Slide 1

959 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
959
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Before SAFETEA-LU, we had five core formula highway programs (IM, NHS, Bridge, STP, CMAQ). SAFETEA-LU adds a sixth core formula highway program, Highway Safety Improvement or HSIP. The program will be discussed in detail in the safety session.
  • IM & NHS programs remain basically the same. However, the Bridge program has changed. The program has always been used for Replacement and Rehabilitation. Systematic Preventive Maintenance has now been added. (Read rest of slide).
  • For the STP program, a few major changes have been made. Safety set aside is now funded through HSIP, which will be discussed in the safety session. Enhancements (read slide). In 2006, we will use the 2005 dollar amount, which is approximately $13.7 million. This will also hold for 2007, but, for 208 and 2009, 10% of STP will be the greater amount. Also, eligibility has been expanded (read slide). Some environmental issues are now eligible, and these will be covered in the Environmental section.
  • CMAQ eligibility has been expanded (read slide or read a few). (Call attention to last point). Minnesota is one of seven states that was given the flexibility to use its CMAQ funds to purchase alternative fuels or biodiesel. We will be looking to FHWA to provide guidance for this item.
  • I’ll describe a few other formula programs that we thought may be interesting to you. (Read slide for Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program.) For 2006, the amount for Minnesota will be approximately $3.2 million. The purposes of the next program, Safe Routes to School, are to encourage and enable children to walk and bike to school safety. This is one of the few programs with 100% federal funding, i.e., no state or local match is required. For 2006, the amount for Minnesota will be approximately $1.4 million. This program will be discussed in greater detail in the transit section.
  • The purpose of the Recreational Trails program is to develop and maintain recreational trails for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational travel use. In Minnesota, the program continues to be administered by the DNR. (Read slide for all or some of the new eligible activities.)
  • The next few slides describe a few Discretionary programs. These slides do not include every program, but just a few that we think are interesting to you. Interstate Maintenance Discretionary can be used for 4R work, i.e., Resurface, Restore, Rehabilitate, and Reconstruct. It also can be used to add lanes. For 2006, approximately $100 million is available nationwide. Funds are distributed at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation. The purpose of the TCSP program is to integrate transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices. Funds are awarded based on applications. Inclusion of tribal governments is new. For 2006, approximately $61 million is available nationwide. For the last few years, both of these funds have been earmarked in the Annual Federal Appropriations Bills. We have no reason to believe that this will not continue.
  • Another Discretionary program is Scenic Byways. States will continue to submit eligible projects to compete nationally. Minnesota has generally been successful in competition with other states. Now, Indian Tribes may nominate a road under tribal jurisdiction as an Indian Scenic Byway. For 2006, approximately $30 million is available nationwide.
  • The acronym LIFE stands for Long-lasting highways using Innovative technologies and practices to accomplish Fast construction for Efficient and safe pavements and bridges. (Read slide). (After last point:) For example, if you have an eligible project for $25 million total cost (and the project is selected), this program could pay $5 million and the other $20 million could come from a core formula program, e.g., NHS or STIP. Therefore, it is possible to fund a project with 100% federal funds. However, remember that we will most likely be awarded one project, with probably a maximum of two projects.
  • Under this program are four areas. I’m going into a little more detail about IRR since the Tribes and Transportation Conference is being held at the end of the month (October, 2005), and you may want just a little background about IRR funding. (Read slide.)
  • Bridge is no longer a set aside, but a stand alone program to get greater attention and use. The comprehensive inventory of transportation facilities eligible for assistance under IRR will be a great help for identifying needs for programming. Visibility of Tribal Governments is enhanced by creation of a new position in the Federal Department of Transportation in D.C., Deputy Assistance Secretary of Transportation for Tribal Government Affairs. The Park Roads & Parkways and the Refuge Roads Programs remain the same. Forest Highways are under Public Land Highways. Funds can now be used for maintenance. However, in Minnesota, we have enough construction needs that are programmed through 2010.
  • These are highlights of a few policy changes. More flexibility for Design/Build is provided with the elimination of the $50 million floor. Some actions can proceed prior to NEPA approval, e.g., private sector partners can be involved in the project definition phase. For HOV facilities, public transportation vehicles, toll lanes, EPA-certified low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles are now allowed – but – the state must have a monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that performance is not degraded.
  • Federal Stewardship and Oversight are new provisions. We have been doing value engineering analysis. Project values have been established at: highway projects with a total cost (not just federal cost) of $25 million or more, and bridge projects with a total cost of $20 million or more.
  • Major projects have been defined. For a $500 million dollar project, a project management plan and an annual financial plan are required. In the bill, annual financial plan is described as a detailed estimate of the cost to complete the project.
  • Citizens, affected public agencies, public and private transit agencies/employees/users, freight generators/ shippers And other interested parties
  • Citizens, affected public agencies, public and private transit agencies/employees/users, freight generators/ shippers And other interested parties
  • Section 148 (formerly National Scenic and Recreational Highway) is a new program entitled the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The new HSIP becomes an FHWA “core” program as opposed to the former set aside funding program. The new program will become effective on October 1, 2005, the beginning of FY 2006. Apportionments for the Highway Safety Improvement Program have increased from around $3.97 billion over 6 years under TEA 21 to nearly $5.1 billion over 4 years in SAFETEA-LU . SAFETEA-LU requires states to develop and implement a Strategic Highway Safety Plan that involves a comprehensive, collaborative, and data driven approach to highway safety. . States that adopt and implement an SHSP are provided additional flexibility to use HSIP funds for public awareness, education, and enforcement activities, consistent with the SHSP, that would otherwise not have been eligible for funding. The new HSIP also includes set aside funds for High Risk Rural Roads and for Railway-Highway Crossings.
  • Section 148 (formerly National Scenic and Recreational Highway) is a new program entitled the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The new HSIP becomes an FHWA “core” program as opposed to the former set aside funding program. A considerable increase in funding is provided for the HSIP that is nearly double what was available in TEA-21. The new HSIP also includes set aside funds for High Risk Rural Roads and for Railway-Highway Crossings. The set-aside provision for High Risk Rural roads amounts to $90 million per year nationally and $1.9 million per year for Minnesota. These funds are intended for construction and operational safety improvements on High Risk Rural Roads. High Risk roads are defined as rural major and minor collectors and rural local roads with fatality and serious injury crash rates above the statewide average for roads of the same functional class. An additional $220 million per year is set aside for safety improvements to Railway-Highway Crossings.
  • Under TEA-21, the safety set aside was apportioned based on the STP formula. SAFETEA-LU establishes a separate apportionment formula for the HSIP core program. Formula: 33 1/3% ratio of State lane miles to total lane miles on federal aid highways 33 1/3% ratio of vehicle miles traveled on State’s federal aid highways to total VMT on federal aid highways 33 1/3% ratio of fatalities on State’s federal aid system to fatalities on total fatalities on federal aid system Federal aid highways means highways on the federal-aid highway systems and all other public roads not classified as local roads or rural minor collectors.
  • States must develop and implement a State Strategic Highway Safety Plan that identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities. Minnesota is ahead of many states because we have developed our Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan. The HSIP must produce a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems. In essence, a State’s HSIP is the projects and strategies in the SHSP that are included in the STIP. The following have been added as eligible highway safety improvement projects and can therefore be funded under 23 USC 148:   1)       The conduct of a model traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway grade crossing; 2)       Safety-conscious planning; 3)       Improvement in the collection and analysis of crash data; 4)     Planning, integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment, operational activities, or traffic enforcement activities (including police assistance) relating to workzone safety; 5)       The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce accidents involving vehicles and wildlife; 6)       Construction and operational improvements on high-risk rural roads; 7)       Improvements for safety of the disabled; 8)       Installation and maintenance of signs at pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones.   23 USC 120 (c) has also been amended to add roundabouts as being eligible for 100 percent Federal funding.
