The American Association of State Highway
and
Transportation Officials
Transportation Planning
And Smart Growth
Before the
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Of the
United States Senate
AASHTO
Recommends that Congress Consider the following:
·
Provide
funding to support the development and implementation of a training and
capacity-building program to strengthen the ability of state and local
transportation agencies to effectively address freight transportation issues.
·
Provide
funding for the FHWA research program to support freight transportation
research that includes the private sector, and allows the pooling of U.S. DOT
modal agency funds.
·
Establish
and fund a Freight Transportation Cooperative Research Program.
·
Strengthen
the transportation data programs and link them to national, state and local
planning for freight transportation.
·
Authorize
a Freight Advisory Council that will communicate to U.S. DOT, State DOTs, and
others the industry’s needs and issues.
·
Calculate
financial constraint based on total dollars in the program compared to total
revenue available, including both federal and state funds.
·
Allow
flexibility in the documentation requirements used by states to demonstrate
financial constraint.
·
Revise
financial planning and financial constraint requirements for mega-projects to
get away from the “one size fits all approach” that impacts all projects over a
certain cost level.
·
Permit
the states and implementing agencies to cooperatively develop definitions of
“anticipated full funding” and “reasonably available.”
·
Permit
projects for which discretionary funding is being sought to be included in
financially constrained TIPs.
·
Permit
a ten-year fiscal constraint time horizon for purposes of the metropolitan long
range transportation plan.
·
Direct
U.S. DOT to eliminate the MIS requirements effective immediately and not make
elimination of the MIS contingent on the issuance of new regulations.
·
Authorize
State DOTs and MPOs to develop optional procedures (with public transit
operators, as appropriate) through which decisions reached in the Statewide and
metropolitan planning process regarding purpose-and-need and range of
alternatives would be binding in the NEPA process.
·
Continue
to provide flexibility to States as to the content of Statewide Long Range
Transportation Plans, performance measures and planning horizons so long as a
minimum 20-year horizon is maintained.
·
Change
the update cycle for Long Range Metropolitan Transportation Plans from three
years to five years.
·
Continue
to defer to local and state governments on whether and how to consider land use
in the course of transportation planning.
·
Continue
the existing balance of decision-making authority between the MPO, the state
and local officials.
·
Maintain
the current balance of responsibility for the development of highway transit
and intermodal projects, and reaffirm the leadership role and authority of the
states.
·
Retain
the current definitions of planning “consultation, cooperation and
coordination.”
·
Retain
the existing program structure rather than authorizing new set-asides or
program categories.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Ken Leonard. I am the Director of the Bureau of Planning at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. I am speaking today on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in my role as vice chairman of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning.
Mr. Chairman, I want
to thank you on behalf of the state transportation officials
across the country for inviting AASHTO to participate in this hearing to examine the state of the discuss
the very important issues of transportation planning process. and
smart growth. My
testimony today will address a number of specific planning issues that have drawn attention, including freight planning capacity,
financial constraint provisions, local consultation, performance-based planning and the role of
state department
of transportation (DOTs) with respect to land use.
First, I want
preface my remarks with the observation that the statewide transportation
planning process is very complicated, in part because of the very complex set
of transportation challenges that the transportation planning process must address, but
also because of the many layers of federal and state transportation and
environmental statutes and directives that guide the process. From our perspective, the goal should be to
simplify the
process and not add further complexity.
Federal law has long established that the
Federal-aid highway program is a “federally assisted state program”. The
program has evolved through the years and, in addition to providing roles for
federal and state officials, provides roles for local governments and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) was important as the first piece of transportation legislation in the
post-Interstate era. ISTEA set in motion a positive effort toward
implementation of a responsive transportation program designed to meet a
diversity of national transportation needs.
ISTEA placed a strong emphasis on the transportation
planning process, including much more emphasis on public involvement. In
addition, ISTEA included 23 planning factors for use in Statewide planning, and
16 planning factors for use in Metropolitan Planning. While much of this type of analysis and public involvement was
already being done by many State DOTs, ISTEA placed stronger emphasis on these
matters.
The successor to ISTEA, the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) consolidated the planning factors
into seven, including:
·
Support
the economic vitality of the nation, the States and MPOs.
·
Increase
the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and
non-motorized users.
·
Increase
the accessibility and mobility options for people and freight.
·
Protect
and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation and quality of life.
·
Enhance
the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and
between modes throughout the State for people and freight.
·
Promote
efficient system management and operation; and
·
Emphasize
the preservation of the existing transportation system.
