Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act:
Flexible Funding Opportunities for Transportation Investments FY '95Click HERE for graphic. . Click HERE for graphic. U.S. Department Administrator 400 Seventh St., SW of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 Federal Transit Federal Highway Administration Administration March 27, 1995 Dear Colleague: Transportation planners and decisionmakers face a number of challenges in the 1990s. Managing congestion, improving air quality, and providing equitable access to transportation services and facilities demand a new and dynamic approach to transportation planning. Rather than focusing only on adding capacity to the Nation's roads, highways, and transit systems, today's problems require multimodal solutions whereby highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects complement and support each other within a larger transportation system. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) provides state and local planners and decisionmakers with unprecedented tools to develop and implement plans, improvement programs, and projects which meet locally determined goals and objectives. One such tool, flexible funding, supports multimodal planning and project development by eliminating strict modal criteria as a condition for use. Because flexible funds may be used for highway, transit, and multimodal investments, Federal dollars may be directed to the most appropriate transportation solutions as determined by state and metropolitan planning processes. Over the 6-year life of the ISTEA authorization, over $70 billion of Federal highway and nearly $10 billion of Federal transit funds maybe used "flexibly." In the first three years of ISTEA, flexible funds have been used to fund such transit improvements as maintenance facility renovations, alteratively-fueled bus purchases, and advanced technology fare collection systems. In addition, transit capital funds are being transferred to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and used for needed highway improvements. More significantly, the broad eligibility provided for by the Surface Transportation Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, and other "flexible" programs empowers state and local transportation officials to look beyond developing "highway" and "transit" agendas and instead consider more innovative, truly intermodal solutions to transportation problems. Recognizing the importance of encouraging this broader perspective, the U. S. Department of Transportation's Regional Roundtable Report and Action Plan recommended that the scope of the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) annual "Flexible Funding Opportunities for Transit" be enhanced to reflect a multimodal approach to using Federal transportation resources. This joint FTA/FHWA report thus summarizes ISTEA's flexible funding opportunities for a wider range of surface transportation investments, focusing in particular on the transportation planning processes and fund management procedures required to take fill advantage of this flexibility. . The Department of Transportation--and by extension, its customers-- face a number of changes and challenges in the years ahead. Many of the goals of our restructuring efforts, however, are simply extensions of the principles advanced by ISTEA: promoting new partnerships, empowering local decisionmakers, and fostering innovation in the maintenance and continued improvement of the Nation's transportation system. Flexible funding supports these goals, and we encourage you to continue to pursue these resources as a means to address your local and regional transportation investment needs. Sincerely, ______________________________ ______________________________ Rodney E. Slate Gordon J. Linton Administrator Administrator Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration . Flexible Funding Opportunities for Transportation Investments FY '95 Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 . Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) Table of Contents Introduction to Flexible Funds 3 Planning and Priority Setting 4 Case Studies The Transportation Planning Process in Albany, NY 5 Cooperative Planning: the Key to Improving Mobility 7 Multimodal Project Evaluation and Priority Setting 9 Flexible Fund Programs 10 Case Studies Community Support: the Key to Enhancement Projects 11 CMAQ and Innovative Transit Delivery 12 Multimodal Funds at Work 12 Flexing Transit Funds for Highway Use 13 Flexible Fund Management 14 Appendices Appendix I Transportation Control Measures 15 Appendix 11 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas 16 Appendix III Summary of FY 1995 Non-Interstate and Urbanized Area Formula Apportionments, by State 18 Appendix IV FY 1995 Multimodal Funds Attributable to Urbanized Areas Over 200,000 Population 20 . Flexible Funding Opportunities for Transportation Investments Introduction to Flexible Funds The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) broke significant ground in giving State and local decisionmakers greater discretion in the use of Federal transportation dollars. ISTEA established several new programs delivered by FHWA which provide State and local transportation planners and decisionmakers with the flexibility to fund transportation projects, which best meet locally determined goals and objectives for mobility, economic opportunity, and air quality. In addition, ISTEA allows for the flexible use, with some restrictions Federal Highway and Transit funding sources. These flexible programs represent a clear departure from the way Federal financial resources have been administered in the past, with State and local transportation agencies gaining much more control over how and where Federal funds are to be expended. And these agencies are increasingly taking advantage of funding flexibility. Prior to ISTEA, Federal Aid Urban System (FAUS) funds were the only USDOT surface transportation program resources available to all States and localities which could be considered "flexible", and this flexibility was limited. ISTEA, however, created the flexible Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program to focus investment in highway and transit projects which improve our cities' air quality, and the $24 billion Surface Transportation Program (STP) which provides for an even broader range of highway and transit capital, planning, and "enhancement" activities. Use of these and other flexible funds for transit and intermodal projects has increased dramatically every year. The benefits of flexible funding are not just limited to transit. Click HERE for graphic. The transfer of flexible Federal-aid highway funds from FHWA to FTA has increased significantly since the passage of ISTEA. Whereas only $5.8 million in FAUS funds were transferred in FY 1991, $609.7 million in STP, CMAQ, and other flexible funds were made available to FTA for transit purposes in FY 1994. In addition to these amounts, FHWA has since FY 1992 administered over $1.1 billion in STP, CMAQ, and NHS funds for multimodal transportation projects such as HOV facilities, vanpool projects, and park and ride lots, as well as multimodal planning activities. Given limited resources, clean air requirements, and the desire to make our communities more "livable", planners and decision- makers are learning that no amount of investment in a single "traditional" mode of transportation can solve all of today's transportation problems. Instead, likely solutions will stem from a combination of innovative demand management policies and programs, highway and transit operational improvements which get the most out of existing system capacities, and a package of carefully planned multimodal capital investments which provide travellers with more choices. Flexible funding supports all of these strategies by providing for broader eligibility than traditional Federal grants programs. In this sense, flexible fund programs should be thought of less in terms of their transferability between the Federal Highway and Transit Administrations, and more in terms of the wide range of projects, programs, and strategies which can be supported by these resources. Taking full advantage of the potential of flexible funding is dependent on the ability of State and local transportation planners, working cooperatively with transit and environmental agencies and the general public, to institutionalize an inclusive, multimodal transportation planning process. This report summarizes the planning, programming, and administrative procedures which maximize the full potential of flexible funds. Throughout the text, several examples of innovative projects and effective planning processes are provided to illustrate how some metropolitan areas and states are meeting the challenges presented by ISTEA. In addition, a summary of the flexible fund programs, and procedures for their administration is included. Finally, the report concludes the flexible fund programs available to States and urbanized areas (UZAs) of greater than 200,000 population (and other areas designated as transportation management areas). 