  • An SHSP is a data-driven action plan developed by the State Transportation Department that comprehensively identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities. It is developed in consultation with major state and local safety stakeholders including representatives from: the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, transportation planning organizations, other transportation modes, law enforcement, rail/highway crossings, Operation Lifesaver, motor carrier safety program, and motor vehicle registration agencies SHSP’s should: A.      Analyze and incorporate all available crash data, B.      Address management, operation, and the 4E’s, in evaluating highway safety projects, C.      Consider safety needs and high fatality segments of public roads, D.      Consider the results of State, regional, or local transportation and safety planning processes, E.       Describe a program of projects to reduce or eliminate safety hazards, F.       Be approved by the Governor or a responsible State agency, G.      Be consistent with the requirements of section 135(g) – [Statewide Planning] Construction projects implemented as part of a State’s SHSP must be included in the STIP. The Office of Safety has developed detailed guidance on SHSPs. States are required to have developed and implemented a SHSP by October 1, 2006 in order to obligate funds for all the new eligible activities under Section 148 (HSIP) including safety conscious planning. Before October 1, 2006, and until a State develops and implements a SHSP, the State may only obligate its apportioned HSIP funds (Section 148) for projects that were eligible for funding under sections 130 and 152, or in other words, the program that was in effect on the day before enactment of this Act. States without an SHSP will not be able to use 10% of their funds for education, enforcement & emergency medical services. If a State has not developed a SHSP by October 1, 2007 (fiscal year 2008), it’s HSIP apportionment under (Section 148) will be “frozen” at the fiscal year 2007 level for that and all subsequent years until an SHSP is developed and approved.
  • Minnesota modeled their CHSP after AASHTO’s 22 critical emphasis. Minnesota group their emphasis areas into 5 catagories. Note that only two of these are engineering related.
  • To further the implementation of a State SHSP, a State may use up to 10% of it’s apportioned Highway Safety Improvement Program funds for a fiscal year to carry out any other safety project as provided in the State SHSP if the State certifies that:   A) The State has met needs in the State relating to railway-highway crossings and B) The State has met the State’s infrastructure safety needs relating to highway safety improvement projects. The FHWA will be developing HSIP flexibility guidance.
  • SAFETEA-LU amends 23 USC 130. The previous Section 130, Railway Highway Crossings, is carried forward essentially intact. The primary changes are that the funding source is now a “set aside” from the Highway Safety Improvement Program of $220 million per year nationally (a significant annual increase of approximately $65 million), and that a new provision has been added allowing that States may use up to 2% of the funds apportioned to their State under this program for compilation and analysis of data in meeting their reporting requirements. Picture: School Street, Groton, CT This is the first 4-quad gate with obstacle detection in the US. It is used on the NC corridor.
  • The $90 million set aside of HSIP apportionment is set aside by States proportionally according to the share of each State of the total amount apportioned, for use only for construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads. The term “high risk rural road” means any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or a rural local road On which the accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway; OR That will likely have increases in traffic volume that are likely to create an accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway. Flexibility will be allowed to use different types of crash rates depending on the data available in each State. Some examples include crashes per VMT, crashes per mile, etc. Mn/DOT Traffic Safety Section and FHWA are working to develop a list of eligible rural roadways.
  • Section 1409: Work Zone Safety Grants Grants ($5 Million/Year for FY06 to FY09) may be made to nonprofit and not for profit organizations to provide training to prevent or reduce highway work zone injuries and fatalities for the following purposes: Training for construction craft workers on the prevention of injuries and fatalities in highway and road construction Development of guidelines for the prevention of highway work zone injuries and fatalities Training for state and local government transportation agencies and other groups implementing guidelines for the prevention of highway work zone injuries and fatalities. Section 1410: National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse The Secretary shall make grants ($1 Million/Year for FY06 to FY09) to a national non profit foundation for the operation of the National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse. The purpose of the clearinghouse is to assemble and disseminate by electronic and other means information relating to improvement of work zone safety. Section 1402: Worker Injury Prevention and Free Flow of Vehicular Traffic The Secretary is to establish, within one year from SAFETEA-LU’s enactment, regulations requiring highway workers to wear high visibility garments. Section 1110: Temporary Traffic Control Devices Projects may not be approved on federal aid highways or under the federal lands highway program unless proper temporary traffic control devices to improve work zone safety are installed and maintained during construction, utility, and maintenance on the portion of the highway to be improved by such projects. Installation and maintenance of the devices must be in accordance with the MUTCD. After consultation with Federal and State officials, the Secretary is to issue regulations establishing conditions for the appropriate use of , and expenditure of funds for, uniformed law enforcement officers, positive protective measures between workers and motorized traffic, and installation and maintenance of temporary traffic control devices during construction, utility, and maintenance operations.
  • New Freedom program - This new formula program provides capital and operating costs of services and facility improvements in excess of those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The formula is based upon the population of persons with disabilities. Alternatives analysis program will provide separate source of funding for this activity. Studies in the Red Rock, Rush Line, and Central Corridors are authorized up to $2 million for each of FYs 2006 and 2007under this program. Small Starts will help streamline the NewStarts process. These new programs cannot start until regulations are written.
  • These are only estimated amounts for FY06 through FY09 The 5307 Formula funds have actually seen a reduction in FY06 Both JARC and New Freedom programs require competitive process for award.
  • Hiawatha LRT received its final FFGA funding increment with the FY2005 appropriation of $33,111,257. No other FFGAs are in place but other projects that are exploring this avenue of funding are Northstar Commuter Rail, Central Corridor, Northwest Corridor Busway, and Rush Line Corridor Future Corridor studies to define the locally preferred alternative will be funded out of this new program FY06-07. Regulations still to be developed.
  • These are only estimated amounts for FY06 through FY09 The 5307 Formula funds have actually seen a reduction in FY06 Both JARC and New Freedom programs require competitive process for award.
  • Mn/DOT works as a subcontractor to the State Patrol, the OFCVO received about $1.3 million in MCSAP grants in the last FFY. We expect about a 40% increase in funding next year, with additional increases through the end of this authorization. Intelligent Transportation Systems/Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) 4126 is a collection of information systems and networks that provide a framework for States, the Federal DOT, and private stakeholders to collect, process, and exchange motor carrier safety, commercial vehicle, and commercial driver information. CVIEW is a federally mandated component of CVISN and is a data repository that enables exchange of vital CMV and driver information on inspections and citations to roadside inspectors. High Priority Grants 4107 for projects to improve Motor Carrier Safety. Must focus on reductions of fatal CMV accidents. Cqn include public awareness and education or new technologies. 4106 MCS Grants Federal dollars may be available, to match State dollars, for Size & Weight enforcement, if a federal Driver/Vehicle Inspection is done at the same time. The inspection may not be done at a fixed scale site, it must be roadside, as part of a special project, or at a port facility a
  • A major difference between SAFETEA-LU and past authorizations is the inclusion of economic regulation components. Section 4106 requires State programs to enforce the federal registration programs, Financial responsibility filings 4120 with FMCSA. In the past, proof of insurance has been required for for-hire operations and some private hazmat carriers. SAFETEA now requires insurance filings from interstate private carriers of passengers and property. Language is not clear on whether these carriers need to meet federal insurance amounts in 49 CFR part 387, or insurance set by the home state. Household Goods 4201 allows States to enforce consumer protection provisions of interstate HHG transportation. State Attorneys General may bring action in Federal district court, must notify USDOT of pending actions. State agencies (OFCVO) with jurisdiction over intra state authority issues retain that authority. FMCSA will coordinate cooperation between AG, state agencies in enforcing these laws. Unified Carrier Registration 4301 replaces the SSRS program Mn/DOT has participated in for years. OFCVO received $1,250,000 to $1,500,000 per year in SSRS fees. Registration means filing of a Motor Carrier Identification Report and assigning a USDOT number to inter and intrastate for hire and private carriers. The MCIR must be refiled by carriers every 2 years. State agency responsible for implementing UCR must submit a plan within 3 years to USDOT, fees collected can be matching funds for MCS safety enforcement and program administration. Fees to be charged not yet determined.
  • Crossing Hazard Elimination in High Speed Rail Corridors: Chicago to Mpls to share FY05/$250K, F06/$1M, F07/$1.75M, F08/$2.25M, F09/$9M High Speed Rail Corridor Development: $100 M per year (2006-2013)
  • Freight Planning Capacity Building: Provides grants to support enhancements in freight transportation planning in order to better target investments and strengthen decision making capacity National Cooperative Freight Transportation Research Projects: New research program for freight transportation to be manage by TRB
  • Office of Intermodalism: The Plan will seek to improve the national intermodal system by assessing the intermodal system’s impact on mobility, safety, energy, environment, technology, international trade, economy, and quality of life in the US, as well as identify and describe intermodal trends, set goals for the system, and make recommendations for intermodal policy. Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program : As indicated earlier, this program provides formula funding to border states to improve cross-border transportation, safety, operations, regulatory procedures, and international coordination. Truck Parking Facilities: Constructing safety rest areas, parking facilities adjacent to truck stops, opening existing roadway infrastructure to parking, using ITS for determining parking availability, constructing turnouts along the NHS, investing in current seasonal parking facilities, improving geometrics of interchanges to improve access to parking facilities
  • Section 7105 CDL/HME Requires TSA, not DOT, to develop a way to notify employers if HME applicant fails the security background check. This may require State drivers license agencies to gather employer data. States with a more stringent background check must have an appeals process; must insure Canada and Mexico have adequate security checks, and must reduce background check redundancy. Section 7114 HM Emergency Preparedness Grants provides continued funding for ERG, and some security training funds; Section 7116 Uniform Forms and Procedures establishes a working group to determine fate of State HM permitting programs including the UHMRP that Minnesota participates in Working group has 18 months to report, USDOT then has 18 months to act.
