By now, most know where the presidential candidates stand on major issues like Iraq, the economy, and health care. But what are their positions on rarely discussed topics like transportation and smart growth? Finding presidential platforms on these topics is not easy. As a recent Boston Globe column stated, "The federal government spends tens of billions of dollars on housing and transportation, but voters would never knew that from the dearth of attention these issues have received in the presidential campaign." In response, MTR provides a brief overview of what the candidates’ transportation policy records.

President George W. Bush has presided over gridlock regarding the federal government’s main role in transportation — providing money. The fault lies in part with the Republican leaders of Congress, but the president has been more obstacle than leader in the effort to negotiate a new six year transportation spending bill (known generically by some as the TEA-3 process).

Bush emphasizes economic growth as a hallmark issue, yet since the 1998 federal transportation law expired in August 2003, he has not worked to provide states with money to support the basic infrastructure upon which growth depends. In fact, he has chosen transportation as the sole ground on which to prove fiscal integrity. Bush has said: "We must fund our priorities of winning the war on terror, defending the homeland, and creating jobs — and we must hold the line on spending in other areas…[we] will recommend a veto of any highway bill that includes excessive spending." The release singled out the Senate’s TEA-3 bill as profligate.

Indeed, Bush’s omnibus surface transportation spending proposal has come in for criticism as inadequate in scale. The Bush bill is for $256 billion over six years, versus $275 billion offered by the House (though the House’s opening gambit was for $375 billion) and $318 billion by the Senate. Transportation reformers have opposed Bush’s funding ratio for "New Starts," a program that has supported many of the country’s recent rail expansion projects. Bush proposes that the maximum federal share of such projects be reduced from 80% to 50%. Yet the 80% federal share for highway funding would remain in place (House and Senate versions maintain the 80% share). The Sierra Club has said the Bush proposal would increase competition among rail projects, stop some from being built and promote highways. In a recent report, the group said: "Unfortunately, the Bush administration proposal maintains a severe imbalance between overall road and transit funding where roads receive $4 for every $1 spent on public transit." Paul Weyrich, a conservative commentator, recently called the Bush presidency "the most anti-rail administration" in history. Bush has also been chided by environmentalists community for attempting to "streamline" environmental review of large scale transportation projects via the TEA-3 legislative process.

Yet transportation reformers have endorsed certain aspects of Bush’s bill, including its interest in funding bus rapid transit projects and relaxing restrictions on new tolls on interstate highways.

Bush’s term of office has been a nightmare period for Amtrak. Bush has recommended annual Amtrak budgets that would, if enacted, have to shut the railroad down. Amtrak was spotlighted on a White House Office of Management and Budget website feature called "The Wastebasket" — dedicated to "finding and fixing wasteful programs."

Senator John Kerry has a record of supporting rail service, and reducing sprawl is part of his environmental platform. In a recent AAA interview, Kerry said the federal government could help states and cities "promote smart growth in the urban and suburban areas that account for most of the congestion." Kerry has said "we must leverage a new urban strategy to build community and revive the urban center as one of the best places to live and raise a family" and has a promised more money for affordable housing programs.

Kerry often discusses rail service and smart growth in his environmental statements and his agenda for reducing oil dependence. For example, he has said "high-speed rail and 21st century transit" will save oil and create jobs.

In 2003, he strongly criticized Bush’s plan to transfer Amtrak funding responsibility to the states.

When it comes to the reauthorization of a six year transportation bill, he strongly supports the Senate’s $318 billion bill. His running mate, Senator John Edwards, is on the US Senate Smart Growth Task Force. Some environmental groups have also cited Teresa Heinz Kerry’s efforts to redevelop Pittsburgh in their endorsements. 

MTR back issues:

Go to index of all Mobilizing the Region back issues.