Advocate Summary

Issue:  Smart Growth and Transportation Reauthorization
Advocate:  National Trust for Historic Preservation - Daniel Costello
Date of Interview: 8/7/02

Basic Background
You can think in three levels of transportation issues. There is a class of narrow historic preservation-specific issues for us - the transportation enhancements program, the historic bridges program, context sensitive design and planning, historic main streets. Putting mobility on par with look, feel, community continues to be the struggle, because it really affects historic stuff everywhere you go. The second set of issues is the historic preservation smart growth issues. Are there things that we can do with re-authorization in the relationship between transportation and land use planning, can we get a better shake for transit, can we improve the flow of funds into local government control, people call this sub-allocation most of the time. Most of the time the decision making is done by the state agencies, sometimes MPOs are there sometimes their not, sometimes they are very effective and play a great role in determining what is going to be done, sometimes they don’t. There have been numbers out there that show rural areas and suburban areas have traditionally gobbled up most of the funds that state agencies have available for transportation. And there is a continuing need for cities, city transportation issues are different from countryside transportation issue and suburban too, to get the funds into the cities so they can meet their own needs, which should have a beneficial impact on transit too, if we can do it. And there are other smart growth issues too in the design area. The third category of issues, is the larger transportation reform issues, the Surface Transportation Policy Project – STPP. You clearly have to talk to them, with Kevin McCarty, the federal affairs guy there. The STPP has been a loose coalition of transportation-reform minded groups, it just celebrated ten years of its existence last December. It has exercised leadership for all of us who are interested in broad transportation reform and will do so again for reauthorization, and that’s where we get into the environmental issues, how transportation supports clean air goals, smart growth goals, and wise land use and protection of resources. We the Trust, have a push for the environmental thing through historic structures, historic places, because we get equal billing in the statues with the natural environment. So those are the three tiers. 

Prior Activity on the Issue 
[Worked on TEA 21, the previous transportation reauthorization]

Advocacy Activities Undertaken
STPP, all of us are working on our issues’ what are we going to ask for, what’s the climate like up there, is the climate going to change as a result of the midterm election in November? The House and Senate are very closely divided politically a couple seats here, a couple there and there’s a change. I don’t expect that the big issues are going to be packaged into a reauthorization plan until early next year. The Trust is currently participating with a number of other groups in helping STPP shape the plan. 

Future Advocacy Activities Planned
I have to be ready before the end of the year with the list of things, the very specific things, that we want to ask for, that would fit nicely into the larger STPP package. We have an advocacy network at the Trust that works on a whole variety of legislative issues that we are involved in. The network includes state historic preservation offices which are state government agencies, organizations that we call statewide not-for-profit preservation groups many of which we helped to form and grow, local preservation groups, cities, small towns, virtually any city of any size has a private not-for-profit preservation organization, the people who work in historic district commissions, preservation planners who work for state and local governments and then a large group of individuals that belong to the National Trust and also these local groups.  I’ve been concentrating on transportation and so I’ve not injected transportation issues into the advocacy network in a sustained way for a long time. We’ve had some things pop up and used the network to help up out, but to make that work effectively you have to feed it and care for it carefully and lovingly, and that network has to get started soon, it is key. People have to know what we are asking for, know what our arguments are and we have to help them translate those arguments into the little bites that you have to serve up to members of Congress when you lobby them. And there are the two levels, there are the committee members and then there is the membership at large, and the approaches to those two groups are different.

So at the committees, and I did this six years ago but the committees have changed a lot, but we will look at both sides of the aisle and find people in the first two categories and we will do visits and establish relationships here directly with staffs of members on the Hill and we will look for the preservationists at the state and local level who are willing to do advocacy and will take on the task of attaching themselves to these identified members. Make sure that they get to understand and appreciate the value of the preservation argument in transportation reform. And to a certain extent that is an ongoing thing, because we are advocating a number of things, and it gets to be reauthorization and we try to get to the front of the pack in terms of our issues, so the same person that approaches a member on some other issues are the same ones that will go again and say I hope you can help us out on this TEA 21 reauthorization. Some cases we may not have the automatic linkup between advocates and members through other issues so we’ll have to do some work on that, it is sort of prospecting. I did it last time, we’d find some districts that are doing a good job on historic preservation or where there are some really good main street programs or where there has been an impactive preservation presence over time in places like Chicago, or St. Louis, and we recruit them to work for us on these issues. Tell them what to say, hold their hands, answer their questions, encourage them, tell them the different things they can do at home. I’ve been in this business for a very long time on both sides and I’m a very big enthusiast for grassroots lobbying. If you don’t have a lot of money and you don’t give away a lot of money to members of Congress, it is hard to get the kind of access you should have in Washington, face to face access to senior members, because there are huge demands on their time and they give first preference almost always to; one, people that have a big presence in their districts – big manufacturers, or two, the people who support the financially and politically. Preservationists are not known as being hugely active in politics, some of them contribute to candidates and we look for them but the appeal has to come on an intellectual and emotional level, so we look for those people that can perform that service back home and that sort of sets the stage for our work here in Washington – I know person X has spoken to your boss back home, and these are the issues. In this case the entrée comes from the work that’s done by the lobbyists and advocates at home. 

