|
Surface Transportation Policy Project Resource Guide
1/24/95 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE GENERAL GUIDELINES Contents Page Introduction 1 People Power:Transportation Decision Making Hits the Street 3 Beyond Business as Usual: Transportation Enhancements Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 11 New Rules: Developing Transportation Plans and Programs 19 Pay As You Go: Financial Requirements in Transportation Plans and Programs 27 Tool for Change: The Clean Air Act Amendments and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 31 No More Wish Lists: Metropolitan Project Selection Under ISTEA 41 General Guidelines Introduction ISTEA: New Perspectives, New Partners, New Programs In its declaration of policy, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 states: ~'It is the policy of the United States 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." Such a statement reveals the federal commitment to move out of the Interstate age and into an era of balanced investment in transportation, which better reflects the social, environmental, and energy goals of the nation. If our country's transportation system meets these goals and is cost-efficient, the new law will also help us compete in the global market. ISTEA is not the first federal law to invoke socially important goals. Other ambitious laws have failed in the past. To assure realization of the goals contained in ISTEA, fundamental changes must occur in the way transportation decisions and investments are made at the federal, state, and local levels. These changes will be implemented through the expanded planning and public participation processes in the Act. The linking of financial considerations and project selection will help assure these processes are successful. The set of papers accompanying this introduction discuss some of the key changes in the public participation requirements, metropolitan planning, program development, and project selection. They may be used separately but they are part of a larger system of publications, The Surface Transportation Policy Project Resource Guide. Subsequent papers will focus on the new state planning requirements, compliance with Clean Air Act requirements, the flexible use of transportation funds, and other aspects of the new law. The Resource Guide will also include case studies and "real- world" examples of how the new transportation law is being used, facts and statistics, state and local contacts, and general information. To continue receiving Resource Guide material, contact STPP at 202/939-3470. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. ISTEA requires that the public be involved in transportation decisions from the beginning of long-range planning. This shifts the emphasis of public participation from projects to process. It will require citizens to find out from their regional and state transportation agencies what the citizen participation process is, who defines it, and how citizens can get involved in defining the process more clearly in terms of the new goals set by ISTEA. The STPP paper "People Power" examines the means to redefine public participation in community and state transportation decisions. PLANS AND PROGRAMS. ISTEA's detailed planning requirements for transportation at the metropolitan and state level reflect the need to consider and manage the social, environmental, and energy impacts of transportation decisions. By their nature the new requirements mandate more public involvement in planning. The STPP paper "New Rules" details the new factors that must be considered in long- and short-range transportation decision making. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE FINANCIAL PLANS. ISTEA requires that funding sources for proposed projects and activities be identified during the planning process at both the metropolitan and state levels. This new requirement improves the chances for realistic long-range planning and increases the likelihood that the projects selected really can be carried out. "Pay as You Go" outlines these new requirements and defines the necessary actions for their success. PROJECT SELECTION. New requirements in ISTEA balance decision making between regions and states, and citizens have access at both levels. Project selection is the outgrowth of the newly established comprehensive planning process and must respond to the same social, environmental, and financial considerations. The process by which projects are chosen should result in transportation improvement that benefit the overall vision for a given region or state. "No More Wish Lists" discusses the new requirements for metropolitan project selection and makes recommendations for implementing the law. It is impossible to find all the answers in any single change in the new laws. If reform is to be successful, it can only be through the integration of all the new opportunities discussed in these papers: Public participation, planning, program development, project selection, and financial considerations. Even ISTEA cannot stand alone as a tool for change. Its requirements are interlaced with those in the Clean Air Act, annual appropriations, and other federal and state laws. This set of papers is only the first step toward finding answers to the complex transportation problems our country faces. People Power: Transportation Decision Making Hits the Streets Introduction In its new planning requirements for metropolitan areas and states, ISTEA applies a broad brush to public participation. A handful of sentences in the new law direct federal and state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to "provide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment" at several junctures in the transportation planning process. MPOs must involve the public before approval of their 20-year long-range plans (LRPs) and in the development and approval of their three-year transportation improvement programs (TIPs). States must carry out their LRPs in cooperation with the MPOs and must give citizens "a reasonable opportunity to comment" in developing the state LRP. In addition, governors are directed to ensure that citizens are involved in developing the state TIP. At both levels, planning must be coordinated with the development of plans for attainment of national air quality standards. The long-range planning process considers 15 factors at the metropolitan level and 20 at the state level (these factors are listed in Appendices A and B of this paper). The TIP is a work plan that must be developed at both the metropolitan and state levels. The TIP must cover a minimum of three years for a metropolitan area and two years for a state. The projects listed in the TIP must reflect the factors considered in the long-range process. Several questions arise from a reading of the requirements: What is a ;'reasonable opportunity"? How best can "public comment" have an impact on decisions? What practices are already in place for public participation'? Established Practice While public participation requirements have been established in laws such as the Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act and by regulations and guidance issued by federal and state transportation agencies, the existing framework for successful public participation is as much a matter of practice as it is of formal law. The public heating is the best-known means of involving citizens in transportation decisions. But hearings are only one tool for soliciting diverse viewpoints. Indeed, hearings that simply give a minute or two for each participant to react to a complex proposal or that occur too late in the process to have an impact understandably inspire more wrath than appreciation. Another con-anon tool for public involvement is the establishment of committees and task forces. Citizens' advisory committees (CACs) and technical advisory committees (TACs) are two such basic types of committee. However, if citizens and technical experts never meet one another, they are less likely to come up with innovative answers to problems than are members of committees whose makeup is more varied. Likewise, task forces, which often do reflect the diversity of a community, are frequently convened for one purpose or project and disbanded when their purpose is served. 3 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE Early Involvement The broad scope of fundamental issues to be resolved under ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendments makes it unlikely that any single or genetically determined approach to public participation will meet all ends (see Appendix C, "Beyond Citizen Input"). However, it is possible to identify the characteristics of successful participation: early involvement, inclusiveness, and clear, accurate information. By requiring that citizens and others with an interest in transportation be involved in transportation plans and programs, ISTEA sets the stage for participation to occur early enough to allow citizens a hand in planning for the future of their region or state. In this context, a "reasonable opportunity to comment" must be defined in terms of the public's ability to help shape the LRP and the TIP, where specific projects axe selected. This change in the law marks a departure from the old practice of soliciting public comment before approval of a drafted plan or assembled slate of projects. Many agencies have discovered that their established approaches to public participation often only generate hostility and result in stalled projects. The Federal Highway Administration guidance on participation in transportation planning, written in 1978, remains apt today: If too much time elapses between the beginning of the [planning] process and the beginning of public involvement, several problems may develop: it may be difficult to still be flexible, rumors may have spread misinformation, local leaders may feel ignored and become distrusting. Early involvement saves times and agony for the planner, One model for early involvement is the "visioning" process, which has been carried out places such as Roanoke, Va. and Chatham County, Ga., In Roanoke, an outdated comprehensive plan was the issue; in Chatham County, eight municipalities, including Savannah, shared air and transportation problems but no regional strategy for solving those problems. Planners brought residents and business and property owners into the planning process through the wide use of publicity and state-of-the-art technology, including electronic town meetings and tabloid supplements to local newspapers. Both processes included citizens as facilitators: maitre d's, schoolteachers, and business people were given training and asked to interview their fellow citizens at the town meetings and throughout the process. Follow-through was important to sustain involvement: Planners established benchmarks of progress and made sure citizens knew when their questions would be answered. The result: "When we held the final zoning meeting, no one came to protest," says Virginia Lee Benson of Mary. Means Associates, a consultant to the Roanoke process. "We didn't do anything magic; we just met with every single human being who had a point of view." We didn't do anything magic; we just met with every single human being who had a point of view." Virginia Lee Benson, consultant to the Roanoke Vision process Inclusiveness From citizens and affected public agencies to public and private transit providers and, in case anyone has missed the point, "other interested parties," the list of participants in the state and metropolitan process is comprehensive. Thus, the appropriateness of public participation is to be measured by how inclusive the process is whether it involves all the relevant participants and reflects the community and state for which the plans in question are designed. Many communities are already increasing public involvement in their transportation decisions. Local professional and citizen observers suggest that such efforts result in greater respect for the process and more cohesive support for the ultimate decisions. Even when the final outcome is controversial, broad participation helps prevent dissatisfaction, legal challenge, and stalemate. 4 GENERAL GUIDELINES In 1972, the residents of several neighborhoods in Boston united to protest the construction of the Southwest Freeway, an interstate segment for which the land was already purchased. Through the efforts of city and state representatives, the governor of Massachusetts commissioned a multidisciplinary team to examine alternatives to the highway. The team recommended a new subway line running along the same route as the existing Amtrak and commuter rail lines and uniting three adjacent inner-city neighborhoods via a greenway of parks, sidewalks, and bikeways that follow the subway route. The process was determined and overseen by a citizens advisory group of residents, business owners, transit officials, and representatives of the City of Boston. "The design of the subway line's eight stations was overseen by the real experts: the users." The design of the subway line's eight stations was overseen by the real experts: the users. Common sense prevailed in determining the functional and aesthetic details. For example, a senior citizen pointed out that when trains passed, it was difficult to maintain balance. Guardrails were installed around the outside of all platform shelters. Another citizen observed that if the map and seating area were positioned together, someone seated would block the view of the map. The two elements were separated in the final design. Residents also had input into the design of each transit stop to reflect the individual character of the neighborhoods while retaining the overall identity of the Boston transit system. When the project was completed, the committee appointed station area task forces for each station. These task forces continue to work to address long-term issues such as maintenance of the stations and surrounding neighborhood parks. The new goals set by the law require a high level of interagency cooperation. State and local agencies with jurisdiction over air and water quality, land management, historic and cultural resources, and energy must be brought into the planning process if it is to be effective. In particular, the inclusion of transit operating agencies in the decision- making process at the metropolitan level will help ensure the intermodal, balanced transportation network envisioned by Congress in enacting ISTEA. Some MPOs currently provide formal, voting membership to transit operating agencies in their metropolitan areas. MPOs that do not now include transit agencies as voting members should modify their practices to integrate transit agencies into decision making. Focus groups are another way to involve many points of view. In Bethel, Maine (population 5,000) citizens were catalyzed into a planning process when one of the area's chief employers, National Testing Laboratory, announced its plans to relocate due in part to land-use conflicts. The town convened 27 focus groups of interests - ranging from loggers to environmentalists, ski resort owners and innkeepers to craftspeople and musicians, old timers to summer people--in a six-week planning process that resulted in a workable plan. An unexpected bonus was NTL's decision to remain in the area because its land-use problems had been resolved by the process. _______________________________________________ Accessible information. To accomplish the goal of inclusiveness, information is vital. Many citizens are discouraged by the lack of basic information about how and why transportation decisions are made in their communities. Citizens whose participation has been ignored have grown wary of further involvement. Agency professionals are equally wary that the public will impede their efforts to solve growing transportation problems. Wide availability of clear, accurate, and complete information on transportation procedures can help put both parties on a 5 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE more equal and cooperative footing. "Effective information should exceed the traditional graphs and charts that accompany studies." Effective information should exceed the traditional graphs and charts that accompany studies. Citizens should be helped to visualize the impacts of plans and proposals on neighborhoods, businesses, and the natural environment through the use of maps, models, slides and photos, computer graphics, and other techniques to visually render the potential effects of transportation decisions. "Tell me, I forget. Show me, I remember. Involve me, I understand." This was the motto for the planning process in Manheim Township, Pa., located in Amish country in Lancaster County. Like many rural areas, Manheim Township's land-use pattern had become a patchwork in which farms and scenic and historic resources competed with strip developments and malls at major traffic interchanges. A visual preference survey was undertaken in the township. Citizens were asked to ram photographs of scenes typical to the area: barns and farmhouses, scenic roads, old and new houses, shops, traffic signs and signals, parking lots, and public spaces including parks and commons. Once citizens determined which sights and patterns they wished to protect and encourage and which they wished to discourage, they were shown how those values translated into design and zoning codes. Using maps and models, citizens were asked to redesign their township with their new preferences and goals in mind. The result was an accessible plan that reflects the values of the community. Transportation professionals must provide public access to reports, statistics, and proposals in enough time for public comment to be incorporated. They must also support such documents in the context of a clearly stated regional or state vision derived through significant public participation, including goals for land use, the quality of life, environmental and public health protection, energy efficiency, and commerce. Citizens must exchange information and share resources among their own networks through meetings, coalitions, and other coordinating efforts. Such coordination often helps marry allied interests and concerns in a unified position. The effectiveness of any single point of view in the complex public participation process is greatly enhanced through the tempering and testing of the consensus and information-sharing processes. Ultimately, only citizens can determine the best way to garner their involvement so that it is broad, occurs early enough to be effective, and is well informed. MPOs and states would be wise to select a combination of measures to encourage and assist public participation and lead to timely, informed decisions. Citizens must learn how the public participation process is defined and structured at the local and state levels and become involved in redefining it to meet the new challenges set by ISTEA, the Clean Air Act Amendments, and other new laws that require strategic planning for a broad range of issues. 