us public transportation

8/2/2019 Us Public Transportation

1/11

The "New Federalism" and Federal Transportation Policy

Author(s): Herman Mertins, Jr.Reviewed work(s):Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 33, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1973), pp. 243-252Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/974802 .

Accessed: 22/04/2012 15:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing andAmerican Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/974802?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/974802?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/11

243

THE "NEW FEDERALISM" AND FEDERALTRANSPORTATION POLICYHerman Mertins, Jr., West Virginia University

The character of federal transportation policymaking is undergoing a significant transformation.To some, the current period reflects little morethan uncertainty and hesitancy about the rolesthat federal leadership should play, or not play, inresponding to the enormous challenges of pro-viding for national mobility in all of its forms. Butthe currents of change run far deeper than thesurface waters indicate. Indeed, what appears to betaking place represents a fundamental reorienta-tion of the Executive Branch. The specific form isthe application of the "New Federalism"-with itsemphasis on decentralized responsibility andpower-to transportation policy making.Present ferment is not without its disturbingcontradictions and unanticipated consequences.These range from the problems produced byspecific outputs of applied policy, which areexperienced at state and local levels, to thegrowing number of dilemmas faced by top-levelorganizational entities, which play vital parts inevolving the substance of national transportationpolicies.But this is not to imply that the fruits ofchange within the federal establishment can beassessed meaningfully by focusing solely on theimpacts of applying a different "philosophy ofgovernment." For while these transpire, the policyenvironment of planning for transportation contin-ues its own metamorphosis. New and modifiedpatterns of need and response, encompassing boththe public and private sectors, are constantlygenerated.

Transportation policy making involves highlycomplex, interactive processes. Even if no con-scious policy framework exists at the federal level,planning for transportation adjusts and evolves insome form or other. The functions of transporta-tion are that fundamental.This article will examine the interaction of theNew Federalism with several major features oftransportation policy making, as well as withpolicy areas impacting directly on transportationpolicy. No pretenses are made to suggest thatfacets discussed constitute the bulk of important

variables now influencing federal policy activities.In fact, most of the article's attention will bedevoted to one major aspect of emergingchanges-that which affects the movement ofpassengers in ground transportation. Even here,treatment of interactions must be oversimplified.Of the elements of federal transportation policymaking being influenced by the New Federalism,the following appear most prominent: (1) thepolicy setting, including the Executive structuremost responsible for evolving policy; (2) presentfederal financial aids for transportation; (3) theimpact of impoundments as they have beenapplied to transportation; (4) plans for newfinancing schemes, particularly general and specialrevenue sharing; (5) national policies, or the lackof such policies, governing environment, energy,and land use; and (6) proposals for ExecutiveBranch reorganization. In practice, these factorsdefy indivisibility; they perform as highly inter-active elements in a much more elaborated net-work.

The Policy SettingIn its earliest period, federal transportationinputs were made on an ad hoc basis with littleattention to interrelationships among modes oftransportation. The overriding drive was to encour-age development of all facilities of transportation.Growth in capacity-whatever its form-was con-sidered a "good." Another early concern involvedthe cost of transportation; this encouraged devel-opments which would provide "ready substitutes"for the various modes.Matching these piecemeal actions was the frag-mented nature of the federal organization con-cerned with transportation policy making. In fact,it was not until the mid-1960s that the Depart-ment of Transportation was established.2 TheDepartment thus inherited a legacy of transporta-tion development within individual modes; eachoccupied a unique "policy compartment."The spirit of the legislation and hearings sur-rounding creation of DOT was that it would

MAY/JUNE 1973


3/11

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEWfunction as a "holding company" for most of thecomponents of federal structure concerned withtransportation. Transportation development wasviewed primarily as a functional policy goal to bepursued on its own merits, rather than as afacilitator or ingredient in processes designed toserve other ends. In this way, DOT assumed theposture of providing "one roof" under which theExecutive Branch could coordinate and consoli-date the fragmented pieces of "national transpor-tation policy."One further point concerning the Departmentof Transportation deserves explication - thematter of leadership and initiative. In spite of therestrictions placed by Congress on the freedom ofaction of the Secretary of Transportation, soencornpassing was its legislative charge that oppor-tunities for exercising initiatives proved numer-ous.3