  • Section 7118 Administrative Authority Secretary of USDOT may enter into cooperative agreements with and issue grants to States to expand risk assessment and emergency response capabilities with respect to transportation security issues; to enhance emergency communications including interoperable systems where possible; and to conduct research and development and emergency response planning. Section 7118 Administrative Authority also gives USDOT powers to declare HM packages out of service and remove them from transportation, and enter into cooperative agreements with States and Tribes or locals to otherwise carryout this chapter. Also looking to find out how much undeclared hazmat is being shipped in Section 7130. Section 7122 Preemption of State, Local, & Tribal Rules Sanitary Food Transportation Act will require MCSAP inspectors to be trained to recognized adulteration of foods, feed, cosmetics, drugs etc.
  • Slide 1

    1. 1. SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users October 6, 2005
    2. 2. Funding & Finance SAFETEA-LU Brad Larsen, Federal Relations Manager Mn/DOT, Office of Government Relations 651/282-2170 [email_address]
    3. 3. General Information <ul><li>Sources of Information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Resource Sheet (handout in SAFETEA-LU packet) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Websites - www.dot.state.mn.us/safetea-lu </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Contacts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Federal guidance and/or rulemaking required for many SAFETEA-LU provisions </li></ul><ul><li>SAFETEA-LU Corrections Bill </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Curve </li></ul>
    4. 4. Funding & Finance <ul><li>National Perspective </li></ul><ul><li>$286 Billion FFY 2004-09 (app. $200 billion 2006-09) </li></ul><ul><li>Inflation Adjusted Increases Over TEA-21 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5% Highways </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>16% Transit </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Funding Guarantees/Firewalls Maintained </li></ul>
    5. 5. Funding & Finance <ul><li>Revenue Sources for SAFETEA-LU Funding Increase </li></ul><ul><li>- Ethanol </li></ul><ul><li>- Fuel Tax Evasion Enforcement </li></ul><ul><li>- Highway Trust Fund Reduction </li></ul><ul><li>Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) - Impacts </li></ul><ul><li>Innovative Finance </li></ul><ul><li>- Private Activity Bonds ($15 billion authorized) </li></ul><ul><li>- Tolling Provisions </li></ul><ul><li>- State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs)– MN’s Transportation </li></ul><ul><li> Revolving Loan Fund (TRLF) </li></ul><ul><li>- TIFIA – Federal Loan Program </li></ul>National Perspective
    6. 6. Funding & Finance Shifting Priorities Within the Highway Program 100.00 100.00 Total, Title I Authorizations 3.00 3.00 Other Title I 10.70 6.16 Earmarks (not including set-aside earmarks0 2.24 2.38 Federal Lands Highway Program 84.05 88.46 Subtotal, Core Formula Programs 20.56 20.47 Minimum Guarantee/Equity Bonus 0.19 0.16 Recreational Trails 1.18 1.32 Appalachian Development Highway System 2.55 1.90 Highway Safety Improvement Program 4.33 4.75 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 16.36 17.28 Surface Transportation Program 10.86 11.95 Bridge 15.35 16.71 National Highway System 12.67 13.92 Interstate Maintenance SAFETEA-LU % TEA-21% Percent of total authorizations, excluding FHWA research (title V) programs. 
    7. 7. <ul><li>Shifting Priorities Within the Transit Program </li></ul><ul><li>Percent of total Federal Transit Administration guaranteed obligations </li></ul>Funding & Finance 100.00% 100.00% Total Guaranteed FTA Obligations 1.14 0.87 Other 0.95 1.00 Administration 0.68 0.83 Transit Research/UTR 1.60 1.60 Job Access and Reverse Commute 17.46 16.89 New/Small Starts 16.13 16.89 Fixed Guideway Modernization 9.53 8.44 Buses & Bus Facilities 1.10 1.00 Planning 2.20 1.26 Formula Grants for Elderly/Disabled/New Freedom 5.18 3.34 Formula Grants for Non-Urbanized Areas 44.03 47.88 Formula Grants for Urbanized Areas SAFETEA-LU % TEA-21%
    8. 8. Funding & Finance <ul><li>Minnesota Perspective </li></ul><ul><li>MN Funding Overview </li></ul>
    9. 9. Funding & Finance <ul><li>Minnesota Perspective </li></ul><ul><li>MN v. Other States under SAFETEA-LU </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MN receives 2 nd highest proportional increase (app. 46%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MN share increases from 1.4% under TEA-21 to 1.7% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>MN Funding Increases: SAFETEA-LU v. TEA-21 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Highway Formula Funding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>17% ($482 million ) Increase in Formula Hwy. Apportionments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Majority of increase in FFY 2008-09 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>MN received less in FFY 2005 than 2004 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Majority of increase in FFY 2006-08 already programmed for projects in the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – amounts not programmed will be distributed to Area Transportation Partnerships (ATPs) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Funding & Finance <ul><li>Minnesota Perspective </li></ul><ul><li>MN Funding Increases: SAFETEA-LU v. TEA-21 (cont.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Earmark Funding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>162% ($288 million) Increase in Earmark Highway Funds </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>149 projects totaling nearly $500 million (71% Road/Bridge, 14% Transit, 9% Bike/Ped.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>App. $264 million (53%) impact State Trunk Highways and app. $215 million (43%) are on the local system </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transit Formula Funding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>66% ($168 million) Increase in Formula Transit Funds </li></ul></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Funding & Finance <ul><li>Minnesota Perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Obligation Authority for Highways </li></ul><ul><ul><li>95% of hwy. formula apportionments and 90% of earmark funds estimated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Only about 85% received in FFY 2005 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Future estimates depend on FFY 2006 Appropriations </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Funding & Finance <ul><li>Minnesota Perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Formula Hwy. Funds ( 95% Obligation Authority – after sanctions ) </li></ul><ul><li>2004 - $382 million </li></ul><ul><li>2005 - $362 million </li></ul><ul><li>2006 - $454 million ( app. $5 million not yet programmed in STIP ) </li></ul><ul><li>2007 - $523 million ( app. $26 million not yet programmed in STIP ) </li></ul><ul><li>2008 - $564 million ( app. $50 million not yet programmed in STIP ) </li></ul><ul><li>2009 - $584 million ( STIP not yet developed ) </li></ul><ul><li>Sanctions/Penalties </li></ul><ul><li>No new sanctions/penalties under SAFETEA-LU </li></ul><ul><li>MN no longer sanctioned under .08 Blood/Alcohol Penalty </li></ul><ul><li>Repeat Offender (sec. 164) Penalty continues - sanctioned funds are returned to MN’s DPS and are used to implement MN’s Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) </li></ul>
    13. 13. Funding & Finance <ul><li>Minnesota Perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Federal Project Earmarks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High Priority Projects (HPP) (sec. 1702) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transportation Improvements (sec. 1934) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Projects of Nat’l. & Reg. Significance (sec. 1301) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nat’l. Corridor Improvement (sec. 1302) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transit Bus & Bus Facilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other Provisions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Funding Challenges - matching and additional funding </li></ul><ul><li>Funding Availability - HPP earmarks 20%/yr. 2005-09 </li></ul><ul><li>Funding Flexibility - not as broad as under TEA-21 </li></ul><ul><li>Project Coordination will be key </li></ul>
    14. 14. Highway Programs SAFETEA-LU Linda Zemotel, Director of Programming & Project Authorization Mn/DOT, Office of Investment Management 651/296-1604 [email_address]
    15. 15. Highway Programs <ul><li>Program Changes </li></ul><ul><li>Core Formula </li></ul><ul><li>Other Formula </li></ul><ul><li>Discretionary </li></ul><ul><li>Federal Lands Highway </li></ul><ul><li>Policy Changes </li></ul><ul><li>Design/Build </li></ul><ul><li>High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities </li></ul><ul><li>Stewardship & Oversight </li></ul>
    16. 16. Highway Programs <ul><li>Core Formula Highway Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Interstate Maintenance ( IM ) </li></ul><ul><li>National Highway System ( NHS ) </li></ul><ul><li>Bridge </li></ul><ul><li>Surface Transportation ( STP ) </li></ul><ul><li>Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement ( CMAQ) </li></ul><ul><li>Highway Safety Improvement ( HSIP ) </li></ul><ul><li>Funds available for 4 years </li></ul>
    17. 17. Highway Programs <ul><li>Bridge Program Highlights </li></ul><ul><li>Preventive Maintenance on Federal-aid and non-Federal-aid Highways eligible </li></ul><ul><li>Off-System Bridges set aside maintained at 15%, but maximum removed </li></ul>
    18. 18. Highway Programs <ul><li>STP Highlights </li></ul><ul><li>Safety set aside eliminated and funded through HSIP </li></ul><ul><li>Enhancements set-aside = greater of 10% of STP or dollar amount received in FFY 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Eligibility expanded: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advanced truck stop electrification systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High accident and high congestion intersection improvements </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Highway Programs <ul><li>CMAQ Highlights </li></ul><ul><li>Eligibility expanded: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advanced truck stop electrification systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve systems management & operations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emergency communications equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diesel retrofits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Priority to diesel retrofits & cost-effective emission reduction & congestion mitigation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Purchase of alternative fuels or biodiesel </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Highway Programs <ul><li>Other Formula Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Highway & bridge construction, operations, safety & safety enforcement, international coordination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Within 100 miles of international land border with Canada (or Mexico) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Safe Routes to School Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enable children to walk & bike to school </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>100% Federal share </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Funds available until expended </li></ul>
