Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
May 15, 2002 Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 4463 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
HEADLINE: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
TESTIMONY-BY: KENNETH J. LEONARD, DIRECTOR,
AFFILIATION: BUREAU OF PLANNING
BODY: STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. LEONARD DIRECTOR,
BUREAU OF PLANNING
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC
WORKS
May 15, 2002
Mr. Chairman, my name is Ken Leonard. I am
the Director of the Bureau of Planning at the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation. I am speaking today on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) in my role as vice chairman of the AASHTO Standing Committee on
Planning.
Mr. Chairman, thank you on behalf of the state
transportation officials across the country for inviting AASHTO
to participate in this hearing to examine the state of the
transportation planning process. My testimony today will
address a number of specific planning issues that have drawn attention,
including freight planning capacity, financial constraint provisions, local
consultation, performance-based planning and the role of state department of
transportation (DOTs) with respect to land use. First, I want
preface my remarks with the observation that the statewide
transportation planning process is very complicated, in part
because of the very complex set of
transportation challenges
that the
transportation planning process must address, but also
because of the many layers of federal and state
transportation
and environmental statutes and directives that guide the process. From our
perspective, the goal should be to simplify the process and not add further
complexity.
Federal law has long established that the Federal-aid
highway program is a "federally assisted state program". The program has evolved
through the years and, in addition to providing roles for federal and state
officials, provides roles for local governments and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs).
The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was important as the
first piece of
transportation legislation in the
post-Interstate era. ISTEA set in motion a positive effort toward implementation
of a responsive
transportation program designed to meet a
diversity of national
transportation needs.
ISTEA
placed a strong emphasis on the
transportation planning
process, including much more emphasis on public involvement. In addition, ISTEA
included 23 planning factors for use in Statewide planning, and 16 planning
factors for use in Metropolitan Planning. While much of this type of analysis
and public involvement was already being done by many State DOTs, ISTEA placed
stronger emphasis on these matters.
The successor to ISTEA, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
consolidated the planning factors into seven, including:
-Support the
economic vitality of the nation, the States and MPOs.
-Increase the
safety and security of the
transportation system for motorized
and non-motorized users.
-Increase the accessibility and mobility
options for people and freight.
-Protect and enhance the environment,
promote energy conservation and quality of life.
-Enhance the
integration and connectivity of the
transportation system,
across and between modes throughout the State for people and freight.
-Promote efficient system management and operation; and
-Emphasize the preservation of the existing
transportation system.
TEA-21 also included a provision
that failure to consider any one of the planning factors is not actionable in a
court of law. In part, this recognizes the need to allow diverse approaches that
reflect the unique conditions in each state - i.e., state constitutional and
statutory requirements, geographic size and population, institutional history,
political environments and differing
transportation challenges,
needs and priorities.
Despite its complexity, the post-Interstate
transportation planning process has evolved effectively because
of support for innovation, understanding of the need for flexible approaches and
emphasis on training, technical assistance and information sharing rather than
command and control oversight.
Current
Transportation
Planning Practices and Innovative Approaches
The current framework for
statewide and metropolitan
transportation planning was
established in TEA-21 and its predecessor ISTEA. In the past decade, we have
seen significant changes in the
transportation planning
process. We have strengthened the stakeholder and public involvement, and
established multi-modal planning processes that take into account a broad array
of factors, including community input and goals, economic development, improved
access to
transportation facilities and services for all, and
enhanced environmental quality and protection.
In addition, there has
been a renewed focus on attainment of the federal clean air standards, and with
that we have incorporated
transportation conformity
requirements into the planning process. The objective of
transportation conformity is to better harmonize
transportation and air quality planning and to ensure that
transportation investments do not thwart clean air goals.
While the
transportation planning processes within the
states and metropolitan areas are generally sound and should be retained, some
improvements can be made to simplify and improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the process. However, in doing so, we need to ensure that new
requirements are not added that will encumber the processes that have evolved
over the past decade. In addition, the U.S. DOT should continue and enhance its
training, technical assistance, capacity building and information sharing
efforts.