As the first Secretary of DOT noted, up to thenthe national transportation system was left with aminimum of interference by government; competi-tion was depended on to resolve conflicts. But thenew DOT created, for the first time, a centralizedmechanism for national transportation planning.And this capacity intensified as planning gainedrenewed respectability in the late 1960s. In anumber of ways, growth of the reputation of DOTinitiatives was enhanced during the first NixonAdministration under the leadership of John A.Volpe.However, a new brand of policy yeast in thetransportation "cake"-New Federalism-now sig-nals a sharp turn, even reversal, in direction.Specifically, it espouses return of policy initiativesto state and local governments, the "grass roots."Nor is this change in emphasis simply a matter ofrhetoric. As will be discussed shortly, the program-matic contents of virtually all major planning andfunding programs, as well as federal organizationswith transportation policy-making capacities,stand to be substantially reoriented.

Federal Funding for Transportation- The Changing SceneCertainly the most critical elements of federal

transportation policy making are the level, andcharacter, of federal financial support. One aspectof the total financial picture illustrating the natureof emerging federal policy making, particularly asit begins to take on the imprint of the NewFederalism, is aid devoted to urban transportation.

Significant federal involvement in dealing withurban transportation problems is relatively recent.It started in a limited way with the Housing Act of1961 which initially authorized $50 million forfederal loans to be used to acquire and improvemass transportation facilities in urban areas and$25 million for transit demonstration grants.But perhaps the greatest single impetus forreorienting federal policy toward more direct,meaningful involvement was the TransportationMessage of President John F. Kennedy, deliveredin 1962.4 It paved the way for subsequentlegislation by outlining the needs for continuingdemonstration grants, comprehensive planning inurban areas (as a qualification for receiving aid),and other programs.One of the products of the Kennedy approachwas the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964; ithas served as the primary instrument for renderingsuch federal assistance since its passage. The Actinitially authorized a $375 million program.Recent Approaches

The year 1970 witnessed the emergence of amore sweeping approach to urban transportationproblems in the form of the Urban Mass Transpor-tation Assistance Act.5 Developed within theNixon Administration by DOT, the Act was toprovide for a federal program of assistance thatwas to amount to $10 billion over a 12-yearperiod. Further, it authorized the incurrence ofobligations amounting to $3.1 billion in the firstfive years.Assessed in terms of their responsiveness tonational urban needs, these programs appear moresignificant in intent than commitment. This ap-pears most obvious in capital grant activity whichhas as its objectives:(1) Providing mobility for urban residents whocannot use autos.

(2) Improving peak hour travel in urban re-gions.(3) Achieving land use patterns and environ-mental conditions that enhance urbanliving.The record of performance from February1965 up to 1972 shows that federal fundingprovided through the Urban Mass TransportationAdministration totaled a little over $1 billion for279 projects.6Why this relatively low level of performance,given the magnitude of the problems extant?Several factors account for the situation. First,

MAY/JUNE 1973

244


4/11

TRANSPORTATION POLICY MAKING

except for the last two fiscal years, the level ofrequests for funding in both the Johnson andNixon Administrations was limited. Second,Congress has been wary of committing substantialresources, a reaction closely related to the amor-phous nature of the clientele to be served-narrowly conceived as the users of urban trans-portation-not the entire urban population. As aconsequence, requested levels of funding authori-zation have been consistently and substantiallyreduced. Third, UMTA has encountered contin-uing problems in allocating authorized funds.These have been blamed on delays in securing finalbudgetary authorizations and in qualifying appli-cant projects. Fourth, until very recently noeffective mass transportation lobby existed thatcould wield sufficient political clout, in compari-son to that fielded by the "established" modes oftransportation. And most recently affecting theflow of assistance has been the practice of im-pounding funds.Impounded Funds

The interaction of anti-inflation measures, thegoals of the New Federalism, and the capacity offederal policy making to be responsive to nationaltransportation needs is well illustrated by theresults of impounding funds authorized for masstransportation purposes.This practice was initiated by the ExecutiveOffice of the President and was first applied totransportation expenditures. In fiscal 1971,Congress authorized UMTA to obligate $600million. Subsequently, the Office of Managementand Budget limited the amount that could beutilized to a level of $400 million. Of this amount,only $283.7 million was ultimately designated forcapital grants. The balance was consumed byUMTA expenses, including R & D and adminis-trative costs.7 Thus, fiscal 1971, which started outas a "good" year for mass transportation, con-cluded by looking very much like its predecessors.Expenditure levels for fiscal 1972 encountereda similar fate. Congress authorized a limit of $900million; OMB subsequently limited obligations to$600 million and $510 million was ultimatelyspent.Yet unclear is what will happen in fiscal 1973.It is estimated that $863.7 million will be spent. Ifsuch occurs, effects of impoundments in theprevious two years may be eased somewhat, butthey cannot be erased.Executive impoundments of funds are not new;

