Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

1

Urban Transportation Policies Evolution (1944 – Present)

Sanya Niumpradit
Ph.D. Student
Urban Transportation Center (MC 357)
University of Illinois at Chicago
412 S. Peoria St. Suite 340
Chicago, IL 60607
(Telephone) 312-996-4820
(Fax) 312-413-0006
(E-mail) sniump1@uic.edu

Abstract

The evolution of transportation policy has been marked by periods of continuity and change. In some
periods, some certain transportation policies emerged at the top of the agenda. At other times, they were
eclipsed by other needs, but still floated around and waited to be put on the agenda again.

In addition to competing with other public needs, there has been tension between different aspects of
transportation policy. The competition between policy aspects has resulted in constant changes in the
policy area. While there was some agreement during the periods when transportation policy remained
constant, there were also some disagreements emerging from time to time whether some changes should
take place. This paper will discuss how different transportation policies emerged, how they evolved, and
how they changed overtime.

There are two kinds of agendas discussed in the paper: a government agenda and a decision agenda. The
factors that contribute to an agenda setting are described. All these factors will explain how and why an
agenda is set in the way it is.

The discussion of transportation policies will focus on two broad and competing policies. One of them
aims to address the supply side of transportation problems. It is called a supply management policy.
Another policy is the policy, which focuses on addressing the demand side of the problems. It is also
referred to a demand management policy.

To analyze the agenda setting for transportation policy and its evolution, this paper will present a
framework which categorizes transportation evolution into three stages (between 1944 and present): an
initial condition, a period of disturbances, and a period after disturbances. This paper will describe the
change of transportation policy in each stage including why one policy emerges when another does not.

Introduction

Problems relating to transportation problem are complex and controversial. In general, there are two kinds
of problems related to transportation systems: those that affect the transportation system and those that are
affected by the transportation system. Rapid growth of population and people’s desire for low-density
neighborhoods are examples of problems affecting the transportation system. On the other hand, air
pollution and traffic congestion are problems produced by the transportation system. In addition to their
complexity, transportation problems are quite controversial. Many causes contributing to the problems lead
to many ideas and solutions that can be used to solve them. As a result, those advocating different ideas
compete with each other to bring their solution to practice.
2

As transportation problems are so complex and controversial, policies which aim to address them tend to be
complex and controversial ones. This paper will describe the evolution of transportation policy. It will
discuss concepts which are important to understand the policy evolution. Those are the emergence of
transportation policy onto the political agenda, the change in agenda-setting, and the stability of policy.

The main focus of this paper is on two groups of policies: policies related to supply side of transportation
problem, which will be called a supply management policy (or supply policy), and policies related to the
demand side, which will be called a demand management policy (or demand policy). Examples of
highway policy and transit policy will be used to represent a supply policy and a demand policy
respectively.

Chronologically, this paper examines three stages. The first stage addresses the initial conditions. The
discussion of the initial condition will start from 1944. Period of disturbances will be the second stage.
The third stage will focus on the period after disturbances.

The Agenda Explained:

Agenda Definitions

Kingdon (1995, p. 3) defines an “agenda” as the list of subjects or problems to which government officials,
and people outside of government closely associated with those officials, are paying serious attention to at
any given time. According to this definition, when a certain transportation policy is given serious attention,
it is considered on the agenda.

Types of Agenda

According to Kingdon, there are two types of agenda: a government agenda and a decision agenda. A
government agenda is the list of subjects that are getting the attention (Kingdon, 1995, p. 4). A decision
agenda is the lists of subjects within the “government agenda” that are up for an active decision (Kingdon,
1995, p. 4).

Three factors affect government agenda setting: problems, politics, and visible participants (Kingdon, 1995,
p. 197). These three factors do not need to be joined together to be able to set a government agenda. Any
of the three factors is enough to push an issue onto the government agenda. For example, a congestion
problem alone is enough to get attention from government. If traffic congestion is severe, government will
tend to pay attention and bring this problem onto the government agenda.

