Brewing the Right TEA Tom Swanson and Karen L. Lamberton
	Session:TEA-21 and Your Community (March 13, 10:15am)

ABSTRACT: This paper contains the introductory remarks by Tom Swanson, Executive Director of the Pima Association of Governments, the list of the ten TEA-21 questions that will be addressed by the panelists at the Conference and is followed by an analysis of the TEA-21 legislation. The analysis portion of this paper was initially prepared in October, 1998 for the internal use of the Pima Association of Governments, the Metropolitan Planning organization located in Tucson, Arizona. The summary of TEA-21 does not reach to a comprehensive analysis of the joined transportation legislation but includes requirements, finding and studies. INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION PAG PROFILE — LOCATION, DEMOGRAPHICS Pima Association of Governments is located in the southern half of the State of Arizona and includes the entire south-east portion of Pima County, encompassing about 3,900 square miles. Our region includes 5 cities and towns and two Indian nations with an estimated population of 860,000 people. The City of Tucson is the largest of our jurisdictions and is home to about half of the Counties population. It is a diverse region with an estimated 25% of the population Hispanic, 3% African American, 3% Native American and less than 2% Asian. The City of Tucson is home to the University of Arizona which attracts almost 70,000 university students each year. A large number of retirement communities are located in our region giving us a unique age profile with 18% of our population over the age of 60. Unemployment rates have been low, averaging 2.7% and about 45% of the population is employed. Over 4,000 miles of freeways, parkways, major and minor arterials make up the PAG transportation network. The PAG region is also home for 18 Federally listed endangered or threatened species, one of which is the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl. The pigmy-owl habitat is located in one of our fastest growing urbanized areas and most of the regions sensitive lands are in the hands of private owners. The vast distances within the PAG region, the lack of dense residential or employment centers, rapid population growth averaging over 3% a year, a strong economy and the need to protect sensitive habitats all contribute to transportation challenges. PAG PERSPECTIVE ON TEA-21 — ENHANCEMENT OF MPO ROLE TEA-21 provided the PAG region with several major tools to address those challenges. One was that the TEA-21 legislation strengthened the role of the MPO’s in the planning process and the second is that Federal funding was both increased and re-distributed to the States based upon an equitable share of apportionment — which resulted in a 60% increase in funding over ISTEA for the State of Arizona. One difficulty that we had as an MPO was that while the States demanded over a 90% minimum guarantee back on contributions to the Highway Trust Fund they did not pass these on proportionally to the regions. In Arizona we have a Rural dominated Transportation Board that controlled the distribution of transportation dollars and the urbanized areas are still trying to work with the State to obtain more equitable and direct funding. TEA-21 INNOVATIONS; ENHANCEMENTS, ALTERNATIVE MODES, ITS One of the TEA-21 innovations that PAG was able to take a strong proactive role in was the Transportation Enhancements funds. Enhancements funds were expanded and identified for transit uses in TEA-21 and the PAG region has been able to successfully partner with private associations and other agencies, including tribes, to bring in projects like Youth Art Mosiacs along roadways, decorative bus shelters that reflect some feature of the area or business nearby, pedestrian improvements that serve low income populations or protected riverbanks. Last year PAG region enhancement projects were awarded $1.5 million dollars. Part of PAG’s success in obtaining enhancement funds is that we hold a dress rehearsal for applicants by coordinating early submittals through our office, having projects reviewed and prioritized by a Citizen’s Task Force and then providing detailed suggestions and recommendations to improve their chances competing at the State level. This also gives us an opportunity to identify other possible funding sources to get a desired project done. TEA-21 provided a number of funding sources to pull from for alternative modes of travel, like bikeway projects. The PAG region has aggressively sought these funding sources and been able to increase the mileage of bikeways in our region to almost 500 miles with 1.6% of daily person work trips and 3% of all trips made by bicycle in our region. Over $500,000 is allocated towards specific bicycle facility projects each year. A third innovation that PAG has been able to successfully implement within our region is Intelligent Transportation Systems. A single, seamless network monitors and controls over 400 regional traffic signals from the Tucson Traffic Control Center located in downtown Tucson. All 466 signals in the area are expected to be connected by midyear. Digital cameras have been installed at 49 major intersections that have the capability of independently adjusting phasing and timing of the signals for the traffic flow. And PAG is on the forefront of bringing ITS to bear on our emergency services linking in real time video paramedics to trauma centers with fiber-optics. These safety and travel demand management system improvements are funded primarily out of State Transportation Funds and projects are coordinated with the State DOT. PAG CHALLENGES These only touch on the types of projects leveraged in our region with some of the TEA-21 programs. Our region faces many of the same challenges that all of you do throughout the Nation: how to increase our pedestrian safety how to reduce rail/vehicle conflicts how to manage the intermodal connection to the regional airport how to reduce traffic congestion how to keep up with growth. To better understand these challenges we feel that understanding the land use and transportation connection is critical. Bringing together data and resources to provide our member jurisdictions with better tools to understand and analyze land use policies on our regional transportation network is one of PAG’s priorities in the few years. One of the ways we have done this is to invest heavily in achieving better orthophotography data in order to bring more information to bear on transportation decisions. TEA-III — WHAT THE MPO WANT TO SEE HAPPEN It is expected that some Notices of Proposed Rule Making may be approved but in the meantime developing and advocating for TEA-III has all ready begun. Some of the concerns that MPO’s have is that the new Transportation Act safeguard the gains made by TEA-21. If we had a wish list for TEA-III it would look something like this: Strengthen the role of the MPO Increase direct allocations to MPO’s Increase flexibility in funding Maintain or enhance funding for both planning and construction activities Increase funding specifically for planning activities in order to facilitate the accomplishment of new mandates Provide training sessions suitable for both MPO’s and local jurisdiction on what the mandates actually are, especially in respect to Environmental Justice and Title VI issues. Ensure that States provide an annual listing of projects Ensure that revenue forecasting universally adopted among all MPO’s Strengthening and streamlining of the regulatory framework Environmental streamlining Develop mechanisms to help meet the challenge to meaningfully work with the freight community to better address the movement of goods both regionally and globally. Develop mechanisms to enhance management and operations systems towards enhancing regional coordination Regardless of the outcome of future transportation legislation or even if TEA-21 regulations are finally issued MPO’s will be busier than ever looking to build consensus and cooperation between competing views. The role that MPO’s have in bringing all the players to the table and devising creative ways to address regional concerns continues to be critical in the 21st Century as transportation modes continue to evolve. SESSION TEA-21 QUESTIONS FOR PANELISTS Four panelists presented at this session and responded to a set of ten questions about TEA-21. These questions were submitted by members of the APA Transportation Planning Division and represented areas of concern for the transportation community in implementing TEA-21. The panelists were John Mason, Mayor of Fairfax, Tom Swanson, Executive Director of the Pima Association of Governments, Sheldon Edner, FHWA and Charlie Goodman, FTA. Whit Blanton served as moderator. The session is scheduled to be taped and panelists response should be available by tape from the American Planning Association. . What is the status of the proposed TEA-21 planning regulations? Will the Bush Administration publish a