they have been employed for a variety of reasonsover the years. Standing in back of such practicesare the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act8 thatprovide for temporary deferrals and control offunds in excess of immediate needs, awaitingcongressional action affecting their use, or held inaccordance with congressional action.However, the nature of current practices differsfrom the past. Its rationale rests on the desire tocontrol the level of total federal spending, not onthe basis of limiting expenditures because ofprograms that have encountered technological,administrative, or implementation problems.Current impoundment practices are not with-out their defenders. Even DOT pronouncementshave provided ready explanations for the policiesadopted. The following is typical:... It is notconsideredas being "withheld"becauseitsplanneduse isconsistentwithcongressional ntent. TheCongress provided a total of $3.1 billion of contractauthority for the 5-year period 1971-1975. Executivebranchapportionmentswill result in $1 billion of thisamount having been used by June 30, 1972, for fiscal1973, leaving$1.1 billion, or $550 million per year forfiscalyears1974 and1975.9

Questions about ImpoundmentsWhy have these practices been employed togovern allocation of funding or capital grants forurban mass transportation projects? Why has up toone-third of the available grant money beenimpounded? It could well be that the Administra-tion has serious reservations about the efficacy ofthe program. It is difficult to tell. No specific basishas been established to justify withholding offederal expenditures for urban mass transporta-tion.One clue may be the backlog of capital projectsawaiting federal matching funds in urban masstransportation. It is staggering-and growing con-tinuously. Indeed, as of this writing, UMTA hadover $4 billion of such applications pending. Whatbases should be used to decide upon the allocationof limited funds? Indeed, in view of the spirit ofthe New Federalism, the Administration mighthave concluded that specific decisions of thisnature should not be made in Washington and,therefore, have decided to slow the process. Suchwould then build further pressure for revenuesharing, an approach much more compatible withNew Federalism.

Whatever the case, the annual testimony ren-dered by DOT officials in support of capital grants

MAY/JUNE 1973

245


5/11

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEWcreates some anomalies. These appear replete withelaborate justifications for authorizing agencyfunding at levels that, almost without exception,exceed those finally approved by Congress. Virtu-ally all programs recommended fall into thecategory of "vitally needed." Yet when the matterof budgetary performance is evaluated, one mightconclude that numerous new activities, or exten-sions of existing programs, apparently are not so"vital" after all.

On the surface, at least, the withholding ofone-third of UMTA capital grants reflects a lack offederal commitment to continuing past fundingpractices.l But that should not be interpreted asa lack of concern about the need for governmentalaction. The more basic question may be whichgovernment should decide and act. Under NewFederalism, the expected answer would be "stateand local."The Issue of Operating Subsidies

Also intimately involved with the impact ofNew Federalism is the growing concern about theneed for operating subsidies for mass transporta-tion.The year 1972 produced a growing tide of

pressure for such federal assistance which tookform in the proposed Housing and Urban Develop-ment Act of 1972. Chapter 6 of the bill includedauthority for DOT to provide $400 million peryear to assist in maintaining urban transportservices. Further, under its proposed capital grantprogram, requirements for local matching grantswould have decreased from one-third to 10 percent.1These provisions ultimately failed to survive inthe House. Similar measures included in the 1972

Federal-Aid Highway Act also failed of enactmentwhen the entire piece of legislation died at theclose of the 92nd Congress.How has the Nixon Administration respondedto these suggested approaches? Clearly, operatingsubsidies are most controversial because of theinherent magnitude of funding involved. But justas much of an issue is the problem of determiningstate and local vs. federal responsibilities. Here,again, the point of contention is not only financialbut philosophical.On the financial side, analyses conducted byDOT concede that there is a "severe problem,"that the federal government has some responsibil-ity to help solve it, and that past policies haveprobably contributed to making it as bad as it is.

