Proposed DOT reorganization draws fire

President Clinton’s proposal to streamline the Department of Transportation and shrink its budget 15 percent over five years could diminish highway construction, shut down small airports and raise the cost of ground transportation, say city and county representatives. “The proposed budget cuts may make sense for budget policy but not for transportation policy,” says Kevin McCarty, assistant executive director for the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

The Clinton Administration has proposed as part of its 1996 budget that the transportation department’s budget be reduced from $40 billion to $37 billion next year and to $34 billion by 2000. The cuts would come from funds currently allocated for highways, transit systems and airport construction. The Essential Air Service, which provides funds exclusively to small airports, would be eliminated altogether.

In addition to budget cuts, the Administration is promoting consolidation of 30 infrastructure-related programs into a single broad account called the Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Project. The unified project would be funded by a $10-billion block grant to state and local governments, explains Transportation Secretary Federico Pena. “Instead of having to shoe-horn transportation strategies into more than 30 federal funding categories, state and local governments would be able to use the vast majority of these funds entirely at their discretion,” he says.

Not so, say local officials, fearing that the block grant system will favor states and cut localities out of the allocation process. “We are concerned that all this money would go directly to the states and that they would not share it accordingly with city and county governments,” says Robert Fogel, associate legislative director for the National Association of Counties.

Last year, the federal government provided $4.5 billion for local mass transit and $1.5 billion for local airport improvements. It also divided $17.2 billion between state and local governments for highway projects. While the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ leadership says it will have a tough time prevailing on lawmakers to maintain cities’ transportation funds, other local government groups are concerned about the drain of “priority” projects on a unified account.

For example, highway and mass transit are funded separately from aviation projects, and folding them into a single account raises concerns about commingled funds and the likelihood that some projects will be shortchanged. “Buses and subways would likely be the first projects cut, which hurts those citizens least able to afford it because their fares would have to go up,” says Cara Woodson, legislative counsel for the National League of Cities.

The president’s proposals are only a starting point and are certain to undergo changes as Congress finalizes the budget. Republicans have vowed to pare the bureaucracy, but the highway and aviation lobbies will likely limit sweeping changes.