The Federal Program SAFETEALU and Beyond

1
The Federal ProgramSAFETEA-LU and Beyond

• Presented By
• Sandy Straehl
• Transportation Planning Administrator
• March 2, 2006

2
Discussion Topics

• MONEY
• The Donor / Donee Dynamic
• Federal Highway Trust Fund
• Authorization vs. Appropriations
• Earmarks and Allocations
• Programs
• State
• Federal Program Changes

3
Risk andUncertainty
4
Importance of Highway Program to Montana

• For Every 1.00 collected in Federal Fuel Taxes
  in Montana the state received about 2.25
• A 1.00 in state fuel tax leverages about 6.50
  in federal highway funds.
• 47.1 jobs are sustained for every 1 million in
  highway investments ---- about 16,000 jobs
  annually
• SAFETEA-LU 181.9 billion (05 09 hwys)
• Montanas apportionments 1.775 billion (about
  30 increase over TEA-21)

5
Donor / Donee

• Donors
• Fewer back than in
• Texas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan..about
  21
• TEA-21 guaranteed
• 90.5 of contribution
• SAFETEA-LU
• Guaranteed 91 of

• Donee
• More back than in
• 2 classes
• Protected share
• Montana, WY, ID, NV, ND, SD, NM
• Protected Ranges
• New York, New Jersey,

6
Millions Generated For Each Cent of State Fuel Tax
In Millions
Fuel Tax Rate Need for Montana to Match Revenue
Generated in these States
Fuel Tax per Gallon
Source 2003 Highway Statistics Table MF-12IT
Gasoline Tax Rates
7
Rural Highway Travel as a Percentage of Total
Travel
Montanas Transportation System serves as a
crucial bridge across the nation.
Source 2003 Highway Statistics Table PS-1
8
The distance across Montana is greater than the
distance between Washington D.C. and Chicago.
Chicago
D.C.
IL
VA
9
Montana is huge in land area - and sparse in
population
Montana
Source 2003 Highway Statistics Table PS-1
10
Per Capita Contributions to State and Federal
Highway Trust Funds

US Average 252.09
US Average
Includes contributions for Highways, Mass
Transit and State Tax Receipts. 2003 Hwy Stat
tables FE-9 MF-1
11
Discuss How the Federal Formula Works
12
Formula Funding Program
IM formula attributes
NH Formula attributes
Subsequent Formula programs accumulate to state
total
Below the Line Earmark Project funds
Sum of programs is compared to Equity Bonus
Guarantee and funds are added
Three types of Equity Bonus Guarantees Donor
guarantee return on contributed to trust
fund Eastern Donee min/max growth Western
Donee Locked guarantee (Montana!)
13
Comparison of Quality of GuaranteesAnnually 1
of the Highway Program about 345 - 360 m
14
Program Lock Essential for Montanas Program

• 18 states are protected under SAFETEA-LU
• share of program will not degrade
• State share protected for
• Low population density (40 persons/sq mile)
• High Federal Land Ownership (25 or greater land
  area)
• Low population ( lt 1,000,000)
• Low median household income (lt 35,000)
• High Interstate Fatality Rate

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
Discuss EarmarksBelow the Line Above the Line
18
Discuss Overlay of Federal and State Program
19
Funding Flow for Federal Transportation Funds
Authorization Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU)





Apportionment Annual Appropriation
Act (Obligation Limitation)

Bridge (HBRRP)
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Rural Elderly Disabled Transit
Capital (Sections 5311/5310)
Urban Transit (Section 5307)
Safe Routes to School SAFETEA-LU Section 1404
Urbanized Planning Support (PL)

• Directed Funds
• High Priority
• Trans. Improvements
• Approp. Earmarks

Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program
SAFETEA-LU Section 1303
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ)
Interstate Maintenance (IM)
National Highway System (NHS)
Urbanized Areas (gt50,000)
Urbanized Areas (gt50,000)
Statewide
Montana Transportation Commission

• Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)
• Public Lands Highways
• Parkways Park Roads
• Indian Reservation Roads (IRR)
• Refuge Roads