6 GENERAL GUIDELINES APPENDIX A FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN METROPOLITAN PLANNING Subsection 134(0 Factors to be Considered in Metropolitan Planning: "In developing transportation planning plans and programs pursuant to this section, each metropolitan planning organization shall, at a minimum, consider the following": (1) Preservation of existing transportation facilities and, where practical, ways to meet transportation needs by using existing transportation facilities more efficiently. (2) The consistency of transportation planning with applicable Federal, State, and local energy conservation programs, goals, and objectives. (3) The need to relieve congestion and prevent congestion from occurring where it does not yet occur. (4) The likely effect of transportation policy decisions on land use and development and the consistency of transportation plans and programs with the provisions of all applicable short- and long-term land use and development plans. (5) The programming of expenditure on transportation enhancement activities as required in section 133. (6) The effects of all transportation projects to be undertaken in the metropolitan area, without regard to whether such projects are publicly funded. (7) International border crossings and access to ports, airports, intermodal transportation facilities, major freight distribution routes, national parks, recreation areas, monuments and historic sites, and military installations. (8) The need for connectivity of roads within the metropolitan area with roads outside the metropolitan. (9) The transportation needs identified through use of the management systems required by section 303 of this title.* (10) Preservation of fights-of-way for construction of future transportation projects, including identification of unused rights-of-way which may be needed for future transportation corridors and identification of those corridors for which action is most needed to prevent destruction or loss. (11) Methods to enhance the efficient movement of freight. (12) The use of life-cycle costs in the design and engineering of bridges, tunnels, or pavement. (13) The overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions. (14) Methods to expand and enhance transit services and to increase the use of such services. (15) Capital investments that would result in increased security in transit systems. *The six management systems identified in section 303 are as follows: pavement, bridge, safety, congestion, public transportation, and intermodal transportation. 7 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE *The six management systems identified in section 303 are as follows: pavement, bridge, safety, congestion, public transportation, and intermodal transportation. APPENDIX B FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN STATE PLANNING Subsection 135(c) State Planning Process: "Each State shall undertake a continuous transportation planning process which shall, at a minimum, consider the following": (1) The results of the management systems required pursuant to subsection (b). (2) Any Federal, State, or local energy goals, objectives, programs or requirements. (3) Strategies for incorporating bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways in projects where appropriate throughout the State. (4) International border crossings and points of access to ports, airports, intermodal transportation facilities, major freight distribution routes, national parks, recreation and scenic areas, monuments and historic sites, and military installations. (5) The transportation needs of nonmetropolitan areas through a process that includes consultation with local elected officials who have jurisdiction over transportation. (6) Any metropolitan area plan developed pursuant to section 134. (7) Connectivity between metropolitan areas within the State and with any metropolitan areas in other States. (8) Recreational travel and tourism. (9) Any State plan that is developed pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (10) Transportation system management and investment strategies designed to make the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities. (11) The overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions. (12) Methods to reduce traffic congestion and to prevent traffic congestion from developing in areas where it does not yet occur, including methods which reduce motor vehicle travel, particularly single-occupant motor vehicle travel. (13) Methods to expand and enhance transit services and to increase the use of such services. (14) The effect of transportation decisions on land use and land development, including the need for consistency between transportation decision making and the provisions of all applicable short-range and long-range land use and development plans. (15) The transportation needs identified through use of the management systems required by section 303 of this title.* (16) Where appropriate, the use of innovative mechanisms for financing projects, including value capture pricing, tolls, and congestion pricing. (17) Preservation of rights-of-way for construction of future transportation projects, including identification of unused rights-of-way which may be needed for future transportation corridors, and identify those corridors for which action is most needed to prevent destruction or loss. (18) Long-range needs of the State transportation system. (19) Methods to enhance the efficient movement of commercial motor vehicles. (20) The use of life-cycle costs in the design and engineering of bridges, tunnels or pavement. 8 GENERAL GUIDELINES APPENDIX C BEYOND CITIZEN INPUT Public participation should aim to shift decisions from a narrow focus on project selection to a broad perspective on developing a vision for a region's or state's future. STPP recommends that a public participation process include several of the following basic elements: Standing committees, rather than ad hoc committees created periodically, should be established to address ongoing transportation issues. This helps maintain a focus on process, not projects. Committees should mix citizens, business interests, transportation professionals, planners, and elected officials. Brainstorming with citizens and transportation professionals should take place at community meetings and other public forums to assure that all problems and possible solutions are aired. Facilitators should be used to bring out all points of view and to aid in creating a positive atmosphere for cooperation and problem solving. Benchmarks should be set within the planning process so that citizens and professionals have a realistic set of expectations and a means by which to measure their progress in meeting planning goals. Plans and proposals should be widely publicized, using local newspapers, television, radio, and public facilities such as libraries to their best advantage. Such publicity should be undertaken in the earliest stages of planning. Surveys should be conducted to determine public perceptions and preferences. Reports, analyses, and data relating not only to specific projects but to regional and state trends and planning should be accessible and understandable. "Accessible" also means available in enough time to be thoroughly reviewed and modified by public comment as necessary. Visual demonstrations should accompany project proposals and alternatives early in the process to allow citizens to better understand and consider all options. _______________________________________________ People Power: Transportation Decision Making Hits the Streets Special thanks to Janet Hathaway, Natural Resources Defense Council, for her help in preparing this paper. An abridged version of this paper was originally published in May 1992 as ~A Fair Say: Public Participation in Transportation Decisions." The expanded version of this paper was published under its current title in Volume II, Issue 4 of the STPP Bulletin, May 28, 1992. Surface Transportation Policy Project, 1400 Sixteenth Street, NW Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036, 202-939-3470, FAX: 202-939- 3475 The Surface Transportation Policy Project is a network of diverse organizations, coalitions and grassroots groups whose goal is to develop a national transportation policy that better serves the environmental, social and economic interests of the nation. The work of STPP is funded by the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Energy Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the James C. Penhey Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Surdna Foundation, Inc. 9 Beyond Business as Usual: Transportation Enhancements Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Purpose This paper defines the 10 activities eligible for transportation enhancements funding under the Surface Transportation Program (STP), as described in Section 133(b)(8) of United States Code Title 23. Enhancement activities are eligible for all STP funds under the new law. At least 10 percent of funds apportioned to states for the Surface Transportation Program may only be spent on transportation enhancement activities, (23 USC 133[d][2]). _______________________________________________ Background: Statutory Requirements and Legislative Framework Several provisions in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) recognize the link between the preservation and enhancement of significant natural and cultural resources and transportation decisions. One of the most important of these new provisions is contained in the Surface Transportation Program (STP), where 10 types of activities are defined as "transportation enhancements," eligible for all STP funds. In addition, 10 percent of these funds must be set aside for enhancements. This ensures a dedicated minimum source of revenue for important but often overlooked activities that fall outside the category of routinely undertaken scenic, historic, and environmental activities. This "beyond adequacy" approach is reenforced both by the detailed nature of the list of enhancements in the law and by the fact that the list is definitive, not illustrative. In interim guidance issued April 24, 1992, the Federal Highway Administration states, "The Congress included language on transportation enhancements as a means of stimulating additional efforts in the activities listed" (emphasis theirs). The guidance also states, "Several field offices have asked whether the list of activities... is exclusive or illustrative. It is exclusive." Transportation enhancements must be considered in metropolitan and state plans and programs (23 USC 134-135). This requirement links them directly to the attainment of the social, environmental, and economic goals that must be set and met by the planning process. At the metropolitan level, enhancement activities must be reflected in the 20-year long-range plan (LRP) and in the 3-year transportation improvement program (TIP). At the state level, the TIP must reflect the priorities for programming and spending enhancement funds, and because states must incorporate metropolitan plans and programs into their LRPs, enhancements decisions and funding priorities must also be reflected in state LRPs. "Transportation enhancements" are defined by ISTEA as follows: ... with respect to any project or the area to be served by the project, provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, scenic or historic highway programs, landscaping and other scenic beautification, historic preservation, rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities (including historic railroad facilities, and canals), preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails), 11 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE control and removal of outdoor advertising, archaeological planning and research, and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. (23 USC 101) According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), funds subject to the 10 percent minimum requirement are derived from several sources. The primary source is funding apportioned to the states for the Surface Transportation Program. Three special reallocations are also subject to the 10 percent requirement: funds provided for the reimbursement of States for segments of the Interstate System constructed without federal assistance (23 USC 160), funds provided for under the "hold harmless," and funds provided for under the 90 percent of payment provisions (23 USC 104). ISTEA excludes from eligibility any routine or customary elements of transportation projects, or activities to mitigate project impacts in compliance with existing environmental, historic preservation and public health and safety regulations. However, determining what constitutes "routine" versus what constitutes "additional" or "special" activity is not always easy. Many states are already struggling with this question, and not every state will arrive at exactly the same answer. The FHWA provides some guidance when it states that "many projects are a mix of elements, some on the list and some not. Those project elements which are on the list may be counted as transportation enhancement activities." As a general role, it may be understood that activities already required under ISTEA or another federal law such as the National Environmental Policy Act may not be interpreted to be enhancement activities but that the enhancement portion of a larger project involving routine activity is eligible for enhancement funds. "Many projects are a mix of elements, some on the list and some not. Those project elements which are on the list may be counted as transportation enhancement activities," -- Federal Highway Administration In determining eligibility for enhancements funding, the phrase "with respect to any project, or any area served by the project" has prompted debate on how to define the "area served." The FHWA interprets "area served" to mean that a proposed enhancement activity must have "a direct relationship to the intermodal transportation system, but not necessarily to a currently planned highway project." The FHWA suggests three tests for eligibility: function, proximity, and impact. If a proposed project has a functional relationship to an existing or planned transportation facility, it is actually pan of that facility. A bikeway is an example of a functional relationship. A proposed enhancement may also be related in proximity. Removal of illegal billboards in the viewshed of a scenic highway is related to the highway by proximity. Finally, if the proposed enhancement has an impact on an existing or planned transportation facility, it is eligible. If constructing a system of pedestrian ways reduces auto use in an area, that is an impact-related enhancement. To be considered eligible as an enhancement, a proposed activity need only pass one of these tests. Once the relationship of the proposed enhancement activity to a transportation facility is established, it makes no difference whether additional work is proposed on the facility itself. The FHWA states: The proposed enhancement activity must have a direct relationship to the intermodal transportation system, but not necessarily to a currently planned highway project ... Once a relationship to the intermodal transportation system is established, transportation enhancement activities can be ... developed as parts of larger transportation projects. as parts of larger joint development projects, or as stand-alone projects. (FHWA Interim Guidance, April 24, 1992) 12 GENERAL GUIDELINES Eligible activities may include land acquisition and construction costs as well as nonconstruction costs associated with conducting an eligible transportation enhancement activity such as preliminary architectural and engineering services and related design functions or preliminary archaeological and historical research. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 directs that the needs of the elderly and disabled persons be integrated into all projects involving public access, not only those involving federal funds. All transportation enhancements projects, particularly those involving pedestrian access, should be responsive to this federal requirement. To be considered eligible as an enhancement, a proposed activity need only pass one of three tests: function, proximity, or impact. _______________________________________________ Interpretation: 10 Enhancements 1. Facilities for Bicycles and Pedestrians The Surface Transportation Policy Project recommends these guidelines be followed in determining a project's eligibility under one or more of the 10 categories of enhancements. "Provision of Facilities for Bicycles and Pedestrians" includes providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians in conjunction with a new or proposed transportation project beyond what is necessary for safe accommodation and improvements to existing transportation facilities to better and more safely accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. The safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists should be given full consideration during the design, development, and construction of all federally aided transportation projects. Such facilities are eligible for National Highway System and Surface Transportation Program funds. For new construction and reconstruction projects, routine provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians such as sidewalks, curb ramps, wide curb lanes, and shoulders on rural roads, are not considered to be enhancements for the purposes of this section. Improved bicycle and pedestrian access to existing facilities is important to the development of an effective intermodal transportation system and is encouraged. When improvements for bicycle and pedestrian access are independent of new construction or rehabilitation projects. activities such as widening curb lanes, striping bike lanes, adding road shoulders, installing sidewalks and crosswalks, and enhancing access to public transportation are considered to be enhancements for the purposes of this section. In addition, expenditures for mitigation required by ISTEA and other federal laws are not eligible for funding under this category under any circumstances. _______________________________________________ 2. Acquisition of Scenic Easements and Scenic or Historic Sites "Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites" includes the use of funds for purchase, donation, transfer, or trade of land that possesses significant aesthetic, natural, visual, or open space values, including acquisition of lands and any property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Funds may be used for planning and transaction costs including appraisals, surveys, legal costs, or purchase costs. In order to remain eligible for these funds, state departments of transportation (DOTs) should agree to enforce appropriate mechanisms to preserve the significant scenic and historic values. _______________________________________________ 13 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE 3. Scenic or Historic Highway Programs "Scenic or Historic Highway Programs" include funds for the protection and enhancement of state or federally designated scenic or historic highways. Funds may be used only for projects that will protect and enhance the scenic, historic, cultural, natural, and archaeological integrity and visitor appreciation of an existing highway and adjacent area. Funds may' also be used for the planning. design and development of new state scenic byway programs. Projects designed to protect and enhance the integrity of existing designated highways and adjacent areas should be reviewed by professionals qualified to evaluate scenic, historic, cultural, natural, and archaeological values. Funds provided under this category are in addition to those provided under the Scenic Byways Program in Section 1047 of ISTEA. Eligible projects should not include the construction of safety rest areas, although if a rest area project includes an activity eligible for enhancements funds, that activity is eligible. The FHWA's guidance states: .. a rest area might include a historic site purchased and developed as an interpretive site illustrating local history. The historic site purchase and development would qualify as a transportation enhancement activity. (FHWA Interim Guidance, April 24, 1992) Adding lanes for any purpose or constructing new scenic or historic highways should also be considered ineligible, in keeping with ISTEA's significant disincentives to adding lanes or building roads where not warranted by demand and its inclusion of language allowing the waiver of federal design standards for scenic and historic roads and byways. _______________________________________________ 4. Landscaping and Other Scenic Beautification "Landscaping and Other Scenic Beautification" includes landscape planning, design, and construction projects that enhance the aesthetic or ecological resources along highways, other transportation corridors, points of access, and lands in proximity to other transportation enhancement projects. Funds should not be used for routine, incidental, or maintenance activities such as grass cutting, tree pruning and removal, soil stabilization, construction of noise barriers, drainage improvement, and postconstruction finish work, such as replanting and reseeding. Seeding and planting vegetation for erosion control or screening purposes should not constitute an eligible landscaping enhancement project. Projects that enhance the attractiveness of a transportation facility include planning, design, and construction of scenic vistas and overlooks, restoration of historic landscapes, and construction of landscapes that are compatible with their surroundings. Projects that enhance the ecological balance along a transportation corridor include planning, testing, and planting for restoration or reintroduction of native plant communities and appropriate adaptive species. Activities associated with interpreting sites and providing information about the programs through which resources are preserved are also eligible for funds. Funds should be used only for projects consistent with the state's overall landscape policies and programs. Funds may also be used to hire professionals qualified to evaluate the design concept of a proposed activity. No funds should be used to remove trees unless an approved site plan calls for such removal on the grounds of scenic or ecological enhancement or unless a tree is diseased or dead as certified by a qualified professional. _______________________________________________ 14 GENERAL GUIDELINES 5. Historic Preservation "Historic Preservation" includes all aspects of historic preservation, including identification, evaluation, documentation, curation, acquisition, protection, management, rehabilitation, interpretation, restoration, stabilization, and maintenance of any historic district, site, structure, object, or landscape included in or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The objective of activities in this category should be to improve the ability of the public to appreciate the historic significance of the project itself or the area to be served by the project Expenditures are not eligible under this category if required by section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303) or section 138 of title 23 or if they may be conducted in order to avoid or mitigate the effect of a project on any historic place pursuant to 16 USC 470f or its implementing regulations. _______________________________________________ 6. Rehabilitation and Operation of Historic Transportation Buildings, Structures or Facilities including Historic Railroad Facilities and Canals "Historic Transportation Buildings" are buildings or related structures associated with the operation, use, construction, or maintenance of any mode of transportation and listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. "Structures and Facilities" include tunnels, bridges, trestles, embankments, rails or other guideway, nonoperational vehicles, canal viaducts, towpaths and locks, stations, and other man-made transportation features related to the operation, use, construction, or maintenance of any mode of transportation. Both freight and passenger facilities are eligible. "Rehabilitation" means the process of returning the property to a state that makes possible a contemporary use while preserving the significant historic features of that property. "Operation" means the provision of access and service in a manner related to both the continuation of a contemporary transportation or nontransportation use consistent with the historic character of the property and open to the general public. _______________________________________________ 7. Preservation of Abandoned Railway Corridors, Including Conversion and Use for Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails "Rail corridors" are transportation corridors of varying width in which rail tracks exist or have existed in the past. "Abandoned railway corridors" are rail corridors that have been authorized for abandonment by the Interstate Commerce Commission, rail corridors for which abandonment proceedings are pending before the Interstate Commerce Commission, or rail corridors that have been set aside for future transportation use (i.e., "rail banked") under any applicable federal or state authority. Such corridors include all fee (full title owned) and less-than-fee (partially owned) corridor holdings. Passenger and freight facilities are both eligible. The preservation of abandoned railway corridors includes the planning, acquisition, rehabilitation, and development of corridors for public uses, including bicycle and pedestrian use. This provision permits the development and rehabilitation of privately owned rail corridors open to the general public without charge. _______________________________________________ 15 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE 8. Control and Removal of Outdoor Advertising "Control and removal of outdoor advertising" includes the control and removal of existing outdoor advertising signs, displays, and devices, which is in addition to the requirement to exercise "effective control" of outdoor advertising under Section 131 of Title 23. Only in unusual circumstances should expenditures for removal of nonconforming billboards be considered eligible, since such removal is a function of maintaining "effective control" and is otherwise funded under Section 104 of Title 23. Expenditures made to remove existing signs, displays, and devices shall be made according to a legal process that bases payment on an equitable appraisal. Priority should be given to the removal of outdoor advertising signs, displays. and devices on designated scenic roads or in areas where local or state laws or ordinances ban new billboards and/or in conjunction with other transportation enhancement projects. In using funds under this category for the control of outdoor advertising signs, displays, and devices, states may use funds to provide additional resources to ensure that new outdoor advertising signs, displays and devices are permitted only in areas actually used for commercial and industrial purposes, including compilation of an accurate inventory of existing conforming signs. _______________________________________________ 9. Archaeological Planning and Research "Archaeological planning and research" includes, but is not limited to, research on sites eligible for transportation enhancement funds; experimental projects in archaeological site preservation and interpretation; planning to improve identification, evaluation, and treatment of archaeological sites; problem-oriented synthesis using data derived from (though not limited to) transportation- related archaeological projects; development of national and regional research designs to guide future surveys, data recovery, and synthetic research; and projects having similar purposes carried out in partnership with other federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies and nongovernmental organizations. Expenditures under this category should be used for research and/or interpretation of sites associated with transportation facilities. Expenditures are not eligible under this category if required by Section 138 of Title 23 and Section 303 of Title 49 in order to avoid or mitigate the effect of a project on any historic place pursuant to 16 USC 470(f) or its implementing regulations or if they involve the requirements of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the Archaeological Conservation Act. These include the inventory of known resources in project areas, reconnaissance surveys where resources are likely to occur, and an evaluation of the significance of individual sites for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. _______________________________________________ 10. Mitigation of Water Pollution due to Highway Runoff Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff is limited to facilities and programs minimizing pollution from stormwater runoff from transportation facilities that are in addition to current requirements and procedures for such mitigation. Projects that demonstrate aesthetic and ecological methods for mitigation and that enhance recharge are eligible. _______________________________________________ 16 GENERAL GUIDELINES The Role of Enhancements in the Planning Process The FHWA states in its interim guidance, "The metropolitan and Statewide planning processes should occupy a central role in the identification, planning, and funding of transportation enhancement activities .... To be funded, transportation enhancement activities must be included in the appropriate metropolitan and statewide transportation improvement programs." In preparing LRPs called for by ISTEA, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) must, at a minimum, include appropriate proposed transportation enhancement activities (23 USC 134[g][2]). Because states must include enhancements as part of their three- year transportation improvement programs, they should also consider enhancements during their long-range planning. In addition, states must address in their LRPs several factors, such as tourism and land use, that are directly linked to enhancement decisions. States and MPOs must develop separate LRPs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and such plans are to be incorporated into their overall LRPs, as called for in Section 135(e). MPOs must also include other types of enhancements in their plans. The FHWA also recommends that "given the widespread public interest in transportation enhancement activities, they should be highlighted in public involvement activities implemented under the new metropolitan and statewide planning requirements" (Interim Guidance on transportation enhancements, April 24, 1992). States must actively invite public participation in the early stages of the transportation planning process in addition to the current practice of soliciting public comment during the approval stage of projects. The FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration have directed states to establish or modify public involvement processes to allow this greater involvement by no later than October 1, 1992 (Joint Interim Guidance on statewide planning issued May 28, 1992). In the area of project development, the FHWA has directed state DOTs, MPOs, and FHWA field offices to be aggressive in pursuing enhancement opportunities as part of overall projects. Future environmental approvals should take into account the potential to implement enhancement activities. Other state agencies, local agencies, and private entities may be brought into the development of proposed activities, but the responsibility for the project remains with the state DOT. An important factor in the success of any planning process is the ability to track and account for the expenditure of funds and the result of public investment. The FHWA has alerted state DOTs that they will be required to track and report on expenditures of their transportation funds, including those spent on enhancements. This can also be an effective mechanism for the public to monitor their local and state agencies' performance on specific areas of transportation decision making, including new programs such as enhancements. _______________________________________________ Conclusion The enhancements provision illustrates the wholly new direction for transportation policy ~at ISTEA represents. By linking transportation plans, programs, and projects to the goals of preserving community quality and protecting the environment and by defining a broader role for citizens in meeting those goals, the successful implementation of the enhancements provision will have an impact on the overall success of the new law. The broad popular support already stimulated by the transportation enhancements provision is advantageous to the whole concept of public involvement and broader planning of transportation for long-term social, 17 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE environmental, and economic goals. Enhancements are a key to unlocking public enthusiasm and participation not only in individual projects, but in the entire planning process. _______________________________________________ Special thanks to Ian Spatz (formerly of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, now with the Office of Senator Frank Lautenberg), Hal Hiemstra {The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy), Sally Oldham (Scenic America), and the STPP Enhancements Working Group for their efforts in preparing this draft guidance. _______________________________________________ THE STPP RESOURCE GUIDE is a product of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. STPP is a network of diverse organizations, coalitions and grassroots groups whose goal is to develop a national transportation policy that better serves the environmental, social and economic interests of the nation. Representing both transportation consumers and providers, STPP seeks to frame public debate about federal transportation policy, and to help craft a new transportation program that focuses on moving people and goods, rather than vehicles, without favoring any single mode of transportation. Formed in the fall of 1990, STPP encourages the participation of every concerned citizen and organization in its work. The work of the Surface Transportation Policy Project is made possible by grants from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Energy Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the James C. Penney Foundation, Inc., The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Surdna Foundation. For copies of other STPP Resource Guide Material, contact the Surface Transportation Policy Project at 1400 Sixteenth Street, N.W, Washington, D.C. 20036. Telephone: 202/939-3470. Copyright 1992 Surface Transportation Policy Project. Reprint with written permission. This document is printed on recycled paper. 