3 . Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) Planning & Priority Setting ISTEA has significantly changed the way that transportation plans and programs are developed. Because flexible funds have fewer restrictions for use, planners are not limited to developing transportation solutions based on what "type" (highway or transit) of funding is available; instead, they can orient their transportation plans and programs towards the evaluation of a wide range of alternatives --- including demand management, bicycle, and pedestrian initiatives --- which best achieve locally developed goals. Similarly, instead of letting funding requirements drive project investment decisions, officials can determine investment priorities based on their ability to meet not only these local goals for the delivery of transportation services, but broader social and environmental objectives such as those included among ISTEA's planning factors. Multimodal uses of Federal Highway and Transit Administration funds have resulted from a collaborative, multimodal approach to transportation planning and programming, with projects being prioritized by their ability to meet locally determined needs rather than because of Federal requirements dictating where money must be spent. Flexible funding is working in those areas which have "institutionalized" a truly multimodal planning process and see flexibility as an opportunity to meet multiple goals for improving air quality, enhancing mobility, and achieving an equitable distribution of transportation services. The following section summarizes the Federally-required transportation planning process, the planning tools that local transportation entities can use to get the most out of flexible funding, and provides several examples of these tools being put to work in areas all over the United States. Multimodal Transportation Planning ISTEA requires a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transpor- tation planning process in all metropolitan areas and throughout each State. The planning function in urbanized areas of greater than 50,000 population is conducted by officially designated metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs); state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are responsible for statewide transportation planning activities. In both cases, ISTEA requires that MPOs and States work with each other, as well as with transit operators, other affected local and state agencies, and the general public in the development of multimodal transportation plans and improvement programs. Cooperatively developed statewide and metropolitan transportation plans must forecast future growth, identify the needed transportation investments to meet this growth, and ensure the maintenance and efficient operation of existing transportation systems over a 20 year timeframe. Projects identified through the planning process and in- cluded in transportation plans are then prioritized and programmed in transportation improvement programs (TIPs) at the metropolitan level and consolidated throughout the State in statewide transportation improvement programs (STIPs) (which include both urban and rural areas). These nearterm programming documents serve as the agenda for implementing a multi (at least three) year package of highway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects for each metropolitan area and throughout the State. To qualify for Federal financial assistance, all projects contained in TIPS and STIPs must be derived from an adopted transportation plan. Major Investment Studies Where the metropolitan planning process identifies the need for a project to provide added capacity on a given corridor (or in a defined sub-area of the metropolitan area) which will have an impact on the regional transportation system and which may involve federal funding, a major investment study (MIS) is required. The MIS should 1) establish the nature of present and future problems in a corridor or sub-area and 2) identify all reasonable alternative strategies for addressing transportation demand and produce information on the costs, benefits, and impacts of these alternatives. Flexible funding supports the analysis of a wide range of multimodal options within the MIS by providing capital assistance to most potential study outcomes, be they highway, transit, or bicycle facilities or transportation demand and/or congestion management strategies. Flexible funds may also be used to fund the costs associated with conducting major investment studies, as well as provide financial support for many other transportation planning activities. Congestion Management System ISTEA requires for all transportation management areas (TMAs; urbanized areas over 200,000 population and other areas designated at the request of locally elected officials and the State Governor) that the congestion management system be a part of the transportation planning process. The intent of the CMS is to provide a framework for 1) the identification of corridors and subareas where congestion is occurring or likely to occur; 2) an evaluation of the cause and characteristics of congestion within these corridors/ subareas; and 3) the identification and evaluation of potential strategies to manage congestion and improve the mobility of persons and goods. For TMAs that are nonattainment for carbon monoxide and ozone, no new fa- cilities which serve significant single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel may be 4 . Flexible Funding Opportunities for Transportation Investments The Transportation Planning Process in Albany, NY An excellent example of long range planning that encourages the development of innovative strategies to meet future transportation needs is the process established by the Capital District Transportation Commission (CDTC), the MPO of the four county area surrounding Albany, New York. Grounded by strong technical tools, an understanding of Federal requirements, and an open, participatory planning and public involvement process, CDTC is seen by State and local highway, transit, and environmental interests as a credible forum for regional transportation planning and decisionmaking. CDTC views existing and planned transportation facilities not as a collection of surface roads, bus routes, stations, and airports, but as a single transportation system. For example, CDTC defines the elements of its metropolitan transportation system not in terms of physical attributes, but by function (i.e. passenger and freight access, connectivity, significance to the entire region). This orientation to function recognizes that transportation in and of itself is of little value; instead, transportation is best seen as an engine which serves broader goals for community and economic development. By incorporating a wide range of land use, energy, and environmental considerations and performance measures into the planning and programming processes, CDTC has established an environment which is extremely conducive to the programming of funds for non-traditional alternatives to adding highway capacity. CDTC's transportation planning process thus represents an innovative, multimodal approach to transportation systems planning. Specifically, the Albany process reflects the major themes addresses by ISTEA --- getting the most out of the existing transportation system, managing and mitigating traffic congestion, involving the public in transportation planning and decisionmaking --- and uses flexible funding as a mechanism for achieving these policy goals. Several elements of the Albany transportation planning process are described below. New Visions The focus of CDTC's "New