TEA-21 also included a provision that failure to
consider any one of the planning factors is not actionable in a court of law. In part, this recognizes the need to allow
diverse approaches that reflect the unique conditions in each state – i.e., state
constitutional and statutory requirements, geographic size
and population, institutional history, political environments and
differing transportation challenges, needs and priorities.
Despite its complexity, the post-Interstate transportation
planning process
has evolved effectively because of support for innovation, understanding of
the need for flexible approaches and emphasis on training,
technical assistance and information sharing rather than command and control
oversight. As a whole the
planning provisions contained this legislation have worked well for all those
involved. Several of these provisions
were changed very little change in TEA-21.
U.S. DOT did propose some major changes to the planning regulations that
went far beyond the statutory requirements. However, those regulations are on
hold and it appears the U.S. DOT has rethought many of those earlier proposals.
TEA-21 added some additional groups to the public
involvement aspects of the planning process and, while the requirement for a
Major Investment Study was eliminated with the provision to be reflected in
U.S. DOT rulemaking.
Current Transportation
Planning Practices and Innovative Approaches
The current framework for statewide and metropolitan
transportation planning was established in TEA-21 and its predecessor
ISTEA. In the past decade, we have seen
significant changes in the transportation planning process. We have
strengthened the stakeholder and public involvement, and established multi-modal
planning processes that take into account a broad array of factors, including
community input and goals, economic development, improved access to
transportation facilities and services for all, and enhanced environmental
quality and protection.
In addition, there has been a renewed focus on
attainment of the federal clean air standards, and with that we have
incorporated transportation conformity requirements into the planning
process. The objective of transportation
conformity is to better harmonize transportation and air quality planning and
to ensure that transportation investments do not thwart clean air goals.
While the transportation planning processes within the
states and metropolitan areas are generally sound and should largely
be retained, some improvements can be made to simplify and improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the process. However, in
doing so, we need to ensure that new requirements are not added that will
encumber the processes that have evolved over the past decademade
to improve the efficiency and responsiveness. We should build on the planning processes to
provide for comprehensive, multi-modal planning at both the state DOTs and the
MPOs. Even so, we need to ensure that
new requirements are not added that will encumber the processes that have
evolved over the past decade. In
addition, the U.S. DOT should continue and enhance its training, technical
assistance, capacity building and information sharing efforts.
Both ISTEA and TEA-21did
emphasize the
need for increased attention to increased movement
of freight movement in their planning factors. States
have been including the freight system in their statewide multimodal
transportation plans as required first by ISTEA. As part of this effort, Wisconsin, and a number of other states,
include a freight advisory committee as part of their planning process that
engages both freight transportation providers and shippers.
Recognizing the increased importance of freight
transportation, AASHTO has created a new committee to focus on freight, the
Special Committee on Intermodal Transportation and Economic Expansion.
AASHTO has also been putting increased emphasis on
freight planning in its tools development and capacity building for states and
MPOs. Currently we are funding a
research project on “Best practices in Statewide Freight Planning” which will
examine planning in states where efforts have been made to better understand
goods movement. The lessons learned in
this project will then be passed on to other states and MPOs. We will also be conducting a workshop this
year on the need for better intermodal freight connections. The objective of this workshop will be to
improve the awareness within states and MPOs of intermodal freight needs.
In addition, AASHTO is sponsoring an increasing
amount of freight research through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program administered by the
Transportation Research Board (TRB). I
am personally chairing a research project for $500,000 to develop “Methods for
Forecasting Statewide Freight Movements and Related Performance Measures”. The results of this research should improve
our ability to predict future freight movements so we can plan and construct facilities
accordingly. Another research project
is entitled “Freight Movement by Rail – Impacts and Opportunities”. This project will examine the relationships
between rail and other freight modes to identify opportunities for rail as part
of an optimum mix.
To facilitate freight consideration in the planning
process, AASHTO recommends the following actions:
·
$10
million annually should be provided to support an initiative through which the
U.S. DOT and the state DOTs will jointly develop and implement a training and
capacity-building program to strengthen the ability of state and local
transportation agencies to effectively address freight transportation issues.
·
Congress
should increase funding for the FHWA research program to support freight
transportation research that includes the private sector, and allows the
pooling of U.S. DOT modal agency funds.
A Freight Transportation Cooperative Research Program should be created
and funded in the range of $5 million to $7.5 million annually. The transportation data programs should be
strengthened and linked effectively to national, state and local planning for
freight transportation.
AASHTO’s recommendations to Congress also include
support for authorizing a Freight Advisory Council that would communicate to
U.S. DOT, State DOTs and others with one voice the industry’s needs and
issues.
ISTEA included a provision for a financially
constrained Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). Subsequent
FHWA regulations defined indicatedthis
requirement to
means fiscal constraint by type of fund
and year, with no over-programming.
