For example, EPA’s
EPA funding) a national Partners for grants database reports a $512,000 grant to
Smart Growth conference. the Growth Management Institute, while
that organization’s Web site says that the
As noted, many of these programs are grant was $700,000. 3 0
partly or entirely funded by EPA. EPA smart- There may also be additional grants not
growth grants include found in the database. For example, EPA
gave National Association of Counties
• $700,000 to the Growth Management $429,312 for the Joint Center for Sustain-
Institute for “workshops, focus group able Development. That organization is a
meetings, and other activities” aimed part of the Smart Growth Network, but the
to be an “antidote to sprawl”; term “smart growth” does not appear in the
• $363,395 to the International City/ grant description. Other smart-growth-
County Management Association to related grants may lack that or similar
create a smart-growth network; terms and so were not found by searches of
• $237,250 to Grow Smart Rhode Island the database.
to promote “sustainable development” Even if all of these programs are not
in the Ocean State; directly funded by EPA, many of the part-
• $175,000 to 1000 Friends of Oregon ner organizations have received EPA funds
to create a National Growth Manage- for other projects. Some partners, such as
ment Leadership Project (a Smart the American Farmland Trust, Conser- Even if all of
Growth Network partner) to promote vation Fund, Natural Resources Defense
smart-growth in other parts of the Council, and Trust for Public Lands, have these programs
country; only a passing interest in smart growth. are not directly
• $165,000 to the Congress on New Since they have collectively received more
Urbanism for workshops and confer- than $2 million in grants from EPA for
funded by EPA,
ences on smart growth; and other work in the past three years, they may many of the part-
• $155,000 to the Urban Land Institute have joined the network in part to stay in ner organizations
for a national conference on smart EPA’s good graces and possibly to be eligi-
growth; ble to get EPA grants to expand into smart have received
• $50,000 to the National Governors’ growth. Likewise, the National Association EPA funds for
Association to “help states develop of Counties represents officials whose sub-
urban and rural constituents tend to
other projects.
smart-growth strategies”;
• $35,000 to the Center for Watershed oppose smart growth. The association gets
Protection to develop smart-growth over $550,000 per year in grants from EPA,
zoning codes; which could easily motivate it to overlook
• $30,000 to the Coalition for Utah’s the views of its constituents.
Future to support Envision Utah’s
community workshops and to pro-
mote similar initiatives in “communi- EPA Grants Distort
ties across the country”; Planning
• $20,000 to the Local Governments
Council for a conference on smart EPA’s combination of funding and sup-
growth; and port to state governments, local govern-
• $10,000 to the Urban Land Institute to ments, and nonprofits has had a powerful
promote smart growth in a portion of effect in many places. For example, Envision
Washington, D.C. Utah is a smart-growth program promoted

9
by Utah’s governor—no doubt influenced by process on the pretext that, while state and
the EPA smart-growth grant to the National local governments should make final trans-
Governors’ Association. The EPA grant to the portation decisions, Congress wanted to
Coalition for Utah’s Future will help spread ensure that those governments considered
this program to other states. public input and a full range of alternatives.
EPA’s transportation and smart-growth Yet EPA funding subverts local public input
funding is only a small share of all EPA grants by allowing minority or outside views to dom-
to nonprofit organizations. According to inate. As shown in the next section, EPA is
Phony Philanthropy, a report by Citizens also trying to prevent local planning agencies
Against Government Waste, in 1995 and 1996 from considering a full range of alternatives if
EPA gave $236 million in 839 grants to non- those alternatives involve highway building.
profits. As the report dryly comments, “Many EPA grants have many other disturbing
of these organizations are promoting agendas qualities. Naturally, the groups receiving EPA
that many Americans might not agree with.”31 funding will be at the witness stand at budget
“When an organization receives government time to endorse increases in EPA’s budgets.
funding, it frees up funding obtained EPA funding creates the appearance of a
through membership or other nongovern- grassroots movement against sprawl when in
Vice President ment sources to be used for more controver- fact much of the “movement” is supported
Gore was able to sial activities, such as lobbying or promoting by a federal agency seeking increased funding
confidently pro- a particular philosophy,” notes the report. and power over local governments.
“Some organizations even use government Vice President Gore was able to confident-
pose a war on the money directly to promote their political and ly propose a war on the lifestyle of most
lifestyle of most lobbying activities.” While this is illegal, the Americans because he knew he would be sup-
report found several instances of EPA funds ported by numerous “citizens’ groups” that
Americans being spent directly on lobbying. have received funding and support from EPA.
because he knew The approximately $8 million identified After Gore’s January 11 announcement, the
he would be sup- here as grants to transportation and smart January 12 edition of the Land Letter, a
growth is a tiny share of EPA’s total budget. But newsletter for natural resource professionals,
ported by numer- the individual grants represent a significant ran a lead article headlined, “Amidst great
ous “citizens’ share of the budgets of the nonprofits receiving applause, Gore announces plan to curb urban
them and also give those nonprofits a major sprawl.”3 2 The groups cited as “applauding”
groups” that have
boost over opponents to smart growth, most the plan, including the Surface Transporta-
received funding of whom are poorly funded and have no sup- tion Policy Project and the Environmental
and support from port network like EPA’s Transportation Defense Fund, were nearly all EPA transporta-
Partners or Smart Growth Network. tion or smart-growth partners.
EPA. This severely distorts the supposedly local From a legal standpoint, the EPA grants
planning process that Congress created in and its other support for smart growth may
ISTEA and TEA-21. Bicyclists, for example, go beyond its authority, which is to enforce
make up just 0.4 percent of all commuters in federal emissions standards and to oversee
America, yet EPA’s $465,000 grant to the state implementation plans designed to
Bicycle Federation of America makes sure achieve federal air quality goals. Reducing
that transportation planners in cities across people’s mobility by creating traffic jams and
the country pay close attention to the forcing them to live in congested cities may
demands of cyclists. Close to 90 percent of all slightly reduce total vehicle-miles driven. But
commuters drive automobiles to work, but it is likely to increase the production of those
EPA gave no grant to any automobile groups pollutants that EPA is supposed to control.
and the views of automobile drivers are often
unheard in local transportation planning.
Congress created the local planning EPA and TEA-21