    21. 21. Highway Programs <ul><li>Other Formula Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Recreational Trails </li></ul><ul><li>Administered by DNR </li></ul><ul><li>New eligible activities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Purchase & lease construction & maintenance equipment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acquire right-of-way </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop trail safety & environmental programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide training </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Administer program using up to 7% of annual apportionment </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. Highway Programs <ul><li>Discretionary Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Interstate Maintenance Discretionary </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Distributed at the discretion of the Transportation Secretary </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Awarded based on applications from States, tribal, regional, and local governments </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Highway Programs <ul><li>Discretionary Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Scenic Byways </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Continue to submit eligible projects & compete nationally </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indian Tribes may nominate road under tribal jurisdiction for designation as an Indian Scenic Byway </li></ul></ul>
    24. 24. Highway Programs <ul><li>Discretionary Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Highways for LIFE Pilot Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Innovative technologies, manufacturing processes, financing, or contracting methods to improve safety, reduce congestion due to construction, & improve quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>State submits application </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For 2006-2009, at least 1 project per State with maximum of 15 projects per any one FFY nationwide </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Up to 20% but not more than $5 million of total project cost & can be used as non-Federal share </li></ul></ul>
    25. 25. Highway Programs <ul><li>Federal Lands Highways Program </li></ul><ul><li>Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding may be provided directly to Indian Tribal government (not through BIA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Projects must be in approved TIP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Up to 25% of funds for system maintenance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tribe may enter into road maintenance agreement with State for roads in and providing access to Indian reservations </li></ul></ul>
    26. 26. Highway Programs <ul><li>Federal Lands Highways Program </li></ul><ul><li>Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bridge no longer a set aside </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Within 2 years, DOT & DOI must complete comprehensive inventory of transportation facilities eligible for assistance under IRR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New position in DOT: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Tribal Government Affairs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Park Roads & Parkways </li></ul><ul><li>Refuge Roads </li></ul><ul><li>Public Land Highways </li></ul>
    27. 27. Highway Programs <ul><li>Other Highlights </li></ul><ul><li>Design/Build </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eliminates $50 million floor for eligible projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Certain D/B actions can proceed prior to final NEPA approval </li></ul></ul><ul><li>High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>States may allow public transportation vehicles, single occupancy tolls/HOT lanes, EPA-certified low-emission, & energy-efficient vehicles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If State allows exceptions, must have monitoring & enforcement program to ensure performance is not degraded </li></ul></ul>
    28. 28. Highway Programs <ul><li>Federal Stewardship & Oversight </li></ul><ul><li>Value Engineering (or Cost-Reduction ) Analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Highway projects with total cost of $25 million or more </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bridge projects with total cost of $20 million or more </li></ul></ul>
    29. 29. Highway Programs <ul><li>Federal Stewardship & Oversight </li></ul><ul><li>Major Projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Total cost of $500 million or more: project management plan & annual financial plan must be submitted to FHWA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Total cost of $100 million or more: annual financial plan must be available for review by FHWA </li></ul></ul>
    30. 30. Highway Programs <ul><li>Federal Stewardship & Oversight </li></ul><ul><li>Oversight Program Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>by State: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitor sub-recipients of Federal funds for adequate project delivery systems and sufficient accounting controls </li></ul></ul>
    31. 31. Highway Programs <ul><li>Federal Stewardship & Oversight </li></ul><ul><li>Oversight Program Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>by FHWA: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual review of State DOT’s financial management & project delivery system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Development of minimum standards for estimating project costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Periodic evaluation of practices for estimating project costs, awarding contracts, & reducing project costs </li></ul></ul>
    32. 32. Q & A Funding & Finance Highway Programs Questions & Answers Panel
    33. 33. Planning SAFETEA-LU Peggy Reichert, Statewide Planning Unit Director Mn/DOT, Office of Investment Management 651/285-0501 [email_address]
    34. 34. Planning <ul><li>Statewide Planning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continuing Provisions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key Modifications </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Metropolitan Planning* </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continuing Provisions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key Modifications </li></ul></ul>
    35. 35. Planning - Statewide
    36. 36. <ul><li>Funding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Continues 2% set-aside from core programs for State Planning and Research Program </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Continuing Provisions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires Statewide transportation plans and programs as mechanism for cooperative, continuous, comprehensive (3C) framework for transportation investment decisions* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emphasis on fiscal constraint and public involvement in STIP development* </li></ul></ul>Planning - Statewide
    37. 37. Planning - Statewide <ul><li>Cooperation – Through planning, programming and management efforts, parties work together to achieve a common goal/objective </li></ul><ul><li>Consultation – Parties confer periodically and consider each other’s views prior to acting and report actions afterwards </li></ul><ul><li>Coordination – Parties compare plans, programs and schedules, and adjust them for general consistency </li></ul>
    38. 38. <ul><li>Continuing Provisions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consultation with tribal governments* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consultation with non-metropolitan local officials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordination with Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process which maintains the 3C framework for urbanized areas* </li></ul></ul>Planning - Statewide
    39. 39. Planning - Statewide
    40. 40. <ul><li>Key Modifications- Planning Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordination with metro planning and statewide trade and economic planning activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Safety and Security now separate planning factors to be addressed* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Environmental quality factor expanded to promote consistency with State and local planned growth and economic development patterns* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Encourages coordination between states; authorizes planning compacts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support economic vitality of non-metro areas </li></ul></ul>Planning - Statewide
    41. 41. <ul><li>Modifications-Long Range Statewide Plan* </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires consultation with Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies responsible for </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Land use management </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Natural resources </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Environmental protection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Conservation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Historic Preservation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparison of plans, inventories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities and opportunities </li></ul></ul>Planning - Statewide
    42. 42. <ul><li>Modifications-Long Range Statewide Plan* </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Added ped, bike, disabled representatives to list of interested parties to involve </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>For Plan and for STIP </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires enhanced public involvement techniques </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Convenient meeting time and place </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Visualization </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use of Web </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires operation, maintenance capital investment strategies to preserve, optimize use of existing system </li></ul></ul>Planning - Statewide
    43. 43. <ul><li>Continuing Provisions: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)* </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires project consistency with Statewide Plan </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires metropolitan projects to be identical to MPO plans </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires air quality conformance where applicable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Key Modifications: STIP* </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FY 08- 4 year coverage, updated every 4 years (or more frequently) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual publication of obligated projects funded in metropolitan areas </li></ul></ul>Planning - Statewide
    44. 44. Planning - MPO <ul><li>Funding- </li></ul><ul><li>Increases MPO set- aside from 1% to 1.25% of core programs </li></ul><ul><li>MPO FHWA + FTA planning apportionments for MN 2005 $4,809,262 2006 $5,000,862 2007 $5,110,830 2008 $5,266,337 2009 $5,405,525 </li></ul><ul><li>Obligation authority will be less </li></ul><ul><li>State reimbursement within 30 days </li></ul>
    45. 45. Planning - MPO <ul><li>Continuing Provisions </li></ul><ul><li>20 year multi-modal plan, air quality conformity, fiscal constraint, public involvement </li></ul><ul><li>Operational and management strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Congestion Management System in Transportation Management Areas (> 200,000 pop) </li></ul>
    46. 46. Planning - MPO
    47. 47. Planning - MPO <ul><li>Key Modifications- MPO Planning in General </li></ul><ul><li>Revised Planning Factors – same as for Statewide Planning </li></ul><ul><li>MPO’s encouraged to consult and coordinate with other planning officials responsible for planning affected by transportation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Planned growth, economic development, environmental protection, airport operations, freight movement </li></ul></ul>