Transfers allowed between categories in
accordance with Federal laws
Statewide Distribution
Statewide Distribution
Within 200 Miles of Border-High Volume NH Routes
Montana Air Congestion
Statewide Distribution
Missoula
Initiative (MACI)
-Guaranteed
-Billings
-Great Falls
-Discretionary
Enhancement (10 of STP)
Hazard Elimination (10 of STP)
Urban High Growth Adjustment
Urban High Growth Adjustment
Secondary Highway Program
Urban Highway Program
Primary Highway Program
Urban Highway Preservation
gt15 Population Increase
CTEP (Distributed by formula)
Statewide Distribution
15 Urban Areas (Pop. gt5,000)
15 Urban Areas
Financial
(Pop. gt5,000)
Districts
Districts
Federal Funding Category
Distribution Guided by Policy or Agreement
Distribution Guided by State Law
State Funding Category

Distribution Guided by Federal Law
January 2006
Montana Department of Transportation
20
Discuss Commission Funding Plan for SAFETEA-LU
21
Decision- Making Balance and Program Authority

• SAFETEA-LU requires new consultation but did
  not change the balance of authority in the
  federal program
• New planning level consultation will now include
  economic development, resource agencies, planned
  growth

22
MPO State Decision Making

• Consultation confer and consider other partys
  views before taking action
• Cooperation involved parties carry out the
  processes and work together jointly to achieve a
  common goal
• Coordination consistency

23
Decision Making
24
SAFETEA-LU Emphasis Areas Important for Montana

• TRANSIT
• SAFETY
• Environmental changes

25
MDT Transit Programs

• A NEW DAY FOR TRANSIT IN MONTANA

26
Impact on Montana

• Locally developed coordination plan
• Large increase in funding
• Match Relief

27
Major Transit Funding Programs
(With Billings FY 06 Funding)
Federal Section 5307-Urbanized transit systems
(50/50 operating-80/20 capital)
1,178,567 Section 5303-Urbanized transit
planning 133,988 JARC-Job Access Reverse
Commute 79,756 New Freedom
91,621 Section 5310-Elderly and disabled (87/13
capital) 81,858 Section 5311-Rural
general public (54/46 operating-87/13 capital)
0 Section 5309-Buses bus facilities
(80/20 capital) (prior year projects)
3,105,131 State TransADE-Transportation
Assistance for Disabled Elderly
40,059 New with SAFETEA-LU
28
Major SAFETEA-LU Transit Changes
New Coordination Requirements Beginning FFY 2007
all Section 5310, JARC, New Freedom projects
must be consistent with locally developed
coordination plans. Funding Increases for
Montana (FFY 05-FFY 06)
29
Non- Federal Match Ratio Changes
Pre- SAFETEA-LU
SAFETEA-LU
Capital Assistance 80
Federal 20 Local
Capital Assistance 86 Federal 14 Local
Operating Assistance 50
Federal 50 Local
Operating Assistance 54 Federal 46
Local Administration Assistance 80 Federal 20
Local Maintenance Assistance 80 Federal 20
Local
Note Federal Human Service and Indian
Reservation Road Funds can be used to
Match FTA Funds.
30
Factors that Combine to Form a New Vision

• Local coordination plans required
• This means one provider for public and human
  service transportation
• Human Service Transport Costs can match FTA money
  (Medicaid, DD services, job training, etc.)
• Significant Increase in most flexible category

31
Example Scenario
OLD WORLD OPERATING Anytown, Montana Transportatio
n Providers
32
Example Scenario
NEW WORLD OPERATING Anytown, Montana Transportatio
n Providers
Developmentally Disabled Center
Senior Citizen Center



Consolidated Provider

Nursing Home
Other Human Service Agencies
33
Transit Application Process Changes

• With the increase in FTA funding, MDT will
  implement the following changes
• Application process simplified
• One application for Capital
• One application for Operating
• Locally Developed Coordination Plan
• Deadlines Eliminated

34
SAFETY Provisions

• Safety program
• Program growth about 40
• No longer a set-aside program will ramp up
• Requirement to do a Strategic Highway Safety
  Plan
• Eligibilities expand based on plan
• Possible transfer to behavioral programs (Sec.
  402)
• New Data reporting including top safety locations

35
MDTs Approach Statewide Comprehensive Safety
Plan

• Began in Aug. 2004 in anticipation of Act
• MDT offices Directors Office, MCS, Engineering,
  SHTSO, Planning
• Non-MDT OPI, Highway Patrol, DPHHS, members of
  the Court, FHWA, Motor Carriers, Safe Kids/Safe
  Communities, Emergency Responders, Tribal
  Governments, MPOs, local law