18 New Rules: Developing Transportation Plans and Programs Purpose This paper discusses the significance of the factors listed in subsections 13409: Metropolitan Planning and 135(c): State Planning, contained in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The factors are to be addressed by metropolitan planning organizations and state departments of transportation in developing transportation plans and programs. These factors are not the only parts of ISTEA that affect the planning process. Other planning requirements elsewhere in ISTEA, as well as in other federal statutes, must also be met. For example, ISTEA requires financial planning in the development of a transportation improvement program. It also requires incorporation of a bicycle and pedestrian plan into both the metropolitan and state transportation plans. ISTEA mandates consistency with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, a consideration that is not included in the lists of factors. The full set of factors is listed at the end of this paper. _______________________________________________ Background The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) places a new emphasis on transportation planning, programming and project selection by both Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). ISTEA strengthens the previous federal requirement for comprehensiveness in planning by specifying factors that must be considered in the development of transportation plans and programs and that ultimately are used as the basis for project selection. For regional transportation planning, Section 134(f) of ISTEA lists 15 factors that MPOs must consider. State DOTs must consider 20 items in the state transportation planning process required for the first time by Section 135(c). Many of the requirements imposed on MPOs and DOTs are the same, but there are also different requirements specific to each. The collective effect of the factors is to make transportation planning more comprehensive. The factors reassert the primacy of policy, reinforce the link between planning and policy, and establish broader relationships between transportation planning and other functional planning, such as for air quality and land use. _______________________________________________ Interpretation: Creating the Conditions for Effective Planning U.S. DOT must certify that transportation planning processes are in compliance with federal law. Strengthening the planning process as called for by ISTEA will require a number of actions on the part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, state DOTs, regional and local transportation planning agencies, and citizens. The four most important of these actions are listed below and on the following page. 1. The U.S. Department of Transportation must strictly enforce its requirement to certify that transportation planning processes comply with federal law. The federal requirement that transportation planning be comprehensive was first put into law 30 years ago. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 required that transportation projects in urbanized areas be based on a "continuing, comprehensive transportation planning process carried out cooperatively by states and local communities," the so-called 3C process. Clarifications of the planning requirements have been issued by the U.S. DOT as 19 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE administrative guidance on what specific factors constitute comprehensiveness. In the early years of federal involvement in transportation planning, compliance with both substantive and process requirements was periodically certified by the U.S. DOT. In 1981, the process was changed to allow metropolitan planning organizations to self- certify their compliance with the federal regulations. Despite the fact that the federal requirement has been in force for many years, not all metropolitan transportation planning processes are comprehensive. While a number of MPOs have been thorough in examining the relationships of transportation to other societal and environmental considerations, others have given such relationships uneven or inadequate attention. Self-certification removed the federal oversight that would assure adequate attention to all the issues. ISTEA reinstitutes the requirement for federal certification. Subsection 134(i)(5) instructs the secretary of the U.S. DOT to assure that MPOs in urbanized areas over 200,000 in population are carrying out their responsibilities under federal law, which would include addressing the list of factors included in the planning process. If this requirement is to be effective in improving the planning process, U.S. DOT must establish procedures, publish the requirements, and follow through with a rigorous certification process. MPOs and DOTs must invest resources to carry out additional work. 2. MPOs and DOTs must invest adequate resources--both funds and staff--to carry out the added work. Many MPOs, particularly those in small and medium-sized metropolitan areas, have few staff and limited resources to devote to transportation planning. This is a particular problem in locations where transportation decisions traditionally have been made at some other level of government. Although funds have been available for state planning under previous transportation law, statewide transportation planning has never been required, and some state DOTs have done little planning because they only considered its purpose to be the development of a capital improvement program. ISTEA will help to strengthen the role of comprehensive planning through the added funding it authorizes for planning. These funds can support additional staff and expanded planning activities. But the funds will make a difference only if MPOs and state DOTs use them to hire the necessary staff and to program the necessary work. New intergovernmental relationships and public participation are needed. 3. New intergovernmental relationships and public participation mechanisms are needed to address the required planning factors. The planning process must be changed to address the new factors listed in ISTEA. Even the older requirements necessitate changes where those requirements have not received enough attention in the past. MPOs and state DOTs must expand the planning process to bring in new participants to address environmental concerns, privately funded transportation projects, freight, and transit services. Public agencies such as those with responsibility for environmental planning and regulation must be involved. Private companies that develop or operate parts of the transportation system need better representation in the planning process. Public interest groups, including those concerned with clean air, bicycle and pedestrian transportation, and urban development must have input in both state and metropolitan plans. This may require reconsideration of MPO board structure and voting powers and revision of the organization of advisory committees at the state and MPO level. The need to consider such changes is reflected in subsections 134(b), (g), and (h) and subsections 135(b), (d), (e), and (f). 20 GENERAL GUIDELINES MPOs and DOTs must develop adequate methods and procedures to carry out the new requirements. 4. Adequate technical methods and procedures must be developed to carry out the new requirements. Some of the factors to be considered are new and others are stated in new ways. These factors require types of analysis that have not been widely performed in the past. For example, the effects of transportation policy decisions upon land use are now to be considered; most metropolitan areas have not analyzed these rigorously. The tools to perform such analysis have not typically been developed to the point that they can be easily applied. Such tools must be developed through increased research, and a greater emphasis must be placed upon their use. Metropolitan Planning To be considered comprehensive, the metropolitan planning process must address all 15 factors listed in the act. It must recognize that those factors are interrelated and that they impinge upon the process in different ways. The factors are of two types. Some are so fundamental that they change the very structure of the process. Others--the largest group of factors--specify certain subjects to be addressed or methods of analysis to be used. In some cases, the specification of a subject for analysis may also inherently require a change in the process. In the discussion that follows, the numbers in parentheses refer to the paragraph numbers of subsection 134(f). These factors are listed at the end of this paper. Procedural Factors (factors that change the planning process): Address the overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions Consider the effect of transportation policy decisions on land use Consider the consistency of transportation planning with federal, state, and local energy goals Procedural Factors. The most basic of the factors requires the process to address the overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions (13). Addressing this factor will require that each MPO adopt explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values that will guide transportation decisions in that metropolitan area. The planning process must then address these policies. In a sense, all the other factors in the list are the means to address this one. A second procedural factor requires the effect of transportation decisions on land use--and the consistency between transportation and land-use plans--to be considered (4). Traditionally, transportation planning begins with the present land-use pattern or a postulated future one and identifies the resulting transportation needs and effects. The new requirement calls for analyzing the reverse relationship, a recognition that !and-use patterns are not a given but rather at least partially the result of the accessibility created by the transportation system. Achieving a region's desired land-use pattern then requires transportation decisions to support that pattern. Analyzing the land-use effects of transportation decisions is a difficult and complex task; present attempts are general and rely on inexact methods. Improving the ability to address this factor calls for new planning techniques. The requirement to consider the consistency of transportation planning with federal, state, and local energy goals will place new emphasis on energy efficiency (2). One effect of this factor will be to stress the need for such goals to be defined, but a more important effect will be to make energy consumption a decision criterion, along with cost and the other values that determine the best transportation solution. Another basic requirement is to preserve existing facilities and meet transportation needs by using those facilities more efficiently (1). No longer can the solution to a given transportation problem be presumed to require the construction of new facilities. Instead, the planning process must seek to improve the performance of existing facilities. Planning must be more than the development of a capital improvement program. The process must also include transportation system management (TSM) strategies that increase the usefulness of 21 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE Procedural Factors (continued) Preserve existing facilities and meet transportation needs by using those facilities more efficiently Consider all projects in the metropolitan area, including those not publicly funded Consider the six state-developed management systems: 1. pavement 2. bridge 3. safety 4. congestion 5. public transportation 6. intermodal transportation the existing system and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies that reduce the number of trips the system must accommodate.. Low-cost improvements, ride sharing, pricing, and encouragement of transit use must be integral to the process. Although such strategies have been formally required since 1975 and have been applied in many areas this requirement strengthens their ability to command serious attention. The general scope of the planning process is defined by the requirement to consider all projects in the metropolitan area, including those not publicly funded (6). This will require the assessment of all types of transportation system changes, no matter who sponsors them. Typically, the planning process now addresses projects developed with federal and state funds. Those projects that use exclusively local funds---county or city--are not always included. Privately funded projects, including such transportation system elements as freight railroads, freight terminals, intercity bus stations, and parking facilities, are often ignored. Including these projects in the planning process will assure that their incorporation into the overall transportation system. The factor requiring the consideration of the six state- developed management systems (9) will change the intergovernmental nature of the planning process. Section 303 of the act requires that states develop management systems for highway pavement of federal-aid highways, bridges on and off federal-aid highways, highway safety, traffic congestion, public transportation facilities and equipment, and intermodal transportation facilities and systems. States are to develop and implement these systems in metropolitan areas in cooperation with MPOs. To assure that the management systems adequately reflect responsibilities for both planning and implementation, new means of state-local cooperation must be established. Specific Factors (Factors requiring consideration of specific subjects and methods of analysis): Relieve congestion and prevent congestion from occurring where it does not now occur Preserve existing rights-of-way Consider the life-cycle costs of transportation systems Specific Factors. Specific factors define subjects and methodologies the planning process must include. Some specific factors will cause major change; others are relatively simple additions. Some are already included in the planning process in many metropolitan areas. The need to relieve congestion and to prevent congestion from occurring where it does not now occur (3) focuses the planning process on system performance rather than facility construction. This factor requires not only planning for the construction of new facilities but also the application of TSM and TMD techniques. Addressing this factor requires the same approach, as does the procedural factor requiring the efficient use of existing facilities. Related to the focus on efficient use of facilities is the factor calling for the preservation of fights-of-way (10). This factor acknowledges that existing rights-of-way can be less expensive than newly created ones, as well as less disruptive to natural ecosystems and established communities. Addressing this factor will require that all transportation modes be considered and that presently used rights-of-way and those not now used for transportation be considered. The requirement to consider life-cycle costs (12) is a significant change for some types of projects. This requirement ensures that investment decisions take into account not just the initial capital costs of a facility, but also the operating and maintenance costs during the period the facility will be in use. In some cases, these costs can be