Visions" planning process, which will result in the update of their current plan, is to engage those affected by transportation decisions --- i.e. the users of the system --- in a dialogue about fundamental, long-term issues and options for the Albany region. Specific task forces, consisting of a wide range of interested parties, have been established to provide input to the CDTC on locally determined priorities, such as expressway and arterial corridor management, freight/goods movement, special transportation needs, and bicycle and pedestrian issues. Each task force must further address five overriding considerations to synthesize the findings of the task forces, further input from the public is provided at community meetings, open houses, and business and community sponsored forums for discussion. Albany's New Visions effort recognizes that emerging technologies, significant demographic changes, and unprecedented Federal funding opportunities require a new approach to transportation planning which 1) challenges traditional assumptions on how to meet the demand for transportation services and 2) sees transportation policy as a means to improving not only personal mobility but quality of life. By expanding the scope of participants in the planning process, and by creating an environment where land use, community development, and energy efficiency are the concerns around which transportation solutions need to be crafted, CDTC believes that more creative initiatives can be developed to meet long term goals. Public Involvement A major component of CDTC's New Visions is a proactive public involvement process. The MPO's public participation program is based on two key assumptions: 1) that providing the public with a range of opportunities to participate --- from major conferences, workshops, and informal participation methods (one- on-one meetings, brainstorming sessions) to frequent surveys, press releases, and requests for public comment 5 . Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) --- generates more interest, more innovative ideas, and wider public and political support for regional transportation plans and improvement programs; and 2) meaningful participation must occur before major decisions have been made. CDTC's outreach activities, including the publication of a citizen's guide to planning, ensures that the public is informed about the process, proposed improvements, and the opportunity to participate and provide input to decisionmaking. Managing Transportation Supply and Demand Recognizing the tremendous investment required to add significant capacity to the region's congested highway and expressway network, CDTC has placed great importance on highway systems management. Specifically, CDTC understands that investment in other modes (transit, bicycles), intermodal facilities (park and ride and HOV facilities), TSM measures (incident management, traveler information systems) and TDM strategies (ride-sharing, parking policies) are credible elements of a highway system management program. CDTC's transportation planning process has identified several strategies to improve the performance of the highway system without adding all purpose lanes. For example, CDTC has programmed nearly $17 million in CMAQ resources to fund an Advanced Traffic Management System incorporating motorist advisory radio, comprehensive signal coordination, enhanced public transit communication, and improved incident management into a regional congestion surveillance and monitoring system. The Capital District Travel Demand Management Initiative, funded under the CMAQ program, provides economic incentives to the private sector for establishment of TDM programs such as employer-subsidized transit passes, "cashing out" parking, or strategies which encourage employers to reduce peak period trips by their employees. Land Use CDTC's year 2015 demographic forecasts indicate that without a combination of regional and local growth management strategies, nearly 70% of the region's new trips will occur outside traditional urban transit corridors. CDTC rightfully views land use as a promising long term strategy with the potential to impact travel behavior. In an innovative effort to encourage local communities to undertake the necessary land use and policy initiatives which might ensure long term management of the transportation system, CDTC has programmed $100,000 annually in STP funds to match local resources dedicated to zoning and land use planning activities. The Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany's primary provider of public transportation, is preparing a manual to guide policy makers on integrating transit into land use plans. Perhaps most importantly, CDTC understands the impacts that transportation and land use plans. Perhaps most importantly, CDTC understands the impacts that transportation and land use policies have on each other, and, through their planning process, are addressing the right questions: What land use policies will be required to support fixed guideway transit in the region? Will a reduction in highway congestion ultimately encourage more ex-urban growth? How can a proper balance be struck? Congestion Management Optimizing the performance of the highway system is dependent in large part on managing traffic congestion. If current commute trends continue, CDTC forecasts that excess delay may triple by the year 2000; however, modeling work demonstrates that reaching total vehicle travel by only 4%, if targeted to the peak hour, can reduce this delay by almost 25%. As part of the process for developing a congestion management system, the CDTC adopted several principles to guide the selection of potential strategies to reduce vehicle travel and improve mobility. These principles emphasize alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel and physical highway capacity expansion, favoring instead operational improvements and TDM strategies typically eligible for flexible funding. Furthermore, these principles have been incorporated into project evaluation criteria for the programming of CMAQ and STP funds in the region. 6 . Flexible Funding Opportunities for Transportation Investments implemented unless such a facility has been evaluated within a CMS. Potential congestion management strategies include travel demand management measures, traffic flow/operational enhancements, facilities and programs which encourage the use of bicycles for non-recreational purposes, and transit capital and operating improvements. The CMS process is intended to allow specific mobility-related problems to drive the identification of solutions, rather than assume that adding capacity either highway or transit --- is the de facto preferable solution. Like the alternatives evaluated as part of the MIS process, most CMS strategies are projects and programs which are eligible for flexible funding. Financial Constraints ISTEA stipulates that metropolitan plans, TIPs, and STIPs include only those projects for which funding can be reasonably expected to be available. The intent of "financially constrained" plans and programs is to focus investment on operating and to maintaining the existing transportation system and to prevent TIPs from becoming wish lists of unrealistic projects. Furthermore, in nonattainment areas, fiscally constrained plans and TIPs ensure that sufficient funds are available for the implementation of required transportation control measures (TCMs; see appendix I) and that the sum of transportation improvements identified in plans and contained in TIPs demonstrates conformity with State Implementation Plans for the reduction of transportation related pollutants. Because of these financial requirements, projects generated by the transportation planning process must not only meet cooperatively defined needs, but must be developed within the context of how they will be funded. Flexible funds give decisionmakers great leverage in long term financial planning by expanding the potential availability of funding beyond traditional specific highway or transit allocations. Planning Factors To help set a direction for the development and preparation of plans, TIPs, and major investment studies in metropolitan areas, ISTEA has identified 15 explicit factors which must be considered throughout the transportation planning process. These factors address both transportation issues (i.e. alleviating congestion, preserving