I am appearing today at your invitation on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations of which I am Chairman of the Board of Directors. I want to thank you and the Members of this Subcommittee for holding this series of hearings to review the implementation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) as we approach its first-year anniversary.
AMPO represents the interests of regional transportation planning organizations and assists them in developing plans for multi-modal transportation systems that address air quality, welfare reform and growth issues. AMPO is a program of the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC). NARC represents the regional councils of governments, regional planning and development districts, regional transportation planning organizations and other groups that foster local cooperation and coordinate the delivery of federal and state programs in addressing cross-cutting economic, environmental, equity and growth challenges.
Nearly eight years ago, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) established a fundamentally new direction and approach for the federal-aid highway and transit programs. With ISTEA we embarked on a unique and well-founded experiment in new federalism in which there was devolution of responsibility for meeting national transportation policy goals. ISTEA provided the States and their local government partners with program flexibility and the financial resources to implement a broad mix of multimodal project and management strategies that would meet national, State and local mobility and access needs while simultaneously addressing environmental, social and economic priorities.
TEA-21, as an affirmation of ISTEA's new federalism, refined the framework for a more robust and transparent transportation planning process and for ensuring continued and expanded State and local collaboration. TEA-21 also includes provisions to streamline the planning and project delivery process, and extends state consultation to local officials in non-metropolitan. We strongly advocated TEA-21's affirmation of ISTEA and its refinements, and we applaud the Congress for its foresight and wisdom in doing just that and in enacting a sound piece of public transportation policy.
We also supported the substantially increased levels of federal investment in surface transportation that were made possible by ensuring that revenues to the Highway Trust Fund are able to be spent as they accrue. However, Mr. Chairman, because of changes in the way the Minimum Guarantee Program is administered, the record levels of new funding are not evenly spread across all program categories, leaving most metropolitan areas with a disproportionately smaller increase in Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, and some with no increase at all. In three States, metropolitan areas actually saw a decrease in STP funds. This is a funding challenge that we believe can be, and should be, resolved within the individual states through collaboration with local governments by taking advantage of TEA-21's important modifications to the metropolitan transportation planning process.
Mr. Chairman, at this point, it may be that it is too soon to assess the impacts of TEA-21's planning process refinements. Details of the modifications will be established through the regulatory process before full implementation. In the interim, the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), with their State Department of Transportation and transit agency partners, are moving forward in the spirit of TEA-21 to expand the technical foundation for decision making, to broaden the involvement of non-traditional stakeholders, to eliminate redundant procedures and to improve responsiveness and accountability.
We also have provided our views to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) on implementation of TEA-21's planning provisions, and today I would like to share our perspective on several, key planning issues that will be addressed in the regulations.
Fiscal Accountability and Cooperative Revenue Forecasts
The first issue is fiscal accountability and the need for cooperatively developed revenue forecasts. Mr. Chairman, you recently heard from Mayor Ken Barr on this issue when he testified before this Subcommittee on April 15th on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. We fully concur with his statement and want to underscore the need for U.S. DOT to issue clear directives on this provision.
TEA-21 ratified and strengthened the concept of fiscal discipline and accountability. The financial constraint provisions under which we now operate require a demonstration of consistency of proposed transportation investments with currently available, projected and proposed sources of revenue. We have made progress in moving away from the project "wish lists" that existed prior to ISTEA -- now long range transportation plans are more than just a simple documentation of total transportation system needs, and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) are more than a mere list of projects from which the States can pick and choose to fund without consultation.
TEA-21 preserved the fiscal constraint requirement and also addressed a serious shortcoming - the inadequacy of revenue forecasts as the basis for developing financially constrained plans and programs. In the regulations implementing ISTEA, U.S. DOT clearly indicated that the States needed "to have a process for obtaining information on funding needs for the metropolitan areas as well as the non-metropolitan areas of the State to provide a basis for deciding how to distribute the Federal funding," yet few States complied.