final rule in the Federal Register or will they start over? If they start over, when are we likely to get a final rule - by the end of TEA-21? What is the role of Congestion Management Systems as policy instruments within TEA-21 rules? What is your perspective on the role of MPOs in considering land use policy in the development of regional long-range transportation plans? Should MPOs have more responsibility to address land use and transportation in a more integrated way? How can transportation planning, at the MPO and statewide levels, better accommodate planning for operations (as opposed to capital construction and infrastructure development)? What "levers" are available for influencing resource decisions to ensure consideration of operational strategies/projects in lieu of, or in addition to, major capital investment? How can operational impacts (including life cycle costs, etc. be better considered as part of the planning process? How is Environmental Justice being promoted or re-interpreted for the purpose of the metropolitan planning rule? Will the Bush Administration rescind Clinton EO 12898? What is the federal expectation for public involvement in the transportation planning process? How well are MPOs responding to those expectations? How does TEA-21 encourage public private partnerships? What have been effective methods to achieve such partnerships for transportation project planning and development? I'm focused on how they could encourage (largely) privately funded people mover systems to feed metro stations. Could 25% public funds be offered if a developer wants to spend $15m to link to a metro station? What are the roles and appropriate policies of the transit property and MPO? Should water transportation modes be mandated in MPO studies? How can transportation planning professionals better balance or resolve conflicts between divergent goals of TEA-21 (e.g., freight mobility objectives vs. bicycle/pedestrian mobility, etc.)? How do the proposed rules acknowledge that each MPO is structured differently and cannot meet all requirements in the same way? TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY PREFACE This section was prepared in October, 1998 for the in-house use of the Pima Association of Governments. The purpose was to identify changes and new programs offered by TEA-21 and provide initial summary perspectives for the organization. To date proposed regulations have not been finalized. This is only a staff summary and has not been reviewed or commented on by any federal agencies. It is, however, a comprehensive summary of the entire legislation and it is presented here in the hope that it will prove helpful to jurisdictions, agencies and other MPO’s and COG’s. INTRODUCTION The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was signed by President Clinton on June 9, 1998. The TEA-21 legislation had passed 297-86 in the House and 88-5 in the Senate. It represents an increase in funding of about 40% over ISTEA for a period of 6 years: 1998 through 2003. Tea-21 contains many sweeping and broad definitions in every category. There is a distinct focus on ADA requirements for access, increased emphasis on safety and on the innovations under ITS programs, Many clerical/grammatical errors are corrected in ISTEA but this act is truly an amendment to the original legislation without striking the originating foundational law of ISTEA. This summary is ONLY of TEA-21 and is not a comprehensive analysis of the joined transportation legislation. This review is primarily of the legislation and not of the releases of TEA-21 information by the Secretary of Transportation. Currently there are few guidelines available but these, as well as fact sheets, are becoming available on the Department of Transportation’s web page located at www. dot.gov. This review does not include specific or pilot programs. This summary includes a complete list of studies and reports required under this legislation, most of which are to be completed within a two year time span by the Secretary of Transportation. Bold print indicates the directly quoted material. This document addresses the following categories: Metropolitan Planning Organizations Lobbying Programs Supported Programs Intermodal/Mutimodal Funding Requirements Findings Studies Reports Appendices Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) Sec 5303(a)(2) … provide for the development and integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities (including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation activities) that will function as an intermodal transportation system for the metropolitan area and as an integral part of the intermodal transportation system for the State and the United States. MPO empowerment: Sec 134 of Title 23 U.S.C., has been reworded slightly in TEA-21 but the essence is identical. MPO’s maintain their role in cooperation with the State to carry out transportation planning processes. However, that role has been strengthened by a slight change in language in Sec 135 (f) which previously stated that the State TIP should be developed in cooperation with the MPO’s and should be consistent with the MPO TIP. This section has been amended in Sec 135 (f) (C) (ii) to state that projects shall be consistent with long range plans developed for the State and identical to the project described in an approved metropolitan transportation improvement program. States are now required to ensure every three years that they have made available proportional shares of obligation authority to each urbanized area over 200,000. Designations, boundaries, structure, redesignation, MPO’s in nonattainment areas, and responsibilities are the same. MPO’s can include illustrative projects that would be included in the TIP if additional funds were available. MPO boundaries, previously designated, are not automatically adjusted based upon the new air quality designations. Adjustments to MPO boundaries may be made by agreement of the Governor and the impacted MPO’s. PAG Preliminary Conclusion: The role of MPO’s has been preserved in TEA-21. Language has been broadened to permit more interpretation by MPO’s on project consideration and strategies for planning. A cooperative link with the State is still an essential part of the MPO’s network. TEA-21 has added several unique pots of money that have specific designations and have been assigned to the State’s to distribute. MPO’s are among the groups that are eligible to apply for these funds. These are, however, in addition to the ISTEA funding categories and do not serve to reduce the role of MPO’s in relationship to transportation planning in their regions. TEA-21 planning factors: The only element that has been reworked significantly are the planning factors which have been reduced from 16 factors in ISTEA to 7 in TEA-21. 23 U.S.C. 134 (e) Sec. 1024 (a) and Sec 134(f) and in Sec 5303(a)(3)(b) Failure to consider any specific factor is not reviewable in Court. Support the economic vitality of area, inc. global market Increase safety of transportation systems Increase accessibility and mobility options for people and freight Protect/enhance the environment, promote energy conservation and improve quality of life Enhance integration and connectivity of transportation systems Promote efficient system management and operation Emphasize the preservation of existing intermodal transportation systems. Public Input: The element of requiring substantive public input is continued in TEA-21. Several specific public groups that must be a part of the public participation process have been identified in TEA-21. Local elected officials are to be consulted about long range plans and the TIP as well as input received from freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, representatives of users of transit, transit operators, and operators of other modes of transportation. Urbanized Area: Areas with a population of 50,000 or more as designated by the Bureau of the Census within boundaries fixed by the State and local officials. Sec. 1005 (b) ISTEA The Tucson Metropolitan area is considered a urbanized area. The 1995 Special Census population for the City of Tucson was 445,299 and the DES estimated 1998 population of Pima County is 823,900. LOBBYING Lobbying has been and is governed by Title 2, Chapter 301 which sets forth in Sec 30101 the purpose and policy of restrictions on lobbying; Sec 30102 definitions; Sec 30103 appropriations to the Secretary of Transportation. TEA-21 amends this chapter by adding Sec 30105 which states that (a) No funds appropriated to the Secretary shall be available for any activity specifically designed to urge a State or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any State or local legislative body. This amendment specifically does not (b) prohibit officers or employees of the United States from testifying before any State or local legislative body in response to the invitation of any member of that legislative body or a State executive office. The law set forth