existing facilities) and the need for the process to encompass broader issues such as consistency with land use planning and the affects of transportation investments on surrounding communities. The 15 factors are provided on the following page: Cooperative Planning: the Key to Improving Mobility One of the most important goals of ISTEA is to improve mobility through the provision of attractive and efficient alternatives to single occupant vehicle trips. Developing the most appropriate alternative, be it transit, HOV facilities, TDM strategies --- or a combination of a complementary projects and programs --- is dependent on several factors, including: a thorough knowledge of identified needs, based on credible data and technical analyses processes; a cooperative, mutually determined process for evaluating options and measuring benefits; a willingness to think in terms of supporting regional, rather than just local, goals and objectives; and an understanding of the opportunities provided under flexible funding programs. With the opening of a new international airport west of Pittsburgh, PA, in 1992 and the major rehabilitation and reconstruction required of the Fort Pitt bridge, a major point of entry into Downtown Pittsburgh from the south and west, regional planners in southwestern Pennsylvania faced two important challenges: how to meet the increasing demand for travel along the southwest corridor while allowing for the partial closure of the bridge during reconstruction. After careful and cooperative planning, the Pittsburgh Airport Busway/Wabash HOV facility, a major capital infrastructure project drawing heavily on FHWA CMAQ and FTA "New Start" funding, will provide an attractive long term alternative to SOV travel from the central business district towards the airport which will simultaneously alleviate congestion during the temporary closing of the bridge during major repair work and help the region attain clean air standards required by the Clean Air Act. Working closely with the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission, Conrail, and PennDOT, Port Authority Transit examined several options which would improve travel along the airport corridor and into downtown. Simply adding capacity might in the short term decrease congestion but would not reduce the number of vehicles and the emissions associated with those vehicles; furthermore this volume could not be served during the temporary closing of the bridge to make needed improvements. Clearly, a longer term solution which would reduce traffic volumes on both facilities (and, through a reduction in vehicle trips, improve air quality throughout the region) was critically needed. A seven mile busway and HOV segment was developed as the first step towards meeting these needs. Combined with a planned bikeway along part of the alignment and the consideration of TDM measures to further reduce vehicle traffic downtown, the project is intended to provide the needed mobility in the corridor and permit the closing of the bridge for repairs. In addition, expected development around planned stations could act as a focal point for economic revitalization in several communities. Subsequent phases would extend improvements in the corridor westward to the airport. 7 . Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) 1. The preservation of existing transportation facilities. 2. Consistency of transportation plans with Federal, State, and local energy conservation programs and polices. 3. The need to relieve congestion and to prevent congestion where it does not yet occur. 4. Consistency of transportation plans and programs with land use plans. 5. Where appropriate, the programming of funds for transportation enhancement activities. 6. The effect of transportation projects on the surrounding communities. Such considerationshould include an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of alternative vestments to meet the demand for transportation services. 7. Access to other transportation facilities (such as air and seaports, freight distribution routes), national parks, and border crossings. 8. Connectivity of roads within metropolitan areas with roads outside of such areas. 9. Needs identified through ISTEA-required transportation management and monitoring systems. 10. The preservation of rights-of-way for future transportation improvements. 11. The enhancement of the efficient movement of freight. 12. The use of life-cycle costing for bridges, tunnels, and pavements. 13. The overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions and the need to work with the public and affected agencies (such as housing, community development, and environmental resource management agencies) to ensure that transportation plans arc compatible with social and environmental goals. 14. The expansion of transit services, where appropriate. 15. Improving security on transit systems. The joint FTA/FHWA planning regulations further define 23 factors for consideration in the development of statewide plans and STIPs. Metropolitan and statewide planning factors, combined with the cooperation of affected agencies and the need to solve the air quality and congestion problems faced in most urban areas, should serve as the building blocks for the development of multimodal planning and project evaluation criteria. As demonstrated by the included case studies, the development of multimodal project evaluation criteria is an important component of any planning process which intends to get the most out of flexible funding. Project Evaluation Processes Prior to the availability of flexible funding, the selection of transportation projects was driven in large part by the narrowly defined eligibility of the source of funds being used. Such re- strictions discouraged the development of multimodal project evaluation criteria because any type of multimodal analysis could not be supported by traditional funding mechanisms. Flexible funding, however, eliminates these funding limitations, and the development of multimodal project evaluation criteria allows planners to effectively rate the various highway, transit, and other modal improvements to evaluate how well they address the needs defined by the transportation planning process. To be most effective, project evaluation criteria must be credible to the implementing agencies affected by them and understandable to the decisionmakers responsible for approving transportation improvement programs. The key to establishing such criteria is the broad participation of affected agencies in the development of evaluative measures. Public Involvement ISTEA further requires that participation in the development of plans, programs, and projects extend beyond institutional entities and embrace the concerns of the general public. To the extent that transportation investment decisions have far-reaching economic, environmental, and social effects upon the communities they impact, the involvement of the public is critical in helping MPOs and States address community values and needs. Furthermore, an ongoing and open public participation process, which provides the public with early opportunities for input into plans and programs, helps to build broad- based consensus for these planning efforts and minimize dissatis- faction with resulting transportation improvements. Public involvement should be a significant element of metropolitan and statewide planning, programming, and project prioritizing processes, as well as MIS and management system activities. An educated and informed public is the key to ensuring that this involvement is meaningful, productive, and ultimately reflect community goals for transportation, economic development, and quality of life. Additional Planning Guidance FHWA and FTA have issued additional guidance on many of the planning requirements discussed here, including: Guidance on Major Investment Studies (August 19, 1994) Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Interim Technical Guidance (January 13, 1995) Interim Policy and Questions and Answers on Public Involvement (Jan. 27, 1995) Additional guidance will be available shortly. Please contact FHWA or FTA, 400 7th St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 for more information and/or copies. 