The financial constraint provision was introduced
because some of the MPOs and transit agencies expressed concern that the level
of over-programming by the State DOTs made it difficult for the MPOs to know
which projects would go forward. The
issue that Congress was seeking to address was the local government push for
more authority as to how federal transportation dollars are spent, and more
accountability by the State DOTs on where the funds were being used.
TEA-21 continued requirements for financial
constraint for State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPS) and urban
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPS).
The intent of these requirements was to match program-level project
commitments to overall resources at the planning and program
development stage in order to avoid the creation of wish lists of projects for which funds might not be
realistically
available
for the foreseeable future under any circumstances. While the expectation for a fiscally constrained planning and
programming process is both reasonable and beneficial, in practice it
is sometimes being applied to cash flow and project management.
level.
From the State DOT perspective, the financial
constraint requirement makes it difficult for States to make adjustments needed
as to which projects can move forward to obligation and
lettingbased on obligation
ceilings and other factors.
States need flexibility in managing their programs to be able to make
adjustments should a project become delayed.
The financial constraint provision makes it difficult to move forward
another ready project for funding should a project in the STIP be delayed for
any reason. It is equally difficult to move forward with
projects when unanticipated state initiatives make additional funds available.
The TEA-21 reauthorization legislation needs to
provide sufficient flexibility in financial constraints and
timing to allow States to deal with unexpected delays in project development
and in working with their State legislatures to obtain adequate funding. State DOTs and MPOs need flexibility and
discretion in the development of their STIPs and TIPs to program at a level
that enables them to deal with the realities of cash
flows, and uncertainties in project
schedules, and fluctuating funding levels.
Interpretation of fiscal constraint requirements
varies among FHWA offices across the country, forcing some State DOTs and MPOs
to comply with different standards for demonstrating financial constraint.
Moreover, wWhen
air quality and other environmental laws are paired with financial constraint
requirements, it creates a bureaucratic maze that delays needed projects and
prevents states from concluding the NEPA process on large, multi-phase projects
whose costs are spread over a long time period.
AASHTO believes that the TEA-21 reauthorization
legislation should increase flexibility related to financial constraint in
State and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs. AASHTO recommends legislative changes that:
1.
Calculate
financial constraint based on total dollars in the program compared to total
revenue available, including both federal and state funds.
2.
Allow
flexibility in the documentation requirements used by states to demonstrate
financial constraint.
3.
Revise
financial planning and financial constraint requirements for mega-projects to
get away from the “one size fits all approach” that impacts all projects over a
certain cost level.
4.
Permit
the states and implementing agencies to cooperatively develop definitions of
“anticipated full funding” and “reasonably available”.
5.
Permit
projects for which discretionary funding is being sought to be included in
financially constrained TIPs.
6.
Permit
a ten-year fiscal constraint time horizon for purposes of the metropolitan long
range transportation plan.
In October, 1993, FHWA
issued revised regulations implementing the planning provisions of ISTEA. These revised regulations included a new
concept – the major investment study or MIS, which was not specifically
required in ISTEA itself.
The regulations required an MIS for any “major
metropolitan transportation investment” where “Federal funds are potentially
involved”. The regulations defined a
major investment as a “high-type highway or transit improvement of substantial
cost that is expected to have a significant effect on capacity, traffic flow,
level of service, or mode share at the transportation corridor or subarea
level”.
Two options were allowed for preparing an MIS. Under “Option 1 “, the MIS was prepared as a
stand-alone study prior to the NEPA process.
Under “Option 2”, the MIS was combined with the EIS into a single
document.
In practice, experience with the MIS was mixed. On
the one hand, many MPOs, transit operators and some State DOTs found the MIS
useful. On the other hand Tthe
two options for the MIS also raised significant concerns:
·
Option
1 MIS (prepare MIS, then EIS): When
Option 1 was used, the “decisions” made in the MIS process were often discarded
when the NEPA process began. In effect,
it became necessary to start over again in the NEPA process, which caused the
MIS process to lose credibility among agencies and the public.
·
Option
2 MIS (prepare MIS and EIS together): While the Option 2 MIS avoided the
problems with Option 1, it also provided less flexibility. The Option 2 MIS was, in fact, an expanded
EIS; it did not provide a vehicle for conducting a corridor-level planning
study before making a commitment to
prepare a full EIS for a specific project.
In reaction to the experience with the MIS, Congress
enacted Section 1308 of TEA-21 which directed U.S. DOT to “eliminate the major
investment study … as a separate requirement and promulgate regulations to
integrate such requirement, as appropriate, as part of the analysis required
under the planning and NEPA processes for highway and transit projects.