in Title 2 provides that all persons receiving or expending monies for the explicit purpose of aiding the passage or defeat of any legislation by the Congress of the United States shall maintain certain records, report these monies and other details as well as registration requirements. These provisions do not apply to persons who Merely appears before a committee in support or opposition of a piece of legislation; or is a Public official acting in his official capacity; or Publishes in a regularly published periodical a news item, editorial, comments or advertisements in support or opposition to legislation. Legal definition of lobbying: All attempts including personal solicitation to induce legislators to vote in a certain way or to introduce legislation. It includes scrutiny of all pending bills which affect one’s interests or the interest of one’s clients, with a view towards influencing the passage or defeat of such legislation. Blacks Law Dictionary-5th edition. Lobbying restrictions: Lobbying restrictions effect all funding categories. The restrictions and conditions regarding lobbying have been in place for some time and this amendment is intended to specifically identify all monies obtained through appropriations by the Secretary of Transportation. PAG Preliminary Conclusion: This section strengthens the lobbying restrictions to include State and local legislators and prevent appropriations directed to the Secretary of Transportation to be used for lobbying purposes. As an MPO PAG is an official entity directed with providing both government staff and State and local legislators with information and recommendations in regards to the expenditures of transportation dollars. These activities are not restricted by this law nor is the publication of materials in any of PAG’s regular newsletters presenting a position on a piece of legislation. This amendment can be construed to restrict the hiring of staff or a consultant whose principle task would be to aid the passage and defeat of legislation at either the National or State level with monies obtained through Federal allocations. PROGRAMS ISTEA funding categories used by PAG in the TIP reauthorized in TEA-21: Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement Three additional eligible items were added; anti-icing, de-icing and scour countermeasures. May transfer 50% of these monies to NHS or STP but this action will result in these deductions being removed from needs calculations in the subsequent year appropriations. Interstate System/Maintenance (IM) This program is authorized under the NHS program and these funds are distributed based on each State’s lane-miles of Interstate routes open to traffic, vehicle miles traveled on certain Interstate routes and contributions to the highway account from commercial vehicles. Eligible projects are expanded to include reconstruction costs and for certain additions to the Interstate system. $550 million of authorized funds are available at the discretion of the Secretary for ready to go IM projects. Prior Interstate Highway construction appropriations may be transferred over to the IM surplus fund accounts. National Highway System (NHS) Directed for projects for 163,00 miles of rural and urban roads and now also includes the Interstate System. Funds will be distributed based on a revised formula which includes each State’s lane-miles of principal arterials, vehicle miles traveled on those arterials, diesel fuel used on the State highways, and per capita principal arterial lane miles. 10% set aside is required for safety construction. _ of 1% of funds may be used for compliance efforts and fuel tax enforcement of the Highway Use tax. Expanded eligibility projects include publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals improvements as well as the roads connecting to 142 major passenger terminals 23 U.S.C. 103(b), infrastructure based ITS capital improvements and natural habitat mitigation. Surface Transportation Program Funds (STP) Funding is distributed based upon each State’s lane-miles traveled on Federal aid highways and estimated contributions to the Highway Account of the HTF. Eligible projects are very flexible and include projects on the National Highway System, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects and public bus terminals and facilities. A portion of rural funds may be spent on rural collectors. Expanded eligible projects include environmental provisions (natural habitat mitigation, stormwater retrofit), and anti-icing and de-icing, programs to reduce cold starts, modifications of sidewalks to meet ADA standards, infrastructure ITS capital improvements and privately owned intercity bus terminals, facilities and vehicles 23 U.S.C. 133(b)(2). Transportation Enhancement Funds (TE) TE is a required set aside of 10% of STP monies. These projects must show a relationship to surface transportation. Only a small portion of new monies (possible only 1-2% ) will be available for transfer to other programs. Amounts will be calculated state by state. Heavy donor states like ours will receive a large increase and thus have more monies that will be available to transfer. Projects can be 100% Federal Funds. States are encouraged to use Youth Conservation or Service Corps in contracts or agreements for TE projects. All of the previous types of projects under ISTEA remain eligible like provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles; acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites; scenic or historic highway programs; landscaping; historic preservation; rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings; preservation of abandoned railroad corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails); control and removal of outdoor advertising; archaeological planning and research and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. Eligible projects have been expanded to include safety and educational activities for pedestrian and bicyclists. Tourist and welcome centers have been added under the Scenic or Historic Highway category. Projects that reduce vehicle caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity (wildlife undercrossings) for threatened and endangered species and transportation museums are also eligible. In addition to the above programs, there are other programs that PAG may be able obtain funding from that are authorized in TEA-21: Emergency Relief Program (ER) TEA-21 eliminates two year expiration of funds. Funds dedicated for repair and reconstruction for highways on Federal lands that are damaged as a result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures from an external cause. Funds are specified as only for emergency repairs to restore essential highway traffic, minimize damage or protect the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. Safety Infrastructure Program This is a 10% set aside amount from the STP and is to be used in two different programs: 1/3 of funding for the Hazard Elimination program and 1/3 for the Highway/Rail crossing improvements. The remaining 1/3 can be used with either of the two different elements of this program. The Hazard Elimination Program now includes bicycling and walking hazards as eligible activities. The definition of a "public road’ now includes a publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail and traffic calming device measure. Sec. 1401 Motor Carrier Safety Assistance program (MCSAP) Focus on commercial vehicle safety and regulations regarding hazardous materials. Safety enforcement provisions are strengthened. Set asides are designated for national safety priorities and border safety enforcement. Eligible projects include uniform roadside driver and vehicle safety inspections, traffic enforcement, compliance reviews. Improvements to motor carrier information systems for carrier, vehicle and driver safety records and developments of databases are covered. Federal Lands Highway Program Maintenance and improvement (no new construction) of forest highways, public land roads, park roads, parkways, Indian roads, refuge roads. Project must access or be within Federal lands. Funds for deficient bridges on Federal lands moved to this category from ISTEA bridge category. Refuge road projects include adjacent vehicular parking area, provision for bicycles and pedestrians, roadside rest areas including those in or adjacent to wildlife refuges. Sec. 1115 (e) Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) The CMAQ is maintained in Sec 149 of title 23, USC and is amended by TEA-21 as follows: eligible projects have been expanded to include programs or projects that improves traffic flow, including projects to improve signalization, construct high occupancy vehicle lanes, improve intersections, and implement intelligent transportation systems strategies and such other projects that are eligible for assistance under this section on the day before the date of enactment of this paragraph. (b)(5) Transit services and Rideshare programs are eligible in this