[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 148 (Thursday, September 21, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      GOOD TRANSPORTATION CHOICES

                                 ______


                            HON. BOB FILNER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 21, 1995

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, Americans need good transportation choices. 
We in Congress need to help empower people to make transportation 
choices that work for commuters, for businesses, for senior citizens, 
and young people alike. Toward that end, I want my colleagues to see an 
article that appeared in the New York Times business section, Sunday, 
August 20, reflecting the broad base of support for the transportation 
policies we passed in ISTEA. This article was cowritten by Gerald 
Bartels, the president of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, and Jeff 
Blum, transportation policy director of the consumer group Citizen 
Action.

                 More Highways Alone Won't Ease Traffic

                  (By Gerald L. Bartels and Jeff Blum)

       Across America, we are building more highways to relieve 
     traffic congestion in metropolitan areas, but it doesn't 
     work. Our roads are simply too crowded--and building more 
     means intolerable costs and environmental problems, while the 
     congestion reappears in a few short years. As we enter the 
     21st century, public transportation is the only cost-
     effective way that growing communities can ensure mobility 
     for their citizens.
       The most cost-effective transportation budget is, 
     therefore, one that balances investments in roads, trains, 
     and buses. Four years ago, Congress and President George Bush 
     developed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act in an attempt to reduce traffic congestion and air 
     pollution by investing in both public transportation and 
     highway construction.
       But the budget versions adopted now by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives and Senate have unwisely abandoned that 
     balanced approach.
       For Fiscal Year 1996, Congress has proposed to slash funds 
     for public transportation and Amtrak while substantially 
     increasing highway subsidies. 89% of the proposed House cuts 
     in transportation assistance would come out of public transit 
     and Amtrak, though they constitute 15% of the Federal 
     transportation budget.
       Meanwhile, highway subsidies--52% of the transportation 
     budget--would rise by more than a half billion dollars. The 
     Senate plan, while reducing highway funding by 3.7%, cuts 
     mass transit funding by three times as much.
       In the Atlanta area, events at the Georgia Dome and 
     Atlanta/Fulton County Stadium, as well as next year's 
     Olympics, depend on the transit system, MARTA. And the 
     growing Perimeter Center commercial district on the edge of 
     town will thrive only with the expansion of public transit, 
     as well as carpooling and pedestrian walkways.
       America needs efficient buses, subways and intercity trains 
     to keep traffic moving quickly, to keep our air clean and to 
     get people to their jobs. Americans need efficient transit to 
     encourage compact community development that preserves open 
     space and uses infrastructure wisely so that metropolitan 
     areas can sustain growth for generations to come.
       America needs convenient, affordable transit to allow 
     people leaving welfare to get to jobs. America also needs a 
     healthy balance between local needs and federal resources. 
     Congress should, therefore, promote a balanced transportation 
     policy that:
       Offers equal Federal matching dollars for public 
     transportation and highways alike: Why skew our building 
     projects toward more highways, if what communities really 
     need is more public transit? Local elected officials should 
     set the priorities and make the allocations of transportation 
     dollars.
       Continues to assist local transit systems through the 
     transit operating assistance program: Many communities, 
     especially smaller ones, depend on federal aid to keep buses 
     and subways running. The Mobile, Ala., bus system has shut 
     down in anticipation of unbridgeable cuts in Federal 
     assistance. And as many as 60 other systems may follow suit.
       Maintains the strong Federal interest in transit capital 
     and technological-innovation programs: With little room to 
     expand our packed metropolitan-area highways, the nation must 
     expand public transit. Federal help should be available to 
     regions that cannot afford such a major investment--just as 
     large infusions of Federal capital helped build our world-
     renowned highway system. At the same time, the Government 
     must continue to support the development of innovation like 
     high-speed intercity rail; low-weight, low-pollution buses; 
     up-to-the-minute schedule information accessible from 
     peoples' homes, and technology that allows buses to pass 
     through traffic signals ahead of cars.
       Preserves a strong national passenger railroad: In many 
     congested regions, intercity rail is by far the most cost-
     effective way to travel. Amtrak passenger miles rose 48% 
     between 1982 and 1993. Ridership rose 87% on Northeast 
     Corridor Metroliners, 49% between San Diego and Los Angeles, 
     and 10% between St. Louis and Chicago.
       Yes, Congress and the President must be hardheaded when it 
     comes to spending our dollars. But when we reduce the budget, 
     let's give public transportation a fighting chance.

                          ____________________