substantial and, if properly recognized, could change the identification of the most cost- effective solution to a given problem. Section 133 of ISTEA establishes the Surface Transportation Program and specifies the types of projects that qualify for program funds, one of which is transportation enhancement activities. Enhancement activities are defined to include such improvements as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, scenic 22 GENERAL GUIDELINES beautification programs, historic preservation, control of outdoor advertising, archaeology, and mitigation of water pollution from highway runoff. The factor that calls for the programming of section 133 transportation enhancement projects (5) ensures that these types of projects receive adequate attention in the metropolitan planning process. This requirement is further strengthened by the requirement in subsection 134(g) that enhancement activities be addressed in each region's long-range plan. A separate section in ISTEA recognizes the importance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as a mode of transportation and requires that they be incorporated into regional and state plans. Section 217(g) requires that an overall metropolitan bicycle and pedestrian plan be incorporated by the MPO into the regional long- range plan. The requirement to consider the efficient movement of freight (11) introduces a new subject for analysis in many areas. Typically, planners assume that if the roadway network functions as it should, it will serve freight movement as well as passenger transportation. This ignores the differences between the two in needs and in usage patterns. It also ignores the rail, water, and air modes of freight movement, as well as the importance of intermodal transshipment points. Addressing this factor will require many areas to undertake goods-movement studies. Two factors relate to the connectivity of the transportation system. One specifies a number of locations to be considered, including ports, recreation areas, and military installations (7). The other requires consideration of the connectivity between roads within and outside the metropolitan area (8). Both of these factors will require that studies of facilities in the vicinity of the identified locations give attention to the issues of access and system continuity. Where particular problems exist, specific studies may need to be undertaken to address this factor. Methods to expand and enhance transit services and increase their use (14) are already addressed in many metropolitan areas. The significance of this factor's inclusion in the list of 15 is in increasing the importance of transit as intrinsic to the planning process in those areas where it is not now adequately considered. Probably the most detailed of the required factors is that for investments to increase security in transit systems (15). This factor can be addressed through individual studies of security problems in those metropolitan areas where this is a concern. include programming of transportation enhancement projects Consider the efficient movement of freight Consider a number of locations, including ports, recreation areas, and military installations Consider the connectivity between roads within and outside the metropolitan area Include methods to expand and enhance transit services and to increase their use Include investments to increase security in transit systems _______________________________________________ Required Planning for the State The greatest significance in the requirements for state planning is that they exist at all, since this is the first federal mandate for statewide transportation planning. Most of the requirements for the state planning process are similar to those for the metropolitan planning process, with some differences and a few additions reflecting the roles of state DOTs. More of the factors are procedural for the state simply because the state process is new. Numbers in parentheses in the following discussion are paragraph numbers in subsection 135(c) of ISTEA. Procedural Factors. The requirements that shape the state planning process include the same as for metropolitan areas: requirements for considering the overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions (11); the efficient use of existing facilities (10); the effects of transportation decisions upon land use (14); and energy goals (2). 23 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE In addition to the same requirements that shape the metropolitan planning process, states must consider the following: The transportation needs identified through the use of the six management systems Any plans developed under section 134 for metropolitan areas The transportation needs of nonmetropolitan areas through a process that includes consultation with local elected officials with jurisdiction over transportation Methods to reduce traffic congestion Intergovernmental relationships are more broadly expressed from the state perspective than from the metropolitan perspective. States must consider the transportation needs identified through the use of the six management systems (15) that in metropolitan areas must be developed in cooperation with MPOs. But states are also subject to two additional items affecting how they relate to their municipal jurisdictions. One calls for states to consider any plans developed under section 134 for metropolitan areas (6). The other addresses nonmetropolitan areas and instructs states to consider the transportation needs of those areas through a process that includes consultation with local elected officials with jurisdiction over transportation (5). These requirements will ensure that as states establish their planning processes, they will give particular attention to establishing effective intergovernmental mechanisms, and planning processes will be coordinated with those of local governments. The state list includes the requirement to consider methods to reduce traffic congestion (12). While that requirement is not considered procedural for MPOs, it is for states because the state process is new. Because some states deal with transportation systems solely as facilities, the emphasis upon performance this factor creates is a sweeping change in perspective for states. Specific Factors In addition to the specific factors that mirror those for metropolitan areas, states must consider the following: The long-range needs of the state transportation system Innovative financing of projects State plans developed under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act The incorporation of bikeways and pedestrian facilities in projects Recreational travel and tourism Specific Factors. As with the procedural factors, many of the specific factors for states mirror those for metropolitan areas, although in some cases their impact is different because of the different scale of planning. There are requirements for preservation of rights-of-way (17) and the use of life-cycle costs (20). Freight movement is addressed (19), although the focus is narrower; states are required only to consider commercial motor vehicles. Access to special facilities is addressed (4), as is connectivity (7), although here the connectivity is between metropolitan areas. Expanded transit services must also be considered (13). Requirements that appear only in the list for states include the need to address long-range needs of the state transportation system (18). This will ensure that state planning is more than the programming of projects for short-term implementation. Innovative financing of projects must also be considered (16). Since states are a major source of funding for many types of transportation improvements, this requirement should foster creativity that could generate additional funding. Consideration of state plans developed under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (9) will ensure that the water-quality effects of transportation projects, such as runoff from roadways and impacts on environmentally sensitive areas, will be adequately addressed. Incorporation of bikeways and pedestrian facilities in projects throughout the state (3) is identified as a state responsibility as well as being identified in the general requirements for both MPOs and DOTs and in Section 217(g) which calls for coordination of state bicycle and pedestrian plans with state long-range plans. This raises the importance of nonmotorized transportation in the range of issues that the states must consider. Like a number of other requirements, it also will necessitate cooperation between different levels of government, since local jurisdictions also have responsibility for such facilities. Finally, consideration of recreational travel and tourism (8) places responsibility for this subject at the appropriate level of government, since many states now promote tourism and since many recreational facilities are in non-metropolitan areas. Consideration of this factor will require balancing the promotional aspects of attracting tourists with the need to protect the 24 GENERAL GUIDELINES environmental qualities that create the value of many recreational locations. _______________________________________________ Conclusion MPOs and state DOTs must respond to the requirements of ISTEA by establishing transportation planning and programming processes to address the factors listed above. In some cases, this means modifying existing practices; in others, creating entirely new ones. The establishment of new metropolitan and state planning processes will be guided by the regulations issued by the U.S. DOT. To ensure that each MPO and state DOT fully complies with the act, the regulations must include certification criteria that reflect the concerns discussed here. Citizens and organizations interested in effective transportation planning must participate in the design of the certification criteria as the regulations are developed and reviewed. Meanwhile, the changes ISTEA creates are so basic to the planning process that they cannot wait for the regulatory process to be completed. MPOs and state DOTs must begin now to review their existing practices and respond to the opportunity ISTEA creates for more comprehensive planning. Statutory Requirements for the metropolitan and state planning processes are listed on the following page. ________________________________________________ Special thanks to Phil Braum, Barton-Aschman Associates, for his work in preparing this paper. _______________________________________________ The STPP RESOURCE GUIDE is a product of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. STPP is a network of diverse organizations, coalitions. and grassroots groups whose goal is to develop a national transportation policy that better serves the environmental, social, and economic interests of the nation, Representing both transportation consumers and providers, STPP seeks to frame public debate about federal transportation policy and to he?p craft a new transportation program that focuses on moving people and goods, rather than vehicles, without favoring any single mode of transportation. Formed in the fall of 1990, STPP encourages the participation of every concerned citizen and organization in its work. The work of the Surface Transportation Policy Project is made possible by grants from the Nathan Cummings Foundation. The Educational Foundation of America, the Energy Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the James C. Penney Foundation, Inc., The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Surdna Foundation. To get copies of other STPP Resource Guide materials, contact us at 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036. Our phone number is (202) 939-3470. Copyright 1992 Surface Transportation Policy Project. Reprint with written permission. This document was printed on recycled paper. _______________________________________________ 25 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE Factors to be Considered in Metropolitan Plans Section 134(f) states: "In developing transportation planning plans and programs pursuant to this section, each metropolitan planning organization shall, at a minimum, consider the following: (1) Preservation of existing transportation facilities and, where practical, ways to meet transportation needs by using existing transportation facilities more efficiently. (2) The consistency of transportation planning with applicable Federal, State, and local energy conservation programs, goals, and objectives. (3) The need to relieve congestion and prevent congestion from occurring where it does not yet occur. (4) The likely effect of transportation policy decisions on land use and development and the consistency of transportation plans and programs with provisions of all applicable short- and long-term land use and development plans. (5) The programming of expenditure on transportation enhancement activities, which is required in section 133. (6) The effects of all transportation projects to be undertaken in the metropolitan area, without regard to whether such projects are publicly funded. (7) International border crossings and access to ports, airports, intermodal transportation facilities, major freight distribution routes, national parks, recreation areas, monuments and historic sites, and military installations. (8) The need for connectivity of roads within the metropolitan area with roads outside the metropolitan. (9) The transportation needs identified through use of the management systems required by section 303 of this title.* (10) Presentation of rights-of-way for construction of future transportation projects, including identification of unused rights-of-way which may be needed for future transportation corridors and identification of those corridors for which action is most needed to prevent destruction or loss. (11) Methods to enhance the efficient movement of freight. (12) The use of life-cycle costs in the design and engineering of bridges, tunnels, or pavement. (13) The overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions. (14) Methods to expand and enhance transit services and to increase the use of such services. (15) Capital investments that would result in increased security in transit systems." Factors to be Considered in State Plans Section 135(c) states: "Each State shall undertake a continuous transportation planning process which shall, at a minimum, consider the following: (1) The results of the management systems required pursuant to subsection (b). (2) Any Federal, State, or local energy goals, objectives, programs or requirements. (3) Strategies for incorporating bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways in projects where appropriate throughout the State. (4) International border crossings and access to ports, airports, intermodal transportation facilities, major freight distribution routes, national parks, recreation and scenic areas, monuments and historic sites, and military installations. (5) The transportation needs of nonmetropolitan areas through a process that includes consultation with local elected officials with jurisdiction over transportation. (6) Any metropolitan area plan developed pursuant to sect.. 134. (7) Connectivity between metropolitan areas within the State and with any metropolitan areas in other States. (8) Recreational travel and tourism. (9) Any State plan developed pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (10) Transportation system management and investment strategies designed to make the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities. (11) The overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions. (12) Methods to reduce traffic congestion and to prevent it from developing in areas where it does not yet occur, including methods which reduce motor vehicle travel, particularly single-occupant motor vehicle travel. (13) Methods to expand and enhance transit services and to increase the use of such services. (14) The effect of transportation decisions on land use and development, including the need for consistency between transportation decision making and the provisions of all applicable short- and long-range land use and development plans. (15) The transportation needs identified through use of the management systems required by section 303 of this title.* (16) Where appropriate, the use of innovative mechanisms for financing projects, including value capture pricing, tolls, and congestion pricing. (17) Preservation of rights-of-way for construction of future transportation projects, including identification of unused rights-of-way which may be needed for future transportation corridors, and identify [sic] those corridors for which action is most needed to prevent destruction or loss. (18) Long-range needs of the State transportation system. (19) Methods to enhance the efficient movement of commercial motor vehicles. (20) The use of life-cycle costs in the design and engineering of bridges, tunnels, or pavement." * The six management systems identified in section 303 are as follows: pavement, bridge, safety, congestion, public transportation, and intermodal transportation. 