category. SOV projects are not permitted under this program. All other projects eligible under ISTEA remain: (Sec 149 (b) (1) (A) & (B)(2), (3): Project is likely to contribute to the attainment of national ambient air quality standards, project is part of a program or strategy that is included in the State Implementation Plan pursuant to the Clean Air Act and will have some air quality benefits, or is likely to contribute to the reduction in vehicle miles traveled, fuel consumption, or through other factors contribute to the attainment of air quality standards. Eligible projects has been amended to strike "that was designated as a nonattainment area under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act during any part of the fiscal year 1994" and insert that is or was designated as a nonattainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d) and classified pursuant to section 181(a), 186(a), 188(a) or 188(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511(a), 7512(a), 7513(a) or 7513(b) or is or was designated as a nonattainment area under such section 107(d) after December 31, 1997. Ozone, submarginal ozone and CO maintenance areas are now eligible as are PM 10 nonattainment and maintenance areas. Magnetic Levitation projects are eligible at 100% share of Federal funding. Extreme cold start projects are allowed and the allowable share for transit priority signalization is increased to 100%. Under Sec 104 (b)2 (D) each State shall receive a minimum of _ of 1% of the funds apportioned under this paragraph. Under Sec 149 (c)2 any State with a nonattainment area and receives funds under the above section that is above the amount of funds the state would have received based upon nonattainment and maintenance area populations the State may use that portion of funds not based on its nonattainment and maintenance areas for any project in the State eligible under the STP. If the State does not and has not ever had a nonattainment area then that State may use their CMAQ funds for any State STP project. Sec 149 (c) (1) Funding for CMAQ is set forth in Sec 104 b (B)2 and is based upon a weighted ratio. The classification of an area is based upon the time of apportionment. The weighted ratio’s are the same as in ISTEA with the addition of ratio’s for maintenance or submarginal areas for ozone and carbon monoxide. Sec 104 (B)(2)(B)(i) & (C) (i) Standards for ozone have changed from an 1 hour test to an 8 hour average. The Tucson area attained maintenance status in December 1997. The Federal Register is expected to publish the new air quality status in the next 12-18 months. There is new flexibility for working with private and non-profits and CMAQ funds may assist with purchase of land, vehicles and facilities as well as cost sharing of project expenses. Special provisions for alternative fuel projects including refueling infrastructure and capital costs. The use of CMAQ funds for federally required activities is prohibited. (EPA etc..) PAG Preliminary Conclusion: These sections seem to indicate that the State has limited discretion with the funds they receive under CMAQ but may transfer some of the funds to STP if funds apportioned to the State exceeds minimum amounts the state might receive with nonattainment or maintenance areas. It is not anticipated that this will be the case in Arizona. Eligible projects have been expanded under TEA-21, not reduced, and areas that qualify have been broadened. Tucson is currently a "non-classified" non attainment area. This is the only classification that is not eligible for any CMAQ funding. Eligibility for funds as a maintenance area is based, in part, on the previous classification. As this program is currently drafted the Tucson area apparently will not be eligible for any CMAQ funds. The three alternatives available to PAG are 1) a legislative solution whereby the weighted ratio’s are amended to include a weighting for non-classified categories; or 2) a legal solution whereby the original court case setting forth our non-classified category is challenged seeking modification in classification; or 3) an administrative solution whereby EPA reclassifies the non-classified categories into a eligible classification. Transit Enhancements Program Directs urbanized areas over 200,000 to use 1% of their Urban Formula Funds for Transit enhancements. 95% of Federal funding is available for providing bicycle access to mass transportation. Additional set aside funds in 1998 will be directed to the 125 largest urban areas. These funds can be use for the following categories: Historic preservation, rehabilitation, and operation of historic mass transportation buildings and facilities, bus shelters, landscaping and scenic beautification, including tables, benches, trash receptacles and street lights, public art, pedestrian access and walkways, bicycle access, including bike storage facilities and bike-on-bus racks, transit connections to parks within the transit service area, signage and enhanced transit access for persons with disabilities. Clean fuels formula grants and advance bus propulsion projects are also in this section. Transit programs: Other transit programs include the Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive program which allocated funds for over the road bus service of all types. The Clean Fuels formula program supports the introduction of advance bus propulsion technologies. Projects may include purchasing or leasing clean fuel buses and facilities, improvement of existing facilities for clean fuel buses. These are powered by compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, bio-diesel fuels, batteries, alcohol-based fuels, hybrid electric, fuel cells, certain clean diesel, and other low or zero emissions technology. Transportation and Community and Systems Pilot Program (TCSP) This is a new pilot program designed for State, regional and local studies of the connections between transportation and land use. Funding is available for projects that develop, assess and implement alternative investment and growth scenarios. The three components available for funding are research, planning assistance and implementation grants. Priority will be given to applicants that have instituted preservation or development plans that are coordinated with state and local governments, promote cost effective and strategic investments in transportation infrastructure that minimize environmental impacts, promote innovative private sector strategies. Will look also to other practices such as directing money to high growth areas, urban growth boundaries, green corridors, transit oriented development plans, traffic calming measures or other transportation and community and systems preservation practices. FHA is looking for projects that demonstrate 1) improvements in the efficiency of the transportation system; 2) reduction in impacts on the environment; 3) reduction in the need for future costly investments in transportation infrastructure; 4) improved access to jobs, services and centers of trade; and 5) encouragement of the private sector development patterns to achieve the above purposes. Projects must be coordinated with the MPO’s but non construction activities are not required to be in the TIP. States, local governments and MPO’s may apply for grants. Letters of Intent for the 1999 funding are due on October 30, 1998 and must be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration. PAG Preliminary Conclusion: This program could serve to provide a small amount of funds to try an innovative project that could serve as a demonstration for other MPO’s. It could work well as a tag along project to another larger transportation project designed to meet the goals of this pilot program. There are some concerns that code changes could result without adequate coordination with the Transportation Planning Process. National Scenic Byways Program Eligible projects include tourism related projects and welcome centers. Provisions permitting funding for designated All American roads and State designated Scenic Byways. Value Pricing Formally the Congestion Pricing Pilot Program, this fund supports economic efficiencies in the use of highways and support congestion reduction, air quality, energy conservation and transit productivity goals. (1216(a)) Pre-implementation costs , including public participation and pre-planning costs are covered. Funding share to 80%. Funds authorized but not allocated with be split among all States into the STP. Value Pricing eligible applications : areawide pricing, pricing of multiple or single facilities or corridors, single lane pricing, market-based strategies like Parking Cash-Outs and tolls on the Interstate. It is required that each project consider the potential adverse effects on low-income drivers, and where appropriate, identify measures to mitigate these adverse effects. Transportation Infrastructure Finance & Innovation Act (TIFA) Sec 1503 Provide Federal assistance by providing credit to major transportation investments of critical national importance. The purpose of this Act is to provide supplemental and subordinate capital. Eligible projects include intermodal facilities, border crossing infrastructure, expansion of multi-State highway trade corridors and other investments with regional and national benefits. Projects under the STP are eligible. Other types of projects are international bridges and tunnels, inter-city passenger bus and rail facilities and vehicles (including Amtrak and MagLev) publicly owned intermodal freight transfer facilities (except seaports and airports) on or adjacent to the national highway system. Three different forms of financial assistance are offered: 1) secured loans; 2) loan guarantee; and 3) standby lines of credit. The amount of assistance may not exceed 33% of the total project costs. Each project must meet criteria to qualify such as it must cost at least $100 million ($30 million for a ITS project) or 50% of the States annual apportionment must also be supported in whole or in part from user charges or non-Federal dedicated funding sources and must be in the TIP. Accepted projects will be ones that generate economic benefits, leverage private capital, promote innovative technologies as well as meet credit worthiness criteria. Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants Grants to local governments and agencies, MPO’s, transit agencies and non-profits to develop transportation services to connect welfare recipients and low income persons to employment and support services. Low income is defined as at or below 150% of poverty line and persons who have received welfare in the last three years. 60% of funds allocated are to be spent in urban areas of over 200,000 populations. In these urban areas the MPO’s select the applicants. $10 million of the funding is directed to the reverse commute portion of this program. The two fold purpose of these grants is to provide access to and from work as well as develop transportation services for urban core residents to suburban job sites. Highway construction trades will be allowed to reserve slots for welfare recipients in On the Job Training programs with accompanying supportive services. The approved scope of OJT/SS has been expanded to include a broader category of transportation employment opportunities as well as encourage high school students to consider transportation careers. Will provide 50% Federal Share and other Federal transportation eligible funds like TANF, Welfare to Work (WtW), CBDG and Hope VI grants can be used to meet local match. Criteria include: percentage of population that are welfare recipients; need for additional services; coordination with and use of existing transportation providers; use of innovative approaches, presence of regional plan and long term financing strategies, need for transport of individuals to suburban employment opportunities, and consultation with community to be served. Funds may not be used for planning or coordination activities. Sec 3037 Eligible projects are ones that promote the use of transit by workers with nontraditional schedules, promote the use of transits vouchers for welfare recipients and eligible low income individuals, promote the use of employer-provided transportation such as the transit pass program, finance capital expenses and operating costs of equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance items relating to providing access to jobs. Long term sustainability should be taken into consideration and the potential to integrate these programs into the MTP. Reverse commute projects are ones that subside the costs of adding reverse commute bus, train, carpool, van routes or service to suburban workplaces, subsidize the purchase or lease by a nonprofit organization or agency of a van or bus dedicated to shuttling employees from their residences to a suburban workplace, facilitate the mass transportation services to suburban employment opportunities. Transit Formula Grants Funding remaining after set asides for other grant programs will be apportioned by these programs and divided among urbanized areas, non-urbanized areas and special needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities grant programs. Statutory formulas will be used to make the divisions of funds. Our region is eligible for urbanized grants which can be used for transit capitol or operating costs. In areas with populations over 50,000 preventive maintenance is also eligible. Rural area grants may be used for capitol, operating and administration costs. Special needs and elderly person grant programs will be apportioned based upon the State’s share of population in these groups of people. Surface Transportation Research Funding for research, development and technology transfer activities in all phases of transportation planning and development. Identifies specifically transportation related environmental issues and Advance vehicle technologies program to develop advance vehicles, components and infrastructure. ITS has a separate program supporting the development of standards, research, operations and deployment. At least 10% of these funds must be directed to rural area projects. Additional funds for ITS projects are identified in NHS, STP and CMAQ programs. National Corridor Planning and Development Program and Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program Purpose to plan, design and construct corridors of national significance, economic growth, international or interregional trade. Currently there are 21 corridors in ISTEA, 8 corridors in 1995 National Highway Designation Act (In which the CANAMEX designation was made) , and 14 corridors in TEA-21. Other corridors will be selected by the Secretary considering these factors: Any increase since NAFTA in commercial vehicle traffic volume at border stations or ports of entry in each State and in the State as a whole; Projected further increases in such traffic; Flow of international truck-borne commodities through the State; Reduction in travel time through an international facility; Leveraging of Federal funds via use of innovative financing; Value of cargo and the economic costs of congestion; Economic growth and development in areas underserved by existing highway infrastructure. Eligible projects: Planning, coordination, design and location studies; environmental review and construction of a Secretary approved corridor development plan. 1118(a) Border Program: Selection criteria includes expected reduction in time to cross border; increased passenger and cargo safety; innovation and impact on other border stations; increased use of underutilized border stations; leveraging Federal aid through innovative financing; degree of multinational involvement; participation of local and federal agencies. Eligible projects include: improvement of existing border infrastructure; new highway and safety facilities construction; electronic data interchange and telecommunications; improved regulatory process; international coordination of planing; programming and border operations; activities of Federal Inspections agencies. Aquatic Resources Trust Fund Funds gathered from motorboat gasoline taxes, administered to States and MPO’s for projects related to recreational boating safety. Eligible uses include some types of boating infrastructure and communication/outreach projects. One call notification Grants to establish or improve a one call system to reduce unintentional damage to underground facilities while excavating. These are authorized for 2000 and 2001 and not yet appropriated. SUPPORTED PROGRAMS Reconstruction and rehabilitation pilot programs permitting the collection of tolls, MPO must be consulted on placement and amount of tolls. State or authorities designated by State may apply for assistance to conduct pilot programs using magnetic levitation transportation technology. States may designate roads for the national scenic byways program and apply for funding for said road including construction, safety features, protection of adjacent features, tourism enhancement, pedestrian and bike features and general improvements. With State, regional and local governments shall research, monitor and analyze projects addressing the relationships between transportation and community and system preservation. Funds may be allocated to MPO’s to plan, develop and implement strategies with priority to applicants that have policies such as urban growth boundaries, green corridors, private sector involvement and mitigate transportation impacts on environments. Hazard Elimination program expanded to included bicyclists, pedestrians, permitting programs to address these identified hazards and expanding the public roads to include bicycle and pedestrian pathways/trails. Innovative seat belt programs and moneys for states with higher than average seat belt use. Monies to States that enact and enforce law that a DWI is driving with a 0.08% blood alcohol content or higher. In years 1999 and 2000 may use funds to purchase radio and TV time for