The problem of inadequate or completely missing revenue forecasts surfaced because many of the States refused to provide estimates of federal funding that would be available to the metropolitan areas. In most cases this happened because the States did not want to decide at the start of the planning process how to allocate their funds among the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas within each State.
Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the provisions in TEA-21 requiring cooperative revenue forecasts to remedy this shortcoming, and we recommend that the planning regulations clearly indicate that the States, transit operators, and MPOs must cooperatively establish a set of procedures for projecting future revenues that will be allocated to metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas within each state. We believe that each State with its MPO and transit partners should have the flexibility to establish a unique set of procedures to meet their circumstances, but we suggest that there are common elements that should be included:
--An agreed upon distribution of estimated future revenues.
--A set of decision rules outlining the process for allocating funds and the range of certainty regarding estimated funding allocations. Such decision rules for allocation should be needs based, and also reflect the underlying policy rationale for the federal program categories.
--An internal appeals process if there is disagreement among the parties regarding the estimating procedures, or if there is a question regarding compliance with agreed upon estimates.
--An external appeals process to USDOT if one or more MPOs indicate the state has failed to comply with the requirement for the development and/or implementation of a cooperative revenue estimating process. In this case, USDOT would have the option of disapproving a state's STIP for failure to comply with the planning requirements.
--The agreed upon process and decision rules for cooperatively estimating revenues should be outlined in a Statewide Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the state, transit operator(s), and the MPOs within each state.
These elements are outlined in one of our Issue Papers, which are attached to this testimony.
Mr. Chairman, such a cooperatively developed revenue estimating process is also important because it can provide the mechanism within each State to address the negative effect of disproportionately smaller increases in STP funds available to the metropolitan areas. Some States, such as Arizona, Texas and Florida have begun discussions with their metropolitan areas to ensure that they too will benefit from TEA-21's forty percent overall funding increase.
TEA-21 elevated the awareness of the need to continue to invest in our nation's transportation infrastructure. The commitment to fund surface transportation at record levels clearly put transportation on the national agenda as a non-partisan legislative priority. In order to ensure that surface transportation remains on the forefront of the national agenda in the years to come, we need to make the most of this new infusion of resources. This can only be accomplished if MPOs with their partners and stakeholders work collaboratively.
Information Gaps and Needs
Mr. Chairman, the subject of adequate information is an important related issue. A key to the success of any partnership arrangement is access to full and adequate information. Without complete disclosure, some parties to the partnership necessarily will have to operate at a disadvantage and we lose the benefits from, and faith in, a transparent decision-making process.
TEA-21 requires that the U.S.DOT annually provide Congress with an update on the obligation of federal-aid highway funds by program, funding category, type of improvement, State and sub-state geographic area. When he testified before you earlier this month, Mayor Barr expressed the U.S. Conference of Mayors' concerns regarding the reporting of this information. We concur that the tabular information provided in the Section 104(j) tables is complex and confusing, and we believe U.S. DOT should consult with the primary users, including local elected officials, to improve the presentation of this valuable source of information.
The MPOs are also faced with a potentially problematic new reporting requirement. [Section 134(h)(7)(B)]. The MPOs must publish or otherwise make available an annual listing of projects, consistent with the categories in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), for which federal funds have been obligated in the preceding year. While this information will be extremely valuable to all stakeholders and interested parties, the MPOs cannot assemble this information without the cooperation of the implementing agencies. State departments of transportation and transit agencies are the institutions with the authority for obligating federal funds for projects included in the TIPs. Therefore, those agencies must be required to provide timely information on the status of federal projects for which federal funds have been obligated, and the most effective means to provide this information is through a project monitoring system.
Mr. Chairman, we therefore recommend that U.S. DOT require within each State a project monitoring system, cooperatively developed by the State departments of transportation, the MPOs and transit agencies, for the purpose of tracking highway and transit obligations. Such a project monitoring system would have to be maintained by the agencies responsible for obligating the federal funds. It also seems reasonable to expect that such a monitoring system should be linked to the U.S. DOT's 104(j) report as well as to similar documents prepared for the purpose of reporting the obligation of federal transit funds.