10
Congress passed the 1998 transportation percent per year since the 1920s, which was
bill, the Transportation Equity Act for the well before any federal involvement in high-
21st Century (TEA-21), with the expectation ways.3 4Meanwhile, EPA’s own data show that
that it would significantly boost funding for the environmental damage caused by this
highways. But EPA is mounting a major effort driving is steadily declining as cleaner cars
to divert gas taxes and other highway user fees and fuels replace older ones. The report erro-
away from highways to mass transit, trans- neously claims that “vehicle-caused pollution
portation demand management, sprawl pre- doubles periodically in most metropolitan
vention, and other dubious programs. The areas.” In fact it is declining in most areas.
Transportation Partners and Smart Growth On the basis of that premise, however, the
Network play a major role in that effort. report calls for EPA’s “involvement in the
Traditionally, the federal government has early stages of transportation plan develop-
provided funds for transportation but let ment.” Within each EPA region, says the
cities and states decide how to spend those report, EPA will “work with MPOs
funds. The Intermodal Surface Transpor- [Metropolitan Planning Organizations] and
tation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) other stakeholders to promote demand man-
expanded on that tradition by allowing cities agement [i.e., reduced automobile use] and
and states to spend more money earned from other innovative alternatives” to highways. EPA’s own data
federal highway user fees on transit or other The report also calls for EPA to aggressively show that the
nonhighway construction—but the ultimate oppose “auto dependency and urban sprawl.” environmental
decision was still left up to the states. TEA-21 provisions to streamline environ-
EPA plans to overturn that tradition, both mental clearance—intended by Congress to damage caused by
by demanding that cities with air quality prob- reduce the power of environmental regula- driving is steadily
lems spend transportation dollars according tors to block road projects—are seen by EPA
to its whims and by encouraging local EPA as “an opportunity to change the transporta-
declining as
officials and partners to intervene in local tion planning process by building on our cleaner cars and
transportation planning. Some sense of EPA’s involvement in plan development to ensure fuels replace
goals can be obtained from an internal EPA that demand management strategies with
TEA-21 Workgroup Report that was approved broad multimedia benefits are addressed at older ones.
by the agency’s Office of Policy last September. key points in the planning process.”
The report, titled “New Approaches to (“Multimedia” is EPA jargon referring to air,
Integrate Environmental and Transportation water, and land.) In other words, a “stream-
Policy through TEA-21 Implementation,” lined process” will have EPA and its allies
describes EPA’s current role in local trans- killing highway projects before anyone
portation decisions as “marginal” and pro- knows they are being considered, thus
poses new interventions to give pro-environ- “reducing the need for stakeholder involve-
ment officials, environmental activists, and ment at later stages.”
regulators—many of whom are EPA part- The report applauds a number of local
ners—more power in transportation plan- plans that meet EPA’s approval:
ning at the local and regional levels. The “new
approach” will be to kill projects that increase •In northwest Indiana, several highway
highway capacity early on rather than to projects were eliminated “before project
allow municipal officials the right of having selection,” meaning before they could
the final say. be fairly compared with EPA-preferred
The report states, “Current strategies are alternatives.
leading to very rapid increases in driving and •In Philadelphia, environmental indica-
sprawl with escalating environmental dam- tors were established that bias the
age.”3 3 In fact, the number of miles analysis against roads.
Americans drive has increased at about 2 to 3 • In San Francisco, a Regional Alliance for