highway safety public service announcements. Monies to States that adopt and implement safety seat belt laws that prohibit the operation of a vehicle without the front passengers seat belted and by the year 2001 persons in any seat in the vehicle with primary enforcement of said law with fines or penalty points. Also monies to States that implement a traffic enforcement program that emphasizes occupant protection, including child passenger protection via educational programs on proper seating. Child safety seat law in effect. Grants under this clause subject to requirements and limitations including a report on the program activities carried out. Monies for States that implement programs to reduce alcohol impaired driving in these ways: administrative license revocations, underage drinking program, enforcement, graduated licensing program, target drivers with high blood alcohol concentrations, young adult drinking programs, testing of drivers in fatal accidents. Additional moneys for video equipment for detection of drunk drivers, sending fines back to programs aimed at reducing drunk driving, enforces law to reduce driving with a suspended license, use of passive alcohol sensors, DWI tracking system, other innovative programs. Monies to States that adopt programs improving State highway safety data improvements. Funds for clean fuels projects determined by factors such as number of buses, size of city, attainment status and bus passenger miles. ITS and bus technologies projects: 7 projects specifically designated and funded — none in AZ. Innovation in mass transit ~ funds also available to public and private entities that meet specific requirements. Fuel Cell bus and bus facility development. Assistance to finance projects that support job access and reverse commute in areas which meet specific standards regarding percentage of population in service area that are welfare recipients, need to transport those welfare recipients to job, training and other employment support service (and these needs include bicycle services) and other consideration factors. Direct monies to bus operators (defined as having an elevated passenger deck over a baggage compartment) to assist in complying with ADA requirements to provide access to persons with disabilities. Additional monies for operators of other types of bus services to assistance in compliance costs. Improvement of commercial vehicle safety regulations including increasing public awareness. Additional funds for border commercial vehicle programs. Pilot program on timely exchange of driver performance and safety records. May enter into agreements to conduct research, development and technology transfer programs relating to surface transportation systems including bridges, traffic calming, life cycle costs. Development of a national technology initiative program with cooperative agreements with other entities to conduct research and development. National Highway Institute for education and training of State and local transportation agencies. Monies to State’s for specific planning and research oriented towards surface transportation needs, management systems, standards etc. Establish international highway transportation program in cooperation with other entities to inform, educate, promote international innovations and trade. Research program with MPO in evaluating, improving relationship between highways and ecosystems including demand studies. Grants to 10 Universities to establish and operate transportation centers for research and education and technology transfer. Also additional specified universities for funding for research and education. None in AZ. Research, development and deployment of advance technological vehicles and related infrastructure in cooperation with other entities. With university centers and others establish policy and new applications for commercial remote sensing products and spatial information. Transportation technology innovation and demonstration programs for vehicle warning systems and ITS demonstration projects in 40 metropolitan areas sized over 300,000 and meets other criteria. Ongoing research program with other entities to provide ongoing development, assistance, software, guidelines and deployment of ITS. Comprehensive programs of ITS research, ITS infrastructure, ITS integration, environmental impacts on ITS and operational tests. Acceleration of ITS projects that meet specific criteria. Additional monies for ITS projects related to commercial vehicles. ITS education and outreach efforts and infrastructure development eligible. Implement a national air quality monitoring system, setting standards for non-attainment and revising air quality standard. Light density rail pilot programs. Develop a "one-call" notification program for excavators. Public outreach regarding communications on angling and boating. Programs to assist with compliance with the clean vessel act, improve boating infrastructure, fishing restoration and boat safety programs. INTERMODAL/MUTIMODAL Commuter choice: Sec 910 Financial incentives to employer to offer commute benefits. There are no specific provision for bike and pedestrian commuters. Changes in the Tax Code permit up to $100.00 non tax benefits for transit/carpool/vanpool benefits. TEA-21 doesn’t allow for tax free benefits for bicycle commuters but does allow States and localities to require, and employer’s to offer, parking cash outs which would allow bike commuters to be given cash in lieu of a subsidized parking place without penalty. RAIL: Rail crossing improvements: Operation Lifesaver: a program to eliminate railway-highway crossing and railroad trespassers accidents, fatalities and injuries is continued and increased in funding. 10% of STP funding must be used for safety construction activities and eligibility has been expanded to include off-road and bicycle safety. In addition, language has been added to state that bicycle safety must be considered in carrying out projects including rail/highway crossing projects. Designated high speed rail corridors have identified specific funds from STP for eliminating hazardous crossings. Rail facilities and improvements: Funding has been authorized for corridor planning and technology improvements. For Light Density Rail Lines a pilot program has been created to provide funding for capital improvements and rehabilitation of publicly and privately owned rail line structures. 7202 Funds may not be used for operating expenses and must include contributions from the private owners. The High Speed Rail program is designed to extend the life of an existing high speed rail corridor planning and deployment program. Public agencies may apply for assistance for planning activities and other pre-construction activities, including right of way acquisition. Assistance is available up to 50% of publicly financed costs and full costs of any technology improvements. A pilot demonstration project for Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment (MAGLEV) will fund 2 preconstruction planning assistance of which one of these will be chosen by the Secretary for final design, engineering and construction cost. Note that both of these programs have only been authorized but funds have not been appropriated by Congress yet. Title V of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 sections 501 through 504 have been amended to make funding available through loans and loan guarantees for railroad capitol improvements. Direct loans and loan guarantees can be made to State and Local governments, government sponsored authorities, corporations, railroads and joint ventures that include at least one railroad. These loans may be used to acquire, improve, develop, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, bridges, years and shops. Projects must be justified by present and probable future demand and applicants must provide assurance that the improvements will be economically and efficiently used. Project selection will prioritize applications that 1) enhance public safety and the environment; 2) promote economic development; 3) enable the United States to more competitive in international markets; 3) are endorsed in State and local transportation plans; and 4) preserve or enhance rail or intermodal service to small communities or rural areas. BICYCLE: …bicyclists and pedestrians shall be given due consideration in the comprehensive transportation plans developed by each metropolitan planning organization and State…bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, when appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted. 10% of STP funds is set aside for safety programs. There are increases in funding for bicycle projects in TE, CMAQ and Recreational Trails programs. The Hazard Elimination program can now be used for projects on the Interstates, public transportation facility, public bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail. Bicycle safety must be considered in railway-highway crossing projects. Alternative uses study is going