One general conclusion reached is that all majorurban transit systems are faced with a self-defeating cycle of increasing costs, spiraling fares,and a huge drop in ridership.12 All lead to adecrease in service which, in turn, perpetuates andintensifies the process. Paradoxically, in spite ofthe implications of this cycle, there is generalagreement that mass transit systems must not beallowed to go out of existence because of thedrastic effects this would have on the remainder ofthe transportation system. Nevertheless, this raisesthe question about whether operating subsidiestreat the symptom or the cause.Then there is the philosophical side of thequestion. If the New Federalism is to become areality, what mechanisms should be utilized totransfer not only the power of decision makingback to those governmental units closest to theproblems but also resources as well? State andlocal governments already allocate more than $400million annually for transit operating assistance.Aside from these problems, operating subsidiespresent other difficulties. Foremost is the chal-lenge of designing an incentive system that wouldlead to improved service and more efficient opera-tions. How could the allocation of subsidies beeffectively controlled so as not simply to intensifydemands for higher wages for transit workers?How could increased use of off-peak capacities berelated to incentives? How could varying require-ments for subsidies be equitably resolved? Howcould subsidies be allocated effectively betweenpublic and private mass transit carriers, particu-larly in areas in which they compete for rider-ship?13It has been proposed that operating subsidies beprovided on the basis of passengers carried at, for

example, eight cents per trip. But this incentivesystem, as all others conjured up so far, presentsserious problems. In this case, the subsidy wouldrise as the level of utilization and, presumably,efficiency rose. This would mean that the amountof subsidy would increase when, if anything, theneed for it decreased. On the other hand, thoseoperations in difficulty because of decreased rider-ship would receive less of a subsidy. In somerespects, this would be counter to the normalrationale for determining subsidy needs and justi-fying their continuation.A Single Urban Fund?

Another facet of the evolving approaches thatcould affect both the character and composition

MAY/JUNE 1973

246


6/11


of urban transportation financing and, conse-quently, the policy-making framework, is the DOTproposal to establish a single urban fund. Thisconcept grew out of the 1972 Highway NeedsReportl4 and reflects a basic component of theNew Federalism-discretionary use of the fundsexercised by state and local officials rather thanfederal authorities. Under its provisions, choiceson the allocation of funds between highway andmass transit needs would be made on a decentral-ized basis.

If the proposal were adopted, a single urbanfund would be authorized at $1 billion in fiscal1974 and $1.85 billion in fiscal 1975. Such monieswould become available for use on any publiccapital transportation project. Forty per cent ofthe fund would be distributed to the nation'sstandard metropolitan statistical areas on the basisof their share of the total national SMSA popula-tion. A second 40 per cent would be allocated tothe states on the basis of their share of thenational SMSA population. The remaining 20 percent would be retained for discretionary use bythe Secretary of DOT. All funds would be allo-cated on a 70 per cent federal and 30 per centstate and local matching basis. s

One of the primary goals of the proposal wouldbe to force the 268 major urban areas to developorganizational and administrative mechanisms todeal with their total transportation problem on acoordinated basis. This strategy recognizes thatmost metropolitan areas now lack such consortia.The consortia to be formed would be structured toassure proportional representation, to preparelong-range comprehensive plans, and to take re-sponsibility for the administration of programs.The nature of this proposal again is consistentwith other aspects of federal transportation policynow evolving. The aim is to shift responsibilitiesfor initiatives in urban mass transportation awayfrom Washington and to the "scene of action."Impacts of Revenue Sharing

Of all the financing measures introduced by theNixon Administration, revenue sharing representsthe most fundamental and sweeping departurefrom past policies. It would drastically alter thecharacter of federal influence in transportationpolicy making.Indeed, the impact of "General RevenueSharing" is already being felt. Under this pro-gram,l6 funds amounting to about $30 billion areto be shared with state and local governments over

a five-year period. Made available with few stipula-tions, some of the money has already been used bylocalities to bolster existing transit systems. Inthese circumstances, transportation funding hasbeen placed in the position of competing forpriority consideration against other pressing stateand local needs.

Still pending before Congress is the "SpecialRevenue Sharing Program For Transportation."17It was first proposed by President Nixon in Marchof 1971; this program would be distilled from 23existing federal grant-in-aid programs in urbanmass transit, airport grants, highway construction,safety, and beautification. Funding to support theallocation structure would be drawn from generalrevenues, the Highway Trust Fund, and the Air-port and Airway Trust Fund. The initial annuallevel of funding would be $2.6 billion.The avowed purpose of the program is to shiftdownward the focus of transportation policymaking. Of course, an important by-productwould also be the passing down of the "hassles"that surround mobilization and allocation offederal funds for transportation purposes.Many questions surround the efficacy of therevenue sharing approach. As Congressman John J.McFall has noted, it appears to be a simple answerto a complex problem.18 And he questions thecapacity of the states, without direction, toimplement national policy without federalleadership.There is also the question of how needs forfuture development of existing and emergingnational systems-highways, aviation, rail, highspeed ground transportation-can be met by stateand local officials.