8 . Multimodal Project Evaluation and Priority Setting An excellent example of an inclusive and cooperative approach to multimodal planning and programming is the process that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the MPO for the San Francisco Bay Area, used to develop multimodal criteria for the allocation of flexible funding. One of the first regional planning bodies to recognize the opportunities provided by ISTEA, the MTC established in early 1992 an Ad Hoc Committee -- composed of transit operations, operators of regional ports and airports, representatives from city and county governments, the State Department of Transportation, and the Air Quality District -- to develop regional objectives for the use of flexible funds and multimodal criteria to score and rank projects funded the STP and CMAQ programs. MTC adopted a three stage evaluation process for allocating flexible funds to worthy transportation projects. The first stage consists of a basic eligibility test to ensure that the proposed projects meet ISTEA requirements and demonstrate adequate local commitment and support. Projects meeting these screening criteria move on to the second stage, an innovative scoring system which ranks potential activities according to their ability to meet four cooperatively developed goals for the provision of transportation services throughout the region. These four categories of criteria -- 1) maintaining the metropolitan transportation system; 2) improving the efficiency of the metropolitan transportation system; 3) expanding the system to meet current and future demand; and 4) addressing external impacts such as air quality standards, land use goals, and the potential for reducing SOV trips -- are allocated specific point levels, with projects best meeting these goals receiving the highest scores. Finally, ranked projects must meet a series of programming principles which guarantee that the entire program of transportation improvements presents a balanced, compatible package of investments that improves air quality, enhances mobility, and are ready for implementation. MTC's process, which has been adopted by other MPOs, has resulted in an extremely diverse program of transportation investments, including significant allocations of STP funding for transit, bicycle, and urban arterial projects with multimodal elements. By viewing the 15 factors contained in the ISTEA legislation as building blocks for the development of multimodal evaluation criteria, the North Central Council of Governments (NCTGC), the MPO of the Dallas-Ft. Worth region, established its process for allocating flexible funding. NCTGC added several regional goals to the factors, and then submitted a total of 21 criteria to its Policy Board, highway, transit, and travel demand management committees, and community transportation groups for review. Specifically, members of these groups were asked to assign weights to each of the criteria, to combine complimentary criteria, and to formulate final evaluation criteria for the development of the FY 1993 TIP. NCTGC continued to look at ways to improve its evaluation criteria, and its Policy Board approved a revised set of criteria in November of 1993. The MPO's final evaluation criteria for the allocation of STP and FTA Urbanized Area Formula funds reflect regional priorities such as current and future cost-effectiveness, air quality and energy conservation goals, and social mobility. Acknowledging ISTEA's requirement that the transportation plans and improvement programs be fiscally constrained, the final criteria lend particular weight to a project's local cost participation. CMAQ project evaluation criteria were similarly revised to give more points to Transportation Control Measures and social mobility projects than in the original criteria. The net result of this cooperation is the mutual support of the project evaluation process by a wide range of transportation interests and the facilitation of significant amounts of flexible funds for worthy transit and multimodal projects throughout the Dallas-Ft. Worth region. 9 . Flexible Fund Programs Another element of a successful multimodal planning process is understanding the Federal, State, and local funding sources which support the implementation of transportation improvement programs. The following summarizes FHWA and FTA flexible funding programs and the improvement opportunities provided by them. While all of the programs described below may be considered "flexible", it is important to consider and understand the distinct eligibility requirements for the use of each funding source. The Surface Transportation Program The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides for the widest flexibility of ISTEA's formula programs. STP funds may be used for several highway and transit capital and planning activities, including: Capital Planning Construction/ Surface transpor- rehab of roads & tation planning Transit capital Development of improvements ISTEA mgmt systems Car & vanpool Wetland projects mitigation Fringe and Highway and corridor parking transit research facilities and development Bicycle and ped Environmental facilities analysis STP Fund Distribution Click HERE for graphic. Funds distributed under the STP General Purposes allocation must be used in the population categories to which they are assigned. STATEWIDE funds ($1.8 billion nationally in FY '95) are allocated for use in any area(s) of a State, at the discretion of the State. Other eligible projects under the Surface Transportation Program include highway and transit safety improvements, capital and operating costs for traffic management and control projects and most Transportation Control Measures (TCMs; see appendix 1) established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). The Surface Transportation is authorized in ISTEA at $23.9 billion over the life of the act. In FY '95, $3,897,976,000 has been apportioned under the program, while an additional $913 million in apportionment adjustments have been added to bring the FY '95 STP program to over $ 4.8 billion nationwide. Approximately $939 million of this amount is made available specifically to metropolitan planning areas containing UZAs over 200,000 population; STP funds are further distributed among two program (transportation enhancement and safety) and several population categories. The figure at the left displays the STP distribution formula, and appendices 3 and 4 provide the amount of STP funds available throughout each State and attributable to each UZA over 200,000 population in FY '95. STP Transportation Enhancements 10% of each States's annual STP apportionment ($423,559,054 nationally) is set aside for transportation enhancement activities. Enhancement projects are intended to integrate transportation facilities into their surrounding communities by increasing public access and enjoyment. They can also be stand-alone projects with an identifiable relationship to the intermodal transportation system. Transportation enhancement projects should be generated from the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning process described in the previous section and must be based on strong community support. 10 . Ten specific categories of transportation enhancements are eligible for funding. Please note that the list is definitive; only those activities listed below are eligible for transportation enhancement funding: 1. Provision of facilities for pedestrian and bicycles. 2. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites. 3. Scenic/historic highway programs. 4. Landscaping and other scenic beautification. 5. Historic preservation. 6. Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation facilities (including railroads and canals). 7. Preservation of abandoned railroad corridors (and their conversion to pedestrian and bicycle trails). 8. Control and removal of outdoor advertising. 9. Archeological planning and research. 1O. Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. Community Support: The Key to Enhancement Projects The involvement and support of affected communities are critical to the success of transportation enhancement projects. For nearly a decade, local citizens groups and public officials have been developing plans and gathering financial support for the renovation of a historic railroad depot along route 66 in Gallup, New Mexico. Transportation enhancement funds, while not financing the entire project, were used primarily to rehabilitate the interior and exterior of the building. Plans for the facility include rehabilitating the historic depot to operate as a multimodal facility serving AMTRAK, an inter-city motor coach company, and local public transportation. Additionally, the facility also serves as a cultural center, and contains a museum to display objects depicting the rich cultural heritage of the community, an outdoor market featuring Native American crafts, and a multi-purpose room to be used for community activities. The location of the project within the downtown of the city is significant as it will help to revitalize the downtown and promote economic opportunities for Native Americans while also increasing tourism. Through the use of transportation enhancement funds, the decade-long plan for the Gallup depot project is becoming reality. Another example of a community-supported enhancement project is the Anacostia Tributaries Trail in Prince George's County, Maryland. This 12.3 mile bike and pedestrian trail will connect existing multi-use trails into a 24 mile greenway system linking Wheaton Regional Park in Montgomery County to Greenbelt National Park in Prince George's County, Maryland. The completed trails will also provide access to non-polluting alternative means of transportation in a non-attainment area. Grassroots efforts to complete these projects have been underway since the 1970s. This is significant inasmuch as the trails will also serve as one of the anchors of an inner-beltway revitalization effort affecting several densely populated, racially mixed neighborhoods which have previously demonstrated substantial level of citizen involvement and strong locally elected official support. As evidence of that involvement, only half of the total cost of the project will be paid for with STP enhancement funds; the remainder will be provided by local community groups under an innovative matching funds arrangement developed by the State of Maryland. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Consistent with the intent of flexible funding, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program is distinguished by its objectives --- i.e. improving our Nation's air quality and managing traffic congestion --- rather than by typical modal eligibility requirements. CMAQ projects and programs are often innovative solutions to common mobility problems and are driven by Clean Air Act mandates to attain national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Eligible activities under the CMAQ program include: Transit system capital expansion and improvements which are pro- jected to realize an increase in ridership. In limited cases, operating costs associated with new transit service which has been specifically developed for air quality benefits are eligible for CMAQ funds for a maximum of two years. Travel demand management strategies and shared ride services. Traffic flow improvements such as incident management initiatives, ramp metering, timed traffic signalization, and the construction and dedication of HOV facilities. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as promotional activities which encourage bicycle commuting. Automobile inspection and maintenance programs. Eligible TCMs contained in a State Implementation Plan for reducing airborne pollutants are at all times provided the highest priority for CMAQ funding. The $6 billion dollar program --- $979,555,500 has been apportioned in FY 1995 --- must be used in areas designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as being "nonattainment" for carbon monoxide and ozone NAAQS (see appendix 2). Funds are apportioned to States based on a formula which considers the severity of its air quality problems. States which are in attainment of air quality 11 . standards receive 0.5% of the national program, which may be used for any project or program eligible for assistance under the Surface Transportation Program. CMAQ and Innovative Transit Delivery A recent transit needs study undertaken in Ventura County, California, revealed the potential to reduce SOV trips by providing new intra-county connecting service between several small local transit operations. Working closely with its municipalities, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) began to develop four new bus routes on main arteries in the county. The new fixed- route service-known as VISTA--also connects with regional commuter rail service as well as the existing dail-a-ride service offered in the more rural parts of the county. This project which started up in July, 1994, is an excellent example of cooperation at the local level in defining and implementing a project of mutual benefit to all the parties. VCTC worked closely with affected communities to establish routes and schedules and to secure local financing commitments. It also represents a concerted effort to provide the service at minimum cost, with the county contracting with several private transit companies to operate the new service. Based on the projected ability to reduce SOV trips, VCTC received federal funding under the CMAQ program for a two-year demonstration project. Ridership is being monitored to better align service schedules with actual demand and several routes have already been adjusted. Considering today's more dispersed travel patterns in Ventura County, coupled with the regional nature of ozone pollution, there is a premium now on intergovernmental cooperation and the formulation of regional strategies to improve mobility and air quality. Ventura County's new transit service demonstration is an excellent example of a well-coordinated, grass-roots approach to problem-solving which was aided by the flexible funding provisions of ISTEA. National Highway System National Highway System (NHS) funds are intended to provide for a wide range of transportation activities. Until the NHS is actually designated by Congressional legislation (deadline for this action is September 30, 1995), NHS funds may be used on any principal arterial. Eligible highway and transit under the NHS program projects include: Construction and rehabilitation of roads and bridges Fringe and corridor parking facilities Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Carpool and vanpool Public transportation facilities in an NHS corridor, provided that such facilities are deemed cost effective and improve the level of service on a specific NHS limited access facility In FY 1995, $3,331,743,154 has been apportioned for use under the NHS program (see appendix 3 for a state-by-state breakdown). Fifty percent of a State's NHS apportionment may be transferred to the STP (although up to 100% may be transferred with the approval Of the U.S. Secretary Of Transportation). Multimodal Funds at Work Commuter and heavy rail operation, express and local bus service, and the regional highway system provide Dade County, Florida, residents with several modal options for travel. The Dade County MPO, however, found that the efficiency of the overall multimodal transportation system is limited in some areas by 1) poor connectivity between modes; 2) increasingly congested roadway conditions; and 3) lack of integration of land use and surface transportation planning. A 1992 study to improve intermodal connections to the Miami International Airport and major employment centers identified an intermodal center, linking the airport with intracity, commuter, and future high-speed regional rail, bus and ferry service, and planned highway expansion (including the region's East/West Multimodal Corridor), as a means to address these multiple issues. The ultimate intent of the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) is to improve access to the airport, foster appropriate development in the surrounding area, and make the transfer of passengers between transit, highway and air modes as safe, efficient, and "seamless" as possible. The delivery of Federal dollars to support multimodal projects should be just as seamless. FHWA, through the Florida Department of Transportation, has administered nearly $16 million in CMAQ funds for project planning, preliminary engineering, and environmental work for the MIC; FTA has also served in an advisory capacity. $700 million in Federal, State, and other resources are programmed in the region's TIP for project construction. The MIC demonstrates not only a cooperative Federal-State-local and highway-transit-air partnership to project planning, but the flexibility of CMAQ program funds: despite the significant