Greater Focus on Freight in the
Transportation
Planning Process
Both ISTEA and TEA-21 emphasize the need for increased
attention to freight movement in their planning factors. States have been
including the freight system in their statewide multimodal
transportation plans as required first by ISTEA. As part of
this effort, Wisconsin, and a number of other states, include a freight advisory
committee as part of their planning process that engages both freight
transportation providers and shippers.
Recognizing the
increased importance of freight
transportation, AASHTO has
created a new committee to focus on freight, the Special Committee on Intermodal
Transportation and Economic Expansion.
AASHTO has also
been putting increased emphasis on freight planning in its tools development and
capacity building for states and MPOs. Currently we are funding a research
project on "Best practices in Statewide Freight Planning" which will examine
planning in states where efforts have been made to better understand goods
movement. The lessons learned in this project will then be passed on to other
states and MPOs. We will also be conducting a workshop this year on the need for
better intermodal freight connections. The objective of this workshop will be to
improve the awareness within states and MPOs of intermodal freight needs.
In addition, AASHTO is sponsoring an increasing amount of freight
research through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program administered
by the
Transportation Research Board (TRB). I am personally
chairing a research project for $
500,000 to develop "Methods
for Forecasting Statewide Freight Movements and Related Performance Measures".
The results of this research should improve our ability to predict future
freight movements so we can plan and construct facilities accordingly. Another
research project is entitled "Freight Movement by Rail - Impacts and
Opportunities". This project will examine the relationships between rail and
other freight modes to identify opportunities for rail as part of an optimum
mix.
To facilitate freight consideration in the planning process, AASHTO
recommends the following actions:
-$
10 million annually
should be provided to support an initiative through which the U.S. DOT and the
state DOTs will jointly develop and implement a training and capacity-building
program to strengthen the ability of state and local
transportation agencies to effectively address freight
transportation issues.
-Congress should increase
funding for the FHWA research program to support freight
transportation research that includes the private sector, and
allows the pooling of U.S. DOT modal agency funds. A Freight
Transportation Cooperative Research Program should be created
and funded in the range of $
5 million to $
7.5
million annually. The
transportation data programs should be
strengthened and linked effectively to national, state and local planning for
freight
transportation. AASHTO's recommendations to
Congress also include support for authorizing a Freight Advisory Council that
would communicate to U.S. DOT, State DOTs and others with one voice the
industry's needs and issues.
Financially Constrained Plans
ISTEA
included a provision for a financially constrained
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Subsequent FHWA
regulations defined this requirement to mean fiscal constraint by type of fund
and year, with no over-programming.
TEA-21 continued requirements for
financial constraint for State
Transportation Improvement
Programs (STIPS) and urban
Transportation Improvement Programs
(TIPS). The intent of these requirements was to match program-level project
commitments to overall resources at the planning and program development stage
in order to avoid the creation of wish lists of projects for which funds might
not be realistically available for the foreseeable future under any
circumstances. While the expectation for a fiscally constrained planning and
programming process is both reasonable and beneficial, in practice it is
sometimes being applied to cash flow and project management.
From the
State DOT perspective, the financial constraint requirement makes it difficult
for States to make adjustments needed as to which projects can move forward to
obligation and letting. States need flexibility in managing their programs to be
able to make adjustments should a project become delayed. The financial
constraint provision makes it difficult to move forward another ready project
for funding should a project in the STIP be delayed for any reason. It is
equally difficult to move forward with projects when unanticipated state
initiatives make additional funds available.
The TEA-21
reauthorization legislation needs to provide sufficient
flexibility in financial constraint and timing to allow States to deal with
unexpected delays in project development and in working with their State
legislatures to obtain adequate funding. State DOTs and MPOs need flexibility
and discretion in the development of their STIPs and TIPs to enable them to deal
with the realities of cash flow, uncertainties in project schedules, and
fluctuating funding levels.
Moreover, when air quality and other
environmental laws are paired with financial constraint requirements, it creates
a bureaucratic maze that delays needed projects and prevents states from
concluding the NEPA process on large, multi-phase projects whose costs are
spread over a long time period.
