The DRIVE Act throws history out the window

Imagine if the answer to “O Say Can you See…?” was “No!” It almost was, and it might well be again if the current version of the Senate transportation bill becomes law. As drafted, the DRIVE Act includes a major attack on our nation’s strongest historic preservation law, and leaves irreplaceable historic landmarks all over America vulnerable to ill-advised and poorly planned transportation projects.

Take, for example, Baltimore’s Fort McHenry, which inspired Francis Scott Key to write the Star-Spangled Banner during the War of 1812.  This National Monument and Historic Shrine was once threatened by an elevated highway project that would have hidden the fort from public view. Instead of taking in the place that gave us our National Anthem, Americans looking out over the sweep of Baltimore Harbor would instead see a bypass. 

{mosads}What saved Fort McHenry was section 4(f), the portion of our nation’s transportation law that requires all federally assisted projects to “use all possible planning to minimize harm” to historic resources.  The section 4(f) review process ultimately led highway officials to drop the elevated bridge idea and instead build a tunnel under Baltimore Harbor – a project that came in on time and under budget. Today, Fort McHenry is an iconic site for locals and visitors alike to experience history and enjoy the outdoors, as it should be.

The story of Fort McHenry had a happy ending, but if the DRIVE Act passes in its current form, historic sites all over the country will not be so lucky. Section 11116 of this legislation essentially guts the requirement that transportation projects take the least harmful alternative around a historic landmark, if avoiding it altogether isn’t “feasible and prudent.” This will unnecessarily place at risk countless of our nation’s historic resources.

Critics of section 4(f) argue that these changes are needed to streamline and improve the transportation project review process. In fact, it would have exactly the opposite effect. Among other things, this bill places the burden on determining what is a feasible and prudent project upon State Historic Preservation Officers who, as they themselves readily admit, are not qualified to evaluate the feasibility of transportation projects. Several experts, including state DOT officials with practical 4(f) experience, have said the language of section 11116 will instead create unnecessary bureaucratic red tape and “may actually slow down the process.”

In fact, section 4(f) has often spurred state DOTs to establish place better transportation planning models. In Florida, for example, tribal, state, and federal agencies now undertake a simultaneous review of transportation projects.  Officials at Florida DOT, the state historic preservation office, and the Federal Highway Administration all credit 4(f) with helping to save time and money and producing much better interagency coordination, as issues now surface earlier in the planning stages.

We support efforts to reform section 4(f) to make the transportation project review process more efficient, and we have been working with both Republican and Democratic Commerce Committee staff to address these issues in the Railroad Reform, Enhancement, and Efficiency Act (S.1626) which is also included in the DRIVE Act.

But Section 11116, as written, throws the baby out with the bathwater and undercuts our nation’s strongest preservation law while creating more red tape for everyone. That is why we, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and many other preservation and conservation organizations oppose this language.

Our flag at Fort McHenry survived the War of 1812. Section 4(f) should survive the transportation bill of 2015 as well. We urge the Senate to stand up for America’s historic places and to remove section 11116 from the DRIVE Act.

Meeks is president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.