transit components to the project, no transfer of funds to FTA was necessary. Bridge and Interstate Maintenance programs Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation program funds are 12 . apportioned among States based on the square footage of "deficient" highway bridges inventoried by each State. In FY 95, $2,549,114,372 in Bridge funds were apportioned to States. Up to 40% of this amount ($1,019,645,700) may be transferred by States to the STP or NHS for purposes consistent with either program. Interstate Maintenance program funds, $2,776,677,750 nationally in FY 1995, are apportioned to States based on interstate lane miles and vehicle miles traveled criteria established by Congress. Each State may unconditionally transfer up to 20% of its Interstate Maintenance apportionment to the ST? or NHS. In FY 1995, $555,335,540 may be transferred. In addition, if a State certifies that its apportionment is in excess of its maintenance needs, it may, upon approval by the Secretary of Transportation, transfer this excess amount to the STP or NHS. Funds transferred by either program to the STP may be used anywhere within a State. Donor State Bonus and Minimum Allocation The Donor State Bonus and Minimum Allocation programs are additional equity provisions which ensure a return to "donor" States which contribute more to the Highway Trust Fund than they receive in Federal-aid apportionments. In FY 1995, $494,725,000 under the Donor State Bonus and $1,426,822,463 under the Minimum Allocation provision are available to the 18 States that qualified for the two Programs (see appendix 3). Like the STP, a portion of the Donor State Bonus and Minimum Allocation funds are earmarked for use in areas of specific Population thresholds. Funds available under these categories may be used for any purpose eligible under the Surface Transportation Program. Flexing Transit Funds for Highway Use On April 26, 1994, the Board of Directors of the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), the metropolitan planning organization for the Kansas City urbanized area, approved a memorandum of understanding with Johnson County, Kansas, and the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) which set into motion the Nation's first transfer of FTA formula transit funds to FHWA for highway improvement purposes. The proposed transfer of $750,000 in Urbanized Area Formula funds to the Surface Transportation Program demonstrates an innovative, cooperative approach to using funding flexibility for meeting the investment needs, regardless of mode, identified by a multimodal transportation planning process. Johnson County, which through the Transit division of its Transportation Department offers both fixed-route and demand- response public transportation services, was looking for ways to supplement operating revenues for fiscal years 1995 and '96. At the same time, capital funds were needed for critical road improvements within the County. Because of the flexibility of both local and Federal funding sources, however, MARC saw an opportunity to transfer $375,000 FY 95 and '96 Urbanized Area Formula capital resources to the Kansas Department of Transportation's Surface Transportation Program to add needed capacity to a congested local arterial; this, by agreement, would allow the overmatch portion of the local funds previously committed to the road project to offset operating expenses of Johnson County Transit. The transfer of transit capital to highway capital funds, and the subsequent "trading" of these highway funds for transit operating assistance, demonstrates that funding flexibility, coupled with interagency cooperation, can work for the benefit of all modes. Interstate Substitute Program The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1978 established the Interstate Substitute Program which permits State and local officials to withdraw planned Federal-aid interstate routes and substitute transit (with Substitute Highway funds) in their place. ISTEA provides even more flexibility by allowing the Substitute Highway portion of the program to be used for mass transit purposes. $231,000,000 in FY 1995 Substitute Highway funds are available in areas which have interstate routes. Substitute funds must be used for projects which serve the area from which the interstate route was withdrawn, Most highway and transit capital costs are eligible under the substitute Highway provision. FTA Urbanized Area Formula Transit funds FTA's Urbanized Area Formula Program provides transit capital and operating assistance to metropolitan areas of 50,000 and more popula- tion. Urbanized Area Formula funds apportioned to TMAs which cannot be used for the payment of operating expenses may be made available for highway Projects if the following are met: 1. The use of these funds for highway purposes is approved by the MPO after appropriate notice and opportunity for comment and appeal are Provided to affected transit providers; 2. The funds are not needed for capital transit investments required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; 3. State and local funds used to match Urbanized Area Formula funds made available for highway purposes are also eligible to fund either highway or transit projects. In FY 1995, up to $2,079,943,275 in Urbanized Area Formula funds may be eligible for highway use; see appendix 4 for the distribution of these funds. 13 . Flexible Fund Management While fund flexibility has often been thought, and measured in terms, of their transferability between the Federal Highway and Transit Administrations, it must be noted that several FHWA programs may provide for transit-related projects without actually the funds being administered by FTA. For example, eligible projects on the National Highway System include capital investments in transit, provided they meet the conditions described in the previous section. The Interstate Maintenance and Substitute Highway programs also provide for specific, limited, transit opportunities. As importantly, multimodal projects such as HOV lanes and park and ride lots, as well as TSM and TDM strategies and surface transportation planning activities, may be funded with flexible resources and administered through either agency. Funding flexibility means that for many multimodal projects, local and State officials have discretion in choosing how funds are to be administered. In all cases, it is critical that State and local planners work closely with their FTA and FHWA counterparts to determine a strategy for delivering funds which facilitates project delivery. FHWA Obligation Ceiling For budgetary reasons, each fiscal year a ceiling is placed on most programs contained in the overall Federal-aid highway program. What this generally means is that the sum total of all FHWA obligations in any fiscal year for these programs (including STP, CMAQ, and other flexible programs) cannot equal the sum total of available funds for that year; instead, each State has the authority to obligate only up to a lesser amount, i.e. its "obligation ceiling". The gap between the sum of FHWA apportionments and the obligation ceiling is carried over as an unobligated balance, available for obligation in future years. Because this ceiling is applied by Congress to the sum total of all Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction program apportionments and not to each individual program which collectively make up this total, States have the flexibility to obligate the mix of FHWA programs which best meets their transportation needs. MPOs, transit operators, and other project sponsors need to be aware, however, that this choice typically allows States to obligate funds for projects that are immediately ready for implementation regardless of individual funding; this, in turn, may prevent States from obli- gating their full apportionment of STP, CMAQ, or other flexible funds if a State has already reached its obligation ceiling. It should be noted that FHWA flexible funds made available to FTA are counted against a State's obligation limitation at the time of the transfer, not with the obligation by FTA of the funds. Furthermore, any obligation authority individual States do not expect to utilize by the end of the fiscal year is redistributed in August to other States that are able to utilize more than their share of the total obligation limitation. This annual redistribution of obligation authority provides some MPOs and transit operators another opportunity for funding if projects are already in an approved STIP and are ready to go. States which use up both their original ceiling and their redistributed authority may further qualify for a bonus ceiling. This additional authority is usually set at an amount equal to 2.5% of the State's unobligated balance. Clearly, it is essential that all players engaged in metropolitan and statewide planning activities understand the obligation limitation mechanism, and work together to best manage its States obligation authority. In addition to carefully monitoring the status of the limitation to avoid funding shortfalls and to take advantage of any possible authority redistribution, project sponsors should also try and get their projects programmed as early in the fiscal year as possible. The incremental "phasing" of federal funds for major construction projects over a multiyear period, rather than a larger, onetime obligation, is another viable strategy to get the most out of a State's obligation limitation. 