Section 1308 also provided that “the scope of the
applicability of such regulations shall be no broader than the scope of such
section”.
In May, 2000, FHWA and FTA issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for new statewide and metropolitan planning
regulations. Pursuant to Section 1308
of TEA-21, the proposed regulations would have eliminated the MIS as a
stand-alone requirement. However, the
proposed regulations also would have created a new requirement of
with broader application.
In its comments on the NPRM, AASHTO strongly opposed
the MIS integration provisions in the FHWA’s proposed planning
regulations. AASHTO raised several
objections, including:
·
The
proposal created a new requirement that applied to all projects, not just major
investments. Because the new
requirement was broader in its applicability thant
the original MIS regulation, it directly contradicted violated
Section 1308 of TEA-21.
·
The
new requirement created a mandatory process, which had the potential to become
extremely resource-intensive.
·
The
new process did nothing to ensure that decisions made in the planning stage
would be accepted in the NEPA process.
AASHTO’s recommendation regarding the MIS issue when
it is considered in the reauthorization of TEA-21 is that Congress direct U.S.
DOT to eliminate the MIS requirement effective immediately, and not make
elimination of the MIS contingent on the issuance of new regulations.
AASHTO also recommends that Congress authorize State
DOTs and MPOs to develop optional procedures (with public transit operators, as
appropriate) through which decisions reached in the Statewide and metropolitan
planning process regarding on purpose-and-need
and range of alternatives would be binding in the NEPA process.
With regard to State
Long Range Transportation Plans, Congress should continue to provide
flexibility to States as to content of Long Range Plans, performance measures
and planning horizons so long as a minimum 20-year horizon is maintained.
However, in a three-year update cycle, MPOs don’t
have adequate time to improve their data collection and modeling
processes. Further, the three year
update cycle makes it difficult to involve the public since the planning agency
is always in a continuous update cycle.
If the update cycle was changed to five years, MPOs would be able to
strengthen the planning process by improving the data and updating their
modeling tools.
To overcome the
problems listed above, AASHTO advocates that Congress change the update cycle
for Long Range Metropolitan Transportation Plans from three years to five
years.
TEA-21 requires consideration of projects and
strategies that will, among other things, “increase
accessibility and mobility options”, and
“enhance the integration of the transportation system.” These parallel considerations are often
included in land use planning activities.
TEA-21 correctly eliminated any specific reference to state-level
responsibility for land use planning in recognition that states only rarely
have authority to directly make land use decisions.
Land use has historically been considered to be mostly
a local government function.
Most states, as a matter of state law or practice, defer most or all
land use decision making to local units of government. Land use reflects a number of local
circumstances, and local officials should have the responsibility to determine
land use for their particular area.
Trying to legislate one particular approach to land use – a “one size
fits all” approach – simply would not be workable from an interjurisdictional
perspective.
Congress should ensure that federal statutes
continue to defer to local and state governments on whether and how to consider
land use in the course of transportation planning.
With regard to Smart Growth, Wisconsin has “Smart
Growth” legislation, and has worked cooperatively with local units of
government and developed a “Transportation Guide” for the local communities to
use in developing their comprehensive plans.
This stresses the importance of planning for land use and transportation
together once the community has determined its vision.
AASHTO has several Smart Growth related activities
underway, including:
·
Sponsoring
meetings and working with State DOTs, U.S. DOT and other organizations on
Context Sensitive Design. AASHTO
supports Context Sensitive Design, and attention to the way streets and
highways are routed or redesigned through living areas to lessen any negative
effects they may have on the livability
of an area. AASHTO is developing a
guide on context sensitive design, which is slated for publication later this
year.
·
Through
a grant from FHWA and EPA, AASHTO is sponsoring a Smart Growth competition to
highlight new and innovative Smart Growth initiatives being tried around the
country.
·
AASHTO
has launched an Environmental Stewardship initiative to assist State DOTs in
capacity building efforts to deliver needed transportation projects in a manner
that preserves and enhances our environment.
Under this Environmental Stewardship initiative,
AASHTO is working with FHWA, other federal agencies, and environmental
organizations in the establishment of a Center for Environmental Excellence,
AASHTO is also sponsoring an Environmental
Stewardship pilot program to again disseminate information about best practices
in working with the environment.
Several State DOTs, such as
New York, have incorporated environmental stewardship into all facets of their
operations, whether planning and designing new facilities, or maintenance
activities such as grass cutting.
Congress should
continue the existing balance of decision-making authority between the MPO, the
state and local officials. This would
continue already
proven arrangements that have worked well for a decade and been agreed to
by transportation officials and professionals nationwide.