26 GENERAL GUIDELINES Pay As You Go: Financial Requirements in Transportation Plans and Programs Purpose This paper defines the financial planning requirements set forth in the planning provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and outlines the basic elements for effective implementation of these requirements. _______________________________________________ Background: Statutory Requirements and Legislative Framework Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) both metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and the state departments of transportation (DOTs) must demonstrate that projects included in transportation improvement programs (TIPs) are likely to be funded. In addition, MPOs must demonstrate adequate financial commitments for transportation projects and activities in their long-range plans (LRPs). Metropolitan Financial Requirements At the metropolitan level, the new law requires that LRPs "include a financial plan that demonstrates how the long-range plan can be implemented, indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan, and recommends any innovative financing techniques to finance needed projects and programs, including such techniques as value capture, tolls, and congestion pricing. (Section 134[g][2][B]). In addition, the new law requires each transportation improvement program to include "a financial plan that demonstrates how the transportation improvement program can be implemented, indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan, and recommends any innovative financing techniques to finance needed projects and programs, including value capture, tolls, and congestion pricing" (Section 134[h][2][B]). Finally, the new law requires that a TIP shall include a project, or an identified phase of a project, "only if full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be available for the project within the time period contemplated for completion of the project." (Section 134[h][5]). "...the amended conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act have made it imperative that Transportation Improvement Programs contain only projects for which funding is reasonably anticipated." State Financial Requirements Although each state is not required to establish funding sources for its LRP, the new law requires states to include projects in their transportation improvement programs "only if full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be available for such project within the time contemplated for completion of the project." These provisions Originated in the Senate bill and were subsequently included in the House bill and conference report. Of particular relevance, therefore, is the language in the Senate report describing the rationale for these provisions. According to the Senate report, "Historically, TIPs have included projects for which funding could not be reasonably anticipated. Before passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, inclusion of such projects in a TIP had no adverse effect on project priorities and spending. However, the amended conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act have made it imperative that TIPs contain only projects for which funding is reasonably anticipated. The likelihood that funding will be available for future projects will be a factor in 27 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE "If projects and programs for which there is no reasonably anticipated source of funding are included in the TiP, the air quality benefit or detriment of such projects and programs could skew the expected air quality impact of the TIP." evaluating the conformity of long-range plans. "The conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended, require an MPO to evaluate a TIP for conformity with the emission reduction schedules and other provisions of the applicable implementation plan based on the assumption that each of the projects and programs in the TIP will be implemented in accordance with the timetable in the TIP. If projects and programs for which there is no reasonably anticipated source of funding are included in the TIP, the air quality benefit or detriment of such projects and programs could skew the expected air quality impact of the TIP. As a result, the TIP may only contain projects for which there is a reasonably anticipated source of funding. However, many transit projects rely on the Federal appropriations process for funding and such funding may change from year to year. It is not the intention of the Committee to exclude such projects from a TIP because such funding depends on Federal appropriations, Nor must each project to [sic] have earmarked federal state, and local funds identified in the TIP. Historical funding levels, existing bonding authority, existing state and local tax revenues, allocation of federal funds under the Surface Transportation Program, and other relevant factors may be used in determining whether funding can be reasonably anticipated." -- Senate Report 102-71, p. 30. Interpretation "A 'reasonably anticipated funding' determination is not possible if no time frame is established for the program or project " The legislative language and accompanying Senate report make clear that a MPO must exclude any project or program from its LRP and TIP if funding is not reasonably available. Therefore, a financial plan must demonstrate reasonably available funding for all projects listed in the TIP and LRP. Congress did not specify when funds would be considered "reasonably available," but the Senate report indicates that availability should be tied to "historical" funding levels, "existing" bonding authority, and "existing" state and local tax revenues. Speculative future revenue sources, such as unenacted tax increases, unauthorized bond issues, or potential revenues from yet-to-be imposed tolls cannot be used to satisfy this requirement. In addition, funding must be shown to be available to complete the project "within the time period contemplated for completion of the project." Therefore, any financial plan must be tied to the priorities and timetables set forth in the TIP. A "reasonably anticipated funding" determination is not possible if no time frame is established for the program or project. In order to comply with ISTEA, a financial plan must not only identify funding sources and revenues, but whether such resources will be available within the time frame established by the TIP and the LRP. Finally, each state must also demonstrate in its state TIP that each project has "reasonably available" funding in the same manner as the metropolitan TIP. Such TIPs must also include a timetable of construction and completion in order to allow an evaluation of the financial plan. _______________________________________________ 28 GENERAL GUIDELINES Conclusion The following requirements, then, must be satisfied by local and state agencies and enforced by federal transportation agencies: Metropolitan Requirements Each MPO must prepare a financial plan to accompany its LRP and its TIP. Each MPO must exclude from its TIP any project for which funding is not reasonably available. State Requirements Each state must prepare a financial plan to accompany its TIP. Each state must exclude from its TIP any project for which funding is not reasonably available. General Requirements MPOs and states must rely on existing sources of revenue, not speculative or prospective revenues. In addition, revenues must be linked to project timing: no project may be included in an MPO or state TIP unless funding is demonstrated to be "reasonably available" within the time contemplated for completion of the project. _______________________________________________ Special thanks to Bill Roberts, Environmental Defense Fund, for his help in preparing this paper. _______________________________________________ THE STPP RESOURCE GUIDE is a product of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. STPP is a network of diverse organizations, coalitions, and grassroots groups whose goal is to develop a national transportation policy that better serves the environmental, social, and economic interests of the nation. Representing both transportation consumers and providers, STPP seeks to frame public debate about federal transportation policy and to help craft a new transportation program that focuses on moving people and goods, rather than vehicles, without favoring any single mode of transportation. Formed in the fall of 1990, STPP encourages the participation of every concerned citizen and organization in its work. The work of the Surface Transportation Policy Project is made possible by grants from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Energy Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the James C. Penney Foundation, Inc., The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Surdna Foundation. For copies of other STPP Resource Guide Material, contact the Surface Transportation Policy Project at 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036. Telephone: (202) 939-3470. Copyright 1992 Surface Transportation Policy Project. Reprint with written permission. This document is printed on recycled paper. 29 Tools for Change: The Clean Air Act Amendments and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Purpose This paper describes the key planning and transportation control reforms contained in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA ) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The reforms discussed in this paper are contained m sections 108, 110, 174, 176, and 304 of the CAAA and sections 134 and 135 of ISTEA. _______________________________________________ Background: Statutory Requirements and Legislative Framework Through the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Congress has taken significant steps toward ensuring that transportation planning decisions result in cleaner air. The CAAA requires states to integrate their air quality and transportation planning processes by: establishing better coordination between state transportation and air quality planning and setting a firm schedule for states to attain air quality standards. ISTEA strengthens these reforms by requiring that local and state transportation plans be consistent with state air plans, introducing incentives to control transportation demand, and removing the traditional federal inducements to building new roads. For the past four decades, federal funding policies have rewarded the creation and maintenance of highways and reinforced automobile-dependent life-styles, providing much less support for access to other means of transportation. such as transit, bicycling, and walking. The Highway Act of 1956 under President Eisenhower provided for the construction of the Interstate Highway System. Now nearing completion, this monumental effort contributed to current land use patterns and to the dominance of the automobile in transportation planning. During the boom in suburban development, little thought was given to the development of transit infrastructure or alternatives to the automobile. Consequently, as businesses and jobs have moved from central business districts to outlying suburban areas, new economic centers have been underserved by public transit and workers have become dependent on automobiles. Meanwhile, urban areas with older central business districts must cope with crumbling infrastructure while they suffer transit fare increases and service cuts. Transportation decisions that favor new highways have contributed to suburban sprawl and urban decline, and traffic congestion in metropolitan areas has grown worse. For example, the Illinois Public Action Coalition has found that congestion on Chicago-area freeways and toll roads increased by 34 percent over the last decade. Our failure to effectively integrate transportation, land use policies, and infrastructure investments has created a dependence on automobiles we cannot sustain. Meanwhile. policies to provide people with alternatives to driving alone have been almost nonexistent. The CAAA and ISTEA help solve our transportation and air quality problems by mandating coordinated planning to meet a wide range of mobility, environmental, and community goals and providing increased and more flexible funding for public transit, cleaner fuels, and alternative travel modes, such as telecommuting, ride sharing, walking, and bicycling. Together, the two laws 31 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE require that state and local transportation improvement programs (TIPs) conform to state implementation plans (SIPs) for cleaner air. "Conformity" requires transportation plans, programs, and projects to contribute to the attainment of better air quality. Further, under ISTEA, transportation decisions must be made according to a list of specific considerations pertaining to community quality, environmental protection, economic efficiency, and energy conservation. Such a broad perspective for transportation decisions requires the active participation of many players: citizens, elected officials acting through their metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), state departments of transportation (DOTs), other state and local governments, transit operators, transportation management associations, members of the business community, environmental and labor groups, and public interest groups. _______________________________________________ The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 The CAAA requires greatly increased attention to mobile source emissions (pollution from motor vehicles) as part of the new requirements for ozone control plans. Air quality standards have been in place for well over a decade. However, in December of 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to include much stricter requirements for meeting these standards. Perhaps the most important and far-reaching provision of the CAAA is the requirement that state transportation plans conform to state air plans. Although such a provision has been in the Clean Air Act since 1977, it was never formally interpreted to mean that transportation plans as a whole must conform to air plans, only that transportation plans had to list the transportation control measures (TCMs) listed in the air plans. The CAAA broadens the interpretation by prohibiting the expenditure of any funds on projects in a transportation plan or program unless on the whole the plan and program conform to the state air plan. They must meet the state plan' s purpose of eliminating and reducing air quality violations. The CAAA also requires greatly increased attention to mobile source emissions as part of the new requirements for ozone control plans. Mobile sources (cars, buses and tracks) account for 88 percent of carbon monoxide and 50 percent of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are the major contributors to ground-level ozone, smog, global warming and related health problems. (In California, VOCs are known as reactive organic gases.) Traffic congestion and mobile source pollution compromise the environment, damage human health, and take a heavy financial toll through fuel consumption, car maintenance costs, and lost productivity. One hundred areas in 33 states and the District of Columbia fail to meet national clean air standards. Ten states have been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as having "severe" nonattainment areas. The states with metropolitan regions designated as "severe" are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin (Los Angeles, Calif., is in its own separate "extreme" category). Nonattainment areas are required to develop air quality plans and take particular steps on a specific timetable to demonstrate reductions in ground-level ozone and carbon monoxide. Penalties for noncompliance include the freezing of federal transportation funds and/or the imposition of a federal implementation plan (FIP) to help attain air quality standards. States that contain areas with moderate ozone air quality must submit air plans that demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions by 1996. VOCs are precursors of ozone pollution that react with heat and light from the sun to produce ground-level ozone pollution. States containing areas with serious, 32 GENERAL GUIDELINES severe, or extreme air quality nonattainment must also submit air plans demonstrating emission reductions averaging three percent per year for each consecutive three-year period after 1996. The failure of a nonattainment area to achieve compliance on schedule can result in the freezing of federal transportation funds unless such funds are spent on safety programs or projects that will improve air quality (Section 176[a]). A partial list of eligible projects includes capital expenditures for public transit, construction of bus or high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, traffic flow improvements that achieve a net reduction of emissions, park- and-ride lots at transit stops, and programs to limit vehicle use in high-traffic areas through tolls, parking surcharges, or other congestion pricing measures to control the social and environmental costs of driving. EPA gives states with nonattainment areas 18 months to revise deficient air plans after EPA's initial review. If that deadline is missed, the nonattainment areas may either have their federal funding withheld or be required to reduce emissions from industry and businesses at a rate that could negatively affect their ability to expand or add new industrial facilities. If after 24 months an area is still in nonattainment, both sanctions