Key Congressional Contact(s)/Champions
[Not quite decided yet, there are possibilities, see below – traditional supporters of preservation]

Targets of Direct Lobbying
I’d have to break that down into the two levels, macro and micro for preservation. Preservation issues in general enjoy widespread support among members of Congress. But it is general support and it tends to be abstract, it’s “oh yeah I’m a preservationist and I support preservation,” as opposed to seeing the value of historic preservation in the transportation act or appreciating how federal bridge policy effects whether you keep or lose historic bridges, or whether transportation projects are going to make main streets flourish or whether it’s going to kill them, what’s the effect on large residential districts in big cities, what’s the effect on the downtown core of cities where you often have the most dramatic historic structures, where the landmarks are, the buildings you most identify with a particular place. It is our job in advocacy to make these specific issues come to life for men and women in Congress who are preservationists, but we have to expand their thinking about the relationship between preservation and transportation. To have them come into the transportation debate with preservation issues in mind, not just what they’re hearing from the road gang – we need more roads, we have to build more capacity, we have to build our way out of congestion, that sort of thing. On the Senate side John Warner of Virginia has been extremely helpful over a long period of time, not particularly considered a great reformer but he’s a powerful member of the committee and an ardent preservationist. And he hears us, we don’t have to talk a long time to him and his staff to make the preservation connection, he gets it, he got it before we got it. Senator Jeffords of Vermont is an ardent preservation, because it is so important to the state of Vermont, Mrs. Clinton is great on preservation, she’s on the committee. You have to see if you’ll have to go to the entire body or if you can accomplish your goals by just going tot the committee. Senator Graham from Florida is good. 

Targets of Grassroots Lobbying
[None mentioned specifically but the Trust does plan to use its grassroots network]

Coalition Partners: Names/Participants
It depends on who will be participating with STPP. We want to work closely with the local government groups, they tend to be active partners in the STPP structure, cities, counties, the transit advocates are usual suspects in the STPP broad coalition, the environmentalists obviously. There is an emerging group in transportation under the rubric of the social justice organizations and their voice is increasingly being heard, and their issues range from the impact of transportation on affordable housing opportunities to this whole huge thing about how low and moderate income people, poor people, coming into the workplace get to work. They argue very effectively for people who don’t drive, or can’t drive, or don’t have a car or can’t afford a car. They were in this thing six years ago but they’ve come a long way in six years. I think this big broad social justice community neighborhood concern thing is probably the sleeper emerging for reauthorization and we want to work with them. Because historic preservation issues are tied with them. In most cities, the single largest potential stock for affordable housing are residences in older historic neighborhoods, many of which are continuing to degenerate, not revitalize. STPP has a thing called the Alliance for the New Transportation Charter, ANTC. In addition to Kevin McCarty at STPP, there is a woman by the name of Nancy Jackowitsch, she’s a great human being a real smart she could help you are real lot. And then the churches are in this, the affordable housing groups, the people who work with welfare people getting into employment, there’s a bunch of them, they’re different and thing they are going to have to be taken seriously. 

Other Participants in the Issue Debate
None mentioned.

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence
I don’t know how sophisticated the argument gets much beyond the fundamental recognition that the landscape or streetscape through which the road passes has to be treated with equal consideration, which is the heart of context sensitive design. That’s the central thing, and how quickly that thinking gets adopted by state DoTs is the goal. And we’re not sure how much progress we’re going to make through legislation to the federal statutes. I think with all of these things, because of the peculiar relationship that exists between the federal and state agencies, I think the key is to find some ways to more quickly and more effectively transform into practice at the state level. That’s where the action is, that’s where the decisions are made and that’s where the sins are being committed. 

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence
We will argue both directly and through the network, that historic preservation has a very important place in transportation reform, primarily because of the extensive damage that has been done to individual structures and historic places over a long period of time because of transportation decisions. Historically around here we say that transportation has caused the demise of historic resources more than any other federal program with the possible exception maybe of the urban development programs. And it is clear to us that the excesses of the interstate system in the late 50s and 60s was an enormous catalyst for the introduction of procedural and substantive protection of historic resources. And that’s where we get into this environmental review, environmental streamlining which is going to be one of the big aspects of TEA 21 reauthorization. We have standing in the transportation debate because of the losses and because of our need to find ways to protect and enhance historic resources as the transportation system has evolved and expanded and improved. The fight to protect historic resources won’t be over until we stop building roads or railroads. 

Targeted Arguments, Targets, and Evidence
We will, we will target things locally.

Nature of the Opposition
We don’t have a body of anti-preservation people in Congress. So there isn’t anybody out there, because of the nature of our issues, that is ready to tear down landmarks or jeopardize or isolate them. So we’re dealing with levels of awareness of the preservation issue here. Some members already have it, some who by virtue of their relationships with state and local preservationists, will get it easily if the message is delivered properly, and then there are some that have no relationship with preservationists at home, no particular level of affiliation or personal interest in preservation and the body of members of Congress who for a long period of time have listened to and agreed with the arguments of the road gang and would view our arguments, especially when we are in opposition in regards to specifics with the road gang, would look at our arguments as being sort of retrograde – you know we’re against progress, we’re against solutions to congestion, we’re standing in the way of progress. So you don’t need everybody in this business but you need a nice working majority.  