In particular, the current relationships in rural
areas should remain unchanged. Rural
transportation planning already is fully encompassed by the statewide planning
provisions of 23 USC section 135, which have been institutionalized nationally
since ISTEA. Indeed, in most states a
comparable rural/statewide transportation planning process was in place before
ISTEA.
Much has been said about the changes that TEA-21
made to consultation with rural officials.
In fact, a review of the language in both statutes reveals that the net
effect of the changes is that, with respect to nonmetropolitan areas, states are to
consult not only with certain “elected officials”, but also with
affected local officials “with responsibility for transportation.”
There is no
question that there must be consultation, and we believe that in most states
this is taking place. Where local
officials are being left out of planning discussions, we believe that FHWA
should consider some type of case-by-case action to ensure consultation. However, failure by one state or area to
consult should not become the basis for imposing broad regulations that dictate
how the states should consult with their local officials.
In Wisconsin, rural planning is a collaborative
effort between the states, regional planning commissions and local
government. This arrangement goes back
to the 1960’s. These parties coordinate
their planning activities utilizing advisory committees, intergovernmental committees,
guidance documents, association meetings, public involvement, etc. In addition, Wisconsin has a Local Roads and
Streets Council composed of all levels of government: counties, towns,
villages, cities and state. This
council develops and evaluates local road data and develops policy initiatives
based on that data as well as evaluates policy and program options on
funding. Other states have similar
arrangements for their local planning depending on their unique institutional
and statutory authority.
Have the planning
partners been given the proper roles and mandate?
In recognizing statutorily that the federal-aid highway
program is a “federally-assisted state program”, TEA-21 acknowledges two
centuries of federalism. Implicit in
this recognition is an appreciation of the central role that the states perform
in the development of our surface transportation system, even as other
jurisdictions and institutions – local government, MPOs, tribal governments and
federal agencies – have come to play important parts. The nation is well-served by the current balance of
responsibility for the development of highway, transit and intermodal projects,
and AASHTO recommends that Congress maintain this balance and reaffirm the
leadership role and authority of the states as TEA-21 is reauthorized.
Congress should continue TEA-21’s decision-making
responsibilities, processes, and procedures for planning, programming and
project selection. This means retaining
the balance of decision making between states and MPOs, and state and rural
officials; retaining the current definitions of planning “consultation,
cooperation and coordination,” and meeting needs through the existing program
structure, rather than through new set-asides.
Do planning
organizations have adequate capacity, tools and resources to carry out their
assigned role and responsibilities?
AASHTO is working closely with the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and the National Association of Regional
Councils to develop and deploy various capacity building tools to assist
transportation planners. Several
initiatives are included in this activity, including a web site where transportation
planning assistance can be disseminated.
In addition, AASHTO has been working closely with the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) to continue to improve planning tools. There are on-going projects related to
safety, freight planning, rural planning, public involvement, economic benefits,
and innovative financing. There are additional needs for techniques to
deal with capacity needs to support the nations’ economy, accelerating the
renewal of our highways, providing reliable travel times, and making
improvements in highway safety. In
fact, in these four areas, AASHTO is working cooperatively with FHWA to
identify research needed to address these problems. These research proposals will be completed in time to be
considered during reauthorization of TEA-21.
However, if there are increases in requirements through
the federal legislative or regulatory process, it will be difficult to meet
them through the planning process.
Currently, planning and research for states and their localities is supported
by 2 per cent of certain federal aid categories. If the overall federal program grows, planning funds should be
sufficient. But if the program does not
grow, there will not be enough planning funds to keep up with new challenges
let alone any new requirements. For
years, Wisconsin has shared its planning funds with the MPOs, regional planning
commissions and local government. This
is becoming much more difficult. In
addition, research at the national level is critically under funded.
As I have indicated, the planning provisions of
ISTEA and TEA-21 have improved the transportation planning process and allowed
for greater public involvement in the process.
As Statewide and Metropolitan planning issues are
considered in the reauthorization of TEA-21, it is important to recognize the
differences among states and provide adequate flexibility. The reauthorization legislation needs to
include flexibility that allows States and MPOs to adapt it to different parts of the country based on government
structure, geography, population and a number of other important factors.
In addition to
legislative changes, AASHTO is particularly concerned about any federal
planning regulations that may come forward after the reauthorization
legislation is passed. AASHTO strongly
believes that such regulations should be consistent with Congressional intent.
Thank you for allowing me to present AASHTO’s
perspective on these issues. AASHTO is
available to work with you and your staff on these important issues that will
be considered in the reauthorization of TEA-21. I would be happy to answer any questions here, or in writing.