AASHTO believes that the TEA-21
reauthorization legislation should increase flexibility related
to financial constraint in State and Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Programs. AASHTO recommends
legislative changes that:
1. Calculate financial constraint based on
total dollars in the program compared to total revenue available, including both
federal and state funds.
2. Allow flexibility in the documentation
requirements used by states to demonstrate financial constraint.
3.
Revise financial planning and financial constraint requirements for
mega-projects to get away from the "one size fits all approach" that impacts all
projects over a certain cost level.
4. Permit the states and
implementing agencies to cooperatively develop definitions of "anticipated full
funding" and "reasonably available".
5. Permit projects for which
discretionary funding is being sought to be included in financially constrained
TIPs.
6. Permit a ten-year fiscal constraint time horizon for purposes
of the metropolitan long range
transportation plan.
In
practice, the problem with the Financially Constrained Plan is that it is too
strictly applied, and has become more of a cash flow financial management
instrument.
Major Investment Studies
In October, 1993, FHWA
issued revised regulations implementing the planning provisions of ISTEA. These
revised regulations included a new concept - the major investment study or MIS,
which was not specifically required in ISTEA itself.
The regulations
required an MIS for any "major metropolitan
transportation
investment" where "Federal funds are potentially involved". The regulations
defined a major investment as a "high-type highway or transit improvement of
substantial cost that is expected to have a significant effect on capacity,
traffic flow, level of service, or mode share at the
transportation corridor or subarea level".
Two options
were allowed for preparing an MIS. Under "Option 1 ", the MIS was prepared as a
stand-alone study prior to the NEPA process. Under "Option 2", the MIS was
combined with the EIS into a single document.
The two options for the
MIS raised significant concerns:
-Option 1 MIS (prepare MIS, then EIS):
When Option 1 was used, the "decisions" made in the MIS process were often
discarded when the NEPA process began. In effect, it became necessary to start
over again in the NEPA process, which caused the MIS process to lose credibility
among agencies and the public.
-Option 2 MIS (prepare MIS and EIS
together): While the Option 2 MIS avoided the problems with Option 1, it also
provided less flexibility. The Option 2 MIS was, in fact, an expanded EIS; it
did not provide a vehicle for conducting a corridor-level planning study before
making a commitment to prepare a full EIS for a specific project.
In
reaction to the experience with the MIS, Congress enacted Section 1308 of TEA-21
which directed U.S. DOT to "eliminate the major investment study . . . as a
separate requirement and promulgate regulations to integrate such requirement,
as appropriate, as part of the analysis required under the planning and NEPA
processes for highway and transit projects.
Section 1308 also provided
that "the scope of the applicability of such regulations shall be no broader
than the scope of such section".
In May, 2000, FHWA and FTA issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for new statewide and metropolitan planning
regulations. Pursuant to Section 1308 of TEA-21, the proposed regulations would
have eliminated the MIS as a stand-alone requirement. However, the proposed
regulations also would have created a new requirement with broader application.
In its comments on the NPRM, AASHTO strongly opposed the MIS integration
provisions in the FHWA's proposed planning regulations. AASHTO raised several
objections, including:
-The proposal created a new requirement that
applied to all projects, not just major investments. Because the new requirement
was broader in its applicability than the original MIS regulation, it directly
contradicted Section 1308 of TEA-21.
-The new requirement created a
mandatory process, which had the potential to become extremely
resource-intensive.
-The new process did nothing to ensure that
decisions made in the planning stage would be accepted in the NEPA process.
AASHTO's recommendation regarding the MIS issue when it is considered in
the
reauthorization of TEA-21 is that Congress direct U.S. DOT
to eliminate the MIS requirement effective immediately, and not make elimination
of the MIS contingent on the issuance of new regulations.
AASHTO also
recommends that Congress authorize State DOTs and MPOs to develop optional
procedures (with public transit operators, as appropriate) through which
decisions reached in the Statewide and metropolitan planning process regarding
purpose-and- need and range of alternatives would be binding in the NEPA
process.