    48. 48. Planning - MPO <ul><li>Key Modifications: MPO Plans </li></ul><ul><li>Non-attainment/Maintenance Areas - Plan Updates every 4 years (Twin Cities, St Cloud, Duluth) </li></ul><ul><li>Attainment Area plans remain on 5 year update cycle </li></ul><ul><li>Same consultation, environmental mitigation requirements as Statewide Plan </li></ul><ul><li>MPO must develop participation plan with interested parties </li></ul><ul><li>Intermodal facilities defined as a transportation facility </li></ul>
    49. 49. <ul><li>Key Modifications: Air Quality Conformance </li></ul><ul><li>Conformity determinations changed to 4 year cycle </li></ul><ul><li>Provides options for analysis time horizon (10 vs 20 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Sets 12 month grace period for conformity lapse </li></ul><ul><li>Allows for more simple control measure substitution if > equal air quality benefit </li></ul><ul><li>Defines unanticipated events </li></ul>Planning - MPOs
    50. 50. <ul><li>Key Modifications: MPO TIPS </li></ul><ul><li>4 year coverage </li></ul><ul><li>Project specificity- type of work, termini, length, etc </li></ul><ul><li>Published annual listing must include ped walkways and bike facilities </li></ul>Planning - MPOs
    51. 51. <ul><li>Implementation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New requirements take effect FY 08 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interim guidance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Continue current cycle </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Must implement all new provisions concurrently </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New Federal planning rules may be forthcoming </li></ul></ul>Planning - Implementation
    52. 52. Environmental SAFETEA-LU Frank Pafko, Director Mn/DOT, Office of Environmental Services 651/284-3751 [email_address]
    53. 53. <ul><li>Integration of Natural Resource Concerns into Planning </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental Streamlining </li></ul><ul><li>State Assumption of Certain Projects & Programs </li></ul><ul><li>State Assumption of Categorical Exclusions </li></ul><ul><li>Section 4 (f) </li></ul><ul><li>Control of Noxious Weed/Establish Native Vegetation </li></ul><ul><li>Integration of Natural Resource Concerns into Project Planning </li></ul><ul><li>Increased Use of Recovered Mineral Component </li></ul>Environmental Outline
    54. 54. Environmental <ul><li>Integration of Natural Resource Concerns into Transportation Planning </li></ul><ul><li>Consultation with Agencies. </li></ul><ul><li>Comparison with Conservation Plans. </li></ul><ul><li>Identification of Potential Mitigation. </li></ul><ul><li>What Does This Mean? </li></ul>
    55. 55. Environmental
    56. 56. <ul><li>Participating Agencies </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose and Need </li></ul><ul><li>Range of Alternatives </li></ul><ul><li>Level of Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Concurrent Reviews </li></ul><ul><li>Coordination Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Review Deadline </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigation Commitments </li></ul><ul><li>180 day – Permit Decisions </li></ul><ul><li>Statute of Limitations </li></ul><ul><li>Section 4(f) </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting Positions in other Federal/State Agencies </li></ul>Environmental Environmental Streamlining
    57. 57. Environmental <ul><li>State Assumptions of Responsibilities for Certain Programs and Projects </li></ul><ul><li>Establish pilot program (up to 5 states) for state assumption of federal responsibilities for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>environmental review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>consultation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>decision making </li></ul></ul><ul><li>3-Year renewable term </li></ul><ul><li>MOU with FHWA and other requirements needed </li></ul><ul><li>Federal responsibilities and jurisdiction must be accepted </li></ul>
    58. 58. <ul><li>State Assumptions of Responsibility for </li></ul><ul><li>Categorical Exclusions </li></ul><ul><li>States may assume responsibility for all determinations for Categorical Exclusions </li></ul><ul><li>Requires MOU with FHWA </li></ul><ul><li>3-Year renewable term </li></ul><ul><li>Must accept all federal responsibilities and agree to accept jurisdiction of federal court </li></ul><ul><li>MN Programmatic Agreement currently covers 90% </li></ul>Environmental
    59. 59. <ul><li>Section 4(f) - Historic Sites </li></ul><ul><li>Adds a “De Minimus” provision to Section 4 (f) </li></ul><ul><li>4(f) documentation not required if 106 process shows no adverse effect or no properties affected </li></ul><ul><li>Requires written concurrence from SHPO or THPO </li></ul>Environmental
    60. 60. <ul><li>Section 4(f) - Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife Areas and Waterfowl Refuges </li></ul><ul><li>Adds a “De Minimus” provision to Section 4(f) </li></ul><ul><li>4 (f) document not required if project will not adversely affect activities, features and attributes of the resource </li></ul><ul><li>Concurrence required from official with jurisdiction over the resource </li></ul><ul><li>FHWA required to promulgate clarifying regulations within one year of SAFETEA-LU </li></ul>Environmental
    61. 61. <ul><li>Environmental Restoration and Pollution Abatement; Control of Noxious Weeds and Establishment of Native Species </li></ul><ul><li>Eligible for funding under NHS and STP programs </li></ul><ul><li>Expenditures are capped at 20% of the total cost </li></ul>Environmental
    62. 62. Environmental <ul><li>Integration of Natural Resource Concerns into Transportation Project Planning </li></ul><ul><li>Requires Context Sensitive Design/Solutions </li></ul><ul><li>(2 publications): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Flexibility in Highway Design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Eight Characteristics of Process to Yield Excellence and the Seven Qualities of Excellence in Transportation Design </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Current Mn/DOT Practice </li></ul>
    63. 63. Environmental <ul><li>Increased Use of Recovered Mineral Component (RCM) </li></ul><ul><li>RCM includes fly ash, slag, silica fume and other wastes as determined by EPA. </li></ul><ul><li>Applies to federal concrete and cement projects. </li></ul><ul><li>Directs federal agencies to study and encourage and/or require increased use. </li></ul>
    64. 64. Q & A Planning Environmental Questions & Answers Panel
    65. 65. Safety SAFETEA-LU Bernie Arseneau, Director Mn/DOT, Office of Traffic, Security & Operations 651/634-5251 [email_address]
    66. 66. Key Provisions <ul><li>New “Core” Highway Safety Improvement Program </li></ul><ul><li>SAFETEA-LU Almost Doubles TEA-21 Safety Apportionments </li></ul><ul><li>Requires Strategic Highway Safety Plans </li></ul><ul><li>Flexibility </li></ul><ul><li>Safety Set Asides (High Risk Rural Roads and Railway-Highway Crossings) </li></ul>Safety
    67. 67. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) <ul><li>$5.1 Billion over 4 years (FFY 2006-09) </li></ul>Safety <ul><li>Set-Aside </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High Risk Rural Roads </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>MN estimate 1.9 M per year (FFY 2006-09) included in the $22.0 M HSIP above </li></ul></ul></ul>$5.9 M $5.9 M $5.8 M $5.8 M MN Hwy-Rail Xing $23.0 M $22.5 M $22.2 M $21.7 M MN HSIP $1,296 M $1,276 M $1,256 M $1,236 M Fed. Authorization (formula apportionmnents) 2009 2008 2007 2006 Fed. Fiscal Year
    68. 68. <ul><li>1/3: Total lane miles federal aid highways </li></ul><ul><li>1/3: Total vehicle miles traveled on lanes on federal aid highways </li></ul><ul><li>1/3: Number of fatalities on federal aid system </li></ul>HSIP Apportionment Formula Safety
    69. 69. <ul><li>Purpose of HSIP: </li></ul><ul><li>To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads </li></ul>Safety
    70. 70. <ul><li>Develop and implement a State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (MN CHSP) </li></ul><ul><li>Produce a program of projects or strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate the plan on a regular basis </li></ul><ul><li>Submit an annual report to USDOT </li></ul>To obligate HSIP funds, States’ must: Safety
    71. 71. Strategic Highway Safety Plans… MN Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan <ul><li>Developed by Mn/DOT and DPS after consultation with safety stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Analyzes and makes effective use of crash data </li></ul><ul><li>Addresses 4 E’s </li></ul><ul><li>Considers safety needs of all public roads </li></ul><ul><li>Describes program of projects or strategies to reduce or eliminate safety hazards – 15 critical strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Must be approved by Governor or responsible state agency </li></ul>Safety
    72. 72. Minnesota’s Critical Emphasis Areas <ul><li>Increasing Seat Belt Use and Reducing Impaired Driving </li></ul><ul><li>Improving the Design and Operation of Highway Intersections </li></ul><ul><li>Lane Departure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reducing Head-On and Across-Median Crashes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimizing the Consequence of Leaving the Roadway </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Young Drivers and Curbing Aggressive Driving </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing Driver Safety Awareness and Improving Information and Decision Support Systems </li></ul>Safety
    73. 73. HSIP Flexibility <ul><li>States may use up to 10% of HSIP funds to carry out other safety projects identified in the CHSP </li></ul><ul><li>State must certify that: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>State has met its needs relating to rail-highway </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>crossings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>State has met its infrastructure safety needs relating to highway safety improvement projects </li></ul></ul>Safety
    74. 74. Railway Highway Crossings <ul><li>New Funding Formula: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>50% based on STP formula factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>50% based on # of public railway-highway crossings </li></ul></ul>MN est. $5.8 Million/Year Set Aside (FFY 2006-09) <ul><ul><li>50% of State’s apportionment for installation of protective devices </li></ul></ul>Safety
    75. 75. High Risk Rural Roads <ul><li>Eligible on any roadway </li></ul><ul><li>functionally classified as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rural major collector </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rural minor collector </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rural local road </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries > statewide average </li></ul><ul><li>Construction and operational improvements </li></ul>MN est. $1.9 Million/Year Set-Aside (FFY 2006-09) Safety
    76. 76. Work Zone Safety <ul><li>Work Zone Safety Grants </li></ul><ul><li>National Work Zone </li></ul><ul><li>Safety Information </li></ul><ul><li>Clearinghouse </li></ul><ul><li>Worker Injury Prevention & Free Flow of Vehicular Traffic </li></ul><ul><li>Temporary Traffic </li></ul><ul><li>Control Devices </li></ul>Safety
    77. 77. Behavioral Safety SAFETEA-LU Kathy Swanson, Director MN DPS, Office of Traffic Safety 651/296-9507 [email_address]