Illustrative Projects
Among TEA-21's modifications to the planning process was one that was intended to provide additional flexibility in responding to the fiscal constraint provisions established under ISTEA. The States argued that the requirement to link plans and programs to available and projected resources limited their ability to show full needs in the long range transportation plan, and which would be used for devising long term financial strategies.
We did not agree. Since ISTEA, many MPOs have prepared full needs assessments as components of, or attachments to, their long range plans, but they also clearly delineate project priorities within available and projected resource constraints. Nevertheless, TEA-21 now permits the financial plan component of both the plan and TIP to include "illustrative" projects, which are defined as those projects that would be included in the plan or TIP if additional resources were to become available.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that Congress did not intend the inclusion of "illustrative" projects to alter the existing financial constraint requirements, nor for such projects to have any status as normal or regular projects in demonstrating conformity of the long range transportation and TIP with State Air Quality Implementation Plans (SIPs). We are especially concerned that this provision not be used to establish "de facto" unconstrained plans and programs from which States can "cherry-pick" projects based on hidden priorities established outside the planning process.
As I indicated earlier, fiscal accountability has been a hallmark of the more rigorous and collaborative transportation planning process. In order to ensure that this key factor not be diluted or bypassed, we have recommended that the planning regulations explicitly indicate that "illustrative" projects are clearly outside the fiscal constraint boundaries of plans and programs and have no legal standing with respect to transportation/air quality conformity demonstrations. Moreover, we have suggested the following should be included in the regulations:
--MPOs should approve any list of illustrative projects as part of the normal metropolitan planning process.
--The U.S. DOT should notify the MPO that a request for approval has been made for selection of a project from the illustrative list, and should not approve selection by the State of any illustrative project without approval by the MPO.
--Prior to approving any request by the State for selection of an "illustrative" project in the plan or TIP in a non-attainment area, the MPO should first demonstrate conformity of the plan and TIP with the inclusion of the "illustrative" project.
--If "illustrative" projects are added, then both the plan and TIP must continue to be financially constrained, either by adding revenues or by removing other projects.
Mr. Chairman, we strongly urge you to continue to monitor how this provision is incorporated in the upcoming planning regulations and implemented across the States. We believe there is no other provision as important to ensuring continued State and local collaboration than the "Truth in Funding" fiscal constraints provisions established under ISTEA and affirmed in TEA-21.
Incorporating Major Investment Study (MIS) Provisions in the Planning Process
A fundamental goal of TEA-21 was to streamline the processes and procedures required for moving projects from inception to implementation and construction. One component of TEA-21's streamlining is the elimination of the Major Investment Study as a stand-alone requirement and the incorporation of similar analyses directly into the metropolitan transportation planning process.
The intent of the MIS requirement was to provide for early consideration of broad array of modal strategies where the need for improvements had been established for a major corridor or subarea. The MIS requirement also provided a mechanism for public involvement in the earliest stages of analyses of modal alternatives and strategies. While the objectives for such analyses were fundamentally sound, problems surfaced because permitting agencies subsequently involved during the project-specific Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyses stage did not accept the results of the earlier MIS, which narrowed the array of alternatives under consideration. This led to redundant analyses, duplication of effort and added costs.
TEA-21 provides an approach to remedy the problems associated with the MIS while preserving beneficial features in the planning process. At a minimum, the regulations implementing TEA-21 should clearly indicate that the metropolitan transportation planning process should be the mechanism and forum:
for establishing the need for improvements in a corridor or subarea,
for involving the public and stakeholders at the earliest stages of planning,
for assessing and narrowing the array of modal alternatives and strategies to address corridor level or subarea improvement needs; and
for evaluating the impact on, and compatibility of, the array of modal alternatives and strategies with regard to the total metropolitan transportation system.