Planning Timelines
With regard to State Long Range
Transportation Plans, Congress should continue to provide
flexibility to States as to content of Long Range Plans, performance measures
and planning horizons so long as a minimum 20-year horizon is maintained.
TEA-21 required that each MPO develop a Metropolitan Long Range
Transportation Plan with a minimum 20-year forecast period.
Metropolitan planning provisions in TEA-21 establish general guidelines for
State DOTs, MPOs and transit agencies to follow in updating MPO plans, which
FHWA requires every three years.
However, in a three-year update cycle,
MPOs don't have adequate time to improve their data collection and modeling
processes. Further, the three year update cycle makes it difficult to involve
the public since the planning agency is always in a continuous update cycle. If
the update cycle was changed to five years, MPOs would be able to strengthen the
planning process by improving the data and updating their modeling tools.
To overcome the problems listed above, AASHTO advocates that Congress
change the update cycle for Long Range Metropolitan
Transportation Plans from three years to five years.
Land Use and Smart Growth
TEA-21 requires consideration of
projects and strategies that will, among other things, "increase accessibility
and mobility options" and "enhance the integration of the
transportation system." These parallel considerations are often
included in land use planning activities. TEA-21 correctly eliminated any
specific reference to state-level responsibility for land use planning in
recognition that states only rarely have authority to directly make land use
decisions.
Land use has historically been considered to be a local
government function. Most states, as a matter of state law or practice, defer
most or all land use decision making to local units of government. Land use
reflects a number of local circumstances, and local officials should have the
responsibility to determine land use for their particular area. Trying to
legislate one particular approach to land use - a "one size fits all" approach -
simply would not be workable from an interjurisdictional perspective.
Congress should ensure that federal statutes continue to defer to local
and state governments on whether and how to consider land use in the course of
transportation planning.
With regard to Smart Growth,
Wisconsin has "Smart Growth" legislation, and has worked cooperatively with
local units of government and developed a "
Transportation
Guide" for the local communities to use in developing their comprehensive plans.
This stresses the importance of planning for land use and
transportation together once the community has determined its
vision.
AASHTO has several Smart Growth related activities underway,
including:
-Sponsoring meetings and working with State DOTs, U.S. DOT
and other organizations on Context Sensitive Design. AASHTO supports Context
Sensitive Design, and attention to the way streets and highways are routed or
redesigned through living areas to lessen any negative effects they may have on
the livability of an area. AASHTO is developing a guide on context sensitive
design, which is slated for publication later this year.
-Through a
grant from FHWA and EPA, AASHTO is sponsoring a Smart Growth competition to
highlight new and innovative Smart Growth initiatives being tried around the
country.
-AASHTO has launched an Environmental Stewardship initiative to
assist State DOTs in capacity building efforts to deliver needed
transportation projects in a manner that preserves and enhances
our environment.
Under this Environmental Stewardship initiative, AASHTO
is working with FHWA, other federal agencies, and environmental organizations in
the establishment of a Center for Environmental Excellence,
AASHTO is
also sponsoring an Environmental Stewardship pilot program to again disseminate
information about best practices in working with the environment.
Several State DOTs, such as New York, have incorporated environmental
stewardship into all facets of their operations, whether planning and designing
new facilities, or maintenance activities such as grass cutting.
Are the
appropriate parties being included in the process?
Congress should
continue the existing balance of decision-making authority between the MPO, the
state and local officials. This would continue already proven arrangements that
have worked well for a decade and been agreed to by
transportation officials and professionals nationwide.
In particular, the current relationships in rural areas should remain
unchanged. Rural
transportation planning already is fully
encompassed by the statewide planning provisions of 23 USC section 135, which
have been institutionalized nationally since ISTEA. Indeed, in most states a
comparable rural/statewide
transportation planning process was
in place before ISTEA.
Much has been said about the changes that TEA-21
made to consultation with rural officials. In fact, a review of the language in
both statutes reveals that the net effect of the changes is that, with respect
to nonmetropolitan areas, states are to consult not only with certain "elected
officials", but also with affected local officials "with responsibility for
transportation."