    78. 78. Behavioral Safety State and Community Highway Safety Grants (402) <ul><li>NHTSA and DPS </li></ul><ul><li>$3.9 million in FFY06 </li></ul><ul><li>Change driver/passenger behavior </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Slow Down </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Buckle Up </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Drive Sober </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pay Attention </li></ul></ul>
    79. 79. Behavioral Safety Occupant Protection Incentive Grants (405) <ul><li>Currently, Minnesota does NOT qualify! </li></ul><ul><li>Need: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Universal, Primary, or Booster Seat Law </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Potential funding: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimated at $250,000 per year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must be used to implement and enforce occupant protection programs </li></ul></ul>
    80. 80. Behavioral Safety Safety Belt Performance Grants (406) <ul><li>Currently, Minnesota does NOT qualify! </li></ul><ul><li>Need: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Primary seat belt law or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>85% belt use two years in a row </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Potential funding: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>$15 million ($15,144,961.75) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must be used for any purpose under Title II or for HSIP projects </li></ul></ul>
    81. 81. Behavioral Safety State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements (408) <ul><li>Currently, Minnesota may qualify </li></ul><ul><li>Need: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinating committee, strategic plan, performance measures, and a commitment to using certain data elements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Potential funding: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimated at $300,000 to $500,000 per year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May only be used for data improvement programs </li></ul></ul>
    82. 82. Behavioral Safety Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures (410) <ul><li>Currently, Minnesota WILL qualify! </li></ul><ul><li>Must maintain low alcohol-related fatality rate or implement a variety of programs or law changes </li></ul><ul><li>Potential funding: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimated at $2 million per year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must be used for alcohol-impaired driving programs </li></ul></ul>
    83. 83. Behavioral Safety Motorcyclist Safety (2010) <ul><li>Currently, Minnesota WILL qualify! </li></ul><ul><li>Requires maintenance of current state efforts and expenditures </li></ul><ul><li>Potential funding: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimated at $100,000 per year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must be used for motorcycle safety programs </li></ul></ul>
    84. 84. Behavioral Safety Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Incentive Grants (2011) <ul><li>Currently, Minnesota does NOT qualify! </li></ul><ul><li>Need to enact: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Specific booster seat legislation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Potential funding: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimated at $100,000 per year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must be used for child passenger safety efforts </li></ul></ul>
    85. 85. Behavioral Safety High Visibility Enforcement Program <ul><li>Currently, Minnesota participates (Click It or Ticket; You Drink & Drive, You Lose) </li></ul><ul><li>No funding directly to states in this program </li></ul><ul><li>Funds provided for national advertising during the enforcement campaigns </li></ul>
    86. 86. Behavioral Safety Other Aspects of Title II (Highway Safety) <ul><li>Highway Safety Research and Outreach (403) </li></ul><ul><li>Safety Studies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Drug-impaired driving </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Older driver safety </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Crash causation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>NHTSA Accountability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased monitoring of state activities and expenditures </li></ul></ul>
    87. 87. Operations/ITS SAFETEA-LU Marthand Nookala, Division Director Mn/DOT Operations, Safety, & Technology Division 651/296-1615 [email_address]
    88. 88. <ul><li>Operations / ITS Reauthorization Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Establish a specific foundation for Transportation Systems Management & Operations (TSM&O) </li></ul><ul><li>Implement programs and provisions that will help agencies enhance system performance </li></ul><ul><li>Institutionalize freight management and increase freight management investment </li></ul><ul><li>Continue strong ITS program </li></ul>Operations/ITS
    89. 89. <ul><li>Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) deployment has been mainstreamed </li></ul><ul><li>ITS deployment projects are eligible for NHS, STP, and CMAQ programs, with no separate program for ITS deployment </li></ul><ul><li>The ITS Deployment discretionary fund from which ITS funds were earmarked in the past has been eliminated as of 10/1/2005 </li></ul><ul><li>NEPA categorical exclusion for ITS projects (6010) </li></ul>Operations/ITS
    90. 90. ITS <ul><li>USDOT to establish program </li></ul><ul><li>Monitor traffic and travel conditions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Real time on major highways in all states </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National and regional highway traveler information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Share information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Security, congestion, incidents, weather events </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DOT to establish data exchange format within 2 years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Include in ITS regional architectures </li></ul></ul>Operations/ITS Real Time System Management Information Program (1201)
    91. 91. <ul><ul><li>USDOT sponsored ITS research, development, and operational tests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New 5-year National ITS program plan (5301) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$250K / year cap in ITS outreach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New advisory committee required (5305) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Priorities include completing nationwide interoperable 511 system and web site (5306) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continued development and maintenance of ITS architecture and standards (5307) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Road weather R&D $20 million total (5308) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>I-95 Corridor Coalition $35 million total (5211) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$550,000,000 total for fiscal years 2005-09 </li></ul></ul>Operations/ITS ITS Research (5301 – 5310)
    92. 92. <ul><li> Transportation Planning (5305) </li></ul><ul><li>USDOT may provide funding to support adequate consideration of transportation systems management and operations, including ITS, within metropolitan and statewide planning processes. </li></ul>Operations/ITS
    93. 93. <ul><li>$100 million total over 4 years </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Core deployment $2.5 million / state max </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expanded deployment $1 million / state / year max </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Must be consistent with National ITS Architecture and CVISN architecture and standards </li></ul>Operations/ITS Commercial Vehicle Information Systems And Networks Deployment (4126)
    94. 94. <ul><li>Center for Excellence in Rural Safety (5309) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hubert H. Humphrey Institute at U of M </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$3.5 million total FFY 2006-09 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>National University Transportation Center (5401) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ITS Institute at U of M </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$16 million total FFY 2005-09 </li></ul></ul>Operations/ITS
    95. 95. <ul><li>High Occupancy /Toll Facilities (1121) </li></ul><ul><li>States Permitted to create HOT lanes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Must have automatic toll collection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must have variable pricing to manage demand </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must be approved by FHWA </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Low emission / energy efficient vehicles may be without toll or tolled at a lower rate </li></ul><ul><li>Performance monitoring and enforcement required </li></ul>Operations/ITS
    96. 96. <ul><li> Tolling (1604) </li></ul><ul><li>Value Pricing Pilot Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Program continued from ISTEA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$59 million total </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Express Lanes Demonstration Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing toll facilities, existing HOV lanes, new toll facilities, new toll lanes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>15 demonstration projects on highway, bridge or tunnel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Variable tolls with interoperable automatic toll collection </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 Interstate Highways, Bridges, or Tunnels </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tolls must be most efficient way to construct project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-compete clause not allowed </li></ul></ul>Operations/ITS
    97. 97. <ul><li>To assist State DOTs and MPOs measure and address surface transportation congestion problems </li></ul><ul><li>2 Programs, $36 million total </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved surface transportation congestion management system measures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analytical techniques for action on surface transportation congestion </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Technical Assistance and Training $3 million total </li></ul>Operations/ITS Surface Transportation Congestion Relief Solutions Research Initiative (5502)
    98. 98. <ul><li>Feasibility study </li></ul><ul><li>Fiber optic and wireless communications along an interstate highway corridor </li></ul><ul><li>Improve communications for rural communities along the corridor. </li></ul><ul><li>$3 million to study four corridors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes I-90 corridor across Minnesota and other states </li></ul></ul>Operations/ITS Rural Interstate Corridor Communications Study (5507)
    99. 99. Q & A Safety ITS/Operations Questions & Answers Panel
    100. 100. Transit SAFETEA-LU Natalio Diaz, Director of Metropolitan Transportation Services Metropolitan Council 651/602-1754 [email_address]
    101. 101. Major Program Features <ul><li>Most transit programs remain unchanged </li></ul><ul><li>New public transportation programs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New Freedom </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding for Alternatives Analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Small Starts </li></ul></ul>Transit