The results of these analyses should be recognized, accepted and used through the later stages of analyses under the policy and procedure project-level rules of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Such analyses should complement, not duplicate, the NEPA process. We strongly support efforts to streamline the planning and project delivery process, but in doing so, we hope that the best features of planning process are preserved.
Implications of Recent Court Decision on Transportation Conformity Demonstrations
Finally Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to your attention our concerns regarding the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This decision essentially establishes new rules for making conformity determinations that will make it extremely difficult if not impossible for many metropolitan areas to demonstrate conformity of their long range transportation plans with State Air Quality Implementation Plans (SIPs).
The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments defined "transportation conformity," and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) subsequently issued extensive, detailed and complex regulations outlining the conformity process. Despite nine years of experience and efforts by EPA to amend the regulations, which were remanded by the recent court decision, most metropolitan areas continue to struggle through a complicated, resource intensive and costly set of procedures that have done little to help clean the air. Now the process will become even more difficult.
The problems associated with restricting projects in progress are receiving the most attention. We concur that by eliminating the ability to grandfather projects until the point at which there is a contractual commitment by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA), an unacceptable amount of uncertainty is added to the entire planning and financing process.
The Court's decision also exacerbates another technical problem, which has been acknowledged by the members of this organization and by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Under the existing regulations there is a mismatch between the time horizons for attainment or maintenance of air quality standards in the SIP and the 20-year time horizon required for the long range transportation plan. The time horizons in the SIP for either attainment or maintenance do not extend this far into the future.
The result of this mismatch affects the demonstration of conformity of the long range plan. The mobile source emissions budget for the years beyond the SIP horizon is a presumed projection of mobile source emissions, which can be no higher than the emissions level at the time of attainment. This puts the transportation sector at a discrete disadvantage because it is left without a means to negotiate trade-offs between mobile and non-mobile sources for the out-years beyond the attainment or 10-year maintenance period. Therefore, the practical result is that there is no mechanism for examining trade-offs among mobile, areawide and stationary sources during that period.
Mr. Chairman, we urge you to closely monitor the results of this Court decision and to consider adjustments to the Clean Air Act that would simplify and rationalize what has become an extremely burdensome and complicated process that adds little to protecting and improving the environment.
We also recommend that you consider modifications that would address and solve the problems associated with the transportation plan/SIP time horizon mismatch. A suggested remedy is to require that the long range transportation plan demonstrate conformity with the operative SIP emissions budget, unless or until the adoption of a negotiated emission reduction strategy that considers mobile and non-mobile emission reduction trade-offs for the out-years beyond the time frame of any applicable attainment or maintenance plan.
Closing Comments
Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that we believe ISTEA and its successor TEA-21 can provide the funding and policy tools to address the transportation challenges of our metropolitan regions. While it is still too early to adequately determine the effectiveness of TEA-21's refinements, I have offered several recommendations for implementation. I urge you to continue to monitor the progress in achieving the vision and goals set forth for our nation's surface transportation infrastructure. We stand ready to participate and support you and your Committee's efforts. Thank you for this opportunity to present the views of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Metropolitan Planning Provisions
Background. TEA-21 reaffirms and basically retains the structure of the metropolitan transportation planning process. Most of the modifications are intended to streamline, build upon and strengthen, but not to disturb the existing metropolitan planning process requirements. Key modifications include:
More than one MPO may be designated within an existing metropolitan planning area only if the Governor and existing MPO concur (adds MPO approval). The boundaries of existing MPOs in nonattainment areas will not be expanded or otherwise adjusted as a result of the new air quality standards, unless the Governor and MPO (i.e., units of local government representing 75% of the population) reach agreement on a boundary change.
Coordination between and/or among MPOs is required in cases where projects are located within the boundaries of more than one MPO.
USDOT shall encourage MPOs to coordinate the design and delivery of non-emergency transportation services provided by transit recipients and recipients of assistance for non-emergency transportation from agencies other USDOT.