11
Transit has produced a “significant Senator Ron Wyden” and was inspired by
increase in public [i.e., activist] involve- “the LUTRAQ project” launched by 1000
ment in the regional planning process.” Friends of Oregon. In LUTRAQ (which
stands for “Land Use Transportation Air
EPA’s Region III (mid-Atlantic) has also Quality”), 1000 Friends felt that Portland
been getting involved in transportation plan- would be better off with less highway con-
ning “before key political decisions are struction because the resulting congestion
made.” The report notes that this prevents might lead some people to drive a little less.3 7
the formation of a political constituency for It appears likely that at least some section
highway projects: “Currently most environ- 1221 dollars will find their way to groups
mental reviews occur after projects have a that lobby against highways.
political constituency behind them, making
change very difficult.”
One important fund created by ISTEA Fixing the Problem
and continued in TEA-21 is the $1 billion
annual Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality In 1995, House bill H.R. 1130, the “Integrity
(CMAQ) fund. The administration has pro- in Government Act,” would have forbidden
EPA’s Region III posed increasing the size of the fund to $1.6 any “recipient of an award, grant, or contract
(mid-Atlantic) has billion annually, arguing that the new money from the Federal Government” from lobby-
been getting should be spent on “air quality” (i.e., reduc- ing or hiring others to lobby for the funding
ing automobile use) and not “congestion of any program with the department or
involved in trans- mitigation.” For example, improved traffic agency giving the grant. The bill did not
portation plan- signals can reduce congestion, but the paper make it out of committee.
suggests that such improvements should be Other efforts to limit EPA grant making to
ning before key ineligible for CMAQ funds because the nonprofits have similarly failed. In 1996 one
political decisions reduced congestion can “induce more overall of the cosponsors of H.R. 1130, Rep. Ernest
are made. travel.” Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), introduced a floor
To carry out these schemes, the report amendment to the major appropriations
concludes by recommending that an addi- bills that would “require any private organi-
tional 31.5 full-time equivalent staff, and zations that receive a Federal grant to dis-
$3.15 million in support funds, be allocated close their lobbying activities to the Agency
to EPA’s TEA-21 campaign. or Agencies which awarded the grant.” As
On top of this, section 1221 of TEA-21 mild as this measure was, it passed the floor
authorizes the Department of Transpor- of the House by only two votes (211 to 209).
tation to distribute $20 million per year to Since EPA has no reason to oppose any lob-
local transportation agencies for studies of bying done by its dependent groups, the mea-
local transportation problems.3 5 The law sure has little effect.
specifically directs the department to consid- Congressional investigations of “smart
er agencies that have “involvement with non- growth” should examine the role of EPA in
traditional partners [i.e., nonprofit organiza- promoting this anti-automobile, anti-suburb
tions] in the project.” The department is also agenda. Ultimately, Congress should forbid
to give priority to projects in areas that have EPA and the Department of Transportation
adopted urban-growth boundaries and other from making grants to any organization that
smart-growth policies. uses any of its resources to lobby Congress,
A recent newsletter of the Surface state or local legislatures, or federal, state, or
Transportation Policy Project urged local local agencies.
groups to take advantage of this provision to Americans have a constitutional right to
fund their anti-highway campaigns.3 6 choose where they live, where they go, and
Section 1221 “was sponsored by [Oregon] how they get there. They also have a constitu-

12
tional right to make their own choices 5. Sierra Club, The Dark Side of the American Dream:
The Costs and Consequences of Suburban Sprawl
regarding local governance. The EPA anti- (College Park, Md.: Sierra Club, 1998), http://www
automobile campaign is implicitly founded .sierra club.org/transportation/sprawl/sprawl_
on the idea that “the locals” cannot be trust- report/ index.html.
ed to determine their own fate and that the
6. Randall Crane, “Travel by Design,” Access 12 (Spring
federal government itself should not only 1998): 2–7.
directly lobby municipal governments but
should indirectly subvert local decisionmak- 7. Genevieve Giuliano, “The Weakening Transporta-
ing. Simply put, EPA’s campaign fundamen- tion-Land Use Connection,” Access6 (Spring 1995): 3–11.
tally subverts not only the Tenth 8. Charles Lave, “Cars and Demographics,” Access 1
Amendment (in that it interferes with the (Spring 1994): 4–11.
right of state and local governments to reach
their own decisions regarding issues not 9. Martha Kessler, “EPA to Take On Problem of
Sprawl Using Legal Authority, Regional Chief
within the purview of the federal govern- Says,” Daily Report to Executives (Washington:
ment) but the very concept of democracy Bureau of National Affairs, February 4, 1999).
itself. EPA appears to see itself not as the peo-
ple’s servant, but the people’s master—or at 10. http://www.epa.gov/tp.
least the people’s guide. Accordingly, with the Simply put, EPA’s
11. Transportation Partners 1997 Annual Report
support of local branches of those EPA- (Washington: Environmental Protection Agency, campaign funda-
backed groups, many American cities are 1998), Executive Summary, p. 1.
mentally subverts
adopting policies with little public debate
12. Ibid., p. 1-1. not only the
that could prove enormously harmful to
those cities and the freedom of their resi- 13. Ibid. Tenth Amend-
dents.
American cities do have problems with 14. Financial information on these grants comes ment but the very
from EPA’s Grants Information and Control
congestion, air pollution, housing affordabil- System database, http://www.epa.gov/envirofw/ concept of
ity, and disappearing open space. Most html/gics/gics_query.html. democracy itself.
Americans genuinely want to solve those
15. http://tmi.cob.fsu.edu/act/act.html.
problems. To do so, we need an open debate
on policy alternatives, not a bureaucratic 16. http://www.iclei.org.
power grab by a federal agency hiding behind
federally funded nonprofit organizations. 17. http://www.lgc.org/clc/lgcdesc.html.