Occasionally, visible participants such as elected officials set a transportation issue onto an agenda, even
though a transportation problem does not currently exist. For example, during the Great Depression,
President Franklin D. Roosevelt set highway construction on the agenda principally to expedite economic
growth. According to Smerk (1965, p 124), “ increased federal aid to urban highways became available
during the dark days of the depression. It was one of the radical schemes born of the desperate national
plight. When Franklin D. Roosevelt began the vast New Deal program to relieve unemployment, highway
construction was among the first items on the list.”

The government agenda is the list of issues to which government is paying attention. It does not include
issues involved in an authoritative decision. In order to be implemented, the government agenda has to be
transformed into a decision agenda. Kingdon (1995, p. 202) states that the complete joining of problems,
policies, and politics, which are relatively independent streams, dramatically increases the odds that a
subject will become firmly fixed on a decision agenda.
3

Stage One: Initial Conditions

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944

A number of government policies have been adopted to provide mobility for people. However, these
policies were mixed among many transportation modes such as buses, rails, and automobiles. It was not
until 1944 that a highway-only policy was initiated (Smerk, 1965), when President Franklin D., Roosevelt
signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944.

Agenda Setting

How did the highway-only policy emerge onto the government agenda? As already mentioned, three
factors - problems, politics, and visible participants- play a major role in government agenda-setting. In
case of the supply policy (such as a highway policy), it was brought to the agenda solely by President
Franklin D. Roosevelt, who could be defined as a visible participant. This policy originated from the idea
that highway construction would create jobs and stimulates the U.S. economy.

According to Kingdon, there are three streams that play a vital role in decision agenda-setting: a problem
stream, a political stream, and a policy stream. A problem stream is an event or a condition which is
considered a problem and needs to be solved. A political stream is a political event that has a powerful
effect on agenda-setting. Such events include change in political administration. National mood or the
climate of public opinion is considered a political stream (Kingdon, 1995). Finally, a policy stream is the
process conducted by public agencies to analyze a problem and produce solutions in the form of policy.

According to Kingdon (1995, p. 202), the joining of a problem stream, a political stream, and a policy
stream contributes to the issue being fixed on the decision agenda. The problem stream was clear in 1944:
the nation had experienced an economic depression. Resolution of this problem demanded solutions. The
political stream was composed of the national mood or a public opinion (Kingdon, 1995, p. 145-146).
Since people were unemployed and poor, they wanted some kind of government programs that would
generate jobs and personal income. The national mood was in favor of a program that would lead to
economic recovery. Finally, the Bureau of Public Road (BPR), which was the pro-highway public agency
and considered a policy stream, proposed a solution to the problem: highway construction. In this case, a
solution came to be coupled with the problem joining the three streams together, the highway construction
policy emerged on the decision agenda.

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956

The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944 was handicapped by a lack of money to support highway
construction. Excise taxes and toll were not popular, and the government opposed special bond issues and
increased debt. Therefore, highways construction in this period totaled less than 40,000 miles (Weiner,
1992, p. 4).

The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 signed by President Eisenhower launched the largest public works
program yet undertaken (Weiner, 1992, p. 4), the construction of the National System of Interstate and
Defense Highways. This program has been dramatically touted as the greatest program of public works
since the Great Wall of China (Smerk, 1965, p. 131). The following paragraphs will address how this
policy was brought to a political agenda.

Agenda Setting
After the war ended and the national economy recovered, new concerns about transportation problems
centered on traffic congestion, especially urban traffic congestion. Since traffic congestion was a public
concern, the U.S. government began to pay serious attention to this problem. Urban traffic congestion, a
part of the problem stream, had brought the Interstate Highway program onto the government agenda.
4

How did this policy emerge onto the decision agenda? The answer lies in the coupling of the three streams
(Kingdon, 1995).

The severity of traffic congestion confirmed the existence of a problem stream. The problem stream was
coupled with a policy stream, which suggested the solution that more roads had to be built. Since traffic
congestion was thought to be a problem of insufficient roads, adding more roads was believed to be the
solution.

Since monetary problems hampering in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944 were successfully solved,
building the interstate highways became a feasible solution. The monetary problems were solved by
creating a Highway Trust Fund. Since excise taxes and toll were undesirable and the government opposed
special bond issues and debt increase, highway construction had to rely on other sources. Consequently,
the Highway Trust Fund, which collected money from a gasoline tax, was established, becoming a primary
source of money used to build interstate highways. It was the first time that the tax income from motor
vehicles and highway expenditures had been linked. The Highway Trust Fund had made the highway
program self-financing.

