What Happened in MAP-21?
 Funding Continuity
 Consolidation/Simplification
 More Localized Decision-
Making
 Emphasis on Safety
 Performance Management
 Accelerating Projects and
Programs
 Focus on Freight
Topics and Format
Session
1. Program Changes and Funding
Presenter
Time
Joe Werning
9:00-9:20
Q&A
2. Transportation Alternatives Program
9:20-9:30
Justin Luther
Q&A
3. Performance-Based FAHP
9:30-10:00
10:00-10:10
Doug Atkin
10:10-10:30
Q&A
10:30-10:40
Break
10:40:10:50
4. Environmental Provisions
Melissa Maiefski
Q&A
5. Other Provisions of Interest
Open Discussion
10:50-11:20
11:20-11:30
Doug Atkin
11:30-11:45
11:45-12:00
MAP-21
Program Changes and Funding
Joe Werning
Stable Funding
 Program authorized through FY14
 Current law through end of FY12
 Most new provisions go into effect on October 1st
 Avg. annual funding at FY12 levels (plus minor inflation)
 Extends Highway Trust Fund taxes and ensures 2 years of
solvency for Highway Trust Fund (HTF)
 Substantial programmatic consolidation
 No earmarks
 Most discretionary programs eliminated
5
$37.7 billion/year
in formula funding
Surface Transportation
Program ($10.0)
HSIP ($2.2)
Railway-Highway Crossing ($0.2)
CMAQ ($2.2)
Transportation Alternatives ($0.8)
Metro Planning ($0.3)
National Highway
Performance Program ($21.8)
Note: Amounts in $ billions; individual program
amounts do not add exactly to total due to
6
rounding
Nationwide
MAP- 21 Core Programs
NHPP
STP
HSIP
CMAQ
PL
TAP
National Highway
Performance Program
(NHPP)
Program Purpose:
1.
Provide support for condition and performance of NHS
2. Provide support for construction of new NHS facilities
3. Ensure Federal-aid investments are directed toward
achievement of performance targets established in
State asset management plan
8
NHPP
 New Federal-aid program. Funded at $21.8 B per year
 Funds an enhanced National Highway System, combining functions of
the existing NHS, IM and Bridge Programs
 Enhanced NHS includes existing NHS, all principle arterials,
STRAHNET, and intermodal connectors
 Requires an asset management plan
 States set targets for conditions and performance
 Min. standards for Interstate & bridge conditions in a State
 DOT to set minimum standard for Interstate pavement condition
 Law sets standard for NHS bridges -- no more than 10% of deck area may
be structurally deficient
9
Surface Transportation Program
(STP)
Program Purpose:
1.
Provide flexible funding for States and localities
2. Fund projects to preserve and improve conditions and
performance on:
-
any Federal-aid highway
bridge and tunnel projects on any public road
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
transit capital projects
10
STP
 Continued flexible funding for Federal-aid highways,
plus safety and bridges on any public road ($10 B/year)
 Eligibility for transportation enhancements, rec trails, ferry
boats, consolidated border infrastructure program, truck
parking facilities, and safe routes to schools (no set-aside)
 50% of funds subject to suballocation based on population
 Rural provisions enhanced
 Rural planning organizations, if any, must be consulted
 Up to 15% of rural suballocation may be spent on minor collectors
11
Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Program Purpose:
1.
Aimed at significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads, including non-state owned public
roads and roads on tribal lands
2. Requires data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway
safety on all public roads
12
HSIP
 Dramatically increases size of existing program ($2.4 B)
 Maintains current structure; adds requirement for regular update
of the strategic highway safety plan
 Keeps setaside ($220M/year) for rail-highway grade crossings
 No high risk rural roads setaside unless safety statistics worsen
 Secretary to establish measures and States to set targets for number
of injuries and fatalities (and number per VMT)
 Strengthens link between HSIP and NHTSA programs
13
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ)
Program Purpose:
1.
Provide a flexible funding source to State and locals for
transportation projects and programs to help meet CAA
requirements
2. Aimed at reducing congestion and improving AQ for areas that
fail to meet NAAQS
14
CMAQ
•
Program continued from previous law
• Dramatically increases size of existing program ($2.21 B)
• State without nonattainment or maintenance area may use CMAQ
funds any CMAQ or STP eligible project
• MAP-21 requires new performance based features
- rulemaking within 18 months
- establish State measures to assess traffic congestion & mobile emissions
- States required to establish targets 1-year from final rule
- Extra reporting required for nonattainment TMAs (> 1 million)
15
Metropolitan Planning (PL)
Program Purpose:
1.
Provide funding for administering 3C transportation planning
and programming processes in metropolitan areas
2. Provides framework for making transportation investment
decisions
16
Metropolitan Planning (PL)
 Program continued from previous law ($332 M)
 MAP-21 modifies metro planning process
- MPOs required to establish performance based approach
- MPOs must establish performance targets
- Performance targets must be coordinated with stakeholders
- Targets required 180 days after State/transit operator establish targets
- By 7/6/2014, MPOs must include officials of public transit operators
 MPO Plan and TIP required to address performance measures & targets
 By 7/6/2017 Report to Congress on performance based planning
17
Nebraska
Nationwide
MAP- 21 Core Programs
NHPP
STP
HSIP
CMAQ
PL
TAP
$21.8 B
$10.0 B
$2.4 B
$2.21 B
$332 M
$809 M
NHPP
STP
HSIP
CMAQ
PL
TAP
$168.2 M
$77.4 M
$18.5 M
$9.95 M
$1.6 M
$6.7 M
MAPA
LCLC
MAPA
$5.3 M
State & Local
$13.5 M
< 200 K
State Flex
$31.7 M
LCLC
SIMPCO
<5K
$7.4 M
GI
MAPA
LCLC
$981K
$386K
State Flex
< 200 K
$2.7 M
<5K
$11.3 M
Rec Trails
STP Off System
$3.8 M Bridge
$539 K
$1.2 M
$823K
MAP-21
Transportation Alternatives
Justin Luther
TAP
•
Similar funding levels to the Transportation
Enhancement Activities under SAFETEA-LU:
•
•
$809 M
FY 2013: $808,760,000
FY 2014: $819,900,000
TAP
$6.7 M
•
Total TAP funding is 2% of MAP-21 highway
funding.
MAPA
$981K
•
Funded via set-aside from each State’s
formula programs.
State Flex
$2.7 M
Rec Trails
$1.2M
LCLC
$386K
< 200 K
$539 K
<5K
$823K
Funding structure
Steps in the TAP sub-allocation process:
1. States receive an apportionment of TAP funds.
2. Funds are set aside for the Recreational Trails
Program at FY 2009 levels ($84.16 m) (unless the
State opts out).
3. Of the remaining funds:


50% are suballocated by population (large urbanized
areas, other urban areas, rural areas).
50% are available for any area of the State.
TAP Eligible activities
Transportation Alternatives (TA) as defined:
 Construction, planning, and design of …facilities for
pedestrians, bicyclists, ... compliance with Americans
with Disabilities Act.
 …safe routes for non-drivers… to access daily needs.
 Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors
for trails…
 Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing
areas.
TAP Eligible Activities (continued)
TA as defined (continued)
 Community improvement activities, including—
 inventory, control, or removal of outdoor
advertising;
 historic preservation and rehabilitation of
historic transportation facilities;
 vegetation management practices…
 archaeological activities relating to impacts from
implementation of a transportation project
eligible under this title.
TAP Eligible Activities (continued)
TA as defined (continued)
 Any environmental mitigation activity…
 address stormwater management, control, and
water pollution prevention or abatement related
to highway construction or due to highway
runoff…; or
 reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to
restore and maintain connectivity among
terrestrial or aquatic habitats.
TAP Eligible Activities (continued)
 The Recreational Trails Program under section
206.
 Safe Routes to School under section 1404 of the
SAFETEA–LU.
 Planning, designing, or constructing boulevards
and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of
former Interstate System routes or other divided
highways.
TE Activities No Longer Eligible
 Safety and educational activities for pedestrians and






bicycles.
Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic
sites.
Scenic or historic highway programs (including visitor
and welcome centers).
Historic preservation as an independent activity
unrelated to historic transportation facilities.
Operation of historic transportation facilities.
Archaeological planning and research undertaken for
proactive planning. This category now must be used
only as mitigation for highway projects.
Transportation museums.
Safe Routes to School Eligibility
 No set-aside funding for SRTS.
 All eligibilities remain.
 Allocation of funds for Infrastructure and Non-
infrastructure activities do not apply (because
there is no apportionment).
 Option to have a State SRTS coordinator, not
required.
 No National Clearinghouse requirement or funds.
Recreational Trails Program Eligibility
• RTP usually administered by a State resource agency.
•
Funds set aside from TAP (prior to sub-allocation), unless the State
opts out.
• 1% returned to FHWA for administration.
• All other RTP provisions and requirements remain the same.
• States can opt out of the RTP. If so:
•
Funds remain as TAP funds (prior to sub-allocation).
• The State does not return 1 percent to FHWA administration.
• The State cannot use funds for State RTP administrative costs.
• The State may use TAP funds for trails projects, but using TAP
requirements (must treat projects as highway projects).
• Recreational trails projects also are eligible under STP.
Competitive Processes
 States and MPOs
 “Shall develop a competitive process to allow
eligible entities to submit projects for funding…”
 States and MPOs develop their own competitive
processes.
Eligible Project Sponsors







