Fighting the Good Fight: An Update on Transportation Reauthorization
By Rhonda Sincavage | From Forum Bulletin | May 3, 2012 |
“Unpredictable” might be the best way to describe work on transportation reauthorization over the last several months. The process thus far has all the makings of a TV reality series, and unfortunately the drama is all too true.
The transportation bill is reauthorized every six years (or so) and contains a number of items of interest for historic preservation. Two in particular are Transportation Enhancements (TE) and Section 4(f).
Transportation Enhancements (TE), which was established more than 20 years ago, funds community-based projects that enhance the transportation experience by improving the cultural, historic, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of our transportation infrastructure. Half of the 12 eligible program categories are related to historic preservation, and TE is the largest source of federal funding for historic preservation.
As far as protections, Section 4(f) is the strongest federal preservation law on the books and states that transportation projects must avoid historic sites unless there is "no feasible and prudent alternative" and requires "all possible planning to minimize harm" to historic places.
Given the largest source of federal funding and the strongest federal preservation law are involved, we have a lot at stake in this process. The current transportation policy, SAFETEA-LU actually expired in fall 2009. Since then, Congress has enacted a series of short-term extensions since there were big political hurdles to address in any upcoming reauthorization.
Action on reauthorization began to pick up several months ago, and has been a whirlwind of activity ever since. It is no exaggeration to say that the status of the legislation changes daily, and preservationists have been right there rolling with the changes, from 18-hour markups that last until the middle of the night to Sunday morning conference calls tweaking amendment language.
Along the way we’ve had small victories. During House committee mark-up, Representative Carnahan (D-MO) raised preservation concerns in the draft bill that allowed us to work with congressional staff on suggested changes to harmful provisions, ultimately leading to resolution on a potential categorical exclusion of railroad-related resources from preservation review. In the Senate, preservation advocates were instrumental in helping to support the Cardin/Cochran amendment which provided more favorable language to a threatened TE program. Our success is due in large part to joining forces with others including Preservation Action and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, preservation advocacy networks, and allied national groups who all care deeply about these issues.
Unfortunately, the drama isn’t over and we are faced with new challenges at each step. Last week, the House passed another extension, but instead of being a “clean” measure, the bill contained amendments with harmful environmental “streamlining” language that has direct and dire consequences for preservation review, such as a provision that would allow Section 106 outcomes to satisfy Section 4(f).
Preservationists should brace themselves for a full fledged effort to retain preservation protections as the House and Senate move forward in conference committee. In keeping with the “unpredictable” trend, we are unsure of timing and details, only that this will be the most important challenge we face in the near future.
Rhonda Sincavage is the associate director for Intergovernmental Affairs for the National Trust.