The problem and the policy streams conformed to the political stream. The national mood shifted from
concerns of economy to those of mobility (efficiency of travel, travel time saving). People desired to drive
their automobiles and would not tolerate driving on the congested roads. They wanted the government to
build more roads. In addition, powerful interest groups such as oil industries, automobile industries, and
steel industries, also wanted the government to build more roads, so that they would benefit from increased
use of automobiles. The Eisenhower administration came into office in 1953 with particularly close ties to
the automobile and oil industries (Altshuler, 1979, p. 28). This can be considered as a policy window. An
open policy window is an opportunity for advocates to push their pet solutions or to push attention to their
special problem (Kingdon, 1995, p. 203). Kingdon (1995, p. 203) also states that windows can be opened
by events in either the problem or political streams. The oil and automobile industries had waited until the
window in the political stream opened (when Eisenhower came to office) so that they could push highway
policy on the agenda.

Period of Stability

The result of the joining of three streams was the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. This highway-only
policy stayed in power for about 20 years, a period of stability. Figure 1 illustrates the total number of
articles related to the supply policy and the demand policy listed in the transportation-related articles
catalogued by Transportation Library of Northwestern University, one of the largest transportation
information centers in the world. The supply policy is represented by articles related to highway, and the
demand policy is represented by articles related to transit.

Tracing transportation policy changes

Highway Policy Transit Policy

60
Number of articles per year

50

40

30

20

10

0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Years

Figure 1. Annual Numb er of Articles on the Highway and Transit Policy.


Source: Transportation Library of Northwestern University (TRANweb, 2000)
5

As can be seen, between the mid-1940s, when the first highway-only policy was initiated, and the mid-
1960s, there was no sign of any controversy about transportation policies. The condition of the
transportation policy was perfectly stable, and dominated by highway policy.

According to Baumgartner and Jones (1993, p. 15), stability may be maintained over long periods of time
by two major devices: the existing structure of political institutions and the definition of the issues
processed by those institutions. During the period of the mid-1940s and the mid-1960s, both federal
government and state government were proponents of highway construction. In addition, traffic congestion
was defined as a function of too little highway to meet demand. This problem definition, obviously,
supported the highway-only policy.

Understanding a period of stability

In order to understand the period of stability, this paper will introduce two characteristics that contribute to
stability. They are a policy monopoly, and a policy community.

Policy Monopoly
The highway policy had been in a period of stability for about 20 years as a result of a policy monopoly.
During that period, the image of highway policy was strong. People believed that highways would lead the
nation to economic prosperity, and that there should be more roads so that they could drive as long as they
wanted, and traffic congestion would disappear. In addition, all levels of political venues (federal, state,
and local) were proponents of the highway policy.

According to Baumgartner and Jones (1993, p. 6), a policy monopoly is a monopoly on political
understanding concerning the policy of interest, and an institutional arrangement that reinforces that
understanding. In the supply policy, idea of addressing transportation problem (which was traffic
congestion) was unified, that is, to build more roads. Almost everyone involved in policymaking, including
people who were suffering from traffic congestion, agreed that traffic congestion was the problem of
insufficient roads.

Moreover, the Bureau of Public Road (BPR) - which emerged as the only policymaking agency in the
federal level dealing with surface transportation, and its mission was to recommend highway projects to
solve transportation problems - was assigned to carry out the transportation policy. In addition, a series of
transportation laws advocating the supply policy had been enacted. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944
introduced a highway-only policy for the first time (Smerk, 1965). This act coupled with the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1956 (which started the interstate system) ensured highway policy domination and
stability. A policy monopoly was thus created. Those who had different ideas for solving traffic
congestion, were outsiders, and were viewed by insiders as not qualified to make decisions regarding
transportation policy.

Policy community

According to Marsh and Rhodes (1992(c) as quoted in Smith, 1995, p. 60), a number of important
characteristics of a policy community can be identified, such as limited number of participants, professional
interest, and common values among participants. Transportation policy during period of highway policy
can be considered as a policy community. There were a limited number of participants. The participants
involved in policy making were BPR engineers, representatives from oil and automobile industries, and
congressional committees. All participants shared the same value: to build as many roads as possible.