(The consolidation of ISTEA's 16 planning factors into 7 general factors that must be taken into account in assessing the projects and strategies under consideration for implementation in a metropolitan region. Failure to consider any specific factor in formulating plans, projects programs, and strategies, or in certifying the planning process, is not reviewable by any court. Freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, and representatives of users of public transit are added to the list of parties that must be given the opportunity for review and comment on plans and TIPs. The MPO must publish or otherwise make available an annual listing of projects, consistent with the categories in the TIP, for which Federal funds have been obligated in the preceding year.
Most of these modifications can easily be incorporated directly into the existing metropolitan planning requirements. Nevertheless, inclusion of some of the above additions or expansions to the planning process must be accomplished in a manner that avoids disruptions in existing procedures, is practical, and above all, is consistent with the intent of TEA-21's authors.
Issues/Recommendations
TEA-21's additions and amendments to the metropolitan planning process generally expand upon rather than alter the existing metropolitan planning process. Therefore, the existing metropolitan planning regulations should be retained, and amendments made only to incorporate TEA-21's amendments, clarifications and additions to the process.
In cases where projects extend beyond the boundaries of one metropolitan planning area, coordination between and/or among MPOs should be specified through a Memorandum of Understanding.
In providing stakeholder groups, including those newly identified in TEA-21, with opportunity for review and comment on plans and TIPs, the MPOs are subject to general minimum requirements established by USDOT. To avoid unreasonable cost and staff burdens, such requirements must enable the MPO to use reasonable discretion in determining appropriate and feasible access to the models and analyses on which plans and TIPs are based. Consistent with rules established under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the MPOs must be able to recover the costs associated with data manipulation, duplication, delivery and/or analyses resulting from requests for information and data beyond what is normally published and distributed to the general public. Also consistent with FOIA, the MPO must be able to ensure restricted access to proprietary and confidential data.
Since the state departments of transportation and transit agencies are the institutions with authority for obligating federal funds, those agencies must also be held accountable for providing the MPOs with timely information regarding the status of federally funded projects that are included in the TIP and for which federal funds have actually been obligated. USDOT should require the development of a project monitoring system, to be developed cooperatively by the state DOTs, transit operators, MPOs and local governments, for the purpose of tracking highway and transit project obligations. Such project monitoring systems would be maintained by those agencies responsible for obligating federal funds, and made accessible to the MPOs.
Developing Strategic Cooperative Revenue Forecasts
Background. ISTEA's drafters envisioned a more financially accountable approach to the development of long-range transportation plans and transportation improvement programs, moving away from the project "wish lists" that existed prior to ISTEA. The financial constraint requirement was one means to ensure that transportation plans would evolve from a simple documentation of system needs, and TIPs would evolve from a mere listing of projects. With this requirement, ISTEA embraced the concept that both the plan and the TIP should function as contemporary decision management and project implementation/monitoring tools.
TEA-21 reaffirms the concept of fiscal discipline and addresses a shortcoming that has come to light in the six years of planning practice under the new planning processes laid out through ISTEA - i.e., the inadequacy of revenue forecasts as the basis for developing financially constrained plans and programs. This is not a new issue, but one that was referred to in the regulations implementing ISTEA. In the preamble to the statewide and metropolitan planning regulations published in 1993, U.S. DOT acknowledges that the states may have difficulty in providing estimates of Federal funding that will be available for individual metropolitan areas because of the fact this would require the states to decide how they intend to allocate their funds among the metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas within each state. Nevertheless, U.S. DOT indicated that the states needed "to have a process for obtaining information on funding needs for the metropolitan areas as well as the nonmetropolitan areas of the state to provide a basis for deciding how to distribute the Federal funding."
In TEA-21, Congress concedes that the issue of the adequacy of financial forecasts must be further addressed, and therefore, explicitly requires (1) the states and MPOs to cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support plan implementation, and (2) the MPO, the state and public transit agency to cooperatively develop estimates of funds that are reasonably expected to be available to support program implementation.
