Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century - An Overview of MAP-21.pptx by hcj

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 69

									Moving Ahead for Progress in the
         21 st Century



    An Overview of MAP-21
    What Happened in MAP-21?
 Funding Continuity
 Consolidation/Simplification
 More Localized Decision-
  Making
 Emphasis on Safety
 Performance Management
 Accelerating Projects and
  Programs
 Focus on Freight
          Topics and Format
               Session              Presenter          Time
1. Program Changes and Funding     Joe Werning       9:00-9:20
                 Q&A                                 9:20-9:30
2. Transportation Alternatives     Justin Luther     9:30-10:00
Program
                 Q&A                                 10:00-10:10
3. Performance-Based FAHP           Doug Atkin       10:10-10:30
                 Q&A                                 10:30-10:40
                 Break                               10:40:10:50
4. Environmental Provisions       Melissa Maiefski   10:50-11:20
                 Q&A                                 11:20-11:30
5. Other Provisions of Interest     Doug Atkin       11:30-11:45
           Open Discussion                           11:45-12:00
         MAP-21

Program Changes and Funding


         Joe
         Werning
         Stable Funding
 Program authorized through FY14
   Current law through end of FY12
   Most new provisions go into effect on October 1st

 Avg. annual funding at FY12 levels (plus minor inflation)
 Extends Highway Trust Fund taxes and ensures 2 years
  of solvency for Highway Trust Fund (HTF)
 Substantial programmatic consolidation
   No earmarks
   Most discretionary programs eliminated
                                                        5
            $37.7 billion/year
            in formula funding
Surface Transportation
   Program ($10.0)

                         HSIP ($2.2)
                           Railway-Highway Crossing ($0.2)
                            CMAQ ($2.2)
                              Transportation Alternatives ($0.8)
                              Metro Planning ($0.3)

                                  National Highway
                             Performance Program ($21.8)

                               Note: Amounts in $ billions; individual program
                               amounts do not add exactly to total due to
                                                                         6
                               rounding
Nationwide
             MAP- 21 Core Programs
              NHPP   STP   HSIP   CMAQ   PL   TAP
National Highway Performance
Program
(NHPP)
Program Purpose:

1. Provide support for condition and performance of
   NHS

2. Provide support for construction of new NHS facilities

3. Ensure Federal-aid investments are directed toward
   achievement of performance targets established in
                                                        8
                          NHPP
 New Federal-aid program. Funded at $21.8 B per year

 Funds an enhanced National Highway System, combining functions of
  the existing NHS, IM and Bridge Programs

 Enhanced NHS includes existing NHS, all principle arterials,
  STRAHNET, and intermodal connectors

 Requires an asset management plan

 States set targets for conditions and performance

 Min. standards for Interstate & bridge conditions in a State
    DOT to set minimum standard for Interstate pavement condition
    Law sets standard for NHS bridges -- no more than 10% of deck area may
     be structurally deficient                                           9
Surface Transportation Program
(STP)

Program Purpose:

1. Provide flexible funding for States and localities
2. Fund projects to preserve and improve conditions and
   performance on:
      -   any Federal-aid highway
      -   bridge and tunnel projects on any public road
      -   pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
      -   transit capital projects
                                                          10
                                          STP

 Continued flexible funding for Federal-aid highways,
  plus safety and bridges on any public road ($10 B/year)

 Eligibility for transportation enhancements, rec trails, ferry
  boats, consolidated border infrastructure program, truck
  parking facilities, and safe routes to schools (no set-aside)

 50% of funds subject to suballocation based on population

 Rural provisions enhanced
    Rural planning organizations, if any, must be consulted
    Up to 15% of rural suballocation may be spent on minor        11
 Highway Safety Improvement
 Program (HSIP)
Program Purpose:

1. Aimed at significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious
   injuries on all public roads, including non-state owned public
   roads and roads on tribal lands