Policy communities have two internal structures: an institutional and an ideological structure (Smith, 1995,
p. 101). The institutional structure included the congressional transportation committee, the Bureau of
Public Road (BPR), and interest groups such as the oil and automobile industries. The ideological structure
6

is the dominant set of beliefs shared by members of the policy community (Smith, 1995, p. 101). The
belief shared by the transportation policy community was that building more roads was necessary.

As the supply policy was a policy community, there was a distinction of who was the member of the
community. The member of the community had to believe in the supply side solution of building more
roads.

The initial condition (stage one) can be called a period of stability. Transportation policy in this period was
exclusively a highway policy. The supply policy could dominate in this period because it had established a
policy monopoly and a policy community, which empowered policy entrepreneurs to manage their policy
without any interference from opponents.

Stage Two: Period of disturbances

Agenda Setting of a Demand Policy


As already mentioned, three factors affect government agenda-setting: problems, politics, and visible
participants (Kingdon, 1995, p. 197), and each factor can independently contribute to government agenda-
setting. The first demand-related policy was mass transit. The is sue of mass transit was brought to the
government agenda by the action of visible participants. The development of a mass transit agenda began
as a reaction of big-city mayors to the Transportation Act of 1958, in which railroad services could be
discontinued if they were losing money (Jones, 1979, p. 83). Although this reaction pushed transit issue
onto the government agenda, this agenda could not become a decision agenda due to some initial rebuffs
from the Eisenhower administration and Congress.

After repeated rejection from the government, the mass transit agenda emerged onto the decision agenda as
policy windows opened. Following the mid-1960s, traffic congestion was not the only concern of people.
Concerns over air pollution, energy problems, and equity problems became widespread. Solutions to these
problems could lie in the mass transit. In addition, the national mood had changed. While in the 1950s and
the early 1960s concerns centered on the national economy and traffic congestion, by the mid-1960s
people’s concerns include energy problem, civil rights, and the environment. Moreover, elections from
1960s onward brought new administrations to power and new partisan or ideological distributions to
Congress. The change of administrations from Eisenhower to Kennedy opened the policy window for mass
transit. As a solution came to be coupled with the problem, which joined to the political stream, the mass
transit policy emerged onto the decision agenda. Since 1961, big-city interests had been working with the
Kennedy and Johnson administrations and Congress to develop a transit program that would provide
federal capital grants. Success was achieved with the passage of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964 (Smerk, 1979, p. 84).

Punctuated Equilibrium

The emergence of the mass transit issue ended the period of stability for transportation policy. The policy
monopoly and the policy community of the highway-only policy had declined. The period of change or
disturbances, which was the period between the mid-1960s and the mid-1990s, is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1 illustrates the high attention on both highway policy and transit policy. Advocates of each policy
tried to support their ideas. This circumstance brought to an end of the period of stability. The end of the
period of highway policy stability came from two reasons: the collapse of the highway policy monopoly
and the change from policy community to policy network.
7

The collapse of the highway policy monopoly

According to Baumg artner and Jones (1993, p. 8), destruction of policy monopolies is almost always
associated with a change in intensities of interest. Public interest changes over time. After interest in
traffic congestion peaked, public opinion began to change in the 1960s (Black, 1995, p. 42). The
awareness of other transportation-related issues grew such as traffic safety, energy shortage, air pollution,
and equity. Moreover, the image of the highway policy transformed from positive to negative. The
perception grew that building more roads only increased the number of automobiles, which lead to energy
and air pollution problems.

In addition, monopolies are often broken up by the intrusion of power groups from other areas
(Baumgartner and Jones, 1993, p. 9). In the initial condition, most participants in transportation policy
making were engineers, employees of policy-making agencies such as BPR, or congressman. This
condition changed when people from other professions began participating in policy making. In the 1950s,
most participants in the transportation policymaking process were engineers. In the 1960s, however,
planners emerged as a new class of transportation authorities, becoming key participants in transportation
policy making. In addition, environmental experts, scientists, and economists have emerged as participants
in the transportation policy making. The collapse of the highway policy monopoly brought about the end
of stability period and introduced the period of disturbance.