to be conducted for national parks and public lands. Research in the ITS program must look at enhancing alternative modes and requires mitigating any adverse impacts on bicycle and pedestrian transpiration and safety. The Federal bridge requirements extends to the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in bridge rehabilitation and replacements projects. Under the Federal Aid Highway title funds are provided for the development of a bicycle safety education curriculum and for a national clearing house for bicycle/pedestrian educational programs and safety information. There is no funding directed to bicycle enforcement in TEA-21. Bicycle parking facilities: Bicycle parking facilities and bike lockers are part of the eligible projects under transit and transportation enhancement programs. Bicycle roadway facilities: The Federal bridge requirement must safely accommodate bicyclists in bridge projects where bicycles are allowed on both ends of the bridge (where cost is reasonable) Highway design standards amendments are in the process of being drafted and input from the bicycle community is required. Danger to bikes must be considered in survey of hazardous locations. Accommodations of bicycles is encouraged in the form of additional funds and permitted projects but has not become mandatory. PEDESTRIAN: ADA funding: STP sidewalk improvements to comply with ADA are specifically eligible. Access to transit is a high priority pedestrian project. Pedestrian facility programs: There is no provision for specifically funding pedestrian projects. However TEA-21 has increased the eligibility for pedestrian projects in not only STP but in other programs as well. NHS funds are available for pedestrian projects and on non-motorized projects within the Interstate corridors. Sec. 1202 TE provides for a number of pedestrian related activities including provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrian and bikes; and preservation of abandoned rail corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for bicycle and pedestrian trails). Sec. 1201 Trails: The Recreational Trails program is funded at an estimated $542,000 dollars in 1998 and increasing to a total of $903,000 by the year 2003. The average annual appropriation will be $813,000. There are several sources of funding in TEA-21 for Rail to Trail projects. Motorized and non-motorized recreational trail use projects are eligible. There is also funding available for providing and maintaining recreational trails. Federal share may be increased to 80%. Funds must be used 30% for motorized use, 30% for non-motorized use and 40% for diverse trail use. FUNDING Funding and criteria for funding are embedded in TEA-21. Some allocations are specifically identified and others as a portion of designated funds. States have amounts estimated to be budgeted for the next five years. In addition there are funds available under specific guidelines for specific purposes. Most of the supported projects and studies fall under this category. These funds must be competed for at either the National or State level. Overall funding increase: Guaranteed spending level keyed to actual highway trust funds receipts. Arizona’s minimum guarantee from Highway Trust Fund is 1.5581%. Total budget authority guarantees $198 billion dollars with a total of $218 billion authorized. This breaks out to be $36 billion dollars annual average nationally, an estimated $10 billion more annually than ISTEA authorizations. Not all programs can be flexed and those that can have minimum requirements related to doing so. In addition, most programs contain sub-allocations setting out projects all ready authorized for specific sums of money. The categories under which funds can be used in expanded in most cases. TE monies are strictly limited and only a portion may be transferred by the State over into different funding programs. Hi Priority Highway Allocations can be used on any project that the State has identified as a priority project. The State may reset priorities to permit any otherwise eligible project to move forward. CMAQ monies can be transferred to STP under certain conditions and in limited amounts. Amounts may be up to 50% above the level of $1.35 billion. Designed for States that are primarily in attainment status. Sec 145 (b)(1)(c) & (2) Bridge appropriations, up to 50%, can be transferred to STP but will reduce the next years allocation calculations. Safety Infrastructure funds and TE funds may be transferred in amounts of up to 25% of the incremental increase received. Non-profit funding: Non profits are eligible to apply directly for grants under the following funding programs: Access to Jobs, CMAQ and Border Corridors. In other programs non-profits can work with MPO’s or local governments in cooperative agreements. Current TIP: All TIP projects authorized by ISTEA were authorized through funding appropriated under the ISTEA legislation. Appropriations in Arizona have increased across all funding programs in TEA-21 relieving concerns that current transportation dollars would need to be stretched. Only future years are impacted by the increase in funding levels. It should be noted that current projects, authorized for future years, benefit from the anticipated increase in funding. There is little possibility that Arizona allocations will not cover these future projects. Hiring Contractors for Transportation Projects: The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program is reauthorized (notwithstanding that the provision in ISTEA was found by Federal Courts to be unconstitutional) This sets a flexible 10% national goal of contracting out highway and transit contracts to disadvantaged business enterprises, including small firms owned and operated by women and minorities. Transportation Enhancements: TE allocations are maintained in TEA-21. Arizona allocations begin at $9,043,521 for 1998 and are increased to $11,392,750 in the year 2003. These represent minimum amounts to be spent on transportation enhancements. STP monies are also available for these projects and a State may choose to spend more than the required amounts on these types of enhancement activities.. Safety Focus in TEA-21: Incentive grants provided for the following safety related items ~ Seat belts and safety seats Highway hazards Rail/Highway crossings Enforcement of 0.08 BAC Graduated licensing Local traffic safety solutions Highway safety data improvements Vehicle pursuit training Public education of sharing roads with commercial vehicles Blow out resistant tires School bus occupancy safety. Other funded projects in TEA-21: Counties may apply to the State for funding for public road maintenance that is within, adjacent to or provides access to an Indian reservation, is used by school bus and is maintained by the county if said Indian reservation has a land area of 10,000,000 acres or more. Reconstruction of highways outside of the United States if important to national defense. Rural COG provisions in TEA-21: Criteria remains the same although there are expanded project eligibility and more flexibility for cooperative agreement with local governments and MPO’s, private enterprise and non-profits. It should be noted that the changes in funding criteria that more directly link highway revenues with allocations results in an increase to the relative importance of a regions’ population. However, the provisions in ISTEA requiring that transportation needs of non-urbanized areas includes consultation with rural elected officials has been reaffirmed and strengthened. States must involve rural officials not only in the planning stages but also in the selection of projects. Sec 1204 (e) and (f). REQUIREMENTS All value pricing pilot programs must, if appropriate, analyze the potential effects on low income drivers and may mitigate adverse effects. Food businesses, otherwise eligible but only open 6 days a week may be included on service food signs, and are not prohibited. Projects may be required to be submitted to the Secretary for oversight and may request a value engineering analysis or cost reduction analysis. If using funds to purchase Radio and TV spots must transmit report to Secretary describing and assessing effectiveness of the spots. TIP must be available for public review All projects with estimated costs of $ 1 billion or more must submit an annual financial plan for the project. All buses purchased with Federal funds shall meet set standards. States shall coordinate with the Secretary commercial driver information, vehicle and license tracking. Linking data with the Federal Motor carrier safety systems and requiring States to impose vehicle registration sanctions on the basis of Federal safety fitness determinations. States making any law on the regulation of commercial vehicle safety must submit new law or regulation to Secretary. Will enforce the stricter of the regulations (State or Federal) If required to make any report or statement pertaining to sections on motor carriers to the Secretary it