Devolution and Other Scary ISTEA Stories
(Missoulian, 4/97)
Ah. A new word enters the vocabulary, thanks to Leah E. Braesch (Missoulian 4/7/97). It's "devolution," meaning to eliminate the national transportation funding system and turn almost everything over to the states. The very word "devolution" brings to mind images of steamy dank jungles, the cries of strange birds, a rustle in the underbrush and, surprise, T. Rex pokes his nose out of the trees screeching "I'm Baaaaak!"
But aside from the word and the image, the reality is almost as scary. First, "devolution" would mean that every state would have to support its transportation system by raising its own gas tax to make up the shortfall when the Federal gas tax disappears. Currently, states like Florida, California, and Ohio pay more into the Federal gas tax system than they get back; they're called "donor" states. "Donee" states like Montana get back more than we pay. It goes with our being thinly populated with a lot of real estate through which our lonesome highways must pass. It should come as no surprise, then, that Devolution Bill Sponsors Connie Mack, John Kasich, and Gary Condit come from the "donor" states of Florida, Ohio, and California.
The funding problem with this bill is simple and is probably the reason it will go nowhere. For a state like Florida to raise enough gas tax to pay for their system would be easy. A few cents on the gallon there will raise millions and millions of dollars. However, in a state like Montana, the same few cents per gallon will bring in far far less. Devolution, therefore, is a recipe for Third World Statehood for Montana. We already pay far more per gallon in State gas tax than either California or Florida and things would get much worse under devolution.
If Braesch thinks devolution is such a great idea, let's carry it further. Let's "devolve" the disaster relief system as well, so that every time Florida has a hurricane, California has an earthquake, and Ohio has a flood, they get to pay for the damage themselves. Funny we didn't hear about devolution while billions of dollars were pouring into L.A. to rebuild their freeway system after the last quake, while big bucks were floating their way to Ohio to push back the overflowing rivers, or while-come to think of it-Montanans were helping put roofs back on hurricane-wrecked houses in Florida.
Ultimately, devolution means saying we don't have a national interest. While the error in this thinking is more apparent in disaster relief than in transportation, it is just as wrong in both. There's no getting around it: we have a national interest in transportation and it won't be satisfied if we let every state become its own little kingdom.
The more serious error in the devolution approach, however, is one shared with other bills floating around Capitol Hill these days. Many of the bills that would keep the national interest in transportation would do so almost solely in the money sense and would trash important programs and "streamline" regulations. Instead of "devolution" these are the "blank check" bills. In essence, these bills are Congress' (and the American People's) way of telling state departments of transportation (DOTs) to "have a good time on us."
Not surprisingly, state DOTs helped write some of these bills. The crux of their argument is that the DOT Knows Best. Now that IS a scary thought for those of us who think state DOTs, while good at what they do, sometimes can't see the forest for the trees. To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To DOTs with their highway-building expertise, far too many problems looks like lack of-surprise-enough highways. Naturally, state DOT-sponsored bills tend to go light on things like transit support or clean air programs.
While watching recent Congressional hearings on C-SPAN, I couldn't help but notice something else, too. The spokespeople for the Blank Check approach believe wisdom resides in state capitols, rather than in Washington D.C., but that it disappears when you really get local (as in cities, towns, and counties). In other words, to them "local control" means control from Helena, Boise, and Sacramento.
These folks want to "streamline" the "regulatory" process so that state DOTs aren't "burdened" with excess "red tape." Sadly, the red tape they hate so much includes such things as the requirement that they "pro-actively" involve the public in decisions, that they give greater decision making power to local communities, and that they consider alternatives to more and more highways...alternatives like sidewalks, trails, and bus stops. While advocates of the Blank Check approach talk about "getting Uncle Sam off states' backs," they are more than willing to keep Uncle Helena or Uncle Boise firmly in the saddle on OUR backs.
Fortunately, while the DOTs and their highway lobbyist friends are working hard to get their way, other groups-like the National League of Cities, the AARP, the National Association of Counties, the Environmental Defense Fund, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Public Transit Association, the Sierra Club, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation are working just as hard to keep that from happening. Their push is for a more community-friendly, citizen-involved approach that helps us develop a range of choices for how we get around.
Ultimately, it comes down to three questions. 1. Does the nation, as
a whole, have an interest in transportation? 2. Do the public and local
governments-as well as states-have a legitimate role in determining the
future of their transportation systems? and 3. Does transportation mean
more than highways? Many of us are answering "Yes" to all three
questions and if we can somehow get our voices heard over the din of DOT-sponsored
bills and "devolution" proposals, maybe we can move national,
state, and local transportation policy towards a more people-friendly approach.