kick in. The EPA may also apply the sanctions statewide at that time. _______________________________________________ The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 If the Clean Air Act is the stick to force better coordination of transportation and air quality planning, ISTEA is the carrot to induce reform. The most significant change in the federal law is the restructuring of Title 23, the Highways Title of the United States Code, to allow funds formerly restricted to road projects to be spent on all modes of surface transportation, including measures to control demand for new roads. ISTEA also requires the evaluation of all proposed projects against the backdrop of a comprehensive long-range planning process that considers the mobility goals of communities and states in the context of their goals for environmental protection, community' quality, economic growth, and energy efficiency. More than any previous surface transportation act, ISTEA removes traditional barriers to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects, such as inequitable match ratios for road and transit projects, more stringent alternative analysis requirements for transit projects than for highways, and overemphasis on new construction to the detriment of system maintenance and preservation. Under the new law, the federal-state match ratio for all transportation projects is the same--80:20 in most cases. Transit capital investment to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Clean Air Act is actually favored with a 90:10 match ratio. Alternatives analysis procedures must be the same for transit and road projects. And the construction of new capacity on roads is restricted unless it can be demonstrated to help attain clean air goals. To assure a dedicated source of funds for transportation projects that help meet CAAA goals, a new $6 billion program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program (CMAQ) was created by ISTEA specifically to combat air quality problems through the wider use of TCMs. ISTEA provides $119 billion for highways under Title 23, $58 billion of which can be "flexed" to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. ISTEA also authorizes a substantial increase of funds for transit under Title 49 of the U.S. Code, the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. However, it is unlikely that this fact alone will dramatically strengthen the role of transit in local and state transportation decisions: While most funds under Title 23 are virtually assured 33 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE through the Highway Trust Fund, transit funds are much more vulnerable to the annual appropriations battle. Appropriation levels over the next several years are likely to be lower than the amounts authorized in ISTEA. Only comprehensive planning with a strong component of public involvement can ensure that transportation funds are spent to reduce air pollution. _______________________________________________ A Shift of Focus From Projects to Process A substantial challenge for some metropolitan areas is the requirement that their boundaries must at least include the boundaries of the nonattainment area [23 USC 134(c)]. ISTEA contains a comprehensive set of planning requirements for MPOs and state DOTs. ISTEA mandates the establishment of public involvement processes that give citizens a role in developing transportation plans and programs well before the approval stage. A few key planning requirements in ISTEA are summarized below; a more detailed discussion of them is the topic of the STPP Resource Guide paper "New Rules: Transportation Plans and Programs Under ISTEA" (May 1992). Section 134(g)(3) of ISTEA requires MPOs for nonattainment areas to coordinate the development of their long-range plans (LRPs) with the development of the state implementation plans required by the Clean Air Act. A substantial challenge for some metropolitan areas is the requirement that their boundaries must at least include the boundaries of the nonattainment area (23 USC 134[c]). ISTEA requires states to coordinate their transportation planning with the transportation planning activities of metropolitan areas and to develop the transportation portion of the state implementation plan (23 USC 134[b]). Metropolitan Planning and Transportation Management Areas. The metropolitan planning process must address 15 factors listed in ISTEA, many of which have a direct impact on planning for clean air. The most basic of these is the requirement that the planning process address the overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions. In a sense, all of the other factors in the list are the means to address this one. ISTEA also requires the planning process to attempt to solve transportation needs by using existing facilities more efficiently before building new capacity. No longer can the solution to a given transportation problem be presumed to require the construction of new facilities. The metropolitan plan must include transportation system management (TSM) strategies that increase the usefulness of the existing system and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies that reduce the travel volumes the system must accommodate. This provision reinforces the funding preference given to TCMs over new construction by the CAAA. The planning process must also consider the effect of transportation policy decisions on land use and the consistency between transportation and land-use plans. This is a significant boon for clean air because the interaction of land use and transportation infrastructure determines the viability of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access to the transportation system. Another important new provision in ISTEA is the designation of urbanized areas with over 200,000 population as Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). Within these areas, many of which overlap with nonattainment areas, the transportation planning process must include a congestion management system (CMS) "that provides for effective management of new and existing transportation facilities... through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies" [23 USC 134(i)]. TMAs are entitled to strengthened project selection rights and a percentage of suballocated funds from the Surface Transportation Program [23 USC 133(d)]. By request of the governor and affected MPO, any area may be designated a TMA, entitling it to greater 34 GENERAL GUIDELINES project selection authority but not to a percentage of suballocation funds. Statewide Planning Factors and Management Systems. ISTEA represents the first federal mandate for statewide transportation planning, which in light of the CAAA's conformity requirements is appropriate because significant air quality planning takes place at the state level. Most of the requirements for the state planning process are similar to those for the metropolitan planning process, with some differences and a few additions reflecting the roles of state DOTs. Section 303 of ISTEA requires states to develop management systems for highway pavement of federal-aid highways, bridges on and off federal-aid highways, highway safety, traffic congestion, public transportation facilities and equipment, and intermodal transportation facilities and systems. States are to develop and implement these systems in metropolitan areas in cooperation with MPOs. To ensure that the management systems adequately reflect responsibilities for both planning and implementation, new means of state-local cooperation will need to be established. The establishment of these management systems also requires the states to think through the management and operation of existing facilities and to place decisions about construction of new facilities in a broad management context. _______________________________________________ The Role of Citizens in Promoting Clean Air The early and extensive involvement of citizens in transportation decisions will help implement the intentions of the CAAA and ISTEA. If public involvement is not adequate, the CAAA also includes a broad provision entitling citizens to litigate against public agencies and individuals under certain circumstances to force compliance with the requirements of the CAAA. Section 304(a) allows citizens to bring a suit against the EPA administrator for failure to carry out any duty that is not discretionary. Citizens may also sue any individual and/or governmental unit for violating any emission standard or limitation. The first test of this right has already arrived: At this writing, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, and the Environmental Defense Fund all have brought suits against the EPA and, in the last two cases, the U.S. DOT for their failure to issue a final role governing the criteria and procedures for making conformity determinations regarding transportation plans, programs and projects. ISTEA's approach to public involvement is more consensus- oriented, focusing on involving the public in transportation decisions from the development of the LRP through the approval of the final list of projects in the TIP. However, the two approaches are interdependent. To fully participate and have input into the planning process, it is critical for community, labor, and environmental organizations to acquire a basic knowledge of transportation problems and issues and to build coalitions that further examine the relationship of those issues to their neighborhoods, cities, and towns. Because transportation is so closely linked to jobs and quality of life, low-income citizens should be included in decisions on transportation policies. Social equity issues ought to be addressed and consideration given to minimizing the burden of transportation costs on the low-income commuter--for example, by developing special funds from the revenue generated by increased gas taxes, vehicle registration and parking fees, or bridge and highway tolls. Effective market-based measures could include low- cost loans for vehicle improvements, trade-in programs for pre-1980 vehicles, employer-provided 35 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE subsidies for transit, and improvements to transit systems and services. Establishment of a delicate balance between effective implementation and social equity issues means developing new coalitions, empowering groups previously excluded from public debate on transportation policy and planning, and placing transportation issues on the public agenda. The potential benefits are improved public health and lower health-care costs, less environmental degradation, and more accessible and energy-efficient transportation options. _______________________________________________ Transportation Control Measures Solving our clean air and transportation problems requires related approaches, from increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and tracks to the application of TDM techniques to reduce our dependency on driving. The variety of approaches to improving air quality are known as TCMs. Examples of TCMs include employer trip reduction programs, stricter emission standards for automobiles, public transportation improvements, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs, trade-in programs like "Cash for Clunkers," reformulated gasoline and clean fuel fleet programs. Section 108 of the CAAA suggests 16 TCMs, and Section 176(d) mandates that they be given priority consideration in funding. These measures are listed below. _______________________________________________ Transportation Control Measures Listed in Section 108 of the Clean Air Act 1. Improved public transit 2. Limitations and restrictions of certain roads or lanes to transit and high-occupancy vehicles 3. Employer-based transportation management 4. Trip reduction ordinances 5. Traffic flow improvements to achieve emissions reductions 6. Park and ride/fringe parking 7. Programs to limit auto travel during peak periods (including congestion pricing) 8. Ride-sharing programs 9. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities 10. Bicycle storage facilities 11. Programs to reduce extended vehicle idling 12. Programs to reduce extreme cold starts 13. Flexible work schedules 14. Programs to promote nonautomobile travel to major activity centers such as shopping centers, special events, and other centers of vehicle activity 15. Programs for new construction and major reconstruction of paths, tracks, or areas solely for the use of pedestrian or other nonmotorized means of transportation 16. Voluntary removal of pre-1980 vehicles ("Cash for Clunkers") _______________________________________________ Interim guidance issued February 20 by the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation lists five categories of activities agreed on 36 GENERAL GUIDELINES by DOT and EPA as demonstrating air quality benefits so clearly that they are eligible for funding from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program without further consultation with EPA: 1. Transportation activities listed in the State Implementation Improvement Program 2. The Transportation Control Measures listed in section 108 of the Clean Air Act 3. The development of the management systems for traffic congestion and public transportation "where it can be demonstrated that they are likely to contribute to National Ambient Air Quality Standards." 4. Capital and operating costs for traffic monitoring, management, and control facilities. CMAQ funds "may not replace existing local and State funds used for operating costs, but are intended to augment and reinforce new efforts. 5. Bicycle and pedestrian programs, including construction of facilities, public education, promotional, and safety programs. _______________________________________________ Conclusion The time is ripe for nationwide changes in transportation policy. To move forward, however, transportation and air quality officials must coordinate their planning efforts and create a climate more responsive to public activism and involvement, In turn, the public must educate and organize around their communities' transportation needs to better understand the role of transportation in neighborhood vitality and quality of life. Citizens must move from a focus on projects to a focus on process. It is critical for citizens, transit operators, labor, business representatives, MPOs and public interest groups to have input into the planning process to look at what services they really need in their neighborhoods, cities, and towns; and how best to provide those services so they contribute to the attainment of healthier air. Special thanks to Deborah Boldt, formerly of the Center for Neighborhood Technology and now with the City of Chicago, for her help in preparing this paper. Thanks also to Bill Roberts, Bob Yuhnke and Annette Liebe of the Environmental Defense Fund, and Janet Hathaway of the Natural Resources Defense Council for their contributions to this paper. _______________________________________________ The STPP RESOURCE GUIDE is a product of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. STPP is a network of diverse organizations, coalitions, and grassroots groups whose goal is to develop a national transportation policy that better serves the environmental, social, and economic interests of the nation. Representing both transportation consumers and providers, STPP seeks to frame public debate about federal transportation policy and to help craft a new transportation program that focuses on moving people and goods, rather than vehicles, without favoring any single mode of transportation. Formed in the fall of 1990, STPP encourages the participation of every concerned citizen and organization in its work. The work of the Surface Transportation Policy Project is made possible by grants from the Nathan Cu turnings Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Energy Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the James C. Penhey Foundation, Inc., The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Surdna Foundation. To get copies of other STPP Resource Guide materials, contact us at 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036. Our phone number is (202) 939-3470. Copyright 1992 Surface Transportation Policy Project. Reprint with written permission. This document was printed on recycled paper. 37 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE Areas Violating the National Ozone Standard Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 1991 Extreme (1 area) Los Angeles, Calif. Severe (8 areas) Baltimore, Md. Chicago, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. Houston, Tex. Milwaukee, Wis. New York, N.Y.-N.J.-Conn. Philadelphia, Pa. San Diego, Calif. S.E. Desert Modified AQMA, Calif. Ventura Co., Calif. Serious (18 areas) Atlanta, Ga. Baton Rouge, La. Beaumont, Tex. Boston, Mass.-N.H. El Paso, Tex. Greater Conn. Muskegon, Mich. Portsmouth, N.H.-Maine Providence, R.I. Sacramento, Calif. San Joaquin Valley, Calif. Sheboygan, Wis. Springfield, Mass. Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. Moderate (32 areas) Atlantic City, N.J. Charleston, W.V. Charlotte, N.C.-S.C. Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind. Cleveland-Akron, Ohio Dallas-Fort Worth, Tex. Dayton-Springfield, Ohio Detroit-Ann Arbor, Mich. Grand Rapids, Mich. Greensboro, N.C. Huntington, W.V.-Ky.