is required that the report be truthful and not spindled and mutilated. Limitations on states making, enforcing laws related to interstate transportation of passengers. DOT shall maintain adequate safety inspectors for international border inspections sites. Funds not to be used for lobbying purposes of any kind. FINDINGS Regarding Metropolitan Planning Organizations Regarding Statewide Planning Regarding infrastructure finance Regarding welfare recipients and job access. Regarding ITS Regarding Air Quality Regarding underground facilities and excavation work. STUDIES and REPORTS TEA-21 authorized a number of studies to be conducted during the next 6 years. Many of these are to be completed by the Department of Transportation within the next 2 years. Some of them specifically effect the amount of funding that will be appropriated in specific areas in future years. The Department of Transportation will be looking for regions to conduct demonstration studies and will be considering State, Regional and Local studies in these study areas: Evaluation of methods used to estimate optimal highway infrastructure investment using the highway economic requirement system. Study on how the above model can be used for developing State plans and projections. Reliability of the international roughness index for pavement quality on highways. Effectiveness of uniformed officers on federal highway construction projects. Impact of failure of utilities to relocate facilities on costs of projects. Impact of weight standards on specialized hauling vehicles. State practice for specific service food signs. Effectiveness of State penalties as a deterrent to illegally overweight trucking operations. Enforcement of vehicle weight laws. Regulation of weights, lengths, and widths of commercial motor vehicles, recommendations for revisions and impact of the recommendations. Traffic analysis for trade processing center in McClain County. OK. Feasibility of high speed rail service between Georgia and South Carolina and tourism impact. Methods to improve vehicular and pedestrian access to the John F. Kennedy Center. Recommendations for the use of life-cycle cost analysis. State shall not be required to conduct such studies as a result of the recommendations. Implement, fund and assess the effect of design-build contracting on project delivery. The major investment study is eliminated and the Secretary is to integrate requirements of several provisions into one regulation. Development and implementation of a coordinated environmental review process for highway construction projects. Limited funds to assist Federal agencies in complying with new time limits to be established by this process. Guidance concerning crash cushions. Technologies and methods related to positive separation of traffic from workers on highway construction projects. Criteria to determine seat belt use rates. Identify highway safety programs that are highly effective. Effectiveness of radio and TV spots for highway safety announcements. Policy and procedures concerning motor vehicle pursuits and the training of law enforcement officers to implement policy. Description of safety programs developed by States with grants. Evaluation and assessment of technologies to improve access and exchange of motor vehicle drivers records. Benefits of blowout resistant tires on commercial vehicles. Assess safety in school buses. Effectiveness of laws reducing the BAC to .08% & .02% for >21 Relationship of mobility improvements to transportation justifications and the dolor amounts of such improvements. Technological advancements in mass transit as it relates to global economy, including advocacy, education and cooperation with international markets and other agencies both public and private. Contract with Transportation Research Board to assess many levels the effect of contracting out mass transportation operations. Relationship between formula for funds and transit needs of urbanized areas of differing sizes. Identification of federal agencies (other than DOT) that received funding and how they used it. Status, development, benefits and costs of low and zero emission fuel technologies. Evaluate the job access and reverse commute grants every 6 months. Alternative transportation needs in national parks and related public lands, identifying strategies, existing and potential problems, assess feasibility and estimate costs for implementation of alternative modes. Consult with States and evaluate policy regarding the implications of permitting insulin treated diabetes individuals to operate commercial vehicles. Review testing procedures for commercial vehicle drivers. Feasibility of conducting post-accident alcohol testing on commercial vehicle operators and recommendations. Research the degree in which technologies could be used to compact driver fatigue for commercial drivers; and, the effect of medications on driver fatigue, awareness and performance. Effectiveness of existing employee protections. Determine if commercial motor carrier regulations should apply to school buses having interstate operations. Issue rules regarding the conspicuity of truck trailers made before 12/1/93. Assessing the problem of persons encouraging violations of the motor vehicle code. Location and quantity of parking faculties for commercial carriers at public rest areas etc and analyze shortages. Qualifications of foreign motor carriers whose applications have not yet been processed. With the Transportation Research Board study safety issues related to various transportation modes for school children. Effects of reduction of grants due to nonconformity with Federal regulations. Strategic planning process for national surface transportation Maintenance of transportation database and library and may make agreements with MPO’s to add to database. Contract with Transportation Research Board to determine aspects of a new strategic highway research program. Evaluate measures and accuracy regarding international trade traffic. Establishment of the ITS Institute at Drexel University, Pennsylvania. National architecture standards and protocols promoting interoperability between ITS and other surface transportation systems. Research ITS project’s ability to include hazardous materials monitoring. Rulemaking improving occupant safety in vehicles with air bags. Benefits to drivers for an interior trunk release. Description, impact and recommendations on State’s efforts with the "one-call" notification systems for excavators. APPENDICES TEA-21 included a number of items unrelated specifically to amendments to ISTEA or to transportation. These are identified below: Olympic, Paralympic and special Olympics transportation project assistance. Smithsonian transportation exhibits, artifacts and memorabilia. National Drivers register transfer over to States. Exemptions from commercial vehicle regulations standards and requirements. May conduct pilot programs to determine effect of exemptions or alternatives to a regulation. Subject to public comment and must result in a level of safety equal to or higher than present regulation. Secretary conducts fitness evaluations for commercial drivers except that a unfit driver may continue to operate for 45 — 60 days or beyond especially if the unfit driver has made a good faith effort to get fit. In a state of declare emergency utility vehicles are exempted from some regulations like maximum driving and off duty times. Establishment of a toll free number for reporting potential violations of Federal motor carrier safety regulations. Min 2 year duration. High priority to the 2000 bug and develop contingency plans. New motor vehicles may not have more than 300 miles on the odometer unless in an exempt class. Standards on the value added determinations and labeling on vehicles regarding the origin of the parts, assemble and other processes. Use of tobacco products no longer covered by Veteran’s Benefits. Increase in educational allowances for GI’s Increase in assistance for adapted housing and for automobile and adaptive equipment for veterans. Pension increases and eligibility for surviving spouses. Treatment of tobacco-related problems of veterans should be funded with monies recover from tobacco companies in lawsuits. Student loan rates. Social Service grants. Author and Copyright Information Copyright 2001 by Author Pima Association of Governments may be contacted via their website at www.pagnet.org or through E-mail to Tom Swanson, PAG Executive Director at tswanson@pagnet.org or Karen Lamberton, author of the TEA-21 analysis, at klamberton@pagnet.org. Whit Blanton, session moderator, may be contacted at WBlanton@citiesthatwork.com Tom Swanson is the Executive Director for Pima Association of Governments Board of Directors, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), Washington, DC Regional Planning Subcommittee, Governors Growing Smarter Commission BA - University of Arizona - Sociology, History and Psychology MPA (Master in Public Administration) - University of Arizona