Issues/Recommendations. TEA-21's requirements for cooperatively developed financial forecasts reaffirm, clarify and expand on the existing concepts and regulations implementing ISTEA (23 CFR 450.322 and 450.324).
1. The current regulations implementing ISTEA require that a financial element be included in the long-range plan and TIP. The purpose of the financial plan element is to demonstrate consistency of proposed transportation investments with currently available, projected and proposed sources of revenue. The financial plan must compare estimated revenues from existing and proposed sources of revenue; projected costs of construction, operation and maintenance: and include an "action plan" to demonstrate the steps that will be taken to ensure new revenues will be realized. The current regulations also clarify the definition of "available" or "reasonably expected to be made available" funds; specify that action strategies for obtaining new resources need to be outlined; and permit overprogramming in the TIP by defining "available" or "committed" federal funds to mean authorized funds, which are greater than what is actually available for obligation.
The drafters of TEA-21 did not intend to disturb ISTEA's financial constraint provisions, and therefore, when the provisions in TEA-21 are implemented, the existing regulations should be left intact.
2. While the current regulations and guidance acknowledge the requirement for the states to have some mechanism for forecasting revenues, it gives the states wide discretion in how those estimates of revenues are to be provided. TEA-21 clearly requires a more specifically defined and cooperatively established process for preparing revenue forecasts.
The current regulations should be expanded to require the states, transit operators, and MPOs to cooperatively establish a set of procedures governing the projection of future revenues that will be allocated to metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas within each state.
Such cooperatively developed processes must incorporate the following elements:
--An agreed upon distribution of estimated future revenues.
--A set of decision rules outlining the process for allocating funds and the range of certainty regarding estimated funding allocations. Such decision rules for allocation should be needs based, but also reflect the underlying rationale for the federal program.
--An internal appeals process if there is disagreement among the parties regarding the estimating procedures or if there is a question regarding compliance with agreed upon estimates.
--An external appeals process to USDOT if one or more MPOs representing at least a majority of the population within all the metropolitan areas of the state indicate the state has failed to comply with the requirement for the development and/or implementation of a cooperative revenue estimating process. In this case, USDOT would have the option of disapproving a state's STIP for failure to comply with the requirements.
--The agreed upon process and decision rules for cooperatively estimating revenues shall be outlined in a Statewide Memorandum of Understanding between the state, transit operator(s), and the MPOs within each state.
Incorporation of Illustrative Projects in the Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program
Background.
In the debates leading to the enactment of TEA-21, the states argued that ISTEA's financial constraint provisions limited their ability to document full needs in the long range plan as the basis for devising long-term financial strategies and to manage implementation of projects included in the TIP. Nevertheless, in drafting TEA-21, Congress affirmed the value and desirability of the fiscal discipline and accountability that ISTEA imposed by requiring financially constrained transportation plans and programs. The original Congressional intent to make long-range transportation plans and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) more fiscally realistic by constraining them to reasonably available revenues remains intact in TEA-21.
However, Congress did acknowledge the merits of being able to identify additional project needs in both the plan and TIP for which funds are not available. TEA-21 now permits the financial plan component of the long-range transportation plan and TIP to include projects, which are defined as those projects that would be included in the plan or TIP if additional resources were to become available. Congress did not intend that the inclusion of projects would alter the existing financial constraint requirements that provide fiscal discipline and accountability. Nor did Congress intend projects to have any status as a normal or regular project in determining conformity of the long-range transportation plan and TIP with State Air Quality Implementation Plans (SIPs).
TEA-21 indicates that including a project in the financial plan component of the long-range transportation plan or TIP for purposes does not subsequently selection of the project from the list of illustrative projects. TEA-21 also provides that the selection of any projects from the list of projects included in the financial plan component of the TIP would require action/approval by the Secretary of USDOT.
Issues/Recommendations.