    102. 102. Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Basic Transit Programs <ul><li>Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307) </li></ul><ul><li>Clean Fuels Discretionary Grant Program (5308) </li></ul><ul><li>Capital Grant Programs (5309) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New Starts Discretionary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fixed Guideway Modernization Formula </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bus and Bus Facilities Discretionary </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Job Access and Reverse Commute Formula Program (5316) </li></ul><ul><li>New Freedom Formula Program (5317) </li></ul>Transit
    103. 103. Metropolitan Council FTA Projected Annual Apportionments Transit
    104. 104. New Start Designations <ul><li>Final Design & Construction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Northstar </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Prelim Engineering – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NW (Bottineau) Busway </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Central </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cedar Ave. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rush Line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Red Rock </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Additional information on updated New Starts criteria will be presented in more detail as regulations are clarified . </li></ul>Transit
    105. 105. New Starts Funding <ul><li>Continues multi-year Full Funding Capital Grant Agreements for New Fixed Guideway Systems (Hiawatha – $33 million ) </li></ul><ul><li>Earmark for Northstar ($80 million) </li></ul><ul><li>Alternatives Analysis- New discretionary grant program (Section 5339 – Central, Red Rock, & Rush Line - $4 million) </li></ul>Transit
    106. 106. “ Small Starts” <ul><li>Separate funding category beginning in FY 07 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requiring no more than $75M in New Starts funds and a total project cost of less than $250M </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-fixed guideway corridor improvements (e.g. bus rapid transit) allowed under “Small Starts” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rulemaking required </li></ul></ul>Transit
    107. 107. Record Number of Earmarks <ul><li>Metro Area Projects </li></ul><ul><li>Title I (Highway) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cedar Ave. Busway ($9.8 Million) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Union Depot ($50 Million) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Title III (Transit) – Bus & Bus Facilities (5309) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Metro Transit Bus/Bus Capital ($9.5 Million) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Union Depot ($1.672 Million) </li></ul></ul>Transit
    108. 108. Transit SAFETEA-LU Donna Allan, Director Mn/DOT, Office of Transit 651/296-7052 [email_address]
    109. 109. Greater Minnesota <ul><li>Basic Formula Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Other than Urbanized Areas </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Small Urban (5307+5340) – pop. < 200,000 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rural (5311 + 5340) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Indian Reservations (5311 (c)) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rural Transportation Assistance (5311 (b)) </li></ul></ul></ul>Transit
    110. 110. <ul><li>Greater Minnesota cont. </li></ul><ul><li>Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (5310) </li></ul><ul><li>- Pilot program for </li></ul><ul><li>operating assistance </li></ul><ul><li>- MN one of seven states </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>Transit
    111. 111. <ul><li>New Formula Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Job Access and Reverse Commute (5316) </li></ul><ul><li>New Freedom (5317) </li></ul><ul><li>Allocations – Both Programs </li></ul><ul><li>60% Urban </li></ul><ul><li>20% Small Urban </li></ul><ul><li>20% Rural </li></ul>Transit
    112. 112. Greater Minnesota Transit FTA Projected Annual Apportionments Transit $ 1,990,631 $ 1,894,856 $ 1,747,510 $ 1,673,837 $ 1,423,374 Section 5310 Elderly Persons & Persons with Disabilities $ 177,448 $ 166,130 $ 151,876 $ 145,169 $ 110,639 Section 5311(b) RTAP $ 532,493 $ 425,995 $ 354,995 $ 283,996 $ 0 Section 5311(c) Tribal Program $ 12,721,200 $ 12,035,647 $ 11,128,020 $ 10,727,309 $ 6,148,482 Sections 5311 & 5340 Rural $ 22,403,087 $ 21,188,859 $ 19,532,887 $ 18,721,130 $ 11,434,315 Total Annual Apportionments $ 526,885 $ 498,405 $461,381 $ 444,293 $ 0 Section 5317 New Freedoms $ 843,353 $ 799,776 $ 738,254 $ 707,494 $ 0 Section 5316 Job Access & Reverse Commute $ 5,711,077 $ 5,369,050 $ 4,950,851 $ 4,759,132 $ 3,751,822 Sections 5307 & 5340 Formula 2009 Estimate 2008 Estimate 2007 Estimate 2006 Estimate 2005 Actual Funding Sources
    113. 113. <ul><li>Discretionary Grant Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Bus and Bus-Related Facilities (5309 Greater MN) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rush Line Corridor Bus Amenities · $1.2 Million </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fond Du Lac Bus Purchases · $98,000 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Duluth Area Transit Facility Improvement - $1.6 million </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (5320) </li></ul><ul><li>- Purpose: develop public transportation in national parks </li></ul><ul><li>- US DOT and Dept. of Interior develop and select projects </li></ul>Transit
    114. 114. <ul><li>Safe Routes to School (SR2S) </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose - to enable and encourage children to walk and bicycle to school safely </li></ul><ul><li>Funding for infrastructure projects, public awareness, and educational campaigns </li></ul>Transit <ul><li>Estimated MN allocation $9.5M total for 2005-2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Funding includes Coordinator position </li></ul>Title I Bicycle and Pedestrian
    115. 115. <ul><li>Title I Bicycle and Pedestrian </li></ul><ul><li>Non-motorized Transportation Pilot (1807) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Purpose: construct a network of non-motorized transportation infrastructure to demonstrate that bicycling and walking can carry a significant part of the transportation load </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minneapolis/St. Paul - one of four designations nationwide </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MN to receive $6.25 Million per year for 2006-2009 </li></ul></ul>Transit
    116. 116. Q & A Transit Bicycle & Pedestrian Questions & Answers Panel
    117. 117. Motor Carrier/Rail/Freight SAFETEA-LU Ward Briggs, Transportation Program Director Mn/DOT, Office of Freight & Commercial Vehicle Operations 651/405-6099 [email_address]
    118. 118. Motor Carrier <ul><li>Title IV: Motor Carrier Safety </li></ul><ul><li>Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>40% increase in MCSAP funds expected </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>$110 million under TEA-21 in FFY 2003 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>$188 million in FFY 2005 to $209 million in FFY 2009 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Expansion of ITS/CVISN information sharing technology, $25 million annually through FFY 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>High Priority Grants - State or Local $15 million per year through FFY 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Federal $$ available for Size & Weight enforcement done at roadside or ports, if done with CMV inspection </li></ul>
    119. 119. Motor Carrier <ul><li>Title IV: Motor Carrier Safety </li></ul><ul><li>New emphasis on Economic Regulations including: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Financial Responsibility (Insurance) filings for passenger and property private carriers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Household goods consumer protection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unified Carrier Registration replaces existing SSRS </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Commercial Drivers License Information System Modernization </li></ul>
    120. 120. Rail <ul><li>Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation Projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New program that will assist local rail lines relocate and improve – up to $1.4 billion will be available nationally </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Corrects features of the program that made it difficult to provide assistance – up to $35 billion in loan guarantee authority </li></ul></ul>
    121. 121. Rail <ul><li>Crossing Hazard Elimination in High Speed Rail Corridors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MN & WI share funding for the Chicago to Minneapolis high speed rail corridor </li></ul></ul><ul><li>High Speed Rail Corridor Development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus from “corridor planning” to “corridor development” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>High Priority Projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Several rail-related earmark projects for MN including grade crossing, grade separations and others </li></ul></ul>
    122. 122. Freight <ul><li>SAFETEA-LU builds on the strong foundation of ISTEA and TEA-21 </li></ul><ul><li>Contains many programs aimed at improving global connectivity, freight mobility and economic productivity </li></ul><ul><li>Encourages creativity and finding new ways to solve existing problems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Freight Planning Capacity Building ($875,000 annually) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Cooperative Freight Transportation Research Projects ($3.75 million annually) </li></ul></ul>
    123. 123. Freight <ul><li>Office of Intermodalism </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assist states in developing a The National Intermodal System Improvement Plan </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Projects that improve the safe movement of commercial motor vehicles across the US-Canada borders are eligible </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Truck Parking Facilities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Address the shortage of long term parking for commercial motor vehicles on the NHS </li></ul></ul><ul><li>High Priority Projects Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Construct intersection at county road 5 to TH 13, connects to the ports of Savage ($2.4 M). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Construct 10 ton corridor in Northwestern MN ($2 M). </li></ul></ul>
    124. 124. <ul><li>Title VII Hazardous Materials Transportation </li></ul><ul><li>CDL/Hazmat Endorsement: Law change requires notification of drivers employer if Hazmat driver fails security check </li></ul><ul><li>Training for public sector emergency responders to be updated, provided and maintained </li></ul><ul><li>Uniform Hazmat Transportation Alliance program under review, now includes state shipper permits </li></ul>Hazardous Materials
    125. 125. <ul><li>Federal DOT grants and cooperative agreements with States to expand emergency response with respect to Hazmat transport security </li></ul><ul><li>Increased authority for inspectors to open Hazmat packages, place them out of service, and remove them from transportation </li></ul><ul><li>Expands USDOT authority to preempt State, Local or Tribal rules inconsistent with federal law or rules </li></ul><ul><li>Sanitary Food Transportation Act </li></ul>Hazardous Materials Title VII Hazardous Materials Transportation
    126. 126. Q & A Motor Carrier Rail/Freight/Haz. Mat. Questions & Answers Panel
    127. 127. Research SAFETEA-LU Sue Lodahl, Director Mn/DOT, Office of Research Services 651/282-2270 [email_address]
    128. 128. Research Research and Technology Funding in SAFETEA-LU Transportation Research allows for measurable improvements in Minnesota’s transportation system by meeting the knowledge needs of transportation practitioners and the transportation community.