36
Objectives of a Comprehensive Safety Plan for
Montana

• Establish specific safety-related goals and
  objectives relevant to all modes of
  transportation
• Address issues at all levels of jurisdiction
• Identify candidate safety strategies and evaluate
• Establish a process for prioritizing strategies
• Establish a mechanism for interagency
  coordination and partnerships
• Carry out a program of public outreach and
  education
• Develop a strategic implementation plan with
  specific action items

37
To Date

• Identified a long-term goal
• Identified and set up work teams for 13 safety
  objectives
• Have performed 3 corridor safety audits
• Have hosted a Tribal Safety Forum
• Have Completed a Strategic Traffic Records
  Assessment

38
Why all this is needed- Montana Statistics for
2003
262 Fatalities
4446 Injuries
780 Million Cost to the State
39
Comparison Statistics
Fatality Rate (per 100M VMT) U.S. 1.5 MT
2.6 Best .81
Alcohol Related U.S. 41 MT 47
Best 22
Safety Belts U.S. 41.3 MT 28 Best
59.3
40
Impaired DrivingAlcohol Related Fatalities per
100 Million VMT, Montana, 1982-2002
41
Alcohol by County
42
Perspective on Fatal Crash Characteristics

• Distracted driving (25)
• Impaired driving (41)
• Roadway departures (38)
• Speeding (31)
• Failure to wear safety belts (59 unrestrained)
• Intersections (21)
• Pedestrians (11)
• Pedalcyclists (2)
• Trucks (11)
• Motorcycles (8)

Total 247
43
Comp Safety Plan Goals

• Reduce the statewide fatality rate from 2.05 per
  100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2004 to
  1.79 by 2008
• Further reduce the statewide fatality rate to 1.0
  per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by 2015
• By reducing the fatality rate, Montana's
  incapacitating injuries will also fall from 1,700
  in 2005 to 950 in 2015.
•  

44
Plan Status

• Working Groups set up for Each of the 13
  Objective areas
• Commitments have been identified and new
  countermeasures defined
• Plan will go back before multi-agency group in
  April
• Gov. will meet again with Tribes in April

45
Safe Routes To School
New SAFETEA-LU Program!
46
SAFE Routes To School
Montana will receive 1 million annually to
support Safe walking and biking to elementary
and middle schools A full time Coordinator
required
70 for infrastructure
30 for Behavioral
There are 816 school buildings in Montana and 405
School Districts
47
SAFE Routes To School
Montanas Annual Allocation will not increase
during SAFETEA-LU -- MT is a minimum
apportionment state - 1 million per year.

• Montana Approach estimated launch July, 2006
• Infrastructure managed through CTEP program
• SR2S will be used as an incentive for local
  governments to select bike/ped CTEPprojects
  close to school
• Example 100 federal funds can expand a local
  governments CTEP allocation and encourage
  bike/ped close to schools versus another project

48
SAFE Routes To School

• Montana Approach (cont)
• Behavioral programs will coordinate with State
  Highway Traffic Safety Office
• SR2S Coordinator is being solicited through an
  RFP -- selection criteria focused experience
  with communities and schools

49
Environment Relative to Planning

• New requirements for visualization
• Mitigation long-range transportation plans
• must include potential environmental
• mitigation activities and potential locations
• to carry them out
• Developed in consultation with Fed/State/Tribal
  wildlife, land management, and regulatory
  agencies

50
Corridor Studies Planning Products for Future
NEPA

• Able to graduate an alternative set and purpose
  and need statement into NEPA from Planning.if
• Thorough record of public involvement and sound
  technical analysis

51
Corridor Studies Underway

• US 93 Florence to Missoula
• MT 78 North of Red Lodge
• TRED US 2 TRE in MT
• I 94 Rest Area
• S 567 North of Libby

52
Environmental relative toProject Development

• New mandatory environmental review process for
  EIS
• New category of participating agencies
• Public and agency involvement in purpose need
• Requires coordination plans with deadlines
• Process for resolving differences
• Intent make process more predictable
• but the jury will be out for a
  while

53
Some New Protections Flexibilities

• 180 day statute of limitations for lawsuits
  challenging federal agency approvals
• 4(f) and de minimis impact
• If a de minimis impact to a 4(f) property then
  alternative analysis not required
• All possible planning to minimize harm is
  required
• Local officials with jurisdiction concur

54
Implementation Teams

• Environmental...............Jean Riley
• Financial Issues.............Monte Brown
• Stewardship...................Jim Walther
• Planning.........................Sandy Straehl
• Safety.............................Duane
  Williams
• FHWA co-chair on all teams

55
Questions?