Projects may be included in the financial component of the long-range transportation plan or TIP as part of an additional list of projects. Such projects are intended to assist in the development of vision-based plan and programs and are not included in fiscally constrained plans or programs. MPOs should approve any list of illustrative projects as part of the normal metropolitan transportation planning process.
Illustrative projects, which may be included as part of the financial component of the plan or TIP, will not be included in determining conformity of the plan or TIP with the State Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP).
Projects included in the financial component of the long-range transportation plan or TIP as part of an additional list of projects may not be selected for implementation without approval by the Secretary of USDOT. The Secretary should be required to notify the MPO that a request for approval has been made for selection of a project from the illustrative list, and should not approve selection by the state of any illustrative project without approval by the MPO.
Prior to approving any request by the state for selection of a project in the plan or TIP, in a non-attainment area, from the illustrative list, the MPO should be required to demonstrate conformity of the plan and TIP with the inclusion of the project that is added from the illustrative list.
If projects from the illustrative projects list are added to the plan and TIP, both the plan and TIP must continue to be financially constrained either by adding revenues or by removing other projects in the plan and TIP.
Incorporating the MIS Into the Metropolitan Planning Process
Background. In implementing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, U.S. DOT established a requirement for a Major Investment Study (MIS) in cases where project sponsors were contemplating corridor or subarea improvements that might involvement construction of major highway or transit facilities. The intent of the requirement was to provide for early consideration of a broad array of modal alternatives where the need for improvements had been established for a major corridor or subarea. The MIS requirement also provided a mechanism for public involvement in the earliest stages of analyses of modal alternatives and strategies. While the intent was salutary, problems arose because agencies subsequently involved during the project-specific Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyses stage did not recognize the results of the earlier MIS, which narrowed the array of alternatives. This led to additional analyses, much duplication of effort and added costs.
In the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the Congress attempts to remedy the problems associated with the MIS requirements while retaining the beneficial features. Sec. 1308 of TEA-21 directs the Secretary of U.S. DOT to eliminate the major investment study requirements contained in Sec. 450.318 of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and to promulgate regulations that will incorporate the major investment analyses into the metropolitan transportation planning process. Therefore, the concept of MIS is retained and enhanced as a statutory requirement, and the MIS will survive in a different form, but no longer as a stand-alone requirement for major highway and transit investments.
The language in Sec. 1308 of TEA-21 regarding MIS, and its history, is sparse. Nevertheless, the intent can be extracted from its association with the reforms of the EIS process provided for in Sec. 1509 of the Act. Congress explicitly endorses the U.S.DOT policy that major investments must be premised on a rigorous and objective analysis of the feasible alternatives to meet existing or forecasted needs in a corridor or subarea. Just as importantly, Congress has provided that the MIS must be complementary to the formulation of the required EIS.
Issues/Recommendations:
The MIS is no longer a stand-alone requirement. The primary objectives and function of the MIS are to be incorporated into the ongoing metropolitan planning processes and reflected in revised metropolitan planning regulations. Moreover, new regulations implementing the environmental streamlining provisions of TEA-21 and modifications to regulations dealing with the NEPA process for highway and transit projects should also recognize and be consistent with the integration of an MIS-type approach in the planning process. This would ensure that the MIS complements, but does not duplicate the NEPA process.
Documentation of corridor or subarea need and analysis of modal alternatives should be accomplished during the ongoing metropolitan system-wide and subarea/corridor planning process. Such analysis should include consideration of all appropriate modal alternatives and should reflect the scale and priority of the identified need. Then the scope of a subsequent EIS should be limited to that range of alternatives considered, analyzed and narrowed during system-wide and subarea/corridor analyses. The detailed environmental analysis conducted during the project-specific EIS would be limited to the same alternatives studied as part of system-wide and subarea/corridor analysis. This approach would reduce duplication effort and link the environmental work more effectively to the planning process and through it, the commitment of resources for construction or implementation of services.