Local governments;
Regional transportation authorities;
Transit agencies;
Natural resource or public land agencies;
School districts, local education agencies, or schools;
Tribal governments; and
Any other local or regional governmental entity with
responsibility for or oversight of transportation or
recreational trails (other than a metropolitan planning
organization or a State agency) that the State
determines to be eligible, consistent with the goals of
this subsection.
 RTP setaside keeps its list of eligible project sponsors.
Transferability of Funds
 States may transfer the “any area” TAP funds to other
apportioned programs.
 Funds from other apportioned programs may be
transferred into TAP…
 …but TAP projects are broadly eligible under STP, so
a transfer is not necessary to use STP funds.
 In the second fiscal year of MAP-21, unobligated
balances of over 100% can be used for any TAPeligible activity or any CMAQ activity.
Treatment of Projects
 TAP projects “shall be treated as projects on a Federal-
aid highway…”
 TAP projects must comply with applicable provisions in
Title 23, such as project agreements, authorization to
proceed prior to incurring costs, prevailing wage rates
(Davis-Bacon), competitive bidding, and other
contracting requirements, even for projects not located
within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway.
 Does not apply to projects conducted under the
Recreational Trails Program set aside.
 MAP-21 §1524 Youth Corps provision offers flexibility.
MAP-21
Performance Based FAHP
Doug Atkin
What is
Transportation
Performance Management?
a strategic approach that uses system
information to make investment
and policy decisions to
achieve a desired set of
national goals...
34
Performance Elements of MAP-21
National
Goals
Performance
Reporting
Performance
Measures
Target
Achievement
Performance
Targets
Special Performance
Rules apply
Performance
Plans
Targets set by
States and MPOs
National
Goals
Seven National Transportation Goals
are established in MAP-21.
(1)Safety
(2)Infrastructure Condition
(3)Congestion Reduction
(4)System Reliability
(5)Freight Movement and Economic Vitality
(6)Environmental Sustainability
(7)Reduced Project Delivery Delays
Enactment
2012
Comment
Period –
90 Days
Performance
Measures
 National Highway Performance
Program
 Highway Safety Improvement
Program
 Congestion Management and Air
Quality Improvement Program
 Freight Movement
Performance Measures
 Not later than 18 months after date of enactment
USDOT, in consultation with State DOTs, MPOs, and
other stakeholders will promulgate a rulemaking that
establishes measures.
 Provide not less than 90 days to comment on
regulation.
 Take into consideration any comments.
 Limit performance measures to those described under
23USC150(c).
Performance Measures
 For purposes of carrying out National Highway
Performance Program USDOT will establish:
 Measures for States to use to assess:

Condition of Pavements



Condition of Bridges


Interstate System
National Highway System (excluding the Interstate)
National Highway System
Performance of:


Interstate System
National Highway System (excluding the Interstate)
Performance Measures
 For the purpose of carrying out the Highway Safety
Improvement Program USDOT shall establish
measures for States to use to assess:
 Serious injuries per vehicle mile travelled
 Fatalities per vehicle mile travelled
 Number of serious injuries
 Number of fatalities
 Measures used to assess safety on all public roads
Performance Measures
 For the purpose of carrying out the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
USDOT shall establish measures for States to use to
assess:
 Traffic congestion
 On-road mobile source emissions
 USDOT will establish measures for States to use to
assess freight movement on the Interstate system.
Measure Consistency
 Data elements necessary to collect and maintain
standardized data
 May be incorporated into requirements of each measure, as
needed
Stakeholder Input
 National online dialogue to discuss options for
measures and data elements. Dialogue open from
September 13th through September 23rd.
 USDOT will consider input provided by stakeholders
in the development of the proposed rule for
performance measures.
States set targets for all national
performance measures
• Coordinate with relevant MPOs to
ensure consistency
• Coordinate with public
transportation providers
Performance
Targets
Final
Rule
• Targets established within 1 year
of final rule - States
• Targets established with 180 days of
State target - MPOs
1 Year State Targets
Established
MPO
Targets
180 Days
 STIP and TIPs must include a discussion on
the anticipated effect of the improvement
program toward achieving the performance
targets
 NHPP- Asset Management Plan
 HSIP - Strategic Highway Safety Plan
 CMAQ – Performance Plan
 MPO – System Performance Plan
 Optional State Freight Plan
Performance
Plans
Highway Asset Management Plan
 USDOT, in consultation with State DOTs, will
establish the process to develop the plan through a
rulemaking no later than 18 months after 10/1/2012
 States must have a plan developed consistent with the
process by the 2nd fiscal year, otherwise federal share
for NHPP will be reduced to 65%
 Process certification
 USDOT 90 days review period to determine certification
 States have 90 days to cure deficiencies if not certified
 Recertification required every 4 yrs
Management Systems
 USDOT will establish minimum standards for States to
use in developing and operating:
 Bridge management systems
 Pavement management systems
 Minimum standards established through a rulemaking
 Minimum 90 day comment period
 USDOT will promulgate a rulemaking not later than 18
months after date of enactment
• National Highway Performance Program
- Achievement targets within two reporting periods
- Min pavement and bridge standards
• Highway Safety Improvement
Program
- Achievement within two years of
establishment of targets
- Special rules related to safety on rural
roads and older drivers
Special Performance
Rules apply
Target
Achievements
• MPO Certification
- Applies to MPOs serving an area with a population over
200,000
State Reports on Performance Progress
 Address all targets
 Report every two years
Highway Safety Improvement Program
Report
 Report frequency to be set by USDOT
CMAQ Performance Plan
 Report Required every two years
MPO System Performance Report
 In LRP every four years
Performance
Reporting
Performance Elements of MAP-21
National
Goals
Performance
Reporting
Performance
Measures
Special Performance
Rules apply
Target
Achievement
Performance
Targets
Performance
Plans
Targets set by
States and MPOs
MAP-21
Environmental Provisions
Melissa Maiefski
Rulemaking Process
 Publish draft rule in Federal Register to
initiate comment period
 Review and consider comments received
 Publish final rule
 Final rule will include effective date
“CE” does not mean “don’t look”
 40 CFR 1508.4 “extraordinary circumstances”
 23 CFR 771.117 “unusual circumstances”
 5 U.S.C 706(2)(A): Administrative Procedures
CE’s
 Emergency Repairs
 Projects within the operational Right of Way
 Projects receiving limited financial
assistance
 Proposal of additional CE’s, based on survey
of stakeholders
 Multi-modal projects
Accelerating Complex EIS Projects
(Sec. 1309)
 EIS’s where more than 2 years have passed
since the NOI with no ROD issued.
 Resources and technical assistance provided
upon request of project sponsor or
Governor.
•
Within 30 days after the close of the public
comment period of a Draft EIS the Secretary may
convene a meeting of agencies to assure project on
schedule.
•
If agencies cannot provide assurances, the
Secretary may initiate the Issue Resolution process.
Issue Resolution Process (Sec. 1306)
 When needed, Lead Agency convenes a meeting within
21 days.
 Issues not resolved within 30 days of meeting, elevated
to the Secretary to meet with the heads of agencies
 Issues not resolved within 30 days of meeting, issue is
referred to CEQ and another meeting is convened.
 Issues not resolved within 30 days of the CEQ meeting,
then issue is referred to President or designee.
Federal lead agency may adopt certain
findings of planning studies into
project-level NEPA, with concurrence
from participating agencies and public
that certain stipulations were met
• Programmatic mitigation plans developed as
part of planning process
• Developed by State or MPO, in consultation
with agencies with jurisdiction over resource
• Draft plan provided to agencies and public
for comments
• Address comments in the final plan
MAP-21
Other Provisions of Interest
Doug Atkin
Other Provisions of Interest:
1. National Freight Policy
2. Projects of National & Regional Significance
3. CMGC
65
66
Freight provisions
 National Freight Policy
 Establishment of National Freight Network, incl. Primary Freight Network,
remainder of Interstate System, and critical rural freight corridors
 National freight strategic plan
 Freight transportation conditions and performance reports
 Development of transportation investment data and planning tools
 Prioritization of projects to improve freight movement
 For these projects, increases Federal share payable to 95% on the Interstate
System and 90% elsewhere
 USDOT must certify project improves efficiency of freight movement
 Project must be identified in a State freight plan
 State freight advisory committees & freight plans encouraged; plan required to
qualify for increased Federal share
67
Projects of Natl. & Regional
Significance ($500M in FY13 only)
 Aimed at critical high-cost capital projects
 Maintains most SAFETEA-LU PNRS language
 Title 23-eligible projects, including freight railroad projects & activities
 Competitive grants to States, tribes, & transit agencies
 No designated projects (vs. fully earmarked under SAFETEA-LU)
 $ from General Fund; must be appropriated
 Report that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive list of PNRS compiled
via a survey of States
68
FHWA’s MAP-21 Website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/MAP21/