In addition, concern exists about advancementof the states-of-the-art in transportation. How willadvanced technology be fostered and appliedunder these circumstances? Are traditional politi-cal jurisdictions-states, urban areas, counties,towns-capable of dealing with the complexities oftransportation policy making in an age charac-terized by intertwined, interlocked dependenciesand relationships?All of these concerns must be traded off againstthe potential advantages of encouraging decentrali-zation of policy making.

Other Interlocking Policy ConcernsClosely associated with the content of federal

transportation policy making, and often integral

MAY/JUNE 1973

247


7/11

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

parts of it, are plans and programs to governmanagement of the environment, provide forenergy needs, and determine land use. Each ofthese will be analyzed briefly in terms of implica-tions of the New Federalism and their interfaceswith transportation policy.Environmental Policy

In general terms, the relationships of environ-ment to transportation have been provided forwithin the federal transportation policy frame-work.In DOT, the position of Assistant Secretary forEnvironment and Urban Systems was establishedin fiscal 1969 to deal with the problem of

achieving a balance between human values andengineering values in the development of transpor-tation systems. Both under the provisions of theTransportation Act of 1966 and the NationalEnvironmental Act of 1969, measures have beentaken to safeguard parks, recreational facilities andother public lands, public water supplies, urbanand rural aesthetics, historical sites, and the like.All projects subject to NEPA must be accompa-nied by an environmental impact statement.Indeed, numerous projects have been stopped ormodified, even retroactively, in the past threeyears.Energy Policy

Unlike the approach taken to deal with environ-mental problems related to transportation, littlehas been accomplished to cope with the implica-tions of the "energy crisis" as it affects federaltransportation policy making. In part, this isexplained by the lack of federal commitment tonational planning for energy needs. The result hasbeen a piecemeal focus on the narrow band ofneeds that affect the immediate future. 19

Within DOT, research has been undertaken onobtaining new sources of petroleum, increasingefficiency of its use, and developing new powersources. However, one senses neither a mood ofurgency nor commitment of substantial resourcesto these endeavors. This, in spite of the fact thatnational transportation is 98 per cent highwaydominated and, therefore, petroleum dominated.Will such systems be able to perform under theconditions and constraints of 1990 and beyond?Can such questions be coped with by state andlocal government?Land Use Policy

The development of a national land use policy

still awaits formulation and implementation some-time far into the future. Indeed, the needs for suchpolicy are only dimly perceived. The most recent,proposed legislation to give serious attention tothe problem was the Land Use Policy and Assis-tance Act of 1972.

This legislation was not adopted by Congress. Itwould have stimulated the first significant federalinvolvement in land use regulation, emphasizingstate programs for areas of critical environmentalconcern, key facilities, regional and large-scaledevelopments, and coastal zones.According to federal projections, the land use

challenges to be met are overwhelming. Theseinclude needs to build as many homes, schools,hospitals, and other public facilities before theyear 2000 as were built in the past 300 years.The vastness of this problem of appreciating theinteraction of transportation policy and land usepolicy has been recognized, at least in one respect.In a statement submitted to Congress in 1972,DOT called for a redefinition of the role oftransportation, particularly in urban areas. Itnoted that transportation should be viewed as asubsystem within an overall urban system ofinterrelated parts.20 The suggested DOT strategycalled for rational definitions of broad communitygoals. From these would stem the suggested meansfor governing orderly growth and the respectiveroles that the modes of transportation mightperform in accomplishing them.Most significant in these pronouncements, asthey suggest the silhouettes of future policy, is theview that the substantial responsibility for deter-mining future national land use patterns ought tobe lodged with the states and local governments.Again, the dominant theme of the New Federalismis decentralized prerogatives. But one must ask:Are these sufficient?