There is no question that there must
be consultation, and we believe that in most states this is taking place. Where
local officials are being left out of planning discussions, we believe that FHWA
should consider some type of case-by-case action to ensure consultation.
However, failure by one state or area to consult should not become the basis for
imposing broad regulations that dictate how the states should consult with their
local officials.
In Wisconsin, rural planning is a collaborative effort
between the states, regional planning commissions and local government. This
arrangement goes back to the 1960's. These parties coordinate their planning
activities utilizing advisory committees, intergovernmental committees, guidance
documents, association meetings, public involvement, etc. In addition, Wisconsin
has a Local Roads and Streets Council composed of all levels of government:
counties, towns, villages, cities and state. This council develops and evaluates
local road data and develops policy initiatives based on that data as well as
evaluates policy and program options on funding. Other states have similar
arrangements for their local planning depending on their unique institutional
and statutory authority.
Have the planning partners been given the
proper roles and mandate?
In recognizing statutorily that the
federal-aid highway program is a "federally-assisted state program", TEA-21
acknowledges two centuries of federalism. Implicit in this recognition is an
appreciation of the central role that the states perform in the development of
our surface
transportation system, even as other jurisdictions
and institutions - local government, MPOs, tribal governments and federal
agencies - have come to play important parts. The nation is well-served by the
current balance of responsibility for the development of highway, transit and
intermodal projects, and AASHTO recommends that Congress maintain this balance
and reaffirm the leadership role and authority of the states as TEA-21 is
reauthorized.
Congress should continue TEA-21's decision-making
responsibilities, processes, and procedures for planning, programming and
project selection. This means retaining the balance of decision making between
states and MPOs, and state and rural officials; retaining the current
definitions of planning "consultation, cooperation and coordination," and
meeting needs through the existing program structure, rather than through new
set-asides.
Do planning organizations have adequate capacity, tools and
resources to carry out their assigned role and responsibilities?
AASHTO
is working closely with the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit
Administration, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and the
National Association of Regional Councils to develop and deploy various capacity
building tools to assist
transportation planners. Several
initiatives are included in this activity, including a web site where
transportation planning assistance can be disseminated.
In addition, AASHTO has been working closely with the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) to continue to improve
planning tools. There are on-going projects related to safety, freight planning,
rural planning, public involvement, economic benefits, and innovative financing.
There are additional needs for techniques to deal with capacity needs to support
the nations' economy, accelerating the renewal of our highways, providing
reliable travel times, and making improvements in highway safety. In fact, in
these four areas, AASHTO is working cooperatively with FHWA to identify research
needed to address these problems. These research proposals will be completed in
time to be considered during
reauthorization of TEA-21.
However, if there are increases in requirements through the federal
legislative or regulatory process, it will be difficult to meet them through the
planning process. Currently, planning and research for states and their
localities is supported by 2 per cent of certain federal aid categories. If the
overall federal program grows, planning funds should be sufficient. But if the
program does not grow, there will not be enough planning funds to keep up with
new challenges let alone any new requirements. For years, Wisconsin has shared
its planning funds with the MPOs, regional planning commissions and local
government. This is becoming much more difficult. In addition, research at the
national level is critically under funded.
As Statewide and Metropolitan
planning issues are considered in the
reauthorization of
TEA-21, it is important to recognize the differences among states and provide
adequate flexibility. The
reauthorization legislation needs to
include flexibility that allows States and MPOs to adapt it to different parts
of the country based on government structure, geography, population and a number
of other important factors.
In addition to legislative changes, AASHTO
is particularly concerned about any federal planning regulations that may come
forward after the
reauthorization legislation is passed. AASHTO
strongly believes that such regulations should be consistent with Congressional
intent.
Thank you for allowing me to present AASHTO's perspective on
these issues. AASHTO is available to work with you and your staff on these
important issues that will be considered in the
reauthorization
of TEA-21. I would be happy to answer any questions here, or in writing.
LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2002