    129. 129. Research <ul><li>W hat’s </li></ul><ul><li>I n it </li></ul><ul><li>F or </li></ul><ul><li>M e </li></ul>Research Funding…..What’s the Bottom Line Station WIFM
    130. 130. Research <ul><li>Title V of SAFETEA-LU authorizes 6 core research programs for a total of $2.271 billion through FFY 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Obligations are limited to $411 million per year with a total obligation ceiling of $2.054 billion through FFY2009 </li></ul>Overall Funding:
    131. 131. Research <ul><li>Significant increase in research funding including many new programs and opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>Many earmarks for designated projects and initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>Entire area of Title V was under-funded by approximately 16 – 17% </li></ul><ul><li>Earmarks in appropriations will also affect the total dollars available for each of the 6 core programs </li></ul>In General:
    132. 132. Research <ul><li>Surface Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment Program (STR+TD) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In TEA-21 Surface Transportation Research and Technology Deployment were separate programs. In SAFETEA-LU these 2 programs are combined. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This program addresses fundamental, long-term highway research especially in areas with: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Significant research gaps </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Emerging issues with nat’l implications </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Research related to policy and planning </li></ul></ul></ul>
    133. 133. Research <ul><li>Surface Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment Program (cont.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Establishes 4 centers for surface transportation excellence. One of these centers is the Center for Excellence in Rural Safety at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute. $875,000 is set aside to establish the center per year FFY 2006-09. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual funding of the program is $196.4 million </li></ul></ul>
    134. 134. <ul><li>Training and Education Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This program supports workforce development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The Nat’l Highway Institute funding is continued at $9.6 million per year </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Slight increase for the Local Technical Assistance Program - approximately $14,000 annually </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New provision allowing states to obligate IM, NHS, STP, CMAQ and Bridge funds for training and educational activities at 100% Federal Share </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Annual funding of the program is $26.7 million </li></ul></ul></ul>Research
    135. 135. <ul><li>Intelligent Transportation Systems Research Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Development of a 5 year National Intelligent Transportation System program plan within 1 year of SAFETEA-LU enactment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The goals of the ITS program are to: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Help existing facilities handle future traffic levels </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improve safety </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Protect the environment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Help respond to security incidents </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual funding of the program is $110 million </li></ul></ul>Research
    136. 136. <ul><li>Intelligent Transportation System Deployment Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Program only exists for FFY2005 The funding provided in FFY 2005 accounts for the fact that the appropriations bill for this year already specifies earmarks for this category. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FFY 2005 funding of $122 million </li></ul></ul>Research
    137. 137. <ul><li>Bureau of Transportation Statistics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This program re-establishes: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) in the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA); however there is a 13% reduction in annual funding for BTS </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A National Transportation Library within BTS shall contain a collection of statistical and other information needed for transportation decision-making at the Federal, State, and Local levels </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual funding of the program is $27 million </li></ul></ul>Research
    138. 138. Research <ul><li>University Transportation Research Program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This program establishes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>10 National University Transportation Centers One of these is the University of Minnesota </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>10 Regional University Transportation Centers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>10 Tier I University Transportation Centers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>22 Tier II University Transportation Centers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual funding of the program is $69.7 million </li></ul></ul>
    139. 139. Research In SAFETEA-LU, there are many new research programs and opportunities. How does this compare to TEA21???
    140. 140. Research Overall Multi-year Funding (millions of dollars) TEA-21 SAFETEA %Delta STR+TD 842 982 17% T&E 102 134 31% BTS 186 135 -27% ITS Res * 603 550 -9% UTS 159 349 119% Total Res. Title 1,892 2,149 14%
    141. 141. Research Earmarks and Research Grants
    142. 142. Research <ul><li>Earmarks </li></ul><ul><li>Total Funding for life of SAFETEA-LU </li></ul><ul><li>(millions of dollars) </li></ul>Amount % STRDD $479 48% UTC $286 75% Transit $126 41% Total $882 53%
    143. 143. Research <ul><li>Some Earmarked Programs </li></ul><ul><li>(Average Annual Funding) </li></ul><ul><li>F-SHRP $51 million </li></ul><ul><li>LTPP $20 million </li></ul><ul><li>Long-Term Bridge Performance $7.75 million </li></ul><ul><li>Exploratory Advanced Research $14 million </li></ul><ul><li>Biobased Transportation $12.5 million </li></ul><ul><li>Congestion Relief $9 million </li></ul><ul><li>Research Grants $22.5 – 18 million </li></ul>
    144. 144. <ul><li>Research Grants: 12 separate earmarks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Thermal Imaging </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transportation Injury Research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Transfer Grant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appalachian Regional Commission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Automobile Accident Injury Research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rural Transportation Research and Initiative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hydrogen-Powered Transp. Research Initiative </li></ul></ul>Research
    145. 145. <ul><li>Research Grants (cont.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cold Region & Rural Transportation Research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advanced Vehicle Technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asphalt Research consortium </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Renewable Transportation Systems </li></ul></ul>Research
    146. 146. <ul><li>Cooperative Research Programs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National Cooperative Highway Research Program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transit Cooperative Research Program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Surface Transportation Environment & Planning Cooperative Research Program – new </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Cooperative Freight Program – new </li></ul></ul>Research
    147. 147. <ul><li>State Planning and Research Program (administered jointly by FHWA and FTA) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funded through a 2% set-aside from each State’s core formula programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A portion of these funds may be used for planning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>25% of the 2% set-aside is available for research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5 1/2% of the 2% set-aside is for NCHRP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimated amount of funds for FFY06 are not currently available. </li></ul></ul>Research
    148. 148. Research <ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant increase in funding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many new programs/opportunities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant earmarking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continued shift of resources to universities and states </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continued trend for cooperative programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More dispersed accountability for national research needs </li></ul></ul>
    149. 149. Research Through research and deployment, we have come along way Scientists from the RAND Corporation have created this model to illustrate how a “home computer” could look like in the year 2004. However, the technology will not be economically feasible for the average home, but the computer will be easy to use.
    150. 150. Research SAFETEA-LU Robert Johns, Director of Center for Transportation Studies University of Minnesota 612/625-9376 [email_address]
    151. 151. <ul><li>The University Transportation Center Program and the ITS Institute </li></ul><ul><li>The Rural Safety Center of Excellence at the Humphrey Institute </li></ul><ul><li>The Local Technical Assistance Program and CTS activities for local governments </li></ul>Research
    152. 152. Q & A Research Questions & Answers Panel
    153. 153. Future <ul><li>Future of Federal Funding </li></ul><ul><li>Highway Trust Fund </li></ul><ul><li>National Commissions </li></ul><ul><li>Next Reauthorization Bill </li></ul>
    154. 154. Final Q & A SAFETEA-LU Questions, Answers and Discussion

    ×