And strictly speaking they weren't wrong, at least about being lucky in 1991. As ISTEA approached, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the earliest and most intelligent critics of the federal highway program, was in charge of the Senate's "highway" bill. Had it been someone else, ISTEA would never have happened.

But his position was not entirely a matter of luck. It was the fulfillment of a slow but steady journey that began the day he entered the Senate in 1977 and asked for a seat on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Some Committee assignments a matter of convenience; this one was a matter of passion.

As 1991 approached, Moynihan was clear on what he didn't want—another Interstate system and billions more spent to suck the life out of the cities—but was less clear on what should happen instead. The arrangement he and others arrived at—what I will call the "ISTEA system"—has four familiar hallmarks:

Although many factors made the success of TEA-21 possible, I am convinced that it was the basic common sense of this formula that allowed ISTEA to win another lease on life. Yes, without the hard work of many members of Congress and their staffs, the efforts of people all over the country to show that ISTEA was working, and the support of the President and his team, TEA-21 probably would have been a failure. But many good ideas have had all these advantages and gone nowhere.

Now the legislative fight is over and the work on the ground begins. But before we start, let's take a moment to look past the horizon to the year 2003 when TEA-21 will expire. When that day comes, will the ISTEA system still be relevant? Or will the world just be too different than it was in 1991?

When that day comes, I hope it will be time for a change. I hope we'll actually have learned something from ISTEA. Its flexibility gives us a chance to see what works and what doesn't; different communities are going down different paths, and maybe, just maybe, the knowledge this produces can be put to use. My fondest hope for ISTEA will come true if the experiments it creates teach us that highways aren't the only way. That it's better to live where you need only two cars instead of three, or one instead of two, or even none at all. That places where people can walk to school, bike to the store, or ride the train to work are worth having, and worth making. That having a choice is better than not having a choice.

For the last 8 years, STPP has been an expert voice for those trying to change the system, and enormous progress has resulted. But as the world changes, so must we. Starting now, STPP will focus less on being the reform-minded experts in Washington and more on changing the way Americans think about transportation. We’ve worked hard to become experts, but changing transportation in this country is too important to leave to the experts. For our efforts to result in real, lasting change, ordinary people will have to begin wanting something different—a process that has already begun—and ask their leaders to make it happen.

To make this happen, we’ll need to work together and learn some new skills. Since ISTEA was born, many people who previously knew nothing about transportation have learned a great deal. Now, just as we're mastering the jargon, it's time to stop using it. If we want to lead people to think about transportation in a new way, we can't expect them to speak our language. We have to speak theirs. If we do, we can start a national conversation about choice, about safety, about healthy places to live, about saving money, and about having more time for family and friends. If we do this, we can make America a better place to live.

I look forward to the journey.

Roy Kienitz
Washington, DC
August 1998

First Section

Back to the Table of Contents