March 22, 2002 - The US Department of Transportation gives millions of
dollars in grants each year to promote smart growth in American cities.
Although these grants are mostly given to government agencies, a large
share of this money -- perhaps several million dollars per year -- finds
its way into the hands of smart-growth advocacy groups that use the
funds to lobby or "educate" the public in support of
smart-growth policies.
The funds are given out under section 1221 of the 1998 transportation
authorization act (TEA-21), in which Congress told the US Department of
Transportation to give $120 million through 2003 to states and
communities for "Transportation, Community, and System
Preservation" (TCSP) pilot projects.
As noted on p. 209 of The Vanishing Auto, this section of the law was
authored by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden in the hope of funding more
smart-growth studies such as the LUTRAQ (Land Use-Transportation-Air
Quality) study done by 1000 Friends of Oregon (see p. 165 of the
Vanishing Auto for information about LUTRAQ). One feature of this law is
that the government agencies getting the funds are encouraged to share
them with "non-traditional partners," meaning non-profit
advocacy groups such as a 1000 friends or other smart-growth group.
The TCSP program skews planning toward smart growth in several ways:
* In a few cases, all or nearly all of the grant funds are simply
passed on by the government agency to non-profit advocacy groups.
* In more cases, the non-profit groups get a share of the funds to
use for specific activities, such as radio propaganda campaigns favoring
transit or smart growth.
* In other cases, smart-growth groups are made the principle
members of various advisory committees, giving them an inside track to
regional and local planning.
* In a few cases, smart-growth groups share membership on such
advisory committees with more moderate groups, such as homebuilders, but
the grants are still clearly oriented towards promoting smart growth.
* Just the fact that the federal government gives millions of
dollars for smart-growth planning swayed other local governments to get
grants and plan for smart growth in their areas without actually sharing
funds with non-profit advocates of smart growth.
Unfortunately, unlike EPA grants, it is difficult to calculate exactly
how much money is finding its way into the hands of advocacy groups. EPA
gives some of its grants directly to non-profit groups, making it easy
to get information about such grants. Because TCSP funds are given to
state and local governments, which may or may not share them with
non-profits, data are more difficult to obtain. Some information can be
gathered from the following US DOT web pages:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/19992001.htm is a list of all grants given
in 1999 through 2001;
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/99/index.html links to detailed
information, including grant proposals in most cases, for 1999 grants;
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/00/index.html links to information,
including abstracts but not usually complete grant proposals, for 2000
grants;
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/01awards.html is a press release for 2001
grants.
In 1999 DOT gave out about $14 million in TCSP funds. This increased to
$31 million in 2000 and $47 million in 2001. Since full proposals are
posted only for 1999 grants, most of the following analysis is about
those grants.
In 1999 DOT gave thirty-five TCSP grants totalling $14.2 million. Of
these, about thirty-two grants of $13.4 million can be identified as
being for smart growth. Here I am defining smart-growth to include
projects emphasizing transit, bikes/pedestrians, or high-density or
mixed-use developments. I also included a couple that emphasize the
"transportation land-use connection" even if they didn't
emphasize non-highway modes of travel.
Judging from the full proposals posted for twenty-one of the 1999
grants, more than three-quarters of these grants specifically include
"non-traditional partners," meaning non-governmental groups.
If we ignore universities, consulting firms (often included to assist
with public involvement), and quasi-governmental councils, fifteen of
the twenty-one projects still include non-profits such as the Sierra
Club.
Most of the proposals mention these non-profits by name. Sometimes the
groups will be on a steering committee and do not seem to get any funds.
But many of the proposals clearly intend to give some or all of the
funds to these groups.
Here are the best documented examples.
In Salt Lake City, the Coalition for Utah's Future is the lead group
doing Envision Utah, which received $425,000. Although the governor's
office is technically the grant recipient, all of the money probably
went to this smart-growth advocacy group. Envision Utah received another
$205,000 in 2000. Ironically, one of the other funded proposals (see Ada
Planning Association below) calls Envision Utah a "top-down
planning program."
The Ada Planning Association is the "fiscal agent" and one of
the two "primary leaders" for a $510,000 grant to promote
smart growth in Boise, Idaho. While this is the grant that says it will
not do "top down" planning as was done by Envision Utah, one
of its primary objectives is to "overcome the major barriers
currently impeding compact development."
In Centre County, Pennsylvania, a non-profit called the ClearWater
Conservancy is the lead group in a $750,000 project to plan high-density
uses around a new interstate highway. The Centre County Planning Office
is technically the grant recipient, but the Conservancy got most if not
all of the money. I looked up the ClearWater Conservancy on the web, but
it has not yet posted anything relating to this project (the web page
says "coming soon"). So it is hard to tell just what their
orientation on transportation is.