2. Requires data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway
   safety on all public roads



                                                                  12
                           HSIP
 Dramatically increases size of existing program ($2.4 B)
 Maintains current structure; adds requirement for regular update
  of the strategic highway safety plan
 Keeps setaside ($220M/year) for rail-highway grade crossings
 No high risk rural roads setaside unless safety statistics worsen
 Secretary to establish measures and States to set targets for
  number of injuries and fatalities (and number per VMT)
 Strengthens link between HSIP and NHTSA programs

                                                                      13
 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality
 Improvement Program (CMAQ)
Program Purpose:

1. Provide a flexible funding source to State and locals for
   transportation projects and programs to help meet CAA
   requirements

2. Aimed at reducing congestion and improving AQ for areas that
   fail to meet NAAQS


                                                               14
                            CMAQ
•   Program continued from previous law

• Dramatically increases size of existing program ($2.21 B)

• State without nonattainment or maintenance area may use
  CMAQ funds any CMAQ or STP eligible project

• MAP-21 requires new performance based features
        - rulemaking within 18 months
        - establish State measures to assess traffic congestion & mobile emissions
        - States required to establish targets 1-year from final rule
        - Extra reporting required for nonattainment TMAs (> 1 million)

                                                                            15
     Metropolitan Planning (PL)

Program Purpose:

1. Provide funding for administering 3C transportation planning
   and programming processes in metropolitan areas

2. Provides framework for making transportation investment
   decisions



                                                              16
       Metropolitan Planning (PL)
 Program continued from previous law ($332 M)

 MAP-21 modifies metro planning process
       - MPOs required to establish performance based approach
       - MPOs must establish performance targets
       - Performance targets must be coordinated with stakeholders
       - Targets required 180 days after State/transit operator establish targets
       - By 7/6/2014, MPOs must include officials of public transit operators

 MPO Plan and TIP required to address performance measures & targets

 By 7/6/2017 Report to Congress on performance based planning

                                                                            17
Nationwide
                MAP- 21 Core Programs
                 NHPP                   STP                HSIP      CMAQ          PL           TAP

                $21.8 B              $10.0 B               $2.4 B    $2.21 B      $332 M       $809 M
Nebraska




                NHPP                    STP                 HSIP     CMAQ          PL           TAP
                $168.2 M             $77.4 M               $18.5 M   $9.95 M      $1.6 M       $6.7 M


                              MAPA             LCLC                                            MAPA        LCLC
                                                                               MAPA     LCLC
                              $13.5 M         $5.3 M
                                                                                               $981K       $386K
State & Local




                          State Flex             < 200 K
                                                                               SIMPCO    GI    State Flex       < 200 K
                           $31.7 M                $7.4 M
                                        <5K                                                       $2.7 M           $539 K

                                     $11.3 M                                                                        <5K
                                                                                                  Rec Trails $823K
                                                 STP Off System
                                        $3.8 M   Bridge                                                $1.2 M
          MAP-21

Transportation Alternatives

         Justin Luther
                  Funding Levels
                                                             TAP
• Similar funding levels to the Transportation              $809 M
  Enhancement Activities under SAFETEA-LU:
      • FY 2013: $808,760,000
      • FY 2014: $819,900,000
                                                              TAP
                                                             $6.7 M
• Total TAP funding is 2% of MAP-21
  highway funding.
                                                   MAP           LCLC
                                                   A
                                                   $981K             $386K