We are beginning to see and maybe we should have detected this long ago, that there are substantial difference in what we group as the road gang. And so they are not this huge lockstep no-cracks phalanx. So on some issues we have friends in the road gang and on some other issues we are at loggerheads, we want one thing, they want another, we’re in conflict. There is an interest on our part in how we develop better relationships with parts of the road gang, finding the folks we can work with and make some progress, and doing that without having to change your stripes and what you care about in transportation policy. 

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition 
The road gang believes that the answer to all of America’s needs is more roads; the railroads are rundown so freight has to be moved on the highways, transit just doesn’t cut it so nice as it is it just doesn’t move enough people efficiently. There answer primarily, because they build roads, is roads. Now that is changing, transit is rising up as an effective means of easing congestion in places where it works, where there is enough density. Increasingly state transportation agencies are understanding their relationship to the natural and built environment and the fact that they have some stewardship obligations to the environments – built and natural – as they do their job. That makes for a new attitude, that gives you somebody to talk to about environmental issues. The consulting engineers are more open to discussion then the asphalt guys and concrete guys. The American Automobile Association, which is an active member of the road gang increasingly has to take into account the views of its members who also drive for recreation and so filling up the roads with trucks is not good for people who like to travel on vacation so they begin to see some pressures and different points of view among their members. The road gang and the folks who promote highways first are not a monolith, but they honestly and actively believe that the only way out of this is more road capacity, and we don’t believe that, and people just don’t believe that anymore. This idea that you build it and it fills up is increasingly demonstrated by science.  

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition
None mentioned.

Targeted Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition (and Targets)
None mentioned.

Described as a Partisan Issue
No.

Venue(s) of Activity
House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Action Pending or Taken by Relevant Decision Makers
Transportation reauthorization will get underway 2003-2003

Policy Objective(s) and Support for/Opposition to the Status Quo
Working to protect the built and natural environment within transportation reauthorization.

Advocate’s Experience: Tenure in Current Job/Previous Experience
I’ve been here six or seven years. I retired from Capitol Hill in ’95, I spent 28 years in the House, and 8 years in the private sector, I worked for the Chamber of Commerce for 5 or 6 years as their director of lobbying and grassroots. Here I just do a variety of legislative work but for the past couple of years I’ve focused more and more on transportation. 

Reliance on Research: In-House/External (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
In the Trust we don’t do a lot of that kind of research to support our legislative arguments in transportation. There is a body of research that has been done on historic preservation, for example in the area of the economic benefits of historic preservation, Rutgers in particular has a specialty in that field, and we may well have paid for some of that economics research over time, that research underpins our arguments about the role historic preservation plays in community revitalization and how transportation has to serve community revitalization and not the other way around, transportation has to become a servant of these larger community needs and historic preservation is another servant of revitalization. The National Main Street Project which is housed here, and as Main Street does continuing economic research on how the Main Street Program helps vitalize commercial main street districts, the impact of that is completely documented by numbers that the Main Street Program does itself. I can take those numbers and support the argument that transportation decisions have to take the main street experience into account when it is designing a road improvement, because the main street directly contributes to the economic health of the town and the area. And that is not a difficult argument to make, if you had a main street where the state over time put the mobility needs over the merchant main street needs – the road’s gotten wider, tougher for pedestrians to cross, no place to park – all of that stuff gets piled on to the point where the main street dies and the mall at the edge of town takes over. It’s not a hard argument to make because members of Congress travel so much in their districts, that they know what these places are like, they are used to talking to the main street program people, all you have to do is make that local transportation connection and you’ve got what you want. And then I do some research I don’t know if it passes for research, but I need to evaluate how states make use of their transportation enhancement programs, I look at the data and see what they are doing. On bridges, some bridge research would be great, we are making bridge arguments on the seat of our pants, states do some documentation but it would be good to get the federal government, we’ve just been extrapolating from the data that just some of the states have done, but to say, 10 years ago there were this many historic bridges across the country and now today there are only this many, that would be huge. 

Number of Individuals Involved in Advocacy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
One to two.

Units in Organization Involved in Public Affairs/Policy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
I guess we have about one an a half people to do advocacy, and then we have policy people that are not lobbyists. And then we have the network which is state and local. We have 6 regional offices that essentially do casework, saving historical structures, then there is a public policy component, that’s our muscle in-house. We are an organizations of small departments; we have a state and local department, a law department we can coordinate with when we need to, a communications department, a membership department - and they are in charge of activating the network, the network is quite small compared to the full membership. And you know you have to lobby the other parts of the organization, there are a lot of issues you have to do stuff that excites the membership and the trustees and advisers. 
 
Advocate’s Outstanding Skills/Assets (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
None mentioned.

Type of Membership: None, Institutions, Individuals, Both (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
Institutions and Individuals

Membership Size (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Organizational Age (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Miscellaneous