In Oregon, the Lane Council of Governments received $600,000 for the
Willamette Valley Livability Project. Most of this money was spent
distributing a 16-page, anti-road, smart-growth propaganda pamphlet to
450,000 Oregon households. The pamphlet was written by 1000 Friends of
Oregon and its allies. See http://www.ti.org/vaupdate10.html for more
about this publication.
In Seattle, the local MPO received $400,000 to promote transit-oriented
development. The proposal says that the MPO "will contract with
1000 Friends of Washington" to do radio ads, community forums, and
community profiles. It isn't clear how much 1000 Friends will get.
In Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council shared in a
$665,000 grant that aimed to "sow the seeds of public support for
transit-oriented developments" (TODs). The grant explicitly
described the Environmental Council as a "smart growth"
organization and stated that it would use its share of funds for "TOD
advocacy."
Bluegrass Tomorrow is described as a "smart growth advocacy
group" that plays a major role in a $525,000 grant to promote smart
growth in Frankfort, Kentucky. At first the proposal's innocuous terms
and the claim that Toyota and Valvoline both support Bluegrass Tomorrow
made me wonder if this "smart growth" was more like quality
growth. But I looked at the Bluegrass Tomorrow web site, http://www.bluegrasstomorrow.org,
and it is just the same old smart growth.
In Gainesville, Florida, a smart-growth group called Sustainable Alachua
County (SAC) "will play a significant role" in a $150,000
project to promote smart growth. This group has been active in local
transportation planning and the project gives it an official
inside-track into the planning process. While the group probably does
not get any money out of the grant, it gets to play a major role in
designing the local transportation plan. As the grant proposal says,
SAC will serve as a sounding board for citizen input into the application of the sketch planning methods. The technical team members will identify and evaluate the various factors to determine significance, and then bring those factors to SAC for them to choose which should be measured and the applied in the planning process. One of SAC's roles in this grant will be to provide in-kind services as part of the project team. Such services will include performing quantitative assessments of the quality of the urban environment, such as measuring transit and pedestrian friendliness factors in sample traffic analysis zones of the community. For example, SAC Focus Team members will be used to measure building setbacks and ease of crossing the street in various locations that exhibit different development characteristics. These measurements will help form the basis for the development of the sketch planning methods to post-process model outputs.
In these cases, it is apparent that the local governments are using the
non-profit groups to do advocacy work that government agencies are not
allowed to do. Government agencies are supposed to be politically
neutral, and are generally not supposed to lobby or propagandize in
favor of their specific agendas. By sharing grants with non-profit
advocacy groups, these agencies can get around such limits and use
public funds to persuade people to support policies that are not in the
public's best interest.
In several other cases, grants may not give smart-growth groups any
funds but do give them an inside track into regional planning. For
example, Laurel, Montana, is a town of 7,000 people in a thinly
populated state that you wouldn't think needs smart growth. Yet an
$85,000 grant to the city of Laurel lists the following as members of
its advisory committee:
Chris Allen, National Center for Alternative Technology
Dan Burden, Walkable Communities
Hank Dittmar, Surface Transportation Policy Project
Kathy Harris, P.E., Carter-Burgess, Inc., of Helena, Montana
Marla Larson, Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Barron Parks, P.E., Montana Department of Transportation
Stephanie Redman, National Main Street Center
John Williams, Tracy-Williams Consulting
Paul Zykofsky, Center for Livable Communities
John Williams is a bicycle advocate who is also associated with the
group called "Walkable Communities," which probably got some
funding from this grant. Carter-Burgess is an consulting firm that does
environmental design and "visioning" that also probably got
funding from this grant. With the possible exception of Barron Parks,
most of the others are also probably strong smart-growth advocates. This
makes a pretty one-sided advisory committee.
Three other examples include:
* The Tri-State Transportation Campaign is on the advisory
committee for a $1,388,000 grant for smart growth in northern New
Jersey.
* New Jersey Future is on the advisory committee for a $535,000
grant to promote transit-oriented development in all of New Jersey;
* Coalition for a Livable Future and other "livability"
groups are mentioned as "possible partners" for a $500,000
grant to Metro, Portland, Oregon's regional planning authority that
looked at Portland's urban-growth boundary.
* The Sierra Club is on the advisory committee for a $450,000
grant to promote smart growth in New Orleans.