The change from policy community to issue network

As already mentioned, the policy community has two types of internal structure: institutional and
ideological (Smith, 1995, p. 101). The institutional structure of the highway policy had changed. The
Bureau of Public Road (BPR) was no longer the only agency dealing with surface transportation. The new
Department of Transportation (DOT) was established in 1966 (U.S. DOT, 2000). The Department of
Transportation consists of the Office of the Secretary and eleven individual operating administrations
dealing with all types of transportation (the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Maritime
Administration etc.). The establishment of the DOT revealed that there are a number of institutions
participating in the transportation policy.

The change in the ideological structure was as dramatic as that in the institutional structure. The beliefs
shared by transportation policy makers became diverse and fragmented. Transportation problems were no
longer limited to traffic congestion, but included problems such as energy, equity, and the environmental.
Moreover, even in the traffic congestion problem, transportation policy makers tended to perceive traffic
congestion problems differently, which led to a variety of solutions. For example, the definition of traffic
congestion changed from insufficient roads to too many automobiles. The solution has changed from
building more roads (supply management) to reducing the use of automobiles (demand management).

Moreover, a number of groups have been introduced into the network. For example, interest groups were
no longer only from the oil and automobile industries. Other interest groups, such as environmental
groups, safety groups, and energy conservation groups, have continually participated in the transportation
policy arena. This widens the transportation policy network. The access is no longer highly restricted and
fluctuates. As a result, it becomes hard to tell who belongs to the community. Since there are many groups
and participants involved in the policy network, there are conflicts of values.

These changes have led the transportation network, which used to be a policy community, to become an
issue network. As the transportation policy community became an issue network, the period of disturbance
or punctuated equilibrium began.

The collapse of the policy monopoly and the changes in the policy community in the second stage led to the
decline of highway policy. Figure 2 illustrates the federal funding for highways. The graph presents the
proportion of highway funding to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This makes it possible to compare
8

highway funding overtime. In addition, it reflects the emphasis of the federal government on highway
policy.

Figure 2: Percents of GDP for Highway Funding.

Percent of GDP for Highway Funding (1944 - 1995)

0.70
0.60
Percents of GDP

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1944

1947

1950

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995
Years

Source: 1. Federal funds expended for highways, by type of expenditure


and year, 1921-1995 FA-205A (Highway Statistics, 2001).
2. National Income and Product Accounts (Bureau of Economic
Analysis, 2001).

As can be seen, highway funding, which increased from 1950s, declined starting from the mid 1960s. After
the mid 1990s, funding tended to be stable. The period after the mid 1990s will be discussed in the
subsequent section.

Stage Three: Period after Disturbances

According to Figure 1, after the mid 1990s, the number of articles related to the highway and transit
policies started to decline. This indicates the end of the period of disturbances. After the period of
disturbances, many problems have come to be considered as transportation problems such as air quality,
equity, urban sprawl, safety, the energy problem, and global warming. People realize the diversity of the
problems, and put tremendous pressure on the government to solve these problems. These diverse
transportation problems reflect a national mood that favors policy that addresses multi-faceted problems. A
problem stream and a political stream coupled with the solution derived from the Department of
Transportation have brought the transportation policy to a new stage, a stage in which a new agenda was
introduced in the area of the transportation policy.

In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991(ISTEA) was adopted. The purpose
of the act was set forth in its statement of policy:

“It is the policy of the United State to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is
economically efficient and 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.
(Weiner, 1992, p. 36)”

This act acknowledged the importance of both supply and demand policies. Government funding was
allocated to both highway improvement and transit planning. Figure 2 illustrates that the proportion of
highway funding to the GDP has been stable since the mid of 1990s. Moreover, other transportation
problems such as safety, and air quality were addressed in this legislation. ISTEA was succeeded in 1998
9

by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21). This piece of legislation is the successor
of ISTEA. The purpose of the new act is similar to that of ISTEA.