18. http://www.pti.nw.dc.us.

Notes 19. http://www.bikefed.org.

1. Peter Geoffrey Hall, Cities of Tomorrow: An 20. http://solstice.crest.org/sustainable/renew_


Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in america.
the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, Mass.:
Blackwell, 1996), p. 7. 21. Michael Shelby, Energy and Transportation
Sectors Division, “Decision Memorandum—
2. Malvina Reynolds, a Berkeley musician, wrote Supplemental Incremental Funding for the
the song “Little Boxes” (popularized by Pete Surface Transportation Policy Project under
Seeger) that coined the term “ticky tacky.” Cooperative Agreement CX-825013-01-0,” Memo-
randum to Mildred Lee, Grants Operations Branch,
3. Jane Holtz Kay, Asphalt Nation: How the Auto- Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.
mobile Took Over America and How We Can Take It
Back (New York: Crown, 1997). 22. http://www.transact.org.

4. Philip Langdon, A Better Place to Live: Reshaping 23. http://www.transact.org/trdir/sect4.html.


the American Suburb (New York: Harper
Perennial, 1994), p. 7. 24. Transportation Partners 1997 Annual Report,
p. 4-1.

13
25. Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide 32. Colleen Schu, “Amidst Great Applause, Gore
Personal Transportation Survey, Urban Travel Patterns Announces Plan to Curb Urban Sprawl,” Land
(Washington: Department of Transportation, Letter 18 (January 1999): 1–3.
1994), Table 4-2.
33. “New Approaches to Integrate Environmental
26. Brian D. Taylor and William S. McCullough, and Transportation Policy through TEA-21
“Lost Riders,” Access 13 (Fall 1993): 26–31. Implementation,” EPA Memorandum, dated
August 26, 1998, and adopted by the EPA Office
27. Highway Statistics 1997 (Washington: Federal of Policy on September 14, 1998.
Highway Administration, 1998), Table VM-1;
Highway Statistics 1996 (Washington: Federal 34. Highway Statistics Summary to 1995, Table VM-
Highway Administration, 1997), Table VM-1; and 201.35.
Highway Statistics Summary to 1995 (Washington:
Federal Highway Administration), Table VM-201. 35. Transportation Equity Act of 1998, Public
Law 105-178, section 1221.
28. Highway Statistics 1997, Table VM-1.
36. Surface Transportation Policy Project, “A New
29. Carol Browner, Letter to Sen. Robert Byrd Shot at the Land Use and Transportation
(D-W.Va.), June 16, 1999. Question,” Progress (June 1998): 9–11.

30. http://www.gmionline.org/activities.html. 37. Making the Connections: A Summary of the


LUTRAQ Project (Portland, Ore.: 1000 Friends of
31. Phony Philanthropy: How Government Grants Are Oregon, 1997), p. 15.
Subverting the Missions of Nonprofit Organizations
(Washington: Citizens Against Government Waste,
1998), http://www.cagw.org/Reports/Phony-
Philanthropy/phony. html.

Published by the Cato Institute, Policy Analysis is a regular series evaluating government policies and offer-
ing proposals for reform. Nothing in Policy Analysis should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views
of the Cato Institute or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before congress. Contact the
Cato Institute for reprint permission. Additional copies of Policy Analysis are $6.00 each ($3.00 each for five
or more). To order, or for a complete listing of available studies, write the Cato Institute, 1000
Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, call toll free 1-800-767-1241 (noon - 9 p.m. eastern
time), fax (202) 842-3490, or visit our website at www.cato.org.

14

Você também pode gostar