These types of grants are disturbing not because they fund one political
view but because they give that view an inside track to planning. No
mention is made of pro-highway or pro-homeowner groups in these grants.
A few grants appear superficially more balanced. A $275,000 grant to
Johnson City, TN, lists the Sierra Club and the local home builders
association as being on a steering committee to coordinate land-use and
transportation planning. The Sierra Club and some local
conservation groups are listed in a $450,000 grant to promote smart
growth in Raleigh-Durham, but so are local chambers of commerce. Still,
both grants emphasize smart-growth policies.
Six grants are clearly oriented to smart growth but do not seem to give
any funds or preference to smart-growth non-profit groups. These
include:
* A land-use planning grant to Anchorage, AK;
* A transit planning grant to San Francisco;
* A visioning grant to Washington, DC;
* A transit planning grant to Providence, RI;
* A transportation-land-use planning grant to Charleston, SC;
* A land-use planning grant to Charlottesville, VA.
The US DOT web site posts only an abstract, not a complete proposal, for
fourteen of the 1999 grants and most of the 2000 grants. The abstracts
usually make it clear that the grants will promote smart growth but are
not complete enough to mention whether any non-profit partners are
involved.
Grants given in 1999 for which we have only the abstract include:
* A $225,000 pro-transit grant for Tempe, Arizona;
* A $150,000 pedestrian-bicycle grant for Escalon, CA;
* A $182,000 community planning grant for Lee Vining, CA;
* A $480,000 transportation grant for Hartford, CT;
* A $450,000 smart-growth grant for Maryland;
* A $48,000 transportation planning grant for Saginaw, MI that
focuses on "pedestrian mobility" and "public
transit";
* A $355,000 smart-growth grant for Lansing, MI;
* A $600,000 "smart choices" grant for Kansas City, MO;
* A $70,000 waterfront planning grant for Troy, NY;
* A $195,000 smart-growth demonstration project in Cleveland, OH;
* A $300,000 gentrification project for Dayton, OH;
* A $500,000 "main street revitalization" project for
Houston, TX;
* A $300,000 gentrification project in Martinsburg, WV;
* A $365,000 smart-growth grant for Madison, WI.
I tentatively classify all of these as smart-growth projects except the
Lee Vining, CA; Troy, NY; Dayton, OH; and Martinsburg, WV grants. The
abstracts rarely mention partners and if they do they are never named.
More information about these grants might be available on the web sites
of the grant recipients, but I haven't looked.
Partners are a part of every TCSP grant, if only because
"Partnerships" is part V of the formal grant application.
While this doesn't necessarily mean that the partners will be
non-profits biased to smart growth, the fact that most of the planners
submitting the grant requests are biased to smart growth certainly makes
this likely. A few grants, such as a $177,000 grant to promote
transit-oriented development in San Francisco, list only government
agencies as partners. But these are in the minority.
In sum, of twenty-one full 1999 proposals that I have reviewed,
non-profit smart-growth advocacy groups:
* Received nearly all of the funds in three grants (Salt Lake,
Boise, and Centre County, PA);
* Received substantial funds or had substantial control over the
funds in at least five more (Oregon, Seattle, Philadelphia, Kentucky,
Gainesville, FL);
* Were given the inside track to transportation planning (and
possibly some funds) by five other grants (Laurel, MT; northern New
Jersey; New Jersey; Portland; New Orleans);
* Were listed along with commercial interests as part of the
advisory committees for two more grants (Johnson City, TN;
Raleigh-Durham).
Six other grants were biased to smart growth but do not seem to share
funds or power with smart-growth groups. Another ten grants are strongly
biased to smart growth, but all we have are the abstracts for those
grants so we don't know who their partners are. Only four of the
thirty-five 1999 grants do not seem to be about promoting smart growth,
but without the complete proposals for these grants we can't tell for
certain.
All of these grants were given by the Clinton administration, but there
is no evidence that the Bush administration is doing anything different
this year. The Secretary of Transportation is the administration's token
Democrat and a strong supporter of light rail who has promised
smart-growth groups that he will continue the previous administration's
policy of supporting smart growth.
It is not surprising that TCSP is biased towards smart growth, since
that was the program's original purpose. But auto drivers should be
outraged that Congress dedicates their gas taxes to groups whose
aim is to increase congestion and discourage auto driving. American
Dream supporters should work to eliminate TCSP from the next
transportation authorization bill.
_________________________________________________________
Randal O'Toole The Thoreau Institute rot@ti.org http://www.ti.org
Please feel free to forward or reprint this article with appropriate
citation.
|
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml] |