• Funded via set-aside from each State’s         State Flex     < 200 K

  formula programs.                                $2.7 M            $539 K


                                                 Rec Trails          <5K

                                                     $1.2M            $823K
             Funding structure
Steps in the TAP sub-allocation process:
1. States receive an apportionment of TAP funds.
2. Funds are set aside for the Recreational Trails
   Program at FY 2009 levels ($84.16 m) (unless the
   State opts out).
3. Of the remaining funds:
   50% are suballocated by population (large
    urbanized areas, other urban areas, rural areas).
   50% are available for any area of the State.
            TAP Eligible activities
Transportation Alternatives (TA) as defined:
   Construction, planning, and design of …facilities for
    pedestrians, bicyclists, ... compliance with Americans
    with Disabilities Act.
   …safe routes for non-drivers… to access daily needs.
   Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors
    for trails…
   Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing
    areas.
TAP Eligible Activities (continued)
TA as defined (continued)
 Community improvement activities, including—
    inventory, control, or removal of outdoor
     advertising;
    historic preservation and rehabilitation of
     historic transportation facilities;
    vegetation management practices…
    archaeological activities relating to impacts
     from implementation of a transportation project
     eligible under this title.
 TAP Eligible Activities (continued)
TA as defined (continued)
 Any environmental mitigation activity…
   address stormwater management, control, and
    water pollution prevention or abatement related
    to highway construction or due to highway
    runoff…; or
   reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to
    restore and maintain connectivity among
    terrestrial or aquatic habitats.
TAP Eligible Activities (continued)
 The Recreational Trails Program under section
  206.
 Safe Routes to School under section 1404 of the
  SAFETEA–LU.
 Planning, designing, or constructing boulevards
  and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of
  former Interstate System routes or other divided
  highways.
 TE Activities No Longer Eligible
 Safety and educational activities for pedestrians and
  bicycles.
 Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic
  sites.
 Scenic or historic highway programs (including visitor
  and welcome centers).
 Historic preservation as an independent activity
  unrelated to historic transportation facilities.
 Operation of historic transportation facilities.
 Archaeological planning and research undertaken for
  proactive planning. This category now must be used
  only as mitigation for highway projects.
 Transportation museums.
Safe Routes to School Eligibility

  No set-aside funding for SRTS.
  All eligibilities remain.
  Allocation of funds for Infrastructure and Non-
   infrastructure activities do not apply (because
   there is no apportionment).
  Option to have a State SRTS coordinator, not
   required.
  No National Clearinghouse requirement or funds.
 Recreational Trails Program Eligibility
• RTP usually administered by a State resource agency.
  • Funds set aside from TAP (prior to sub-allocation), unless the
    State opts out.
  • 1% returned to FHWA for administration.
  • All other RTP provisions and requirements remain the same.
• States can opt out of the RTP. If so:
  •   Funds remain as TAP funds (prior to sub-allocation).
  •   The State does not return 1 percent to FHWA administration.
  •   The State cannot use funds for State RTP administrative costs.
  •   The State may use TAP funds for trails projects, but using TAP
      requirements (must treat projects as highway projects).
• Recreational trails projects also are eligible under STP.
 Competitive Processes
 States and MPOs

   “Shall develop a competitive process to allow
    eligible entities to submit projects for
    funding…”

   States and MPOs develop their own
    competitive processes.
 Eligible Project Sponsors
 Local governments;
 Regional transportation authorities;
 Transit agencies;
 Natural resource or public land agencies;
 School districts, local education agencies, or schools;
 Tribal governments; and
 Any other local or regional governmental entity with
  responsibility for or oversight of transportation or
  recreational trails (other than a metropolitan
  planning organization or a State agency) that the
  State determines to be eligible, consistent with the
  goals of this subsection.
 RTP setaside keeps its list of eligible project sponsors.
      Transferability of Funds
 States may transfer the “any area” TAP funds to
  other apportioned programs.
 Funds from other apportioned programs may be
  transferred into TAP…
 …but TAP projects are broadly eligible under STP,
  so a transfer is not necessary to use STP funds.
 In the second fiscal year of MAP-21, unobligated
  balances of over 100% can be used for any TAP-
  eligible activity or any CMAQ activity.
             Treatment of Projects
 TAP projects “shall be treated as projects on a Federal
  -aid highway…”
   TAP projects must comply with applicable provisions in
    Title 23, such as project agreements, authorization to
    proceed prior to incurring costs, prevailing wage rates
    (Davis-Bacon), competitive bidding, and other
    contracting requirements, even for projects not located
    within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway.
   Does not apply to projects conducted under the
    Recreational Trails Program set aside.
   MAP-21 §1524 Youth Corps provision offers flexibility.
       MAP-21

Performance Based FAHP

      Doug Atkin
                 What is
          Transportation
Performance Management?

 a strategic approach that uses system
      information to make investment
                and policy decisions to
                achieve a desired set of
                        national goals...