Is this stage a period of policy stability? According to the concept of policy monopoly, it is a monopoly on
political understanding concerning the policy of interest, and an institutional arrangement that reinforces
that understanding. In this stage, there is political understanding concerning the transportation policy. To
address transportation problems which are complex and controversial, a combined solution is required.
Only one mode such as highway or transit cannot completely solve the problem. To reinforce this
understanding, there is an institutional arrangement created, in the form of ISTEA. This situation is very
closed to policy monopoly. However, it is not. In policy monopoly, in addition to having the same
political understanding and institutional arrangement, a structure that limits access to the policy process is
required. This is the difference between this current stage and the stage one (initial condition). In the stage
one, policy process was accessible only for people who agreed with highway construction policy. But in
the current period a variety of ideas can be brought to the policy process. This can be seen when
considering the concept of the policy community. Since there are a large number of participants, a wide
range of groups, value conflicts, this is still an issue network.

To describe this period, the period after ISTEA can be considered as the beginning of a period of stability.
However, this stability period is weak compared to the initial condition (stage one). This is because the
stability in this period is primarily maintained by a definition that all modes are important and should be
combined. However, the problem definition that favors reducing the number of automobiles is prevailing,
while at the same time, the definition that favors the use of automobiles still exists. It is possible that one
of these two definitions will emerge as dominance. If the definition is changed, this period is no longer
stable. One might argue that an institutional structure and legislation would induce the situation back to
stability. Nevertheless, institutions are themselves the product of social decision (Baumgartner and Jones,
1993, p. 14). It could be changed when the social decision changes. Likewise, legislation can change as
well.

Transportation policies have changed over time. In the initial condition, the supply policy, which
emphasized highway construction, was the only transportation policy, and this was a period of stability.
Approximately 20 years of stability ended as the intrusion of a demand policy in the form of transit policy.
Thereafter, transportation policy became unstable. Since then, there have been new laws that
simultaneously favor demand and supply policies. A new stability may be emerging, but it is not secured.
A new period of disturbances or punctuated equilibrium can emerge anytime.
10

References:

1. Altshuler, Alan (1979). The Urban Transportation System: Politics and Policy Innovation. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
2. Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones Bryan D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Black, Alan (1995). Urban Mass Transportation Planning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
4. Bureau of Economic Analysis: National Income and Product Accounts [Online]. Available:
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.htm, (2001, May 10).
5. Coughlin, Joseph F. (1994). The Tragedy of the Concrete Commons: Define Traffic Congestion as a
Public Problem. In David A. Rochefort and Roger W. Cobb, Eds, The Politics of Problem Definition:
Shaping the Policy Agenda (p. 138-158). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
6. Dawns, Anthony (1992). Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion. Washington,
D.C., and Cambridge, Mass.: Brooking Institution and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
7. Highway Statistics: Summary To 1995, Section IV: Highway Finance [Online] Available:
http://www.bts.gov/site/news/fhwa/HighwayStats-Summary95/section4.html, (2001, May 10).
8. Jones, David W. Jr. (1995). Urban Highway Investment and Political Economy of Fiscal
Retrenchment. In Alan Altshuler, Ed, Current Issues in Transportation Policy. (p. 65-82). Lexington,
Mass: LexingtonBooks: D.C. Health and Company.
9. Kingdon, John W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.
10. Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (1992 (c)). Policy Communities and Issue Networks: Beyond
Topology. In Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (eds) Policy Networks in British Government, Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Quoted in Smith, Martin J. (1993). Pressure Power & Policy: State
Autonomy and Policy Networks in Britain and the United States. Pittsburgh Press, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
11. Smerk, George M. (1965). Urban Transportation: The Federal Role. Bloomington, IN.; Indiana
University Press.
12. Smerk, George M. (1979). Federal Urban Mass Transportation Programs and Policy. In p. 83-93 in
Alan Altshuler, Ed. Current Issues in Transportation Policy. Lexington, Mass: LexingtonBooks: D.C.
Health and Company.
13. Smith, Martin J.(1993). Pressure Power & Policy: State Autonomy and Policy Networks in Britain and
the United States. Pittsburgh Press, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
14. TRANweb, Transportation Library [Online]. Available:
http://www.library.northwestern.edu/transportation/, (2000, October 22).
15. U.S. DOT, U.S. Department of Transportation: About the DOT [Online]. Available:
http://www.dot.gov/about.htm, (2000, October 22).
16. Weiner, Edward. (1992). Modified for Class from Urban Transportation Planning in the U.S.: A
Historical Overview (Publication No. DOT-T-93-02) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

Вам также может понравиться