14 . Flexible Funding Opportunities for Transportation Investments Appendices Appendix I Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Section 108(b)(1)(A) (i) programs for improved public transit; (ii) restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high occupancy vehicles; (iii) employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives; (iv) trip reduction ordinances; (v) traffic flow improvement programs that achieve emission reductions; (vi) fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities serving multiple occupancy vehicle programs or transit service; (vii) programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas or other areas of emission concentration particularly during periods of peak use; (viii) programs for the provision of all forms of high- occupancy, shared-ride services; (ix) programs to limit portions of road surfaces or certain sections of the metropolitan area to the use of non-motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time and place; (x) programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and protection of bicyclists, in both public and private areas; (xi) programs to control extended idling of vehicles; (xii) programs to reduce motor vehicle emissions, consistent with Title II, which are caused by extreme cold start conditions; (xiii) employer-sponsored programs to permit flexible work schedules; (xiv) programs and ordinances to facilitate non-automobile travel, provision and utilization of mass transit and to generally reduce the need for single-occupant vehicle travel, as part of transportation planning and development efforts of a locality, including programs and ordinances applicable to new shopping centers, special events, and other centers of vehicle activity; (xv) programs for new construction and major reconstruction of paths, tracks or areas solely for the use by pedestrian or other non-motorized means of transportation when economically feasible and in the public interest. For purposes of this clause, the Administrator shall also consult with the Secretary of the Interior; and (xvi) program to encourage the voluntary removal from use and the marketplace of pre-1980 model year light duty vehicles and pre-1980 model light duty trucks. 15 . Appendix II Designated Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas Classified Ozone Nonattainment Areas Dates in parenthesis are when ozone standards must be met Extreme (2010) Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Severe (2007) Baltimore, MD San Diego, CA Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD Ventura County, CA Severe (2005) Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN New York-N. New Jersey-Long Isle, NY-NJ-CT Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX Southeast Desert Modified AQMA, CA Milwaukee-Racine Serious (1999) Atlanta, GA Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH Baton Rouge, LA Providence, RI Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Sacramento Metro, CA Boston-Lawrence-Worcester,MA-NH San Joaquin Valley, CA El Paso, TX Springfield, MA Greater Connecticut Washington, DC-MD-VA Moderate (1996) Ashland, KY Monterey Bay, CA Atlantic City, NJ Muskegon, MI Charlotte-Gastonia, NC Nashville, TN Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY Phoenix, AZ Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Portland, ME Dayton -Springfield, OH Poughkeepsie, NY Detroit-Ann Arbor, NH Reading, PA Grand Rapids, NH Richmond, VA Kewaunee County, WI Salt Lake City, UT Knox and Lincoln Counties, NM San Francisco Bay Area, CA Lewiston-Ashburn, ME Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, CA Louisville, KY-IN Sheboygan, WI Manitowoc County, WI St. Louis, MO-IL Miami-Fort Lauderdale- West Palm Beach, FL Toledo, OH Marginal (1993) Albany-Schnectady-Troy, NY Lake Charles, LA Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Lancaster, PA Altoona, PA Lexington-Fayette, KY Birmingham, AL Manchester, NH Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Memphis, TN Canton, OH Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newp. News, VA Columbus, OH Paducah, KY Door County, WI Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA Erie, PA Reno, NV Essex County, NY Scranton-Wilkes Barre, PA Evansville, IN Seattle-Tacoma, WA Greenbrier County, WV Smyth County, VA Hancock and Waldo Counties, NM Sussex County, DE Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Jefferson County, NY Walworth County, WI Jersey County, IL York, PA Johnstown, PA Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA Kent and Queen Anne's Counties, MD 16 . Flexible Funding Opportunities for Transportation Investments Appendix II (continued) Classified Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas Serious Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin Moderate > 12.7 ppm Anchorage, AK New York-N. New Jer-Long Isle, NY-NJ-CT Denver-Boulder, CO Provo, UT Fresno, CA Seattle-Tacoma, WA Las Vegas, NV Spokane, WA Moderate <=12.7 ppm Albuquerque, NM Minneapolis, MN Baltimore, MD Missoula, MT Boston, MA Modesto, CA Chico, CA Ogden, UT Colorado Springs, CO Philadelphia-Camden County, PA-NJ El Paso, TX Phoenix, AZ Fairbanks, AK Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA Fort Collins, CO Raleigh-Durham, NC Grants Pass, OR Reno, NV Hartford-New Britain-Middletown, CT Sacramento, CA Klamath Falls, OR San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Lake Tahoe South Shore, CA San Diego, CA Longmont CO Stockton, CA Medford, OR Washington, DC-MD-VA 17 . Appendix III Summary of FY 1995 Non-Interstate and Urbanized Area Formula Apportionments, by State all amounts in dollars Click HERE for graphic. 18 . Click HERE for graphic. * Apportionment Adjustments are funding sources legislated by Congress to achieve equity in funding levels among States. They may be used for any project eliginle for funding under the Surface Transportation Program. Fifty percent of the adjustments are distributed according to the STP distribution rules presented on page 10; the other 50% may be used anywhere within the State they are apportioned. ** 40% of each State's apportionment considered "flexible." # 20% of each State's apportionment considered "flexible." + Formerly known as Section 9; estimated amounts based on average obligations over past five years. Up to $2,079,943,275 considered "flexible." 19 . Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) Appendix IV Summary of FY 1995 Multimodal Funds Attributable to Urbanized Areas Over 200,000 Population* all amounts in dollars Click HERE for graphic. 20 . Click HERE for graphic. 21 . Click HERE for graphic. 22 . Click HERE for graphic. 23 . Click HERE for graphic. 24 . Click HERE for graphic. 25 . Click HERE for graphic. * Urbanized Area Formula funds (formerly FTA Section 9) are apportioned to all TMAs, whether or not they contain a UZA over 200,000 population; bi- or tri-State apportionments are provided under the State where the majority of the population within the TMA resides (although funds under this program may be obligated in any portion of the TMA). STP, Minimum Allocation, and Donor State Bonus funds presented here are attributable only to UZAs over 200,000 population. 26 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 - 387 - 554 / 35745 . . Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 .