The design and scope of the study should be included in the MPO's unified planning work program, where commitment to supplemental funding from the State DOT and transit operator(s) should be reflected.
The MIS-type identification of purpose and need and identification and analysis of alternatives should be conducted in a manner consistent with the MPO's adopted public participation procedures and other normal decision making requirements of the metropolitan planning process.
Fair Share Campaign
Background: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) provided leverage for greater involvement of local elected officials in investing federal transportation funds in metropolitan areas, as well as additional resources directed specifically at addressing the transportation needs of the metropolitan transportation system. Enhanced involvement and additional resources were assured through the distribution of Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to metropolitan areas; the requirement for fiscally constrained transportation plans and programs; a stronger role in program development and project selection; and through the establishment of new programs, including the CMAQ program, the Enhancement program and the STP program, all of which are designed to address transportation needs in metropolitan areas.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) retains these programs and provisions, and increases the amount of federal surface transportation funding by 40%. Local elected official support was a key factor in ensuring this outcome. However, it now appears that despite the critical support of local elected officials, the increase in funding directed to metropolitan areas is substantially less than the increase in overall funding. In response, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and National Association of Counties have launched a Fair Share Campaign.
The key goal of the Fair Share Campaign is to make sure that -- communities and regions get a `fair return' on the dollars our taxpayers contribute to Washington and to our state capitals -- and -- to have more access to the resources delivered through TEA-21 to build the partnerships for the needed transportation investments in our communities and our regions. -- The goal is a fair share and greater involvement in setting the transportation investment agenda. In establishing the Fair Share Campaign, USCM and NACo, in essence, are seeking to ensure more resources are available for meeting local needs, i.e., needs on facilities and services owned or operated by local governments.
As part of the Fair Share Campaign, local elected officials are urged to work with their Governors, state legislators and state transportation departments. To support the Campaign, mayors, county officials and others will meet in a series of forums -- to share information, ideas and strategies on how to secure the transportation dollars from TEA-21 and to build a broad-based collation of interests that collectively support an investment agenda for our communities and regions. --
Issues/Recommendations
Unlike revenue sharing programs designed to fill budgetary gaps, the federal-aid surface transportation program is intended to be used to enhance transportation system efficiency, operations, and safety, with project investment priorities that are based on function and need regardless of jurisdictional responsibility. (See attached chart that indicates the wide range of highway mileage over which the states have control.) Therefore, the issue of equity must be approached from the standpoint of function and need, as opposed to geography or ownership.
TEA-21 offers a new mechanism that can result in greater local involvement in setting the transportation investment agenda, a requirement for the states, MPOs and transit operators to cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support plan and program implementation. To implement this requirement the states should be required to establish, cooperatively with their transit operators and MPOs, a set of procedures governing the projection of future revenues that will be allocated to metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas within each state. This would ensure full knowledge and disclosure of the anticipated distribution of all federal-aid surface transportation funds, and would foster more strategic program development and implementation.
TEA-21 establishes a new Minimum Guarantee Program that is designed to guarantee a 90.5% return of relative contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. In crafting this program, TEA-21's authors combined the numerous equity pots under ISTEA into one, and funded the new equity program at a level only slightly larger than the combined equity programs offered under ISTEA. However, the program administration rules changed to the detriment of metropolitan areas. Under ISTEA, 50% of the equity programs were administered as STP funds subject to all the suballocation requirements of that program. Now under TEA-21, roughly 50% of the Minimum Guarantee Program will -- flow back -- to the states as core program funds based on the relative share of those programs in each state, and would be administered according to each program's normal rules. The result is that under this new approach, the increase in STP funding which metropolitan areas will receive is substantially less that what the overall increase in funding under TEA-21. In some states, metropolitan areas will have an absolute decrease in STP funding. Any discussion of -- fair share -- should address this unintended consequence, and MPOs should seek a modification in the requirements governing the administration of funds under the Minimum Guarantee Program to reinstate the 50/50 balance established for the equity programs under ISTEA.