Rural roads and bridges, 1994-2000: How did the south fare?

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Aug 2003 by Stommes, Eileen S

In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) changed the federal-state transportation relationship by devolving decision making to the states. In turn, states were required to work with local officials on transportation improvements. ISTEA was authorized for 1992-1997, and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century continued ISTEA policies through 2003. Changes in road and bridge conditions in the rural south are examined under these new transportation policies. Federal funding trends are detailed with state funding. Overall condition of roads and bridges eligible for federal funding improved, traffic increased on all roads, but condition disparities between local roads and federally funded roads grew.

Key Words: southern road and bridge condition, southern road and bridge financing, southern rural bridges, southern rural roads

On December 18, 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) was signed into law, inaugurating a major shift in policies and programs that had guided the U.S. surface transportation system since the 1956 Interstate Highway Act. In 1998, the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was signed, continuing the policies of ISTEA and the shift in emphasis toward an intermodal, seamless transportation system. Because rural America relies on transportation to access goods and services in the larger economy, changes in transportation policy affect the ability of rural areas to link with opportunities available outside the local community.

This paper examines the effect of ISTEA and TEA-21 on the physical condition of rural roads and bridges in the southern states. It begins with a brief background on ISTEA and TEA-21, particularly as they affected rural areas. It then describes the effect of the legislation on southern road and bridge conditions from 1994 to 2000. It concludes with an overview of the effect of the program and discusses rural infrastructure research issues.1

Highlights of ISTEA and TEA-21 for Rural Areas

ISTEA clearly articulated its statement of policy: "to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the Nation to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner" (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT] 1992). ISTEA was designed to be comprehensive, laying out a broad range of new economic, environmental, and intermodal objectives. The objective was the development of an integrated, systemic approach to transportation that considered its role and function within the larger society, including its effect on the environment, the local economy, and passenger and freight mobility. ISTEA authorized funding for the 6-year period from fiscal years 1992 through 1997. TEA-21, which maintained many of the policies and programs of ISTEA, authorized funding for fiscal years 1998 through 2003.

ISTEA and TEA-21 in Rural America

Several key rural issues flowed from ISTEA and TEA-21. Both legislative initiatives differed from earlier transportation legislation in several critical ways: in their approaches to policy as well as their program delivery mechanisms. These differences characterized delivery of transportation programs to the states and their respective rural areas. New organizational relationships were mandated, new planning requirements were instituted, and new funding formulas were created, all affecting delivery of federal transportation resources to rural areas.

First, the legislation devolved substantial responsibility to the states for all federally funded transportation programs. In lieu of federally controlled programs, USDOT set general parameters and required States to report program progress using specific indicators. States had considerable discretion to tailor program delivery and funding according to state needs. This program environment gave rural areas the potential opportunity to affect both the level of funding and the type of transportation project delivered to their communities. The intent was that rural areas would work directly with state transportation officials on transportation matters affecting their communities.

Second, the legislation specified that local officials were to be involved in the planning process. They were to be consulted in developing the statewide transportation improvement plan and in selecting projects for funding within their region. Local involvement in transportation planning was a radically different approach to the traditional planning paradigm that involved planners and engineers presenting a final plan to local officials for their approval (USDOT 1997a). Furthermore, the planning activity was no longer strictly confined to transportation alone. It now encompassed environmental concerns, enhancement of community transportation infrastructure, transit, economic effects on the community, and the role of transportation in improving community livability.