                                            34
 Performance Elements of MAP-21




Special Performance
Rules apply


                         Targets set by
                      States and MPOs
Seven National Transportation Goals
are established in MAP-21.
(1)Safety
(2)Infrastructure Condition
(3)Congestion Reduction
(4)System Reliability
(5)Freight Movement and Economic Vitality
(6)Environmental Sustainability
(7)Reduced Project Delivery Delays



         Enactment             Comment
                                Period –
         2012                    90 Days
 National Highway Performance
  Program
 Highway Safety Improvement
  Program
 Congestion Management and Air
  Quality Improvement Program
 Freight Movement
      Performance Measures
 Not later than 18 months after date of enactment
  USDOT, in consultation with State DOTs, MPOs, and
  other stakeholders will promulgate a rulemaking that
  establishes measures.
 Provide not less than 90 days to comment on
  regulation.
 Take into consideration any comments.
 Limit performance measures to those described under
  23USC150(c).
       Performance Measures
 For purposes of carrying out National Highway
  Performance Program USDOT will establish:
   Measures for States to use to assess:
     Condition of Pavements
       Interstate System
       National Highway System (excluding the Interstate)
     Condition of Bridges
       National Highway System
     Performance of:
       Interstate System
       National Highway System (excluding the Interstate)
      Performance Measures
 For the purpose of carrying out the Highway Safety
  Improvement Program USDOT shall establish
  measures for States to use to assess:
   Serious injuries per vehicle mile travelled
   Fatalities per vehicle mile travelled
   Number of serious injuries
   Number of fatalities
 Measures used to assess safety on all public roads
  Performance Measures
 For the purpose of carrying out the Congestion
  Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
  Program USDOT shall establish measures for States
  to use to assess:
   Traffic congestion
   On-road mobile source emissions
 USDOT will establish measures for States to use to
  assess freight movement on the Interstate system.
     Measure Consistency
 Data elements necessary to collect and maintain
  standardized data
 May be incorporated into requirements of each measure,
  as needed
          Stakeholder Input
 National online dialogue to discuss options for
  measures and data elements. Dialogue open from
  September 13th through September 23rd.
 USDOT will consider input provided by stakeholders
  in the development of the proposed rule for
  performance measures.
States set targets for all national
       performance measures
        • Coordinate with relevant MPOs
          to ensure consistency
        • Coordinate with public
          transportation providers
        • Targets established within 1 year
          of final rule - States
        • Targets established with 180 days of
          State target - MPOs
Final     1 Year State Targets   MPO
Rule              Established    Targets
                                 180 Days
 STIP and TIPs must include a discussion on
  the anticipated effect of the improvement
  program toward achieving the performance
  targets
 NHPP- Asset Management Plan
 HSIP - Strategic Highway Safety Plan
 CMAQ – Performance Plan
 MPO – System Performance Plan
 Optional State Freight Plan
Highway Asset Management Plan
 USDOT, in consultation with State DOTs, will
  establish the process to develop the plan through a
  rulemaking no later than 18 months after 10/1/2012
 States must have a plan developed consistent with the
  process by the 2nd fiscal year, otherwise federal share
  for NHPP will be reduced to 65%
 Process certification
   USDOT 90 days review period to determine
    certification
   States have 90 days to cure deficiencies if not certified
   Recertification required every 4 yrs
        Management Systems
 USDOT will establish minimum standards for States
  to use in developing and operating:
   Bridge management systems
   Pavement management systems
 Minimum standards established through a
  rulemaking
   Minimum 90 day comment period
   USDOT will promulgate a rulemaking not later than 18
    months after date of enactment
• National Highway Performance Program
- Achievement targets within two reporting periods
- Min pavement and bridge standards
                                             Special Performance
• Highway Safety Improvement                 Rules apply
  Program
- Achievement within two years of
  establishment of targets
- Special rules related to safety on rural
  roads and older drivers
• MPO Certification
- Applies to MPOs serving an area with a population over
  200,000
State Reports on Performance Progress
 Address all targets
 Report every two years