-Okla. Kewaunee Co., Wis. Knox & Lincoln Cos., Maine Lewiston-Auburn, Maine Louisville, Ky.-Ind. Manitowoc Co., Wisc. Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-W. Palm Beach, Fla. Monterey Bay, Calif. Nashville, Tenn. Parkersburg, W.V. Phoenix, Adz. Pittsburgh, Pa. Portland, Maine Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Raleigh-Durham, N.C. Reading, Pa. Richmond, Va. Salt Lake City, Utah San Francisco Bay Area, Calif. Santa Barbara, Calif. St. Louis, Mo.-Ill. Toledo, Ohio Marginal (41 areas) Albany, N.Y. Allentown, Pa. Altoona, Pa. Birmingham, Ala. Buffalo, N.Y. Canton, Ohio Cherokee Co., S.C. Columbus, Ohio Door Co., Wis. Edmonson Co., Ky. Erie, Pa. Essex Co., N.Y. Evansville, Ind.-Ky. Greenbrier Co, W.V. Hancock/Waldo Cos., Maine Harrisburg, Pa. Indianapolis, Ind. Jefferson Co., N.Y. Jersey Co., Ill. Johnstown, Pa. Kent & Queen Cos., Md. Knoxville, Tenn. Lake Charles, La. Lancaster, Pa. Lexington, Ky. Manchester, N.H. Memphis, Tenn. Norfolk, Va. Owensboro, Ky. Paducah, Ky. Portland-Vancouver, Oreg.-Wash. Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Reno, Nev. Scranton, Pa. Seattle-Tacoma, Wash. Smyth Co., Va. South Bend, Ind. Sussex Co., Del. Tampa, Fla. Walworth Co., Wis. York, Pa. Youngstown-Sharon, Ohio-Pa. Submarginal Kansas City, Mo.-Kans. 38 GENERAL GUIDELINES Transportation Management Areas Above 200,000 Population Alabama Birmingham Mobile Montgomery Alaska Anchorage Arizona Phoenix Tucson Arkansas Little Rock-N. Little Rock California Los Angeles San Francisco-Oakland San Diego San Jose Riverside-San Bernadino Sacramento Oxnard-Ventura Fresno Bakersfield Stockton Modesto Colorado Denver Colorado Springs Connecticut Hartford-Middletown Delaware Wilmington, Del.-N.J.Md.-Pa. District of Columbia Washington,D.C.-Md.-Va. Florida Miami-Hialeah Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano Beach Orlando W. Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Delray Beach Jacksonville Sarasota-Bradenton Melbourne-Palm Bay Pensacola Daytona Beach Fort Myers-Cape Coral Georgia Atlanta Augusta, Ga.-S.C. Columbus, Ga.-Ala. Hawaii Honolulu Illinois Chicago, III.-Ind. Peoria Rockford Indiana Indianapolis Fort Wayne Iowa Des Moines Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, Iowa-Ill. Kansas Wichita Kentucky Louisville Lexington-Fayette Louisiana New Orleans Baton Rouge Shreveport Maryland Baltimore Massachusetts Boston Springfield Worcester, Mass.-Conn. Lawrence-Haverhill, Mass.-NH Michigan Detroit Grand Rapids Flint Lansing-East Lansing Ann Arbor Minnesota Minneapolis-St. Paul Mississippi Jackson Missouri St. Louis, Mo.-Ill. Kansas City, Mo.-Kans. Nebraska Omaha, Neb.-Iowa Nevada Las Vegas Reno New Jersey Trenton, N.J.-Pa. New Mexico Albuquerque New York New York, N.Y.-N.J. Buffalo-Niagara Falls Rochester Albany-Schenectady-Troy Syracuse North Carolina Charlotte Raleigh Fayetteville Durham Ohio Cleveland Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky. Columbus Dayton Akron Toledo, Ohio-Mich. Youngstown-Warren Canton Lorain-Elyria Oklahoma Oklahoma City Tulsa Oregon Portland-Vancouver, Oreg.-Wash. Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J. Pittsburgh Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa.-N.J. Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Harrisburg Rhode Island Providence-Pawtucket South Carolina Charleston Columbia Greenville Tennessee Memphis, Tenn.-Ark.-Miss. Nashville Knoxville Chattanooga, Tenn.-Ga. Texas Dallas-Fort Worth Houston San Antonio El Paso, Tex.-N.M. Austin Corpus Christi McAllen-Edinburg-Mission Utah Salt Lake City Ogden Provo-Orem Virginia Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News Richmond Washington Seattle Tacoma Spokane Wisconsin Milwaukee Madison Puerto Rico San Juan Source: Interim Guidance on the ISTEA Metropolitan Planning Requirements, Issued by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, April 6,1992 39 No More Wish Lists: Metropolitan Project Selection Under ISTEA Purpose This paper identifies the planning and programming provisions in ~he Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (ISTEA) that are the basis for transportation project selection decisions at the metropolitan level. It also suggests appropriate criteria and procedures for the selection of projects for federal funding. ______________________________________________ Background: Statutory Requirements and Legislative Framework Project selection is the result of two sequential processes: development of a 20-year long-range plan (LRP) and development of a three-year transportation improvement program (TIP). The principal thrust of ISTEA's new planning requirements is to open up the transportation planning and programming process in states and metropolitan areas. ISTEA introduces new objectives and values into the decision-making process. At the same time, ISTEA modifies the procedures for reaching these decisions. New parties representing diverse points of view must be given specific opportunities to be heard and affect the decisions of the federal, state, and local participants. Under the old federal aid transportation programs, state transportation agencies made many of the important decisions on what metropolitan projects would be selected for federal funding. Since most of the federal transit funding coming into metropolitan areas was allocated to designated transit recipients, transit projects were generally selected by the operators. These fragmented programming arrangements were exacerbated further by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) planning regulations, which did not require the TIPs of MPOs to be constrained by the available federal and local funds. Thus, the plans and TIPs grew into ~'wish lists." Project sponsors, in the main, selected projects from the lists on the basis of subjective, rather than negotiated objective, priorities for the region. Under the new planning requirements of ISTEA, the opportunity now exists to develop a collaborative process whereby state and local governments and transportation providers are partners in the planning and programming process and in which interest groups and community leaders can participate in the development and implementation of transportation investments. This result can best be achieved if the collaborative process results in a true negotiation among the players. Two factors are paramount to successful negotiations: Enough must be at stake for the participants to warrant their involvement, and each participant must have enough bargaining power to ensure basic equivalency in the negotiation process. The money provided by ISTEA is enough to address the first factor, and the vested right of local government and transit representatives to help select the federally assisted projects provides sought-after bargaining clout. ISTEA refers in its planning provisions (Section 134) to the selection of projects. The process and standards for making these decisions are not specifically defined. But a complete reading of the planning and programming sections of ISTEA establishes a firm basis for an operational definition. The term "project selection" refers to that part of the planning and programming process by which specific projects in the LRP of the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) are identified and included in the TIP based on the priority merit and certainty of financing. 41 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE To be eligible for federal funds, projects must be incorporated into the TIP, which must in turn be consistent with the LRP. Under Section 134(g) of ISTEA, MPOs in urbanized areas (areas of 50,000 or more population) must develop a 20-year plan that considers the 15 new factors described in Section 134(f). (These factors are discussed and listed in j~lt in the STPP Resource Guide paper, "New Rules: Developing Transportation Plans and Programs.") Based on the LRP, the MPO develops a TIP, in cooperation with the state and affected transit operators, that includes a priority list of projects for a three-year period and a financial plan for how the TIP can be implemented. To be eligible for federal funds, projects must be incorporated into the TIP, which must in turn be consistent with the LRP. The selection of projects for the TIP is initiated by the state, in cooperation with the MPO in all urbanized areas under 200,000 population [Section 134(h)(3)]. While the state initiates all federally aided project selection in these smaller areas, the local governments have a role in consultation with the state. In large urbanized regions where the population is over 200,000, however, ISTEA creates a more equal partnership among state DOTs, local governments, and transit operators in the project selection process. ______________________________________________ Transportation Management Areas In these large regions, referred to as transportation management areas (TMAs), new project selection rights are vested in the local governments functioning through the MPO. This new project selection requirement can be the basis for putting all the parties on a substantially equal footing. All highway projects within TMA boundaries (except National Highway System projects and bridge and interstate maintenance) and transit projects under the Federal Transit Act "shall be selected by the metropolitan planning organization designated for such area in consultation with the state..." (Section 134{f][31). This represents a radical change for most MPOs. Their ability to successfully carry out this responsibility will depend on the terms, conditions, and procedures contained in the U.S. DOT policies, regulations and guidelines for executing this pan of ISTEA. The predicate for creating a new programming arrangement is found in the provisions for an LRP. Section 134(g) now requires an LRP to cover the 20-year forecast period. The plan should identify the transportation facilities that will function as an "integrated metropolitan system, giving emphasis to those facilities that serve important national and regional transportation functions." Among other things, the plan must include a financial component showing how the LRP can be implemented. The plan can include revenues "reasonably expected" to be available. Thus, in the planning phase, new revenue sources can be identified if reasonable evidence shows they will materialize. Further, in nonattainment areas, the LRP must be coordinated with the development of transportation control measures in the state implementation plan (SIP) as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). ______________________________________________ Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 The reference to the CAAA helps define how specific the LRP should be. The CAAA legislation provides that the SIP and the MPO's plan and program must be mutually supportive. In this regard, the CAAA relates not only to the special congestion mitigation funding in ISTEA, but to all projects on the TIP and their effect on air quality. To ensure the conformity of both, the CAAA states that the 42 GENERAL GUIDELINES LRP of the MPO be detailed enough so the probable emissions from proposed transportation projects can be estimated. This will cause significant changes in the nature of the LRPs of most MPOS. Plans must specify projects or project alternatives to meet the defined transportation needs of the region and can no longer be conceptual and general. Thus, projects that meet the identified needs and can be implemented in the near term should be listed in the plan so priorities for moving them into reality can be developed. Plans must specify projects or project alternatives and can no longer be conceptual and general This identifies the other two critical amendments to the planning process that create the context for the project selection process. Section 134(h)(2) states that each TIP shall include a priority list of projects or project segments to be carried out within each three-year period after the initial adoption of the TIP. The second part of this subsection provides for a financial plan demonstrating the resources to carry out the TIP that are reasonably expected to be available. This financial feasibility test is reinforced in Section 134(h)(5), which mandates that the TIP shall include a project "only if full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be available for the project within the time period contemplated for completion of the project." Orchestrating the above-cited provisions of ISTEA can result in a preferred process for MPO project selection in TMA areas, in which transportation investment plays a beneficial role in achieving environmental, energy, and development goals. ______________________________________________ Interpretation and Recommendations The use of local project selection authority is of marginal value unless it is supported by the entire planning and programming process. The premise-for the LRP, which forms the foundation for quality project selection, is the consideration of the 15 factors newly listed in the revised Sections 134 and 8 of ISTEA. (Please see the STPP Resource Guide paper, "New Rules: Developing Transportation Plans and Programs" for a complete listing of these.) The LRP must be inclusive: State and community development objectives fostered by the region's transportation system must be facilitated. The plan should also be definitive: It should contain the specific transportation facilities to meet its goals. As noted above, the CAAA will require this specificity. The proposed facilities should be compatible with the strategy to attain and sustain federal air quality standards, and must be financially constrained: No wish lists can survive. The formulation and maintenance of the LRP should be based on a set of goals and priorities for the plan itself and, as a consequence, most of these priorities should be relevant for placing projects in the three-year TIP. Thus, the plan's priorities should not only help to produce the plan, but should also be the basic screen that defines the projects moving into the TIP. This should ensure that the TIP will sustain the vision, values, and needs reflected in the plan. This approach establishes the foundation and dynamics for the ideal of collaborative negotiation. The states, local governments, and transit operators will have a blueprint for negotiation around the regional table. The project selection process can provide each player with nearly comparable bargaining chips. Another leveling influence will be the public participation requirements. Citizens, public interest groups, and business groups will be given the opportunity to argue for their interest and preferences in formulating the TIP. A new arrival on the scene is the governor. He or she will have to concur with the TIPs once they are adopted through the metropolitan or state process. Hopefully, in many states. the governor will encourage the public and other state 43 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE agencies responsible for the environment, parks, or land use to be part of transportation decisions. ______________________________________________ Conclusion The state is still in the best position to select projects. But new and equalizing forces can be engaged if they are orchestrated as suggested above. One of the most important accomplishments is that the priority and financial plan requirements cited above establish the framework for the state DOT to follow, which in turn strengthens the MPO's and local governments' ability to negotiate. The challenge in this approach is that it requires local governments to reach agreement and form a coherent strategy for the use of project funds. Otherwise, they will lose the opportunity to influence project selection, and the state DOT will then have to make the important decisions on behalf of all parties. ______________________________________________ Special thanks to John Bosley, of the National Association of Regional Councils, and George Marcou, of the American Planning Association, for their help in preparing this paper. ______________________________________________ The STPP RESOURCE GUIDE is a product of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. STPP is a network of diverse organizations, coalitions ,and grass roots groups whose goal is to develop a national transportation policy that better serves the environmental, social, and economic interests of the nation. Representing both transportation consumers and providers, STPP seeks to frame public debate about federal transportation policy and to help craft a new transportation program that focuses on moving people and goods, rather than vehicles, without favoring any single mode of transportation. Formed in the fall of 1990, STPP encourages the participation of every concerned citizen and organization in its work. The work of the Surface Transportation Policy Project is made possible by grants from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Energy Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the James C. Penney Foundation, Inc., The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Surdna Foundation. For copies of other STPP Resource Guide materials, contact STPP at 1400 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Telephone: {202) 939- 3470. Copyright 1992 Surface Transportation Policy Project. Reprints with written permission. This document was printed on recycled paper. 44