Organizational Change and Federal PolicyAs part of his State of the Union Message ofJanuary 22, 1971, President Nixon called for a

sweeping reform of the federal Executive struc-ture, including those elements charged with theresponsibility for formulating and implementingfederal transportation policies. As Figure 1 demon-strates, one of its effects, if enacted, would be toeliminate the existing Department of Transporta-tion.Of the numerous changes involved, the mostsignificant would be the shearing away of federalhighway programs and urban mass transportation

MAY/JUNE 1973

248


8/11

Czg~~~~~~~~ ~~~~FIGURE 1z

~TRANSFERSO T H E PROPOSDEPARTMENTF COMMUNITYDEV

FROMHUDH OUNR,ONI,NCLUDESU" HOUSING PRODUCTION (INCLUDES RURAL EFHA & GNMA) FARMERHOUSINGANAGEMENT WATEHOUSING MANAGEMENT GRANGRANCOMMUNITYPLANNING & MANAGEMENT |I RURACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTFEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION DEPARTM TOPEN SPACE PROGRAM DEPARTMENTOPEN_PACEROGRAOF ECONOMICOMMUNITY -" (PUB

DEVELOPMENT REGIONASECREFROM TRANSPORTATION--

FEDERAL HIGHWAYPROGRAMS, EXCEPTMOTORCARRIER SAFETY T COMSAFETY GRANTS RELATING TO HIGHWAY I (INDESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ANURBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION SPECIaFROMOTHERAGENCIES

SBA: DISASTER LOAN PROGRAMOEP: DISASTER RELIEF OPERATINGFUNCTIONSHEW: GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTIONOF PUBLIC LIBRARIES

L-


9/11

ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

programs, which would be located in the Depart-ment of Community Development, from the bal-ance of existing transportation programs, whichwould shift to the Department of EconomicAffairs.While the organizational implications are impor-tant, the underlying philosophy is even more so.Essentially, the change would result in approach-ing the planning of highways and mass transporta-tion not in terms of national sub-systems oftransportation but rather as integral parts ofcommunity, or local, planning.21 Thus, transpor-tation, as a function, would no longer be con-sidered a viable organizing concept.Numerous concerns have been voiced about theproposal; however, a thorough review of them isbeyond the scope of this article. Only severalrelated to transportation policy making can betouched upon here.First, the proposed reshuffling of transporta-tion responsibilities would occur just when DOT,created in 1966, was reaching a reasonable degreeof efficiency. In effect, the case for changes thatwould "put like functions under one roof" followswithin only a few years a similar rationale used inthe strong case made to create DOT.22 A relatedpoint is that the reorganization would once againrelocate UMTA; the agency moved from HUD toDOT only four years ago.A second objection centers on its impact onachieving coordinated systems of transportation.How would the new organizations cope withnational intermodal planning?A third objection notes that about 80 per centof the federal-aid highway mileage lies outside oftowns and cities and that the programs arepredominantly national in impact. It asks: Howcould such systems be planned and controlledeffectively if state and local prerogatives predomi-nate?

A fourth objection relates to the organizingconcept of the Department of Community Devel-opment, particularly its amorphous character.Would not any federal program qualify for inclu-sion, since all have some direct or indirect bearingon community development?While prospects for approval of this proposalfor reorganization appear dim, its contents remainimportant to understanding emerging emphases offederal transportation policy making.As noted in the analyses of other factorsinteracting with and reshaping federal transporta-tion policy making, the plan represents yetanother of the concerted steps taken to reorient

the federal role in transportation policy making. Itreflects the movement toward increasing state andlocal prerogatives in the planning process, settinggoals and relative priorities, and securing anddetermining the disposition of federal funding.Assertiveness and leadership in federal transpor-tation policy making are being systematicallyde-emphasized. In their place, roles emphasizingtechnical assistance, facilitation, and low-key influ-ence appear to be emerging.The nature of the New Federalism is notnecessarily to withdraw from the many battles offorging viable policies; however, movement of thefederal forces out of the "front lines" has becomeincreasingly evident.The question remains whether other govern-mental jurisdictions will have the human, financial,and technical capacities, as well as the politicalcourage, to cope successfully with the challengesnow being shifted to them. An equally basicquestion is whether successful approaches tonational transportation problems can be formu-lated by the individual or confederated actions ofstate and local government.