Highway Safety Improvement Program
Report
 Report frequency to be set by USDOT

CMAQ Performance Plan
 Report Required every two years

MPO System Performance Report
 In LRP every four years
 Performance Elements of MAP-21




Special Performance
Rules apply


                         Targets set by
                      States and MPOs
        MAP-21
Environmental Provisions

           Melissa Maiefski
        Rulemaking Process


Publish draft rule in Federal Register to
 initiate comment period
Review and consider comments
 received
Publish final rule
Final rule will include effective date
Expanded authority for categorical
          exclusions
“CE” does not mean “don’t look”
 40 CFR 1508.4 “extraordinary circumstances”

 23 CFR 771.117 “unusual circumstances”

 5 U.S.C 706(2)(A): Administrative Procedures
                     CE’s
 Emergency Repairs

 Projects within the operational Right of
  Way
 Projects receiving limited financial
  assistance
 Proposal of additional CE’s, based on survey
  of stakeholders
 Multi-modal projects
State Assumption of Categorical
          Exclusions
  Accelerating Complex EIS Projects
             (Sec. 1309)
 EIS’s where more than 2 years have passed
  since the NOI with no ROD issued.

 Resources and technical assistance
  provided upon request of project sponsor
  or Governor.
Accelerated Decisionmaking (Sec. 1306)
• Within 30 days after the close of the public
  comment period of a Draft EIS the Secretary may
  convene a meeting of agencies to assure project on
  schedule.

•   If agencies cannot provide assurances, the
    Secretary may initiate the Issue Resolution process.
     Issue Resolution Process (Sec. 1306)
 When needed, Lead Agency convenes a meeting within
  21 days.

 Issues not resolved within 30 days of meeting, elevated
  to the Secretary to meet with the heads of agencies

 Issues not resolved within 30 days of meeting, issue is
  referred to CEQ and another meeting is convened.

 Issues not resolved within 30 days of the CEQ meeting,
  then issue is referred to President or designee.
                 PEL

Federal lead agency may adopt certain
findings of planning studies into
project-level NEPA, with concurrence
from participating agencies and public
that certain stipulations were met
Programmatic Mitigation Plans (Sec. 1311
                    )
• Programmatic mitigation plans developed
  as part of planning process
• Developed by State or MPO, in consultation
  with agencies with jurisdiction over
  resource
• Draft plan provided to agencies and public
  for comments
• Address comments in the final plan
                Miscellaneous
Buy America: Any federal funds on contract cause
application to entire project (defined by NEPA
document)
Statue of Limitations: decreased to 150 days
Combine FEIS and ROD: in certain conditions, pending
guidance
Monetary penalties: levied against federal resource
agencies for delays in certain situations
 Programmatic Approaches to compliance: eliminate
repetitive discussions, focus on issues ripe for review
while being in compliance
          MAP-21

Other Provisions of Interest

          Doug Atkin
Other Provisions of Interest:
  1. National Freight Policy
  2. Projects of National & Regional Significance
  3. CMGC
65
66
                    Freight provisions
 National Freight Policy
    Establishment of National Freight Network, incl. Primary Freight Network,
     remainder of Interstate System, and critical rural freight corridors
    National freight strategic plan
    Freight transportation conditions and performance reports
    Development of transportation investment data and planning tools

 Prioritization of projects to improve freight movement
    For these projects, increases Federal share payable to 95% on the Interstate
      System and 90% elsewhere
    USDOT must certify project improves efficiency of freight movement
    Project must be identified in a State freight plan

 State freight advisory committees & freight plans encouraged; plan required to
  qualify for increased Federal share

                                                                                    67
      Projects of Natl. & Regional
   Significance ($500M in FY13 only)
 Aimed at critical high-cost capital projects

 Maintains most SAFETEA-LU PNRS language
    Title 23-eligible projects, including freight railroad projects & activities
    Competitive grants to States, tribes, & transit agencies
    No designated projects (vs. fully earmarked under SAFETEA-LU)

 $ from General Fund; must be appropriated

 Report that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive list of PNRS compiled
  via a survey of States

                                                                                    68
          Final Questions?


FHWA’s MAP-21 Website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/MAP21/

								
To top