Concluding CommentsAs this brief examination of federal transporta-tion policy making concludes, I should note thatthe definition of a comprehensive national trans-portation policy has been an elusive goal pursuedby both the Executive Branch and Congress overthe past five decades. The present Administration,following past practice, has avoided formulatingsuch a policy statement, although voluminous databearing on it have been collected. Of course, thereal possibility exists that such a policy statementis not desired. Certainly the formality of a plan orcompendium of guides is not a prerequisite ofpolicy.Future federal transportation policy may wellcontinue to eschew formal statements and elabora-tions in favor of specific actions within substantive

program fields. Moreover, during the remainder ofthe Nixon Administration, policy'will probably beelaborated in terms of the desires and require-ments of state and local governments.This would represent the New Federalism inaction. Presumably, the strategy would be tosomehow amalgamate these into a coherentnational tapestry. If such indeed becomes the goal,it remains to be seen how the design is chosen andwho performs the weaving.MAY/JUNE 1973

250 PUB LIC


10/11


MAY/JUNE 1973

251

LAA


11/11

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

Notes1. Herman Mertins, Jr., National Transportation Policyin Transition (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and

Company, 1972), pp. 3-20.2. Ibid., pp. 77-103.3. Ibid., pp. 91-103.4. "The Transportation System of Our Nation," Mes-sage from the President of the United States, Houseof Representatives, Document No. 384, 87thCongress, 2nd Session, April 5, 1962.5. Public Law 91-453.6. Department of Transportation and Related AgenciesAppropriations for 1973, Hearings Before a Sub-committee of the Committee on Appropriations,House of Representatives, 92nd Congress, 2nd Ses-sion, Part 2 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1972), pp. 751-752.7. Urban Mass Transportation, Hearing Before the Sub-committee on Housing of the Committee on Bankingand Currency, House of Representatives, 92ndCongress, 2nd Session (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, February 23, 1972), p. 44.8. 31 U.S. Code 665.9. Department of Transportation and Related Appropri-ations for 1973, op. cit., Part 1, pp. 74-75.10. The one-third cutback is also justified by the NixonAdministration on the grounds that even though"reserve limits" have been imposed, the amount of

federal spending devoted to capital grants is greaterthan ever before. See the testimony of then Secretaryof Transportation John A. Volpe, ibid., p. 72.11. Mertins,op. cit., p. 170.12. UrbanMass Transportation, op. cit., p. 79.13. Department of Transportation and Related Appropri-ations for 1973, op. cit., Part 2, pp. 613-614; Part 3,pp. 12-13.14. 1972 National Highway Needs Report, Federal High-way Administration, U.S. Department of Transporta-tion (Washington, D.C., March 1972).15. Department of Transportation and Related Appropri-ations for 1973, op. cit., Part 2, pp. 647-648.16. The program was established by Public Law 92-000.17. "Revenue Sharing for Transportation," Messagefromthe President of the United States, House of Repre-sentatives, Document No. 71, 92nd Congress, 1stSession, March 18, 1971.18. Department of Transportation and Related Appropri-ations for 1973, op. cit., Part 3, p. 277.19. Ibid., p. 11.20. Ibid., p. 115.21. Department of Community Development Act,Report of the Committee on Government Opera-tions, No. 92-1096, House of Representatives, 92ndCongress, 2nd Session (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, May 25, 1972), pp. 2-65.22. Mertins, op. cit., pp. 77-80.

Available from aSpecial PAR Symposium Issues* Citizens Action in Model Citiesand CAP Programs: Case Studiesand Evaluation (September 1972)

* Curriculum Essays on Citizens,Politics, and Administration inUrban Neighborhoods (October1972)* Productivity in Government(November/December 1972)Price to ASPA Members $4.00-Nonmembers $4.50Other Symposium IssuesStill Available

* Planning-Programming-BudgetingSystems (December 1966)* PPBS Reexamined (March/April1969)* Collective Negotiations il thePublic Service (March/April1968)

* The Police in a Democratic Soci-ety (September/October 1968)* The American Governor in the1970's (January/February 1970)* Governing Megacentropolis (Sep-tember/October 1970)* The American City Manager(Jan-uary/February 1971)* Judicial Administrationl (March/April 1971)* Changing Styles of Planning inPost-Industrial America (May/June 1971)* The Crisis in Health Care: Prob-lems of Policy and Administra-tion (September/October 1971)Price to ASPA Members $2.00-Nonmembers $2.50 (Quantity dis-counts available on ten or more

copies.)Order from:American Society for Public Administration1225ConnecticutAvenueN.W.Washington, .C.20036

MAY/JUNE 1973

252

us public transportation

Documents